Presidential Privies

Remember last month, when the president seemed unhappy about refugees from certain countries and caused a kerfluffle that lasted longer than the usual one-day news cycle? It had to do with disposal of excrement, and where that might be done.

A bunch of people evaded discussion of the actual words used, apparently possible because of mis-reporting of the second syllable. Does it really matter whether he said  “shithole” or  “shithouse”? A privy is a privy.

What on earth makes a country a privy? A privy, just to be clear, is a toilet located apart from a dwelling or other building and is also known as an outhouse. Words being interesting in and of themselves, another meaning for the word is in the legal field:  “a person having a part or interest in any action, matter, or thing.” The origins of the word lie in Latin, privatus, meaning to be withdrawn from public life; this morphed into Old French, “prive” meaning private, and thence to the English “private.”

So in thinking about the deeply disturbing characterization applied by the president to Haiti and apparently, “African countries,” if we can get away from the vulgarity, we can remove the baggage because all a privy implies is withdrawing from public to undertake a private act—or, more intriguingly, someone (let’s say, a country?) that has a part or interest in any action, matter or thing, such as perhaps, Somalia and Libya are privies in the fight against terrorist organizations. (Strange right? But check the Oxford Dictionary; this is really a thing in legalese!)

The president, at the very least, should have availed himself of the first definition and removed himself from the company of other public servants if  he considers whole swathes of the community of nations to be no more than disposals for excrement and wants to say so. This is a reprehensible position, but as a private citizen, he's entitled to whatever misguided opinions he may have. As president of the United States, he's not entitled to inject such opinions into policy considerations.

Making a political demonstration (Albania)

Now that I’ve belabored the language beyond anything it merits, I’ll get to my point: why was this still a major talking point several days after it was said to occur? Not that I don’t agree that it’s a shocking statement. But there’s nothing new in the president denigrating people, either individually or collectively, in often appalling terms. Did observers just then notice? We can all be as affronted as may be, but it does beg the question why we haven’t been affronted before. And if we have, why is Congress not calling him on it? I don't mean a censure or a speech; I mean taking action that separates the nation from such irresponsible statements, something that clearly says "This is not the position of the United States."

Now a month on, in the context of immigration (which is where the comment arose) what is more to the point is the president’s erraticism on the underlying issue: in the public performance piece on January 9, 2018, where Congressional leaders and the president negotiated immigration in a televised meeting, the president said he’d let Congress decide what to do and would sign whatever Congress brought to him, so long as it addressed his four identified concerns.

When Congress suggested a bipartisan compromise solution (that did address those concerns) on January 11, the president said it was unacceptable, citing specific things that he wanted which were not being offered. In other words, Congress wasn't just to address his concerns, it was supposed to address them in the way he wanted them addressed. A wall, gosh darn it, is a big, beautiful physical wall and all the money for it has to be provided RIGHT NOW, for some reason, even before the hugely expensive prototypes have been fully evaluated or costed out.

So much for leaving it up to Congress.

He then claimed that Democrats had failed to negotiate, and were the reason that there was no progress. This again is a typical technique employed by this president: invite opponents to stand on a rug, then pull the rug out from under them, and say as they fall that they’re somehow responsible for the rug’s sudden removal.

In all the furor, Democrats ended up trying to force the president’s hand by shutting the government down. This was both heavy-handed and stupid; a good deal of the public support they'd garnered from the president's outhouse remarks was flushed straight down the sewer drain. Hard as it may be to do, Congress has to keep to the high road (or maybe it’s more accurate to say Congress has to FIND the high road).

Now the president's come up with his own solution--never mind what happened to his relying on  Congress; it's gotta be his way--which is cleverly designed to offer more than the Democrats asked for on DACA recipients, while draconian on all the other immigration issues.

This president, claim the members of his party, has to be worked with because, like it or not, he is the president, and besides, some of the GOP members like his policies. But here’s the thing: if everyone takes a deep breath, and realizes that they’re all privies to the U.S. national interest, and that the president is harming that interest, they might find a way to work together and work around the president, for better legislation that actually responds to the interests of ALL of the electorate. A veto can be overridden, after all.

It’s probably asking too much. It’s entirely possible that the actual outhouse might be Congress… though the excrement there is more in the nature of that excreted by large farm animals.