It’s un-American to go there, but Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) went there anyway.
When talking about the Department of Homeland Security partial shutdown, which has many airports resembling a living hellscape, Cassidy compared his Democratic colleagues to … Iran.
Democrats “feel like they can hold a hostage,” Cassidy declared. “It sounds a lot like they feel like they’ve got a good Strait of Hormuz. They can chokepoint travel, this time for the American people, to achieve their political goals.”
It’s a striking, yet problematic, analogy. And if we’re going to entertain it, we should ask the more important question: Who exactly created our current foreign and domestic standoffs?
Because these chokepoints — whether at airport security lines or global shipping lanes — didn’t just materialize. They are byproducts of conflicts initiated by President Trump.
To be clear, Cassidy’s insinuation that there is a moral equivalence between Democrats and Iran is both wrong and disgusting. Trump recently said something even worse, calling Democrats “the greatest enemy America has,” based on his erroneous assertion that “Iran was [already] dead.”
But perhaps there is a valid comparison to be made. Trump is bogged down by two opponents — foreign and domestic — who (perhaps for the first time in his life) aren’t backing down, no matter how tough he talks.
What is more, these are escalation traps that Trump refuses to walk away from, no matter how many off-ramps are available to him.
Consider what Cassidy’s colleague, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), recently said regarding the government shutdown. He and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) presented a plan to fund DHS. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) passed it along to Trump.
Trump’s answer (according to Kennedy): “No deals with the Democrats. So we’re back to square one.”
Meanwhile, Trump keeps changing the terms he wants Democrats to agree to.
Having rejected their demands to reform Immigration and Customs Enforcement (no more masks, return to requiring judicial warrants to enter private property, etc.) and Kennedy’s plan to fund DHS, he ordered Republicans not to strike any DHS deal unless it’s “welded” to his SAVE America Act — a sweeping bill that mixes voting provisions with unrelated cultural issues.
This is mission creep. The term usually describes how a military operation loses focus and devolves into a quagmire. But that term could just as easily apply to Trump’s method of negotiating DHS funding by adding his own demands that only complicate matters.
Whether it’s reopening the strait or funding DHS, Trump’s goalposts keep moving, and as a result, Democrats are largely insulated from the public’s blame for the airport mess. Democrats can’t be expected to end this impasse because Trump can’t even settle on a set of demands to which they could agree.
This is Trump’s M.O. with Iran as well. His stated objectives have cycled through a full and complete surrender, regime change, deterrence, de-escalation, boots on the ground, blowing up power plants in 48 hours, and then backing off based on “productive conversations.” (Not to mention that Trump ran for office promising to end “forever wars,” not start new ones.)
Trump — whose underlying belief is that pressure always produces capitulation — assumes he can bluster and bully his opponents into submission. But that only works if the other side agrees to play by those rules.
If they don’t, and instead choose asymmetric warfare, the strategy falters.
And this is presumably what Cassidy means regarding the taking of hostages. Whether you’re opposing Trump militarily or politically, the operating theory goes like this: Trump and Republicans control everything. Therefore, any negative consequences — rising gas prices, disrupted travel, legislative paralysis — will accrue to him.
The end result is a dynamic that is almost guaranteed to drag on. At the airport. At the gas pump. Until Trump either somehow wins or TACOs (“Trump always chickens out”).
But remember, these are “wars” of Trump’s choosing. And while he has always been a loose cannon, it makes sense that Trump seems to be spiraling during his second term.
The first-term advisors, who might once have tempered his impulsive decisions (both domestically and internationally), have largely been replaced by loyalists.
That’s a familiar pattern when it comes to leaders with authoritarian tendencies: Surround yourself with sycophants, and dissent disappears.
Unfortunately, so does wisdom and prudence.
Which brings us back to a basic truth: Character is destiny.
For years, Trump’s defenders treated his exaggerations, reversals and improvisational style as quirks. But those traits have now turned on them.
That’s why it’s frustrating to watch as some of Trump’s biggest boosters seem surprised by his chaotic and incoherent decision to go to war with Iran.
On one hand, it clearly betrays his “America First” campaign promises. But on the other hand, what we are now witnessing is the logical extension of a governing style that prioritizes impulse over coherence and places little value on traits like honesty and consistency.
To my credulous friends on the right, I hate to say “I told ya so,” but I did. A lot of people did. We’ve been saying it for a decade.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
The post At home and abroad, Trump’s mission creep makes victory impossible appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
