Motorcycle maker caught in crossfire

Hey, what’s going on here?

Donald J. Trump said that Harley-Davidson, the iconic motorcycle manufacturer, was going to benefit from his economic policies. The company would flourish from his protectionist measures. The tariffs and all that.

That’s not how it’s playing out.

Harley-Davidson has announced it is moving some of its operations offshore because it doesn’t want to get caught in the crossfire leveled by the European Union, which is retaliating against the president’s tariffs against EU nations.

As the New York Times has reported: Mr. Trump’s trade war is beginning to ripple through the United States economy as companies struggle with a cascade of tariffs here and abroad. While Mr. Trump says his trade policy is aimed at reviving domestic manufacturing, Harley-Davidson’s move shows how the White House approach could backfire as American companies increasingly rely on overseas markets for materials, production and sales.

Harley-Davidson is one of the few American companies that had resisted — until now — the temptation to relocate to sites overseas. They make Harleys in Wisconsin and the president was proud to hail the U.S.-made manufacturer as a beneficiary of the policies he is pursuing.

Of course, the president is distressed that Harley-Davidson would bail as a result of the tariffs and the trade war that has commenced between the United States and the EU. He said Harley-Davidson is using the tariffs as an “excuse.” He wrote in a tweet, according to the NY Times: “Surprised that Harley-Davidson, of all companies, would be the first to wave the White Flag,” he said. “I fought hard for them and ultimately they will not pay tariffs selling into the E.U., which has hurt us badly on trade.”

Well, Mr. President, you didn’t fight hard enough, apparently. The trade war has just produced some early casualties.

Nice going. Who’s next?

Settle down, Rep. Waters

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters needs to settle down.

The California Democrat needs to develop a sense of decorum and decency in this overheated political climate. I know it’s hard, but it can be done.

She said the following Saturday at a rally. She was commenting on White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders being asked to leave a Virginia restaurant because Huckabee works for Donald J. Trump:

“For these members of his Cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they’re not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they’re not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store, the people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president ‘No, I can’t hang with you, this is wrong, this is unconscionable and we can’t keep doing this to children.'”

Waters is inciting potentially harmful — if not dangerous — confrontations.

She is angry over the president’s policy that took children from their parents at the southern border. I share her anger. It’s an outrageous effort to demonize illegal immigrants. It is punishing children because of something their parents have done.

The White House press secretary does not deserve to be hassled, harassed or hectored while she is in a public place with her family. Yes, Waters has walked back her comment just a bit. She says protest is a “democratic” process as long as it is peaceful. Fine. Protest in all sorts of ways.

However, the idea that she would encourage such confrontation of other Trump administration officials only inflames passion, drives deeper divisions between factions and creates even more hard feelings than those that exist already.

The president himself has shown himself to be the master of division and discord. There is no need to mimic what he has done to sow the seeds of anger among Americans.

Hassling officials from the administration while they are off the clock is no way to unite the nation.

Don’t push ‘Mad Dog’ out the door

There’s been some reporting over the past 24 hours about Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis and whether the president is looking past the serious grownup he has among his closest Cabinet officials.

Donald Trump announced the ending of “war games” with South Korean armed forces; he declared the United States was nixing the Iran nuclear deal; the president also announced his desire to form a sixth military branch, which he has called a “space force.”

These initiatives all have something in common. The president announced all of them without consulting Secretary Mattis.

Is this the beginning of the end of Mad Dog’s tenure as head of the Pentagon? Oh, man, I hope it ain’t so.

Of all the individuals Trump has selected for the Cabinet, Mattis is the one who — in my mind — has acted like the grownup. He is a serious-minded retired four-star U.S. Marine Corps general. His combat experience makes him a level-headed deterrent to the chicken hawks — such as national security adviser John Bolton — who seem all too eager to send U.S. forces into harm’s way.

When the president tweeted his decision to ban transgender Americans from enlisting in the armed forces, Mattis held the line, saying that he wouldn’t do a thing to change military policy without it going through the proper administrative channels.

Salon.com reports: The president often leaves Mattis “out of the loop” and “doesn’t listen to him,” according to NBC News, undermining this vital role in national security. Trump allegedly believes that Mattis “looks down on him” and “slow walks his policy directives,” sources told the outlet.

Mattis might “look down” on Trump? Really? So what if he does?

I can understand why Mattis, who has served his country with honor and distinction, might take a dim view of Donald Trump’s world view and his utter lack of understanding of what public service is supposed to mean.

For someone who supposedly has a soft spot in his heart for the generals with whom he has surrounded himself, Trump well might be doing all he can to get his premier Cabinet appointment to hit the road.

If that happens, the nation will be the poorer for it.

Look inward, Rep. Waters

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters needs to ask herself a critical question.

How would she react if someone were to approach her in a public place and began berating her over some statement she made? She wouldn’t like it one damn bit.

Thus, why in the world does the California Democrat believe it’s all right for anyone associated with the Trump administration to except — and possibly accept — similar treatment by Americans who are upset with the president’s policies.

Waters made that ridiculous assertion recently in the wake of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’s experience at a Lexington, Va., eating establishment. The owners of the eatery asked Sanders to leave, expecting that she might be harassed by other patrons. Sanders got up and left the Red Hen restaurant.

The incident has provoked a partisan fight.

In reality, Rep. Waters is flat wrong to suggest that Trump administration senior staffers should have to expect such treatment.

As The Hill reported: “The people are going to turn on them, they’re going to protest, they’re going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you, this is wrong, this is unconscionable and we can’t keep doing this to children,’” Waters said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called it correctly. He labeled such a point of view as “un-American.” Again, from The Hill:

“I strongly disagree with those who advocate harassing folks if they don’t agree with you. …No one should call for the harassment of political opponents. That’s not right. That’s not American,” Schumer said from the Senate floor.

Schumer added that he understands the “frustrations” some members of his party feel when Trump “complains about bullying [and] harassment” even though the president uses it “as a regular tool almost every day.”

“But the president’s tactics and behavior should never be emulated. It should be repudiated by organized, well-informed and passionate advocacy. As Michelle Obama, a person who represents the same kind of fineness that we’ve always had in America … said, ‘When they go low, we go high,’” Schumer said. 

Think of the Golden Rule, Rep. Waters, and ponder whether you would like to be treated in a way you would treat others.

‘Democrat’ is a noun, not an adjective

Why do conservatives — chiefly Republicans — continue to use the term “Democrat” in a way that some listeners, such as me, find vaguely insulting?

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders today has used the term “Democrat” as an adjective. She refers to “Democrat members of Congress” who, of course, do things that Republicans dislike.

OK, this can be seen as a silly point. I don’t see it that way.

Republicans began using “Democrat” as an adjective when Republican U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich launched the Contact With American campaign to take control of Congress in 1994.

They ceased referring to members of the other party as being “Democratic” lawmakers. They say “Democrat” because it’s jarring to the ear in ways that are a bit difficult to explain. Plus, they no doubt view their colleagues on the other side as anything but “democratic” in their world view.

Thus, this new use of a long-standing word has taken root. It’s deeper than ever in this divisive period in our political history.

And, oh yes. It still rankles me.

Twitter emerges as No. 1 purveyor of … everything?

Am I the only American who has become  astonished, amazed and somewhat aghast at how Twitter has become the No. 1 purveyor of public policy?

Or, for that matter, damn near everything else?

Probably not.

I don’t know precisely when it achieved its preeminence. I have o believe it began with the presidency of Donald John Trump Sr.

He began using Twitter to make pronouncements, to hurl insults, to foment his many lies. Then he got elected. He has continued to tweet these messages at a dizzying pace — even though he promised (if that’s the correct verb) to curtail his tweet storms once he took the presidential oath.

A day doesn’t go by now where I don’t read something on my various news outlets about this or that public official tweeting some statement. They respond to others’ statements — which also are tweeted; they make grand pronouncements of their own; they make snarky comments; they tell jokes.

Oh, but them we hear from entertainment celebrities and literary giants, also via Twitter. They all have thoughts — deep or shallow — to share with the rest of the world.

And, yes … I use Twitter as a platform to share musings from High Plains Blogger. I am not alone in that regard, either. Other bloggers seek to increase their audience by distributing their pearls of wisdom via Twitter. Good for them! We’re a social media community.

I suppose Twitter will retain its top ranking as a social media purveyor until something else comes along. I don’t know what that might be; I doubt you know what will emerge.

I do have difficulty using the verb “tweet,” however, to describe this method of communicating. The very sound of the word just kind of grates on me. I hear the word “tweet” and I think immediately of the Looney Tunes cartoon character Tweetie Bird.

Wherever he is, my guess is that the late Mel Blanc — Tweetie Bird’s voice — is laughing out loud.

I trust you get my drift.

Meanwhile, off we go, tweeting every single thought — big or small, profound or trivial — that pops into our noggin.

Trump once believed in ‘due process’

It’s hard to believe, but Donald J. Trump once stood tall for the cause of “due process.”

A one-time White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, faced accusations that he beat up two former wives. He was forced to quit amid storms of protest.

The president then asked out loud about whatever happened to “due process.” Why, Porter deserved the same level of due process that the country grants to everyone else, Trump said.

That was then.

These days, due process has been kicked to the curb. The president now believes that every immigrant who comes into the country illegally should be rounded up and kicked out immediately. Due process be damned! They don’t need any adjudication, he said.

What gives? Does the president favor due process or not?

Sure, I get that he’s trying to make a political point. However, some principles should withstand political pressure.

U.S. law allows illegal immigrants to have their cases heard by the judicial system. Judges have an obligation, according to the law, to hear the immigrants’ stories and decide — based on the law — how their case should be resolved.

The president, though, says that’s no longer necessary.

Get ’em out of here, he says. All of ’em! Refugees? Those fleeing persecution? Violence? Forget about it!

Kick them all out, he says. Now!

Shameful.

It’s official: Hell has frozen over

I know I have said this before, so forgive me for repeating myself.

Except this time I am sure of what I am about to say: It’s official. Hell has frozen over. Completely.

How do I know that? Because one of the deans of conservative commentary, George Will — a man who for years was associated with the Republican Party — is urging voters to cast their ballots for (gulp!) Democrats.

Will leads his latest column this way: Amid the carnage of Republican misrule in Washington, there is this glimmer of good news: The family-shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule, clarified something. Occurring less than 140 days before elections that can reshape Congress, the policy has given independents and temperate Republicans — these are probably expanding and contracting cohorts, respectively — fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which they should vote.

Not long ago, Will decided to leave the Republican Party. He is now an “independent” voter. He was a Fox News contributor. Since leaving the GOP, he has gravitated toward other broadcast and cable news networks, where he also contributes to their commentary.

Will dislikes Donald J. Trump. His description of “Republican misrule in Washington” is a direct condemnation of the leadership provided by the president.

Read Will’s column here.

Will wants voters to cast their ballots for Democrats in the 2018 midterm election. He wants congressional power to swing back to Democrats, hoping that they can act as a bulwark against the “carnage” that Trump has created in Washington.

Will writes: In today’s GOP, which is the president’s plaything, he is the mainstream. So, to vote against his party’s cowering congressional caucuses is to affirm the nation’s honor while quarantining him.

Granted, the idea of a Democratically controlled Capitol Hill doesn’t thrill the columnist. He refers to that possibility this way: A Democratic-controlled Congress would be a basket of deplorables, but there would be enough Republicans to gum up the Senate’s machinery, keeping the institution as peripheral as it has been under their control and asphyxiating mischief from a Democratic House.

Still, the very idea that George Will, of all people, would advocate such a rebellion means only one thing: Hell has frozen over.

Chaos continues to call the cadence at White House

I am struck by the pace of the chaos that continues to roil the White House.

More to the point, I am struck by how the president of the United States manages to awaken each morning seemingly believing that the day is going to produce more chaos, confusion and controversy.

How in the world does he live like that? How does he work that way? How does he govern in such a manner?

Donald Trump certainly gave us fair warning after he was elected in 2016. He told us he would be “unconventional.” He promised that he wouldn’t do things the way any of his presidential predecessors had done them.

Oh, man. He was right! He has delivered on that pledge — bigly!

The question remains: How in the name of good governance does the president continue to function in that manner?

I do not get it. At all!

‘Easier to judge quickly than to take time to understand’

Philip Rucker is a first-class reporter for The Washington Post. He posted a Twitter item that stated:

First Lady Melania Trump in speech tonight: “Kindness, compassion, and positivity are very important traits in life. It is far easier to say nothing than it is to speak words of kindness. It is easier to judge quickly than to take time to understand.”

I am blown away by part of what the first lady said.

“It is easier to judge quickly than to take time to understand.”

That’s what she said, according to Rucker. She is correct. Spot on. However, as with most matters involving the first lady, one must feel a bit of pain for her, given that she is married to someone who is too damn eager to “judge quickly” and is so very reluctant to “take time to understand.”

Illegal immigrants, anyone?

Consider what the president of the United States keeps saying about those who enter this country without the proper immigration documents. He is labeling them all with the same epithet. They’re criminals intent on doing serious harm to Americans, he keeps telling us.

The president refuses to “take time to understand” why they’re coming here. Refugees? Escaping crime? Fleeing persecution? In search of a better life for them and their families?

Who needs to “take time” to realize that not all illegal immigrants are motivated by evil intent? They aren’t all coming here for nefarious reasons.

The president is exhibiting a shameful prejudice toward all illegal immigrants and, by implication, almost all of those who come to this country.

If only the first lady’s wisdom could get through to her husband, who remains blind and deaf to the pleas of those who admonish him to cease the cruelty of his views toward immigrants.

It’s a lost cause. A president who makes public policy pronouncements via Twitter isn’t going to heed anyone’s advice. Not even his wife.