A risk is something that may hurt you in the future. You mitigate risks, taking action either to avoid them or limit the harm that they can do. You might also decide to accept the risk.
An issue is something that is presently happening and, presumably, hurting you. You can’t mitigate an issue; you must manage it.
Today, this moment, harmful actions by Donald Trump are risks not issues. Trump himself presents a risk. How can the risk that he presents be mitigated?
I think that the most straightforward way to mitigate that risk is by the Congress reasserting its constitutional powers in no uncertain terms. Republicans in Congress should not continue with business as usual and, importantly, should not meekly follow Trump. Democrats in Congress should pick their battles carefully. A purely obstructionist stance will tend to drive Republicans who might otherwise not be so predisposed in Trump’s direction. I don’t mean they should just knuckle under. I mean they should make common cause with the Republican Congressional leadership when they can and engage in honorable and civil disagreement with them when they can’t.
Draping yourself in the flag, drawing yourself to your full height, and declaiming that you will oppose Trump and all who are even tangentially connected to him to the death may feel good but it won’t mitigate the risks.
I think just like Trump’s unconventional campaign model perplexed many, so will his presidency be viewed as eclectic and operating out of the expected norm. For instance, one of Trump’s aids described how, in the early days of his campaign, his entire staff could fit into one car. This kind of sparse structure continued throughout the primary, and was heavily mocked and scoffed at by everyone in the political establishment. IMO, though, I think such a high functioning model will make it’s way into the bloated bureaucracy as well. Staffing in all areas of goverment will probaby be reduced, along with duplicity and the infamous overlapping of responsibilities that fiscal conservatives have long tried to address – Colburn comes to mind.
How the party in power interacts with the party out of power has an opportunity to change too. This will primarily be up to Trump to facilitate. Perhaps his non allegiances to either party – with an emphasis on a populist style – will alter the partisan discourse that prevents sides from ever crossing over, even when it’s for the “good of the people.” I think Trump will at least attempt to engage both sides of the aisle more frequently than the past administration did. After all, negotiating terms is something Trump has promoted, along with being open to using give and take bargaining tools to get things done. It’s a refreshing concept that, if successful, could vastly improve congressional stalemates.
What I do find odd, though, is how the Dems are being mean spirited and so hostile right out of the gate – even prior to the transfer of power. They are basically nullifying Trump’s presidency, not by his actual performance, but rather by their “predictions” of what they assume will be his performance, and their deep seated hatred of him and the Republican party. Is this a recipe making the Dem party more popular and sought after by the mainstream public? I personally think it’s more of a turn-off, which will evolve into an embarrassment should Trump’s administration produce more effective policies than his predecessor was able to do. If the reverse happens, then the Dems can puff out their chests and pronounce themselves as being “right” all along.
Except the Republicans have shown that opposition all the time works.
From the start of the Obama administration, the Republicans opposed everything, with McConnell famously saying his priority was to make sure Obama was a one term President.
Further, the Tea Party primaried out the Republicans who would work with the Democrats.
Right now, the best course for the Democrats really is to oppose everything, and make the Republicans spend their political capital on the routine heavy lifting of government. Let’s see them raise that debt ceiling without fracturing the party.
That’s an interesting point of view. I don’t think it worked for Republicans at all. Establishment Republicans have received a vote of “No confidence” from the voters. That’s how we got Trump.
If Democrats behave the same way, they’ll provoke the same reaction.
I think that most Americans are pragmatists, not ideological, and good government will pay off for the party that pursues it.
” I don’t think it worked for Republicans at all.”
Helped them take over Congress.
I interpret the events a little differently. I think that dissatisfaction with the president’s policies helped them regain the majorities they’d lost.