Rewarding the status quo

                      <strong>ANALYSIS/OPINION:</strong>






                  It is a matter of deep concern that our long-serving politicians and bureaucrats are more comfortable continuously reviewing problems, rather than resolving them. 












                  Coverage and criticism of the White House move to use tariffs as a much-needed bludgeon to force Mexican President Andres Manuel López Obrador to take the necessary steps, now apparently concluded, and its forceful actions in the ongoing trade conflict with China as well as in the growing Iranian threat, clearly illustrate a major dilemma in U.S. politics. Both the media and official Washington are addicted to the safety of inaction over the potential pitfalls of seeking resolution. 












                  There should be widespread agreement that challenges such as large-scale illegal immigration through the southern border, China’s rapacious trade and intellectual-property theft practices, and the possession of nuclear weapons and ICBMs by dangerous regimes must be timely dealt with. But there is no indication that actually seeking to address those crises, or other major international problems, is personally beneficial to either elected officials or bureaucrats. 




































                  The message in response to the current White House’s attempts to confront those long-ignored or downplayed issues is clear: Ignore them without penalty, but address them at your own peril. It is a deeply troubling prescription for paralysis. 












                  Consider the opportunity lost in the 1990s, when, following the collapse of the USSR and before the rise of China to superpower status, America was at the zenith of its power. It could have used similar tactics to those currently employed by the Trump Administration to deal with North Korea. It refused to do more than engage in appeasement tactics. The same could be said for dealing with Iran before it was as close as it is now to nuclear weapons capability. 

Little was done, and those in charge suffered little criticism for it. Washington’s professional careerists, both elected and appointed, do not operate under an environment where getting things done rather than merely managing problems along results in any reward. Indeed, the opposite is true. Attempts to achieve a successful end to a crisis is always fraught with the danger of failing. If one’s goal is to stay in office, the safer course is to continuously study and analyze, rather than to move forcefully towards a successful conclusion.

                  The issue isn’t new or even particularly restricted to Washington. One example: European leaders before the Second World War did nothing to stop Hitler, choosing instead to convey reassuring but false messages of hope to their electorates. But, at times, paradigm-shifting individuals arise, and impatiently demand results. Think Winston Churchill earlier last century, or Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Neither was treated particularly kindly by the professional classes or the media of their generations. 












                  Reagan was considered essentially a war-mongering ignoramus for his views on the Soviet Union. His statement asking Mikhail Gorbachev to “Tear down that wall” was mocked by those who assumed they knew better. His belief that Moscow could be ousted from Eastern Europe was harshly ridiculed. 












                  The end results proved Reagan correct, to the extent that even those who belong to political camps that previously mocked him now claim to be similar to him.














                  Currently, President Trump is ridiculed for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table, for confronting China’s hostile and rapacious practices, and for seeking to enforce existing immigration laws. The president may or may not succeed in his attempts, but if he does fail, much of the blame will rest with those Washington-lifers and their comfortably ensconced media allies who, like the self-proclaimed “wiser heads” in the eras of Churchill and Reagan, scoffed at the notion of proactively addressing the crises of their day, and did all they could to roadblock progress. 










                  Of course, if Mr. Trump succeeds, the careerists and the pundits will swear that they were quietly supporting him all the way. 

                  <em>• Frank V. Vernuccio Jr. is editor in chief of the New York Analysis of Policy &amp; Government.</em>












                    <h3>Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter</h3>








                  Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. 

                      Click
                        here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.