Commentary: Is Resisting Trump Enough?

In his commentary Is "Resisting Trump Enough?", Chris Weigant describes the public perception that the democratic party has no base and is currently existing to oppose Trump. Weigant analyzes the benefits and downfalls of this situation and suggests the best course of action for the party. Chris Weigant is a political commentator for the left leaning Huffington Post, so while he may have some political bias, he is credible to analyze the circumstances regarding the democratic party. His intended audience is primarily intended to be concerned democratic voters as he references the upcoming 2018 midterms.

First, Weigant creates the basis for his argument: he claims that the democratic party is seen as a party sole opposing Trump - not one that stands for anything else. He provides evidence of this, referring to a poll question asking whether the democratic party has something to stand for. According to this poll, only 37% of people believe it does, while 52% believe it currently exists only to oppose Trump. While his claim may be true, this poll may not be the best way to solidify his claims. In modern politics, both sides commonly see the opposing party as a party that solely stands for opposition against their own. Therefore, a majority of the republicans that were polled most likely answered that the Democratic party stood as an opposition party. Instead of polling everyone in general, the questionnaire should have been sorted by party to be more representative of each groups opinion. Weigant does address this however, and takes into note the poll may not be the most accurate.

Weigant then explains how this base of opposition may not be a bad thing, referencing past patterns of Obama's presidency. He shows that republicans were able to do well at the ballot in 2010 midterms as Obama's approval rating was at 45%. He believes that 2018 midterms could mean success at the ballot box. I agree with this claim as well, but success at the ballot box does not mean a strong democratic party. In order to stand for something, a plan of action must be taken, which is what Weigant refers to next. Additionally, Weigant describes that the party may not be in the best place after the progressive Sanders vs the establishment Clinton feud. I believe this is true as well and it only calls for an even stronger plan of action. I think this announced plan of action will boost the number that is currently 32%; the bolder and more effectively communicated it is, the higher the number will be

Weigant details a plan to act according to the failures of the republican party, referencing the failing healthcare bill by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. He claims that "democrats have been happy to sit back and watch republicans fail," which is something that may not be true. Democrats just haven't been able to do anything because of their lack of a majority in congress. Past a successful 2018 midterms, the party may be able to act upon the failures of the republican party, given that the current healthcare legislation is the least popular bill ever polled.

In conclusion, I believe Chris Weigant has created a highly agreeable article, providing a foundation for his argument and a plan for action, using polls and logical analysis of the future to support his claims. I agree that the democratic party has to take action to make it look like it stands for something other than opposing Trump.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RE: Leon's Blog About the Government ("Blog Stage 5") Blog Stage #6

I find the insight Leon has provided on the recent issues and scandals in the government as very true. Both the attempts to repeal Obamacare and President Trump's tweets against transgenders in the military show controversial actions further polarizing the Democratic and Republican parties. I also agree with his point that we will be stuck in political deadlock for the next four years. Even right now with a Republican majority congress and Republican president, many legislative actions have still been stopped in their tracks. For example, Leon even provided the instance of the failure to repeal Obamacare's bill. It is also likely that in the 2018 midterms, a Democratic majority congress may occur, causing even more deadlock with the political divide between the president and congress.
Read more

Net Neutrality Blog Stage #7

       Net neutrality is  the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. As of right now, the principle is at high risk, as FCC chairman Ajit Pai has pushed for net neutrality to be destroyed. Without net neutrality, corporations will be able to slow down their services and charge fees for accessing certain websites, like YouTube or even Google. There could be data caps for at-home wifi, much like the data caps seen in cell phone data plans. Our ISPs will be able to control what we access and view online without net neutrality. To preserve net neutrality, citizens of the United States must take action against the FCC and government, as they have done many times before.        This may sound familiar right? Just a few years ago, there was a battle for the same net neutrality in which users and companies across the internet took huge steps of a
Read more

Trump travel ban: Judge expands definition of 'close relative'

Trump travel ban: Judge expands definition of 'close relative' In response to President Trumps reinstated travel ban on refugees from 6 Muslim majority countries, Derrick Watson, a judge from Hawaii, has ruled against one of its components. President Trump's restriction allowed for close family members from these countries to visit their relatives in the United States. However, his definition of "close family members" did not include grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts, etc. Watson ruled that this interpretation was too narrow, and ordered that these restrictions shouldn't be enforced, calling the rule "unduly restrictive." This ruling is a bold legal blow against his often criticized immigration crackdown. Even though this judge is only located in Hawaii, his actions will have far reaching effect, as he is one of 700 judges in the district courts- a part of the federal system. This article is worth reading because it shows how the governm
Read more