Democrats and the boycott of Trump’s inauguration

On Friday afternoon, Donald Trump became President Trump. While scores of Americans eagerly awaited Trump’s inauguration, scores more undoubtedly dreaded the impending passing of the political torch. Consistent with Trump’s tenure within the public sphere, controversy surrounded the coronation of the 45th President of the United States.

In an interview with a local media outlet a few days prior to the ceremony, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee stated, “I would love to attend the inauguration. I’m a member of Congress through your votes. Thank you. I value our government. I appreciate it greatly. This president semi-elect does not deserve to be President of the United States. He has not exhibited the characteristics and the values that we hold dear.”

{mosads}While the manpower fueling the embargo against Trump’s inauguration was largely generated by the House of Representatives, for a time it seemed likely that some Senate Democrats were likely to follow suit. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently commented on the issue, telling CNN, “I respect where they’re coming from. There have been so many irregularities in this, especially with Russian interference, so I respect where they’re coming from. I think each person has to make the choice on their own, but I don’t begrudge those who have said they’re boycotting. Each person can make his or her own decision.”

To be certain, many of Trump’s statements have been worthy of sharp condemnation. Moreover, his bizarre attack on the accomplishments and legacy of Representative John Lewis is certainly beyond the pale. To that effect, abstaining from participating in a ceremony for reasons of principle is commendable. However, it smells of horrendous hypocrisy to exalt one’s admiration of a given political office, while overtly impugning the legitimacy of the person assuming the very same office.

We all know that politics is an inherently dirty game, that it’s a profession which requires its practitioners to deviate from their ideological positions in support of the greater good. While we elect our politicians based on the public representation of their ideological positions, the reality is that we expect and demand effective governing. We know that no office-seeker will tow the ideological line we’d like them to, that results-driven governing requires an almost ruthless brand of pragmatism.

To that end, it’s worth noting that there’s a stark difference between a citizen exhibiting their political angst, and elected officials publicly voicing their dissatisfaction in a potentially unrestrained and counterproductive manner. Whether anyone enjoys such a prospect or not, Republicans will firmly control both chambers of Congress until at least 2018, and the White House until the dawn of 2023. The grim reality is that short of an unprecedented series of successful filibusters by Senate Democrats, the possibility of stifling the Republican legislative agenda within the Capitol’s walls is highly improbable, at least for the next two years.

All of this means that the short-term survival of liberal ideals will rest at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They’ll rest with a man more hospitable to liberal principles than his colleagues within the Republican hierarchy. As unlikely — and unsavory as it may sound, the best option for mitigating the impending damage to the liberal cause, is through establishing a working relationship with President Donald Trump.

Let’s not forget that a mere few months ago, then candidate Trump was lambasted by fellow Republicans as a “lifelong Democrat”, and was almost universally denounced for holding views entirely inconsistent with modern conservatism. He’s a man who donated money to Democratic leadership figures such as former Senate Majority Leader Reid and former Speaker Pelosi as they pushed for the passage of the Affordable Care Act. He’s a man who takes no issue with marriage equality, is inherently more supportive of women’s reproductive rights than any other Republican leader, and unlike virtually all of his prior Republican opponents, opposed the domestic manufacturing-crushing Trans-Pacific Partnership.

None of this is to say that Democrats need to condone Trump’s transgressions, nor forge some sort of personal friendship with the man. However, their constituents undoubtedly expect them to safeguard American jobs, prevent millions from losing their health insurance, and prevent the Supreme Court from becoming further polarized and endangering decades of liberal progress. The citizenry can adequately handle the manifestations of protest and outrage, elected Democrats need to pragmatically work to contain the proverbial fire. Such a feat is difficult to accomplish when the party occupying the inferior bargaining position bogs itself down in the mud.

Jesse Heitz is a long time contributor of The Hill. He obtained his BA in History from the University of St. Thomas and his MA in War in the Modern World from King’s College London. He is also the author of, “Fire Resistance in American Heavy Timber Construction: History and Preservation.”

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.