Nancy Pelosi was widely and justly acclaimed for leaving stiletto divots all over Trump’s lumpy hide last Tuesday. But as usual, the Beltway press isn’t going to let a Democrat — any Democrat — enjoy a day in the sun. In The Post, ambulatory cream cheese sculpture Hugh Hewitt is already spiking the football on the coming immigration fight, which Trump will win because nobody thought he’d win the 2016 election and he DID, so suck it, libturds!
Hewitt’s ideological fellow traveler at The Post, the infinitely more sinister Marc Thiessen, is condescendingly advising Democrats to just give Trump what he wants already:
Good news for the incoming House Democratic majority! They have something President Trump really, really wants: money to build a border wall. Trump is desperate for this money. Mexico won’t give it to him. Only congressional Democrats can. Without their consent, he can’t deliver on one of the key campaign promises he made during the 2016 election.
There’s a name for this in classic negotiating strategy. It’s called “leverage.” Good negotiators use leverage (something they have, which their adversary wants) to obtain what are called “concessions” (something their adversary has, which they want). The result is what experts call “compromise.” This is how the civilized world gets things done.
But in a fit of pique, Democrats are throwing away their leverage, insisting that they will never — under any circumstances — give Trump the wall he so desperately wants. The reason? Because he wants it and they despise him.
There is a name for this in negotiating strategy as well. It’s called “insanity…”
So why not give Trump his wall in exchange for something they want? They could give Trump the $5 billion he is asking for to begin construction of the wall in exchange for a path to citizenship for the nearly 2 million “dreamers” — mainly illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own. Trump would negotiate on this basis in a heartbeat.
Who cares what those two despicable wingnut frauds think, you’re probably asking yourself, and normally, I would agree. But Thiessen’s narrative is seeping into The Post editorial board, which published an opinion earlier today that was infuriatingly entitled “Trump and Democrats can reach a deal on the wall — if they have the spine to take it.” Here’s the conclusion:
If there is a moral imperative in any trade-off involving immigration and security, it’s the urgent necessity of finding a way to ensure a future in this country for dreamers, who are Americans by upbringing, education, loyalty and inclination — by every metric but a strictly legal one. Striking a deal that achieves that outcome should be a no-brainer for both sides. If it means a few billion dollars to construct segments of Mr. Trump’s wall, Democrats should be able to swallow that with the knowledge that it also will have paid to safeguard so many young lives, careers and hopes. That’s not a tough sell even in a Democratic primary.
Any compromise worth the trouble involves painful concessions for each side, but in this case, if assessed with cool heads, the concessions are a far cry from excruciating. The question, for both sides, is familiar: Do they want an issue or a solution? If it’s the latter, it’s eminently achievable.
It’s like there’s an outbreak of collective amnesia at The Post. Does no one there remember that “Chuck and Nancy” were willing to give Trump $25 billion for his stupid-ass wall earlier this year in exchange for a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, an offer that Trump refused to consider unless the Democrats agreed to draconian cuts to LEGAL immigration? The Post covered the story, but it still went down the memory hole.
It may come to pass that Trump accepts one-fifth of the amount of the previous offer and basks in the glow of a great victory because Trump is a liar and a scam artist (and sycophants like Hewitt and Thiessen will be waving pom-poms and singing hosannas in praise of The Great Negotiator in The Post). It’s also easy to imagine Trump insisting on terms the Democrats can’t accept because they’re based on fiction, such as that the USA is being overrun with diseased brown hordes, so future immigration must be restricted to applicants who are underwear models from the Nordic countries.
Either of these scenarios is plausible. But what’s not plausible is the assumption that Trump is bargaining in good faith. Both-sidesing the immigration standoff at this stage is bullshit, and it doesn’t augur well for how the media will spin the upcoming confrontation.