By David M. Drucker
Leading Republicans insist on treating President Donald Trump like a child or an ignorant old man, telling Americans he doesn't mean what he says — despite the commander-in-chief making it clear he means exactly that.
Trump's threat to use military force to seize Greenland from U.S. ally Denmark through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a recent example. Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville said, “I don't think it's a threat.” bulwark. “I think it's a promise that we'll offer some money for it.” Senator John Kennedy offered his own colorful reimagining of the president's saber rattling. The Louisiana Republican told CNN, “Even a moderately intelligent ninth grader knows that invading Greenland would be weapons-grade idiot. Now, President Trump is not a weapons-grade idiot.” Trump “is not planning to invade Greenland. That doesn't mean he's not looking for a legal, formal partnership with Greenland,” Kennedy said.
Trump's subsequent comments on this matter? All options are on the table, including military attack. “We're going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,” the president told reporters during a White House news conference last week. “If we don't do it the easy way we'll do it the hard way.”
The phenomenon of Trump's redefining rhetoric during his first presidency was somewhat understandable. He was new to elected office and was still learning how the federal government operated. Although still somewhat the child of a man who has reached high office, Republicans uncomfortable with the president's rhetoric could theoretically make the case that Trump did not understand what he was saying, or the implications of his policy proposals.
But as we approach the second year of his second presidential term, those excuses are wearing thin. Trump has considerable experience in the job and has demonstrated an understanding of executive power, so much so that he rejects most limits on it.
What did you give? In my experience, it's about political convenience. Republicans' clumsy verbal cartwheels are clearly an attempt to avoid publicly disagreeing with Trump as well as publicly Agree With them.
The same is true for what's next for Venezuela following the U.S. military operation that led to the capture of dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife and their arrest by federal law enforcement. During a press conference on January 3, Trump, 79, said the US would “run” the South American nation “until we have a safe, just and prudent transition.”
In response to journalists' questions, the President explained in detail, which showed that there was no laxity in his announcement. When Trump was asked who would run Venezuela within the US government, he said, “For some time, it's going to be largely the people behind me.”
With Trump on stage: Air Force Gen. Dan Cain, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others.
Yet the very next day, Rubio modified his boss's comments. “That's the direction we're headed in. And that is, we have leverage. This is leverage we are using and we intend to use,” the secretary said in an interview on the ABC News public affairs program on January 4. this week. To be fair, Rubio's argument wasn't entirely wrong.
But: Do you want to guess what Trump said when he was asked later that day, during a call with reporters on Air Force One, whether Washington was running the show in Caracas? “Don't ask me who's in charge because I'll answer you and it will be very controversial,” Trump said. When asked what he meant, the President said bluntly: “It means we are in charge. We are in charge.”
Naturally, Trump's unambiguous comments did not discourage Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from claiming that the president's rhetoric was evasive. “I think it's a matter of interpretation,” the Idaho Republican told NOTUS. When asked what the Commander-in-Chief meant by repeatedly saying that the US was “running” Venezuela.
Shawn J., a University of Maryland professor who studies political communication and rhetoric. Parry-Giles explained the ongoing dilemma posed by Trump and his penchant for provocative rhetoric and proposals.
“Their message puts members of their party in a difficult position. They manage the rhetoric and political chaos by providing different interpretations that transform the message into a form they can support that appears more rational and legally based.” [and] Political theory,” said Parry-Giles, director of the Rosenker Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership. “It's happening with members of his Cabinet, too. They are trying to reframe their messages into something that will be more politically acceptable.
They're hoping to send Trump “a subtle message about how the president would better express his views,” he said, while also maintaining a sense of decorum that commanders-in-chief don't. “He routinely violates such decorous conventions,” Perry-Giles said.
All true and all understandable.
But after all this time, it should be crystal clear to Republicans — on Capitol Hill and everywhere else — that Trump knows what he's saying and knows what he's doing (or what he wants to do.) When he speaks and when he acts, it is with deliberate intent. Congressional Republicans who oppose the U.S. invasion of Greenland might do well to consider rather than console themselves with fantasies that Trump's tough talk is about “leverage.”
bloomberg opinion