The takeaway of their coverage is supposed to be that this awful state of affairs is all the fault of Donald Trump, but anyone who thinks about it will have to ask why the blame should be imputed to Trump when Trump has expressed willingness to compromise on the sticking point, i.e. $5.7 billion for a border barrier, and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have flatly rejected the possibility of any compromise.
David Marcus at The Federalist thinks that the Democrats' adamantine refusal to accept compromise has ensured that Trump will be holding all the cards in this high stakes poker game.
I would add to Marcus' argument the fact that the Democrats have embarrassed themselves by offering up transparently silly reasons for their recalcitrance and indeed have had to flip-flop like a beached trout from positions on border security they held staunchly up until November 8th, 2016.
When Speaker Pelosi avers, for example, that a border wall is "immoral" but won't say what it is about a wall that makes it immoral, or won't tell us what the significant difference is between locking the doors of one's house to keep people from entering one's home illegally and erecting a barrier on the border to keep people from entering the country illegally, she tacitly demonstrates that she has no good reason for refusing funds for the wall.
Her actual reason is, evidently, that she simply recoils from the thought of handing President Trump a "win" and allowing him to keep another campaign promise.
Here are a few excerpts from Marcus' column:
We all like to knock and mock Trump’s braggadocio claims that he is the best negotiator ever. But in this case, he really has outflanked his opponents. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have painted themselves into a corner. They have said, “No funding for a wall.” They say this despite the fact that they have supported barrier funding in the past. So in essence they have given themselves no fallback position.In lieu of any compelling argument to justify the Democrats refusal to compromise, an argument more persuasive than simply the implied "We hate Trump," Marcus' conclusion seems amply warranted:
The Democrats have made this a zero-sum game. If Trump gets any money for the wall, he wins. That’s a really fantastic position for him. He can go on TV, whether in a controversial network roadblock or an appearance on the southern border, and say, “Hey, I’m up for a compromise.” Meanwhile, Chuck and Nancy have to slam the door shut on getting 800,000 federal employees back to work.
A president always has an advantage in a government shutdown. The executive branch speaks with a single voice, while Congress is divided between parties. Trump is clearly pointing to and offering a solution. The House Democrats aren’t. And their intransigence is highlighted by the fact that Republican members of Congress are calling them out.
So here we are. What reason does President Trump possibly have to cave? You could point to the legitimately troubling stories of federal employees unable to pay the rent, as major networks have done, but as troubling as those stories are, can we really place the blame squarely on the one person who is open for a compromise?
Pelosi will have to fold here. There is no benefit to Trump for folding, and plenty of benefit for her. She played it wrong. Fair enough: she can live to fight another day, but this time, on this fight, Trump is beating her soundly and will get his wall funding. It’s only a matter of time.
