Deeply immoral trashing of public servants by GOP

From article:

Partisan extremes in the United States have become entirely consequentialist in their ethics. The overriding goal may be the end of Roe v. Wade — or its preservation. It may be passage of gun control legislation — or protection of the Second Amendment. In each case, the objective — always measured in saved lives — means everything. But if the objective means everything, then how do we judge the character of leaders or the morality of political methods? If ending Roe, for example, is really all that matters, wouldn’t a corrupt or lying politician who opposes Roe always be better than the ideological alternative? This is a point I have sometimes pressed with pro-Trump, pro-life evangelicals: Would you support a rapist who opposes Roe over a pro-choice Democrat? How about a serial killer? The result is usually uncomfortable silence. If political outcomes are truly all that matter, there is no way to draw necessary moral lines.

 

Since Trump is on “our” side in the culture war, any excess can be forgiven. There is no penalty for corruption, deception or cruelty. And more than this, many Trump supporters have begun to enjoy the transgressive side of our brutal political culture.

Why should we care? Because democracy is hard to sustain in the absence of certain values. Self-government requires ethical hierarchy — a belief that honor is better than dishonor, fairness is better than exploitation and truth is superior to lies. American freedom is not based on relativism; it is based on the belief that the dignity of human beings is a knowable, universal truth. And the success of that principle is demonstrated in the way we treat each other.

There are categorical commitments to respect and truthfulness that can’t be subordinated to partisan outcomes. And they point to an essential, post-Trump task: restoring a decayed moral environment.

By 

Michael Gerson 

Columnist

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-spurs-a-wild-west-of-continuously-worsening-political-rhetoric/2019/11/18/59185e5a-0a3a-11ea-97ac-a7ccc8dd1ebc_story.html

 

 

It’s the Wise Men vs. the wise guys in Trump’s America

In midtown Manhattan, Trump learned to dominate the news — in his rise, that meant the New York Post, with its screaming, one-sourced stories, an early harbinger of the presidential Twitter strategy. He learned the power of TV. And he learned that tough guys — or “killers,” in a favorite approbation of Trump’s — like Ailes, who presided over this stew of often-abusive power, money and misinformation, were the kinds of guys he could count on.
For one thing was certain: The Wise Men of 68th Street or the United Nations or any of the traditional institutions of expertise weren’t his guys. The question America now faces in impeachment and, should Trump prevail, in the 2020 election, is whose New York will serve us best in the long run — the wise guys’ or the Wise Men’s?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-the-wise-men-vs-the-wise-guys-in-trumps-america/2019/11/14/277f1850-0708-11ea-ac12-3325d49eacaa_story.html

In Syria and elsewhere, Trump is making Russia great again

From article: Trump has sacrificed the high ground at home as well as abroad. He engages in blatant self-dealing — conditioning aid to Ukraine on political help for himself, operating hotels where foreign emissaries stay, paying off a mistress in violation of campaign finance laws, obstructing justice, etc. — and claims immunity from any consequences. His lawyer argues that Trump couldn’t be prosecuted even for shooting someone. This allows Putin to say: You think I’m bad? Everyone’s corrupt. Look at the United States.

Trump is further normalizing Putin by emulating the Russian leader’s strongman tactics. He calls opponents “human scum” and the media “the enemy of the people” while launching an investigation of the investigators who dared to probe his links with Russia. Trump is also helping Russia by denigrating the FBI, CIA, and even his own ambassador to Ukraine and one of his own National Security Council staff members as agents of a nonexistent “Deep State.” He is thereby undermining the individuals and institutions most dedicated to combating Russian designs. The leading Russian hard-liners — Fiona Hill and John Bolton — have already left the White House, no doubt to Putin’s delight.

“Russia likes seeing President Trump in the White House in part because it provides the Kremlin a chance to point to the ugly side of American politics — to say, just as they did with [President Richard M.] Nixon, look how sordid, how hypocritical,” former Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev recently wrote in the New York Times. The only way to undo some of the damage, he argued, is to impeach and remove Trump. That would send a message to the world similar to the one sent by Nixon’s resignation: “Moral principles still matter in American politics and policy.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-syria-and-elsewhere-trump-is-making-russia-great-again/2019/10/30/9d99ddde-fb48-11e9-8906-ab6b60de9124_story.html

 

 

Democrats preside over stronger economies

Article: But the question naturally follows: Why are expectations for strong stock performance higher when Democrats ascend to the Oval Office? One plausible reason is that their Republican predecessors often leave behind a screwed-up economy with stock prices already depressed.
 Presidents don't have total control over an economy. There are lots of influences — new technology, energy prices, demographic changes — that can boost or drag economic performance.
 But history suggests that economic governance goes south when a Republican president has a Republican Congress backing his bad ideas. Start with 1930, when Republican Herbert Hoover made a troubled economy worse by launching a trade war. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had to pick up the pieces.
 Another example is 2008, a time of near financial collapse. George W. Bush's administration had encouraged speculation in house prices, let Wall Street run wild and supercharged deficits thanks to large tax cuts and little control on spending. (Bill Clinton had left him a booming economy with budget surpluses.) Barack Obama inherited Bush's mess.
 It would be unfair to compare investment performance early in Obama's presidency, when stocks had nowhere to go but up, to that of Trump. So let's compare the first 33 months of Trump with the last 33 months of Obama.
 Under Trump, so far, the S&P 500 has risen just over 33%. During Obama's last 33 months, it jumped almost 48%.
 Republicans argue that a Republican-controlled Congress curbed President Clinton's ability to spend. There may be some truth to that. But George W. Bush had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress — for half his presidency — when all fiscal discipline flew out the window.
 The same can be said for the first two years of Trump's presidency. We're now running annual deficits of around $1 trillion a year. And Trump's trade war adds further drag.
 The economy may not currently be "in deep trouble," but what can you say to those who still believe in Trump's magical powers to make everyone rich? You're on your own.
https://www.tribstar.com/opinion/columns/froma-harrop-democrats-preside-over-stronger-economies/article_e99c0a3e-00c2-11ea-9d75-17eb5ca27efa.html?fbclid=IwAR3hIcL00-ylbi_5b0qmSKUvmdwfQzqnUtegj3Ww8F3z9jhwLIjr7Zhw8Tk