The Loyal Opposition

I know I sound like a broken record (actually the record is fine but the changer doesn't work) however I don't see any improvement in the situation so I'll try again.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

February (2017) is fast coming to a close. The presidential election occurred in early November, 2016. It's over. It's time to step back and take a deep breath.

Unfortunately there seem to be many – probably more than during the campaign itself – who won't “give up the ship.” Protest marches are rampant. The media continue to publish “revelations” about the new administration and its members. People in the public eye use their own “bully pulpits” to denigrate those responsible for leading the government – those elected according to the tenets of the Constitution.

The same Constitution guarantees all of these people the right to speak their minds as long as they choose, but common sense suggests that the efforts are counterproductive. Actually, that characterization is based on the assumption that the prime loyalty of those protesting is to the United States, and that may not be the case. The “Loyal Opposition” cannot always be assumed to have its country as the prime concern.

The term itself apparently arose in England during the eighteenth century, the same century in which we declared our independence from our mother country. Perhaps this was one of the British precepts that we rejected. Our own history often raises the question and that is certainly the case now. Protesters cannot be faulted for their passion. They have learned from the media, by osmosis if not a stated teaching, that criticism and bad news rule the day and should be encouraged.

What has resulted is a “devoted (or, if you prefer, “dedicated”) opposition,” one devoted and dedicated, however, to opposition itself, rather than to the country in which they live. The group is primarily private citizens, But the media and our politicians play a major role in its development: the media with their quest for Pulitzer Prizes and sales, and our “representatives” in search of party advantage and the defeat of any administration appointments irrespective of qualifications. With those as their primary motives, it is not surprising that private citizens follow suit, decrying all that they perceive as injustices, and marching in order to … I'm not sure what. If their views and voices haven't been heard yet it is likely they never will be. All they're likely to do is increase the determination of those in charge to carry out the plans they've developed. It's a challenge to administration leaders not to change, but to “double down.”

An example of this is immigration policy. The loyal opposition tells us that we are all immigrants and we shouldn't restrict immigration (though we have done so many times in the past) because “that's not who we are;” it's contrary to “American values.” At the same time, those who support proposed changes point out that we are “a nation of laws” and that those laws should be enforced. Those who are following the rules should be given preference over those who bypass them.

And those who favor free immigration believe that the “multiculturalism” associated with immigration will strengthen our country. Not E Pluribus Unum but E Pluribus Plus. Without a common culture though, we're likely to be Balkanized and divided rather than unified. A common culture and a common language are more likely to bring us together. People want to come to America for many reasons – economic and political are the most common – and they'll form the backbone of our future. But those who come from Mexico aren't doing so in the expectation of a “Mexico North,” and those from the Middle East aren't looking for a western version of the society they're fleeing.

Sadly, much of American protests reflect ideology rather than an attempt by the protesters to accomplish their stated goals. The primary aim seems to be the establishment of a record of fighting for “right” and not compromising with “the devil.” They want to divert the administration's attention and resources and be able to say “I told you so” during the next campaign. They want to provide material for negative ads then.

But the reality is that right now they'll lose (although that actually may be their hope) and they'll forfeit the opportunity to tone down what they consider ill-considered legislation. All they can do with an obstructionist outlook is slow the process and, if they succeed in doing so, they'll show, as we've already seen, that the government they tried to obstruct goes on, and does well in the face of legislative gridlock: that less government works well.

As I have said many times before, I did not vote for our current president but he won, and we owe him the chance to implement his policies. In 2020 we'll have the opportunity to indicate the degree to which we think they have been effective – with 20/20 hindsight.