Alternate title: Why we are stuck with Trump.
When you lose, it's never a good look to go pout in a corner. Even IF you have a blowtorch that's willing to provide you with cover.
But that's the tack that the Democrats have decided to take.
We live in a time when America could use a healthy dose of principled opposition. Instead we're being given a partisan hissy fit that's indirectly leading to the President Elect being who he is. Even the Republicans are either marching in lock-step, or going off the deep end (Hi Evan McMullin) with no seeming middle ground.
The fact is, not everything that Trump has done so far has been awful. He's been petulant with the media of course, and has all of the tact of a constipated black bear, but aside from displaying a tendency to try and bully watchdogs and silence critics he's done an OK job selecting cabinet members etc. Most of them (gasp!) have been fairly conservative.
Of course, Conservative is the rub for the Democrats. Having an EPA director that doesn't toe the Al Gore "enrich my investment groups" line is somehow viewed as disqualifying. Groups that are beholden to the Gaia lobby suggest conflicts of interest where there are none, all while ignoring the very real, and very lucrative conflicts that they carry into the debate.
So we're up to about 30 congressional Democrats who are refusing to attend. John Lewis of course, the civil rights activist who was correct on segregation, but is a little dodgy on the Constitutional process to elect a President. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) has also said he's taking his Socialist-leanings and going to spend his time playing with a "my little tractor" toy set. Or something.
Of course, almost every celebrity is sitting this one out, either because (as John Legend claimed) artistic people tend to not like hate or (more likely) because performing there would lead to severe personal cost both financially and physically. If there's one thing our progressive elite love, it's a good outrage as a chance to financially ruin or threaten physical harm toward those who don't toe the public line (It's the same for some of you Republicans, so lose that smug look.)
Of course, a celebrity-free inauguration is a good thing for the health of the Republic, something our "hee-hee" media seems unwilling to comprehend, or an angle they are unwilling to report. In fact, any lessening of the Presidency as it currently stands can only be viewed as a positive. The President is not our national daddy, despite what Chris Rock thinks.
Nor is the President a monarch or, Constitutionally, designed to be all that powerful. Our lazy elected representatives have made the office that way by refusing to worry about the details of sweeping legislation, leaving them to unelected bureaucracies operating under the Executive branch. Separation of powers? Bah. Humbug!
But what's bad for our elected officials might be a good thing for us. And no, that's not hypocritical. Because by attending the inauguration, and supporting the concept of a smooth transition of power, the Congress persons would be fulfilling a job duty essential to the functioning of the Republic. By refusing to do so they are suggesting that the very thing that makes us American, fealty and faithfulness to the Constitution and the rule of law, is no longer valued by our leadership.
Our ignoring of the hand on the Bible thing tells a different message. It tells the government that we, the people, don't give two cents worth of care about their little dog and pony show. That we are in charge and we choose to do something else why they put on airs and prance around the yard like trained monkeys barking for coins.
Mines horse-racing and college basketball this weekend then. What's yours?
