IS DONALD TRUMP A GUILTY PLEASURE?

So far as I know, Donald Trump has yet to characterize his impeachment acquittal as a "vindication and full exoneration" of the incitement charge.

Maybe he's held back by the fact that seven Republicans voted guilty, spoiling the claim that the entire episode was yet another vicious attack by Democrats in yet another stunning exercise of partisan party politics.

Also troubling for Trump is the fact that a number of those Republicans who voted to acquit (including former majority leader Mitch McConnell) suggested afterwards that Trump was definitely guilty of the crime, but a legal technicality prevented them from voting that way.

McConnell, the man who delayed the trial until after Biden's inauguration, says Trump couldn't be convicted because he was no longer in office at the time of the trial. He helpfully points out that all other legal remedies to nail Trump for his criminal behavior are still on the table ("until the statute of limitations has run").

Trump released a statement excoriating McConnell as a "hack" and suggests the Republican party would be mistaken to follow this guy into the future.

Several Republicans who voted to convict have been censured by their state party machines. One party boss says they didn't send that guy to Congress to "vote his conscience."

Which almost makes sense.

Representatives are expected to vote the way the majority of folks in their districts wants them to vote. Otherwise, they would be very poor representatives, in violation of both the letter and the spirit of our democratic form of government.

But maybe not in the case of an impeachment trial. Senators take additional oaths to follow the evidence and render an impartial verdict.

As a result, the requirement a given Senator should vote according to the folks back home (assuming the majority agrees with the party bosses) might be construed as jury tampering. (Barring a ruling from the Supreme Court.)

If this had been a real trial, one would certainly expect Donald Trump to be re-arrested for that very crime: jury tampering.

He holds the collective balls of all Republicans in his sweaty grip and threatens by pressure alone to convert those excellent nuggets into diamonds.

(Well, industrial diamonds, at least. And Republicans hoping for a piece of the action when Trump sells those diamonds are likely to be disappointed. Those are Trump's diamonds, okay? Because those balls belong to him now.)

The former president's hold on Republicans is based on his ability to disrupt their future re-elections. He can "primary" those guys by supporting Trump-loyal candidates in the primary, preventing troublemakers from ever getting on the final ballot.

Of course, this power comes entirely from the very concept of re-election. Term limits (one term and out) would effectively remove that power.

In addition, because Trump is a vindictive thug, Republicans have to consider the possibility that displeasing the man might cause him to say something out loud that could send violent supporters to a guy's home to murder him and his family and burn the house to the ground. As a warning to others.

Following the events of January 6th, that "power" is no longer theoretical. Trump's enemies can and will be targeted by his more adventuresome followers.

Those people have the ability, the guns, and the willingness to act, as well as plenty of time on their hands.

But it makes me wonder: Do some folks support Trump just for the drama?

TWO SOLUTIONS

The Democrats under Joe Biden want a major Covid relief bill, but Republicans are not willing to go that far. They have proposed a much more modest bill.

It looks like the Dems are going to try to go it alone, through a process call budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass.

This appears to me to be a major mistake on their part.

In the past, with Obama's economic stimulus project, and later on the Affordable Care Act, Democrats wasted a great deal of time trying to get bi-partisan support for legislation. The process required many serious compromises, and in the end the Republicans still wouldn't vote for those bills in significant numbers.

Democratic leadership in the Senate, especially, has made it clear that mistake won't be made again.

But there's an obvious solution: Do what can be done with Republican support. Do it fast, because it needs to be done fast. Get Covid relief passed, even at a lower level than hoped for. Just get it done!

Then pick up the pieces that fell on the cutting-room floor and create a new bill that Republicans have said they won't go for. And pass that bill using budget reconciliation.

Why cut Republicans out of the parts they're willing to do? Is it that the Dems don't want to give them credit for anything if they're not willing to go all the way?

If Republicans are allowed to be involved in Covid relief, they might be willing to cooperate in other areas, like immigration reform and infrastructure repair.

I can imagine a situation where a bill has two main parts, one part wanted by one side, the other wanted by the other side. As long as the opposite sections are not a deadly poison to either side, both can be passed in a bi-partisan manner.

Why not? This is the way most things get through congress.

(I mean, back when stuff could be done at all.)

Now, it may be the Republicans (especially) don't want to do anything that might tend to make the other side look good. After all, that man in the White House stole the election—and everybody knows it, according to Donald Trump.

But that's a recipe for stalemate. And the country suffers.

The basic problem, of course, is that governing the country has become an extremely partisan enterprise. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

One major solution: term limits. One term and go home. No re-elections, ever.

Remember, for congress critters, re-election is Job One. And it makes sense. Whatever they hope to accomplish in congress, nothing can be done if they are not in congress to do it.

You gotta get in that room and stay there.

The unfortunate side effect of this is general gridlock. In a zero-sum world, you can't just win—the other guy must also lose. And if you have to spend every waking moment to make that happen, so be it.

In a world where congress is a viable career path, everybody suffers.

Republicans are currently controlled by a single toxic personality. This control would be greatly reduced if people weren't worried about losing their jobs.

With term limits, there is no career path in congress, and nobody can quash your re-election hopes—because nobody has re-election hopes.

Another solution: ban political parties.

Government can be divisive. Political parties are designed to be divisive.

Since when is tearing the country apart a good thing?

Political parties exist largely so lazy humans can make one decision in their lives and forever after vote the party line. That might be a good thing if the result was not the destruction of the entire country.

Are human beings stupid enough to do something like this?

I think by now you know my answer.