A couple of days ago, I watched NY Representative Hakeem Jeffries, chairman of the House Democratic caucus, struggle to make the argument that Donald Trump was not being invited to make his SOTU speech due to “security concerns.” This was on CNN, if I recall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had made that claim earlier. But in the face of assurances from the Dept of Homeland Security that security at the SOTU, the argument made by Jeffires seemed dubious.
Trump seized on the security argument to deny Pelosi and other members of Congress from making a trip to Afghanistan. Probably, many people in Congress will now be unable to go overseas.
It didn’t have to work out like that. The messaging used by the House Dems was flawed. This is what the Dems should have said:
“We don’t need a State of the Union address to know the condition of our country. We are in a state of crisis. A crisis in which hundreds of thousands of government workers are going without pay, for themselves and their families; and in which hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are being denied the government services they paid for, because the government is closed.
“The State of the Union Address is a ceremonial event that is filled with pomp and circumstance. We believe that engaging in such ceremonies is an insult and a slap in the face to unpaid government workers, and taxpayers who are not receiving the services they paid for. Therefor, we believe that the State of the Union address should be postponed until after the government is open.”
This framing avoids the issue of security. It properly defines the SOTU as a ceremony that can be done without. By contrast, trips by Congress to war zones, or other places, are government business that needs to proceed even with some government departments closed. As such, Trump could not use the issue of security to deny Congress members from doing their jobs in an overseas venue.
What’s done is done. I do hope that Congressional Democrats can look at the way they’ve framed this issue so far and make the needed change.
******
One more thing. I am disappointed in the messaging used by Democrats in response to the question, “what would you tell the government workers about how you are handling the shutdown?” Without getting into a critique of the current talking points right now, this is what they should say:
We do appreciate that workers are enduring a lot of pain right now. But we hope they understand, we are doing this now to prevent the problem from reoccurring in the future.
We must not accept this practice of holding the government hostage in order to achieve a political goal. If Mr Trump can get what he wants by shutting the government down, he’ll use that same tactic again and again and again. Workers, and taxpayers, would be held in a perpetual state of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
It is essential that we make it clear that we will not negotiate while workers and taxpayers are held hostage. All that we can do is fight this fight until Mr Trump accepts this reality.
We are willing and desirous of discussing border security. But security for workers and taxpayers has to be dealt with, NOW.
These talking points explain why Dems in Congress need to stick to their no-compromise stance: it’s all about protecting workers from being held hostage again. This, as opposed to, a debate about the wall, which is of secondary concern at best for workers, and even, the majority of Americans.
I don’t know if Dems in Congress will adopt these new talking points. But they should.