Dancing in the Dark,
Charisse & Astaire: “Dancing in the Dark”
Despite its title, this week’s post has virtually nothing to do with the sensual balletic piece essayed by Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse in the 1953 MGM classic “The Band Wagon.” Rather, this post deals with the second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, which is winding up even as I write these very words. Up to this point, the 9 Democratic House managers have presented a tour-de-force - a prosecutorial masterstroke - which even gained the muted plaudits of Republican members of the United States Senate and the former inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. For those of us who watched their tag-team prosecution, it seemed inconceivable that anyone could turn a blind eye to the crime of the former POTUS, and vote for acquittal. Then came the presentation of Trump’s legal team which, in comparison to the triumph of Reps. Raskin, Liu, Castro et al fell as flat as a sheet of Saran Wrap. And yet, even before closing arguments, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his colleagues began announcing that they would unhesitatingly vote for acquittal.
How is this possible? What fills their hearts and brains? What do their eyes see or their ears hear? Do they suffer from some kind of collective Spondylosis which makes it impossible for them to stand erect and do the right thing? Are they toadies or patriots? Are they motivated by fear, greed or hatred?
First things first: the chances of Donald J. Trump being convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate are impossible; he will be acquitted. His 2016 prediction will once again be proven true: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
(THIS JUST IN: THE SENATE, BY A VOTE OF 57-43, VOTED AGAINST CONVICTION. ONLY 7 OF THE SENATE’S 50 REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR CONVICTION WHILE 43 VOTED TO ACQUIT HIM OF THE SINGLE CHARGE; ALL 50 DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR CONVICTION.)
After listening to both sides - the prosecution and defense - and weighing both the facts and fantasies separating the two sides, I am absolutely astonished that the vast majority of Republicans could still vote against conviction. Indeed, shortly after the final vote was tallied, Minority Leader McConnell gave —what at least for him - was the harshest and most scathing assessment of Donald J. Trump that any Republican outside of those affiliated with “The Lincoln Project” could give. He excoriated the former president for his legal, moral and political deficiencies, and went so far as to accuse him of violating the very oath he took on January 20, 2017 - the one in which he solemnly pledged that “. . . to the best of my ability,” he would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. . . so help me God.” With his speech of extreme disapprobation (“There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day . . .”), Senator McConnell hit the nail squarely on the head. And yet, he still voted against conviction on the scantiest and most sophistical of grounds (“We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”)
To my way of thinking the Senate Minority Leader and the overwhelming majority of his (Trump’s?) party, are “dancing in the dark;” bumping into the political furniture, incapable of keeping up with the rhythm, “waltzing in the wonder of why we’re here,” to quote a line from Howard Dietz’s original lyric. Is it fear of Donald Trump that kept Senate Republicans in line? Could it be earth-bred hatred for progressives or the steadfast need to be reelected at any cost? Or is it something else? Let’s take a look at a handful of possibilities:
The fear of Donald Trump: Let’s face it: the first rule of politics is “get thyself reelected . . . no matter what the price or cost.” A vote to convict (on the part of Republican office-holders up for future reelection - especially in 2022) could mean drawing an even more ardently doctrinaire Trumpeter in the next primary. Simply stated, discovering that one is likely going to be challenged in the Republican primary by a Marjorie Taylor Greene or a Matt Gaetz just because they opposed Donald Trump has got to be a conservative politician’s worst nightmare . . . and biggest motivator.
An earth-bred hatred for anything and everything that smacks of “progressivism”: Due to the nature of modern talk-radio and hyper-partisan cable news, social media politics and the often wacky views of donors with deep pockets, a politician must not only work against people from “the other side:” one must publicly abhor them with a passion. They are not just “the enemy:’’ they are the servants of Satin. (It must be said that this goes for elected officials on both sides of the aisle, but far more so for followers of Donald J.) Do Republicans really, truly believe this about Democrats? In private, possibly no; in public undoubtedly yes. One must not get in trouble or draw the ire of the Donald’s base.
Cowardice: By and large, successful politicians like people - at least those who vote for them. It’s nearly impossible for a misanthrope to make a go of it in the peculiar three-ring circus known as politics. There are so many people who want to grab your ear for a brief chat, take a picture, or tell you either how wonderful or woeful you are. Then there are those above you who, with a snap of the fingers, can start you on an upward trajectory or fill your socks with cement. As a result, not wishing to be offensive, many politicians take the coward’s way out. I have to believe that many of the 43 Republican votes against conviction were the result of base cowardice. Whatever happened to “profiles in courage?”
Something else: It has long been my belief that one of the smartest, most essential (though ultimately most difficult) things we could do to tone down - if not rid us of - all the fiery political partisanship and misfeasance would be overturning the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. In this atrocious decision, the court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. In a sense, this court decision turned politicians and their campaigns into the willing slaves of the אוֹגעשטאַפט מיט געלט (ongeschtupt mit gelt: Yiddish for “stuffed with money) class; always willing to do, vote or espouse that which their hyper-wealthy patrons and matrons command. Although not an absolute cure-all, overturning this decision, which in my estimation was “Worse Than Dred Scott,” could be as powerful a curative as Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Although I’m sure that a sizeable percentage of the American public would have greatly preferred that the Senate had summoned up the political Stones to convict this mumzer, we can take consolation (without delving into the netherworld of schadenfreude) that Donald J. Trump is going to be attacked on all fronts; some legal and many financial. He will pay a steep price for being . . . well, Donald J. Trump. And as for the Republican Party? They are in need of a serious overhaul; no longer will they be able to bill themselves as the party of values, patriotism and law & order.
And who knows? Maybe in between depositions, future bankruptcies and growing isolation, the former president will hopefully come to understand just how difficult and painful it is to dance in the dark.
Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone