Blog No. 167. Donald Trump and The Silence of the Lambs

As nearly everyone on the planet knows by now, when President Trump met with legislative leaders last Thursday to discuss immigration, he referred to immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as immigrants from  “shithole countries.” He singled out Haiti specifically, saying “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.” And lest anyone miss the point, he asked for more immigrants from Norway.

Reactions to President Trump’s vulgar and insulting term were swift and unequivocal around the globe—except among Republicans on Capitol Hill. For twenty-four hours, it was difficult to extract any comment from an elected Republican. Speaker Paul Ryan was among the bravest, offering the relatively tepid observation that Trump’s comments were “very unfortunate, unhelpful.” By Saturday, a few more Republicans had crept from the shadows, and an article in the Saturday New York Times tabulated the results of a survey of “Republicans in the House leadership, the Senate and other lawmakers who attended the meeting.”  According to the Times, some nineteen Republicans had expressed criticism of the President in varying degrees, four made some comment but offered neither criticism or support of the President, and thirty-three silent lambs had nothing to say at all. Most notable among the latter was Ryan’s counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader and head of the flock, Mitch McConnell. Apart from the Capitol Hill Republicans, Governor Kasich was notable in calling for Trump to issue an apology to the countries in question

Most of the comments criticizing or disagreeing with the President were muted in tone and several were conditioned on “if he said it,” or “if the reports are accurate.” In the hours following the initial report in the Washington Post and, to this writing, the White House has issued no denial. For his part, the President, acting in his familiar role of Tweeter in Chief, provided a comment the following day that was widely described as ambiguous or a “non-denial denial”:

Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!

And this

The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!

Trump’s “denial” was promptly rebutted by Senator Richard Durbin who had gone to the meeting with Senator Lindsey Graham to present the compromise DACA proposal that they had negotiated–and that Trump would quickly reject. Graham, for his part, confirmed that press reports of the meeting were accurate. No one else at the meeting supported Trump’s denial. The closest anyone came to a denial was a comment from two Republican Senators at the meeting, Tom Cotton and David Perdue. Cotton and Perdue, who issued a joint statement that they did not recall the President’s comments “specifically,” are immigration hardliners. Their very presence at the meeting had come as a surprise to Graham and Durbin and  they appear to have been responsible for Trump’s flat rejection of the Graham-Durbin proposal. On Sunday, Perdue upped the ante a bit, now denying that the President used the offensive term.

On the whole, Bret Stephens had it right in the New York Times when he concluded that “Republican Party leaders, increasingly unshameable, will mumble mild disapproval until the news cycle turns.” Another NeverTrumpRepublican, the Washington Post’s  Jennifer Rubin, expanded on Republican tolerance of Trump:

Let me suggest there are two types of deplorables — the self-proclaimed white nationalists who share his views and the people who think racism is of so little consequence that it’s worth having a racist in the White House to get what they want (e.g. a tax cut). That equation — we’ll fuel racism, operate in a world of lies and non-facts, ban Muslims, etc., to get a list of policy items — is frankly deplorable as well. Would they say the same if Trump’s comments incited riots? If he set out to repeal anti-discrimination laws? Apparently there is no end to what he could do or say because, they say, “But Gorsuch!” For conservatives who have long held themselves out to be defenders of the Constitution and supporters of the American creed, this represents a gross betrayal of their principles — which look less every day like principles and more like sticks with which to beat the left.

If Trump had no one on Capitol Hill who would support his racially-tinged utterance, at least in public, he did have defenders in the right-wing media, starting as usual with Fox News. Jesse Watters, one of the more tiresome Fox personalities, explained:

This is how the forgotten men and women of America talk at the bar. If you’re at a bar, and you’re in Wisconsin, and you think they’re bringing in a bunch of Haiti people, or El Salvadorians, or people from Niger, this is how some people talk.

Is it graceful? No. Is it polite or delicate? Absolutely not. Is it a little offensive? Of course it is. But you know what? This doesn’t move the needle at all. This is who Trump is and if he offends some people, fine.

I have never had the opportunity to visit any Wisconsin bars and cannot judge the accuracy of that assessment of their patrons. But assuming it is accurate, many of us would expect from our President a more thoughtful  comment than one might get from the average fellow sitting at a bar in Wisconsin or elsewhere. Indeed, one hopes that even that fellow in the bar might wish for something a bit loftier than what the guy on the adjoining stool has to say. But perhaps not. If not, that is a challenge for the Republican Party and one that it may not survive.

Trump’s reference to “shithole countries” was not only vulgar and insulting, but characteristically uninformed. It was made in reference to individuals from Haiti and El Salvador under the Temporary Protected Status program (TPS). Although the countries from which they have come may be terribly poor, many who arrive in the United States under TPS are  educated and hard-working. As a detailed analysis in VOX  shows, persons admitted under the TPS program have done relatively well here (earning on average above the poverty level) and immigrants from African countries have done particularly well.

It is obvious that Republicans are not going to rise up en masse to denounce the President’s comments in tone or substance. There is, however, a way forward, difficult perhaps, but clear. That way is to join with Democrats in passing a DACA bill along the lines of the Graham-Durbin compromise and present it to the President. The details of the Graham-Durbin proposal have not been disclosed, but it apparently consists of four elements:

 –Providing legal status and a pathway to citizenship for the “Dreamers” protected by DACA.

–Reforming “Chain Migration,” which grants visas on the basis of family relationships. (For a detailed analysis of Chain Migration, see VOX, “What ‘chain migration’ means—and why Donald Trump hates it so much”

–Ending the Diversity Visa Lottery system but allocating some visas to persons whose eligibility under TPS  is set to expire and allocating other visas on a merit basis to persons in countries currently under the lottery program.

–Increasing funding for border security, though in a lesser amount than requested by Trump and adding conditions to construction.

Without more detail, there is no adequate basis to assess or debate the elements of the Graham-Durbin proposal, and the elements may change as negotiations involve more members of both parties. In general, however, it appears to be a sound and practical approach that should not be derailed by hard-liners in either party or by the President. But some leadership from the sheepherders will be required.