Democrats’ ‘Resist Trump’ narrative exposes their weak agenda

“RESIST!”

The mantra of the 2017 Democratic party has been easy for its adherents to proudly shout as the clouds of “Russian collusion” and “obstruction of justice” hung over the Trump administration. But after the oft-repeated storyline collapsed under the weight of the Comey and Sessions testimonies, the Democrats find themselves in an awkward position where they, once again, may have to start talking about the issues that affect regular Americans. 

{mosads}It’s safe to assume the party is trying to avoid this. The memory of how well the talking points of their social agenda and the touting of Obama’s legacy played in the 2016 election is still fresh in the minds of their communications team. Predictably, over the past week they’ve attempted to move the goalposts from the hysterics of collusion to claims about the “Muslim” ban, lawsuits to get Trump’s tax return, and making parody videos about cabinet meetings.

They have also fallen back on a new anonymously sourced leak that Robert Mueller is now investigating the President for obstruction. They claim there is fire to go along with the smoke, despite the under oath public testimony of the “obstructee” that the “obstructor” did not obstruct.

But most bizarre new conspiracy theory of this past this week was a Democratic and media driven attack on the Eric Trump Foundation, which raised over $16 million for pediatric cancer research at St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. Its filings are public. You can even read them for yourself on the New York State Attorney General’s website; and yet, the Democrats believe that keeping the conversation focused on criticisms of a pediatric cancer charity is preferable to a open debate about their policy goals.

So what exactly is the Democratic Party agenda that they’re so afraid of discussing?

If we filter through the left’s antiphonic chants on collusion and obstruction, we see few very discussions of substance, which collectively add up to a noticeably weak platform: 

Defending Obamacare

Just this week, another 2 million Americans came off the Obamacare rolls citing the “high costs and lack of affordability” as a primary factor. The ACA is in its death spiral, and the Republican Congress is closer than ever to passing a repeal and replace. 

This places Democrats in a familiar position: defending the legacy of Obamacare against clear evidence that it’s failed to meet its goals, costs more than expected, and limited healthcare choices. This was the position they found themselves in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, and cost them dearly at the ballot box.

Standing against tax relief

Lowering taxes on the middle class is popular, so much so, that Democrats who don’t want the President to get a win on tax relief are resorting to desperate attempts to tie it to unrelated issues. The lowering of taxes on all Americans, they claim, should be delayed until Congress can review Trump’s own tax returns. Play that out and what they are really saying is, “The middle-class should pay higher taxes so that we can keep hitting our talking points.”

The Trump tax plan will cut taxes for the middle class through the adjustment of rates and through doubling the standard deduction. This is good for America, but you wouldn’t know it from democrats who are claiming it will only help the class-warfare bogeymen of “big corporations” and “billionaires.”

Maintaining lighter sentences for drug traffickers

Last month, Attorney General Sessions announced a departure from the 2013 Obama DOJ policy that instructed federal prosecutors not to specify the amount of drugs involved when charging drug offenders. Essentially, the new guidelines simply require prosecutors to charge defendants with the actual amount of drugs they are caught with and sentenced according to existing law. To argue against this, is to argue in favor of a willful ignorance of existing laws.

Denouncing foreign policy they once touted… because Trump

In April, CNN.com ran a blunt headline: “Democrats are being hypocritical about Trump’s war powers.” The piece describe efforts to paint Trump’s Syrian airstrike as “unlawful,” despite what amounts to decades of complacency when previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority. 

This hypocrisy is also evident in the Russian hysteria. Democrats have used a language change in the 2016 RNC platform, which no longer calls for arming Ukraine, as proof of an underhanded collusion with Putin. This discounts that it ran congruent to Obama’s existing foreign policy, and that Clinton actually offered a 180 degree turn toward Kiev, so much so that Ukraine was caught in its own meddling and collusion scandal with the DNC. 

Being for infrastructure, before they were against it

Despite angling for a major infrastructure bill for many years, Democrats have come out swinging against Trump’s stimulus plan as simply an attempt to give money to “Wall Street and big corporations.” As noted by CNBC’s Jake Novak, “Democrats are in serious danger politically because they’re losing their connection to all working class voters, not just the white working class. Opposing or simply ignoring any plan to benefit the working class is the last thing the Democrats need right now.”

Recall, this was the one area where Democratic leaders said they would be willing to work with President. But despite the fact that three-quarters of Americans hope they would, we see a party that would rather pander to those members in its cheap seats who believe in “resisting” Trump whatever the cost.

Given all this, it is no surprise that even progressive writers at the New York Times have been forced to admit that “The Democratic Party is in worse shape than you thought.” 

Joseph Borelli is a New York City council member, professor, former state legislator, Republican commentator, and Lindsay Fellow at the Institute for State and Local Governance at City University of New York. He has been published in the New York Daily News and appears on CNN, BBC, and Fox News. You can follow him on Twitter @JoeBorelliNYC.

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