Much of the national media does not like to give President Donald Trump a fair shake.
To me, President Trump is occasionally an obnoxious big-mouth, but he has proposed specific solutions. So far, his opposition just criticizes him for his "foolish shoot-myself-in-the-foot statements." But it is time for his opposition to come up with alternatives. Now that the Democrats control the incoming U.S. House and they are launching up to 20 presidential candidates, they should be forced to state their alternative plans.
For example, I advocate that the Democratic House should immediately pass a bill stating their specific immigration policy. Let me give three examples in which Trump's opposition needs to be forced to answer some questions or explain further:
By way of comparison, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was known for his aversion to the Supreme Court during his first and second terms as president. After President Roosevelt was overwhelmingly re-elected in 1936, he proposed a "court-packing plan" which proposed an increase of up to six justices on the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he proposed appointing up to 44 additional judges to the appellate federal courts. Additionally, during Roosevelt's first term, he signed a bill cutting the pensions of Supreme Court Justices in half. This cut in pension has been believed to dissuade some justices from retiring, contrary to Roosevelt's hope of getting rid of them.
Roosevelt was so frustrated with federal judges obstructing his New Deal that he proposed appointing a new justice or judge for every judge or justice that reached the age of 70 1/2 because he believed that "old men were messing up his New Deal."
Now, the national media characterizes Donald Trump as an unusually bad guy because he is criticizing the judiciary. Almost all presidents have done so because of the tension between the branches. In particular, Roosevelt, whom we all admire so much, was much harsher on federal judges than Donald Trump.
Trump should not be singled out as doing something inherently bad. He is acting less harshly than our hero, Franklin Roosevelt. It is true that Roosevelt failed to persuade Congress to agree to his plan to "pack the court" and it is true the Roosevelt's popularity plummeted as a result of his proposal; maybe the same thing will happen to Trump, but the reporting in the national media gives the impression that Trump is the first president to criticize judges.
Many of us old guys remember President Dwight D. Eisenhower remarking that he regretted appointing Justice Earl Warren as chief justice.
Specifically, Trump's opponents do not say what they will do instead or what their alternative policy is on the border. Will they have an open border? Fine, then put it into legislative language. Or if not an open border, how will they control the border without using tear gas, troops and a wall? In a democratic society, some people step forward with specific plans of actions. Trump has done this in the case of immigration with not only a wall, but also with changing the asylum rules so people will not be able to easily enter.
In the evening news shows, we see opponents of Trump essentially saying that "using gas on children is the same as the Holocaust camps, etc." (And as in the judges' criticism, President Trump's practices are almost identical as his predecessors'.)
Amid all the above rhetoric, no alternative plan has been given. Specifically, what would the Trump opposition do to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the border?
And the mantra that Trump is introducing new, horrible, evil thoughts within our federal system is not true. Trump is fascinated with expanding his executive power — so was our great national hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt.