There’s a crack appearing in the liberal opposition to President Trump. Now we’re not talking about a thaw in nasty relations, let alone a full-blown rapprochement. And some of the Democrats will have to grit their teeth to cooperate with the president.
But some on the left have appeared to have decided that working with the man on occasion might be a good idea. Or at least a better one than opposing everything, and coming up empty-handed and looking irrelevant like the Democrats did with the tax bill.
So get ready for this one. That bastion of liberal ideology, the Washington Post, has admonished Democrats to support building the border wall. At least in return for some accommodation for the “dreamers.”
President Trump had already expressed a willingness to do this, so it looks like the left might be the ones who will be learning to cooperate. Still, it’s a shock to read such words on the editorial page of the Washington Post.
The Washington Post Editorial Board published a piece Wednesday begging Democrats to accept President Trump’s border wall in return for the protection of “dreamers,” the illegal immigrants currently protected by DACA.
The article, entitled ‘Take a deal for the dreamers. Build the wall,’ argues that while the wall is a ‘dumb idea,’ it would ultimately be a worthwhile trade-off to protect ‘dreamers.’
‘If a few billion dollars annually is the trade-off that provides certainty — a pathway to citizenship or permanent legal status — for nearly 700,000 young immigrants brought to this country as children by their parents, it’s worth it.
Because the alternative — all those lives ruined, all those jobs lost, all that education and promise cut short — is much worse,’ the Editorial Board writes.
Note this is no full-scale endorsement of the border wall. The Post dutifully calls it a “dumb idea.” Yet they can see the writing on the wall: President Trump has made noises about doing something to help the “dreamers” find a way to citizenship.
The last thing the left needs is for President Trump to be able to take credit for accomplishing one of the Democrats’ goals.
To create the impression that this is no capitulation to President Trump, [t]he Editorial Board further notes that increased border security has historically been a bipartisan issue, such as in 2006 when both Senators Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama voted to support 700 miles of fencing on the Mexican border.
Maybe the Post as grown tired of losing and watching President Trump frequently win as he promised to do on the campaign trail.
While the Washington Post remains a staunchly liberal publication, its writers and editors are bright people. It’s bad enough for them to have to watch President Trump tear the Obama legacy to shreds and see the president’s tax bill become law.
Allowing him to claim credit for doing something for illegal immigrants is more than they can stand.
So, we see the Post’s strategy. Work with him on the border wall in return for being able to take some credit for providing a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers.
And claim that any compromise the left reaches with him on his border wall can be explained against a backdrop of previous support for fences on the border by Obama and Clinton.
The alternative is to watch him get his border wall anyway while co-opting a vital part of the Democrats’ agenda on immigration.
After all, the left can only lose so often before matters get intolerable. Or, to look at it another way, “If you’re getting run out of town, get to the front and act like you are leading a parade.”