Columns

The so-called ‘level playing field’ — such that it is — will never be level, not in trade and not in life

It’s war! A trade war, that is.

The United States is now in open conflict with China over age-old questions of who sells what to whom and at what price.

After the Trump administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum in a desperate attempt to artificially prop up failing industries, China retaliated with $3 billion worth of tariffs of its own — on more than 120 U.S. products including pork, meat and fruit.

How do we know the U.S. steel and aluminum industries are failing? Because thriving industries don’t need much protection. Notice that Team Trump isn’t rescuing Google or Apple Computers.

Actually, it is Americans who need to be rescued — from the belief that there is any such thing as a level playing field. Those three little words represent the unicorn of the trade debate, a total fantasy that people like to talk about even if it will never materialize. Not ever.

In the global exchange of products and goods, the phrase “level playing field” has become “go-to” terminology.

President Trump loves the phrase. Last year, in discussing the devaluing of China’s currency, Trump promised that “eventually and probably very much sooner than a lot of people understand or think, we will be all at a level playing field.”

So do business leaders like Dave Burritt, CEO of U.S. Steel Corporation, who supported Trump’s tariffs on imported foreign steel and aluminum. “We are not protectionists. We want a level playing field. … It’s time for some fairness here. It’s past time.”

But support for the phrase is bipartisan. On his way to winning the U.S. House seat in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, Democrat Conor Lamb endorsed Trump’s tariffs as good for the economy and the country. Lamb said it was time to “take some action to level the playing field.”

The trouble is, the playing field — such that it is — will never be level, not in trade and not in life.

President John F. Kennedy had it right so many years ago. When asked by reporters at a press conference in March 1962 about political opposition to his plan to send more U.S. troops to Vietnam, Kennedy observed: “There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.”

Sometimes, that is what a president needs to say to the American people. Leaders tell them what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

For Trump, the trade debate is about two things: pressuring other countries to bend to his will on a host of issues like immigration and drugs, by hitting them in the pocketbook; and trying to alleviate the anxiety of America’s working class.

To those ends, we can expect Trump and his supporters to keep advancing the narrative that the United States and its people are being taken advantage of, that the country is suffering from a “trade deficit” estimated to be several hundreds of billions of dollars, and that government remedies such as tariffs are sometimes needed to give U.S.-made products a fair chance at competing in foreign markets.

To Americans struggling with lost jobs, falling wages, shuttered factories and diminishing hope — particularly in Rust Belt states like Ohio or Michigan — Trump’s demand for a level playing field is music to the ears.

It’s also a convenient way to avoid a fact of life that can make their lives difficult and uncomfortable: competition.

If anyone knows how to avoid the nuisance of having to compete for what you want, it is Donald Trump. For his entire life, Trump has benefited from an unlevel playing field that was bent in his favor.

It started at birth when Trump became part of a wealthy family of high-achievers.

He later attended the University of Pennsylvania where he was admitted — according to Trump biographer Gwenda Blair — as a favor from a “friendly” admissions officer who had known Trump’s older brother.

He started his real estate business with a loan from his father, Fred Trump Sr., which is estimated to be in the vicinity of $14 million. And after his father died, he inherited the bulk of the patriarch’s estate, which was valued at about $200 million.

And eventually, as a presidential candidate in the 2016 election, Trump crushed his Republican competition with the help of an estimated $2 billion of free media.

Life has been good to Trump. And, at times, it has been harsh to his competitors who no doubt could have benefited from a level playing field.

They didn’t get one. Why? See above. Because — as Trump sometimes needs to be reminded — there is no such thing.

Ruben Navarrette, a contributing editor to Angelus News, is a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post Writers Group, a contributor to USA Today and the Daily Beast, author of “A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano” and the host of the podcast “Navarrette Nation.”

SAN DIEGO — I’ve written about politics for 30 years, and I’ve been happily married for half as long. And, from making my way through the trenches of both adventures, here is what I’ve learned: My wife and I will at times disagree about politics. And, when this happens, I’m always wrong.

Well, that explains the “happily married” part.

Even so, I’m beginning to think that for many people, marriage and politics don’t mix. The mainstream media can’t make up their minds about whether a public figure ought to be able to answer for the beliefs of his or her spouse. And things get even murkier when those beliefs spark actions — political contributions, even tweets — that put the public figure in a tight spot.

Are we our spouses’ keepers? The uncomfortable truth is that, to a large degree, the answer depends on whether the person expected to keep their spouse in check is a man or woman.

When we’re talking about White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, the answer seems to be “yes.” But when it is NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd, or former FBI Assistant Director Andrew McCabe, it changes to “no.”

There seems to be a double standard for men and women. It is considered unfair to ask a man to answer for the political beliefs of his wife. But, even in 2018, we can’t seem to get beyond making that absurd demand of women.

And since we’re discussing absurdity, let’s check in with the cable network that has — in the era of Trump — taken that concept to new heights by taking itself way too seriously.

During a recent appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Conway was asked by host Dana Bash to explain tweets written by her husband, George, a prominent Washington lawyer and frequent critic of President Trump.

Conway hit the roof, accusing Bash of trying to “harass” her and dismissing the question as sexist. She brought up Hillary Clinton’s offensive suggestion from a few weeks ago that “white women” let their fathers, boyfriends and husbands tell them what to think about politics. Then Conway declared it “fair game” to talk about the spouses of people who work at CNN.

The whole segment made me cringe. When did journalism devolve into sophomoric bouts of gossip, innuendo and sniping?

On the defensive, Bash insisted that her question had nothing to do with gender. “I would ask you that if you were a man,” she told Conway. “No, you wouldn’t,” Conway fired back.

Bash suggested that it can be “hard” for two adults who are married to have different opinions. Conway seized on the word “hard” — asking “hard for whom?” The married couple? Or the media?

Conway acknowledged that it could be “difficult” for her children — who she said were probably watching — to see their mom have to defend their dad. But, she jabbed, the kids are used to witnessing a “double standard for their mother.”

Why should Conway be expected to comment on her husband’s political views? Since when is a wife accountable for what her husband tweets? And what does all this matter anyway?

The rules to this game have changed, folks.

It seems like just yesterday that we were being told by the media that it was totally irrelevant that Chuck Todd’s wife, Kristian Denny Todd, had done extensive consulting and communications work with Democrats, including former Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. Bernie Sanders, and contributed money to Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. Conservatives say that this amounts to a “conflict of interest” for the NBC newsman. Todd insists that his wife’s work doesn’t influence his views, and he claims that they have both been transparent about who does what.

We were also assured that Andrew McCabe isn’t responsible for the fact that his wife — while running unsuccessfully as a Democrat for the Virginia state Senate in 2015 — took in more than $675,000 from Democratic political action committees controlled by then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. It was McAuliffe, a longtime ally and confidante of Bill and Hillary Clinton who, according to The Wall Street Journal, urged Jill McCabe to run for office. Curiously, this was all about the same time that it was reported that Hillary Clinton had used a private email server while serving as secretary of state – a lapse in judgment that would ultimately be investigated by the FBI, whose leadership included Andrew McCabe. What a small world!

When Todd was asked by radio hosts about his wife’s political work, he bristled: “I don’t control her political opinions, and she doesn’t control mine.”

That’s a great line, Chuck. Can Kellyanne Conway borrow it?

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — In the Southwest, four governors are sending National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. To understand how dangerous this could be, you can listen to politicians or poets.

Consider what California Gov. Jerry Brown — the only Democrat in that cohort — said last week at the National Press Club in Washington. Reluctant to honor President Trump’s request for troops, but afraid to be seen as weak on immigration, Brown is in quite a pickle.

In his remarks to reporters, the governor of the Golden State downplayed his showdown with Trump. The president — who seems to enjoy using California as a foil — has accused the Democrat of undermining border security.

Last week, Brown — who claimed that California and the Trump administration are “pretty close to an agreement” — pledged to send as many as 400 National Guard troops to the border, but only on the condition that they not enforce immigration law or build a wall.

“Trying to stop drug smuggling, human trafficking and guns going to Mexico to the cartels, that sounds to me like fighting crime,” he said.

Hold on. Brown must think he is being clever, doing Trump’s bidding but on his own terms. Yet how are the California National Guard troops supposed to “fight crime” — which isn’t their job by the way — without interacting with illegal immigrants? Are troops supposed to arrest the human traffickers and not also take into custody the humans being trafficked?

“Trying to catch some desperate mothers and children, unaccompanied minors coming from Central America? That sounds like something else,” Brown said.

Agreed. To many Latinos, it sounds like someone is trying to bleach out the brown and make America white again.

Let’s consult with a band of Mexican poets who have — as naturalized U.S. citizens living in San Jose, California, since the 1960s — used music to decipher the Mexican diaspora.

To unpack the experience of working-class whites in the Rust Belt, you turn to Bruce Springsteen. But to decode what it means to be an undocumented Mexican immigrant living on this side of the line, you need to soak up the wisdom of Los Tigres del Norte — a band that has sold more than 30 million records.

In their cultural battle hymn, “Somos Mas Americanos,” an undocumented immigrant stands up to Americans who mistake workers for invaders and assume a war footing.

“Soy extranjero en mi tierra. Y no vengo a darles guerra. Soy hombre trabajador.”

(I’m a stranger in my own land. And I didn’t come to make war. I’m a working man.)

America is confused. We take in refugees from war-ravaged Syria — albeit a small number of them — but we won’t even give refugees from war-ravaged Central America an asylum hearing. We make a big show about keeping out illegal immigrants; and the party that is doing much of the chest-thumping — the GOP — is hooked on contributions from businesses that use illegal immigrant labor. We portray illegal immigrants as dangerous criminals, then we hand them our children and the digits to our home security code so they can make our lives more comfortable.

Does this make sense to anyone who isn’t binge watching Fox News and following the rants of dimwits in New York and Washington who don’t know the border from a burrito?

If tough-talking Trump and all the other anti-immigrant bullies are serious about stopping illegal immigration, they don’t have to send soldiers and build a wall. All they have to do is find the courage to bite the hand that feeds them. Start locking up employers, and the illegal immigrants they hire will skedaddle.

But beware. This isn’t as easy as picking on poorly educated non-citizens who don’t speak English and can’t defend themselves. Employers will fight back. And they know how to strike fear into the hearts of politicians with just six words: “I’m stopping payment on the check!”

Americans love to complain about illegal immigration, but they’ll never accept responsibility for it. Hire illegal immigrants? Who — us?

When Trump followed the lead of the last two presidents — one Democrat, one Republican — and ordered troops to the border, he let U.S. employers off the hook. He also told the world that it’s time to take up arms because the United States is being invaded. Truth is, a lot of the folks who come looking for work were pretty much invited.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — Paul Ryan has got to be looking forward to spending more time with his children, and less time defending a president who can’t stop acting like an adolescent.

For the speaker of the House — who says he will leave Congress after this term and not run for office again — making lunches and driving carpool is a step up from having to comment daily on Twitter tantrums or the credibility of porn stars.

As for Ryan’s credibility, it has seen better days. The Wisconsin Republican was so eager to remain relevant in his party during the Trump Era that he made a deal with the Devil. And, as usual, the Devil got the better end of the bargain.

With the GOP facing the prospect of big losses in November, media commentators wasted no time in accusing Ryan of deserting a sinking ship. There is no doubt that his departure makes for bad optics, and that he did his party no favor by announcing his plans seven months before the election.

But, in Ryan’s defense, what has the Republican Party done for him? Not much, other than electing Trump and inflicting him on the GOP establishment in Washington. Thanks for nothing, folks. Ryan doesn’t owe his fellow Republicans a thing.

The real letdown was suffered by political moderates who thought Ryan was a new and improved, kinder and gentler Republican 2.0. They should have known better. If you put your faith in politicians, you had better get comfortable with being misled, betrayed, conned and disappointed.

And for Latinos who bristle at racism, and who search for moderate Republicans they can support because Democrats have failed them, the disappointment du jour is Ryan. The speaker started out as one of the good ones. He was a Republican with a heart and a brain, when many in the GOP are missing one or the other — and sometimes both. And his compassion and reasonableness led you to give a hearing to his center-right policies on trade, taxes and smaller government.

As a protege of Jack Kemp, Ryan learned from the best. The late Republican congressman and U.S. Housing Secretary was loved and respected by Latinos and African-Americans because he didn’t treat them like villains or victims but as fellow citizens.

One lesson from the School of Kemp was to always give people respect and approach them as equals. Another was that the GOP could use its love of freedom and opportunity to lure voters of all colors and backgrounds into “a big tent” if it didn’t turn them off with exclusionary racial rhetoric that sounded like “us vs. them.” And on immigration, that it was fine to oppose illegal entry but that it was also a good idea to acknowledge the economic, cultural and societal benefits of legal immigration — and resist destructive efforts to cut it.

In speeches and online campaign material, Ryan would insist that he was against “amnesty.” Then he would go on to embrace it by saying that he favored “legalizing” the undocumented and wanted to “give people a chance to get right with the law.”

In January 2017, during a CNN town hall, Ryan was confronted by a woman whose parents brought her to the United States without papers at age 11, and who had been in the country for 21 years since then and now had a daughter of her own. The woman asked him: “Do you think that I should be deported?”

To which Ryan responded: “I can see that you love your daughter and you’re a nice person who has a great future ahead of you, and I hope your future’s here.” He went on to call for “a humane solution to this very legitimate, sincere problem.” And when asked about Trump’s promise to create a “deportation force,” the speaker said that sort of thing is “not happening.”

In June 2016, Ryan told reporters that Trump’s claim that U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel could not be objective in deciding a case involving Trump University because the U.S.-born jurist is “Mexican” fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Yet, once Trump was elected, Ryan fell in line behind Trump in order to push a GOP agenda that included $1.4 trillion in tax cuts.

Such a tragic final act for one of the few Republicans left who believed in a big tent. Now all we’re left with are those who feel more comfortable in a circus tent.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — At the risk of being “unfriended” by members of Congress, there was a lot not to “Like” about the legislative branch’s assault this week on a certain social media site.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat for hours over two days in separate hearings before House and Senate committees. The 33-year-old took questions from dozens of lawmakers — including many senior citizens who didn’t seem to understand how the site works.

I wonder if this was what it was like for my parents’ generation, when folks wrung their hands and worried themselves sick in the 1950s over this new-fangled abomination called “rock ‘n’ roll.”

I’m going to tell you what the Facebook hearings were really about. But first, we have to be clear on what they were (BEG ITAL)not(END ITAL) about.

The hearings were not about the privacy of Americans, who voluntarily relinquish that privacy when they choose to open a Facebook account and then choose to post personal data on their page to seek the approval of family, friends and complete strangers. As Zuckerberg told lawmakers, Facebook’s users call the shots as to who sees what — if for no other reason than that they can vote with their “delete” button and leave the site. They choose what to reveal — and to whom.

Nor were the hearings about the need for Zuckerberg to apologize for the fact that a Republican presidential candidate successfully used in 2016 much the same data-collection methods that were successfully used by a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012. The Republicans essentially beat the Democrats at their own game.

And nor were the Facebook hearings about getting closure on the 2016 election. That won’t happen. Neither Hillary Clinton nor President Trump will let the election go. Now congressional Democrats suggest that the reason that young people, African-Americans, Latinos, working-class whites and probably some members of the Obama administration didn’t vote for Clinton was because a sinister third party hijacked their Facebook data and created anti-Hillary propaganda.

Speaking of apologies, Democrats need to apologize to the American people for the original sin of picking as their presidential nominee such a flawed, unappealing and unelectable candidate. After all, does anyone really believe that we would be here at this exact spot if Clinton had been elected because she remembered that there are voters in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? And what if Clinton had won the election and done so in part because of successful mining of Facebook data? Democratic lawmakers would be giving Zuckerberg a medal — or at least a “thumbs-up” emoji.

I miss the ol’ days when lackluster presidential hopefuls — whether they were Democrats like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, or Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney — owned up to their failures. Nowadays, losers blame everyone from the FBI to the Russians to the media to Facebook.

These hearings were about what most things in Congress are usually about: power and money. Zuckerberg has plenty of both, and the lawmakers want their slice. And they will shame, flatter, threaten and arm-twist to get it.

As for power, Zuckerberg has an audience of more than 2.2 billion monthly users and the ability to call together a couple dozen of Silicon Valley’s top technology leaders at a summit to discuss best practices — something that, by the way, more than one lawmaker asked him to do to advance their pet causes.

As for money, Forbes and Bloomberg both put Zuckerberg’s net worth at about $70 billion. He lost an estimated $15 billion due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But he made back $3 billion after his first day of congressional testimony.

Politicians need money like an opioid addict needs pills. So each time one of them told Zuckerberg during the hearings that he or she looked forward to “following up” with him, that could’ve been the signal. The bite is coming. This was no shake up. This was a shakedown. At least Tony Soprano did it with more style.

Again, we started this. We made Zuckerberg rich and powerful. All because of our insatiable need to share stuff and show off our “perfect” relationships, vacations, children and cuisine. How much of it is real? They ought to call it “Falsebook.”

For some people, it’s not about sharing but stirring. They like to know they’re having an effect on other people.

That reminds me. After this column runs, I’ll probably post it on Facebook. Hope you “Like” it.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

About five years ago, a friend from Mexico who studies how marketing experts manipulate consumer habits put on a slideshow made up of symbols, and then asked me what word popped into my head with each image.

There was one symbol — which was actually a popular brand name — that conjured up the word “success.” For Mexicans in particular, this brand was gold-plated and generated positive feelings of accomplishment, power, and respect.

The brand name? “Trump.”

For our neighbors south of the border, those days are gone. The last time U.S.-Mexico relations were this bad, U.S. troops were marching south.

The notorious 19^th century invasion and land grab that history records as the U.S.-Mexican War resulted in Mexico losing nearly half its territory. One memorable story involves the Niños Héroes, six teenaged military cadets who fought bravely to their deaths instead of surrendering to U.S. troops during the Battle of Chapultepec Castle. One cadet wrapped himself in the Mexican flag and leapt to his death. The war ended when the neighboring countries exchanged ratifications of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.

Now, seven decades later in 2018, President Trump seems to be spoiling for a rematch.

It is as if Trump has some sort of deep psychological hang-up with our Southern neighbor. He doesn’t belong in the White House. He belongs on a couch.

Those suffering the brunt of his psychosis include Mexicans in Mexico, Mexican migrants in the United States, and Mexican-Americans who have lived here for generations.

I have friends in all three tribes.

Consider the trauma of Mexican-Americans. You might think that most of these folks wouldn’t have much of a problem with Trump’s attacks on Mexico and Mexicans because they are often far removed — by time, distance, assimilation — from the lives of their Mexican ancestors.

After all, Mexico betrayed our parents and grandparents. If Mother Mexico had provided sufficient opportunity for its children, they wouldn’t have had to run away from home and start families of their own north of the border. Mexican-Americans have the right to hold a grudge against the homeland.

Yet many Mexican-Americans are offended by Trump’s anti-Mexico tantrums. They tell me that, when he talks in a demeaning way about Mexican immigrants, they feel as if he could be talking about their own parents and grandparents.

First, they were told — by the most anti-Mexican president since Dwight Eisenhower, who loaded Mexicans onto railroad cars during Operation Wetback in 1954 — that Americans need a “big beautiful wall” on the border to keep out Mexicans because they’re criminals and rapists, that they and their ancestors were far from “the best” that Mexico has to offer, and that the system of admitting legal immigrants to the U.S. must be revamped so that future arrivals come with more education and skills.

Whether the issue is drugs, trade, immigration or national security, Trump never passes up a chance to insult Mexico.

Now he has resorted to blackmail. Issues that have nothing to do with one another get mixed together. If Mexico wants the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) t continue, the president warns, it must stop the flow of drugs and immigrants into the United States.

You would think that someone who never tires of telling people how he is “really smart” would grasp the law of supply and demand. Mexico supplies what the United States demands.

Trump’s tantrums are no way to treat a reliable friend and trusted ally. Mexico isn’t just the United States’ No. 2 trading partner after Canada. It’s also a key ally in the war on terror, regularly passing along vital information that helps U.S. authorities thwart attacks and keep the homeland safe.

Recently, Donald Trump tweeted about a “caravan” of migrants coming from Central America through Mexico and headed toward the United States. On April 3, Trump warned Mexican officials — in a tone usually reserved for parents disciplining teenagers — that the caravan “…had better be stopped before it gets there.” Two days later, once the caravan had splintered, Trump tweeted: “The Caravan is largely broken up thanks to the strong immigration laws of Mexico and their willingness to use them so as not to cause a giant scene at our Border…”

The president is the one making a scene — and, in the process, destroying one of our most valuable relationships.

A president’s first responsibility isn’t to chart a course for the future but to not repeat the mistakes of the past. The escalation of insults, tensions, and provocations that led to the U.S.-Mexican War was a dark and dead-end road. Americans should not travel it again.

Ruben Navarrette, a contributing editor to Angelus News, is a syndicated columnist with The Washington Post Writers Group, a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, a Daily Beast columnist, author of “A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano” and host of the podcast “Navarrette Nation.”

SAN DIEGO — How’s this for a whodunnit: Who really killed the deal to save Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — President Trump or congressional Democrats?

The question isn’t simply, “Who killed DACA?” We know the answer to that. It was Trump who nixed the Obama-era program last September and then called on Congress to provide a permanent legislative solution by March 5.

After lawmakers missed that deadline, the judicial branch came to the rescue. A federal judge declared that the administration could not pull the rug out from under DACA recipients by changing the rules. So, while no new applications are being taken, existing applicants have a certain degree of protection as long as they continue to renew their status.

It’s a Band-Aid over a bullet wound. It’s also a lost opportunity to offer legal status and eventual citizenship not only to roughly 700,000 DACA recipients but also — under a generous proposal from the White House in January — another 1.1 million Dreamers not enrolled in the program.

Yet the question of who derailed, over the last few months, the political negotiation to save DACA is more complicated.

Sadly, when they talk about immigration, neither liberals nor conservatives are proficient in “complicated.” That would require honesty about the fact that neither political party cares much about the Dreamers, and both have done a lousy job of dealing with the low-hanging fruit of the immigration debate.

After all, if lawmakers won’t give legal status to undocumented young people who have lived in the United States their entire lives, speak English fluently, go to college, have jobs and followed the rules to register for DACA, then how will they ever have the bandwidth and backbone to legalize their working-class, less-educated and less-assimilated parents?

However, both parties are fluent in the languages of over-simplification, blame shifting, and self-preservation through avoidance of the topic. That’s why most of the chatter coming out of Washington about DACA and Dreamers amounts to feverish attempts by both parties to malign the other side.

Trump is good at this game. Unlike most Republicans, when it comes to immigration, he doesn’t wait to be attacked as callous, indifferent or racist. He goes on the offensive.

The president recently tweeted: “DACA is dead because the Democrats didn’t care or act, and now everyone wants to get onto the DACA bandwagon … No longer works. Must build Wall and secure our borders with proper Border legislation. Democrats want No Borders, hence drugs and crime!”

For Trump, talking — or tweeting — about immigration is like making stew. DACA? Wall? Border? Drugs? Crime? Sure, put them all in. Stir vigorously. Then bring to a boil.

Still, the president is not wrong to fault Congress for its dithering on DACA. Neither party even broke a sweat the last few weeks in trying to find a solution.

It’s all about fear. Republicans are paranoid that they will be pummeled by the Ann Coulter wing of the GOP, which includes the nativists that desperately want to make America white again. Democrats are just as afraid of trying to convince the beleaguered blue-collar voters they lost in the presidential election that the solution to their anxiety over lost jobs is to legalize more than a million young people who are eager to work.

How did we get here? Trump is not wrong that Democrats in Congress played a big role in undermining the Dreamers, and that goes all the way back to 2001, when the DREAM Act was first proposed. The Dreamers wouldn’t be on the brink of deportation — if that’s really where they are — if five conservative Democratic senators hadn’t killed the DREAM Act in December 2010. And since then, Democratic leaders have — one by one — sprinted away from Dreamers who demanded a legislative fix.

It’s not just that Democrats want to preserve a wedge issue, or that peeling off 1.8 million Dreamers from an undocumented population estimated at more than 11 million will hurt the chances of legalizing more people. It’s also that Democrats don’t want to be known as the “amnesty” party.

So when Trump laid out the terms under which he would legalize a whole bunch of young people — i.e., an end to “chain migration” — Democrats balked. Not because it was a bad deal for immigrants but because it was a bad deal for Democrats.

If you really think that the debate over DACA has anything at all to do with the Dreamers, then you’re the one who is dreaming.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — Many Americans born after the 1960s and the dawn of affirmative action seem to think that if you’re a person of color with even an ounce of smarts and a smidgeon of talent, all doors will magically fling open.

But reality is more complicated.

Consider the rise and fall — and recent resurrection — of Tavis Smiley.

This week, the veteran African-American broadcaster hosted a special program on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to mark the 50th anniversary of his assassination. “MLK50: A Call to Conscience” aired on The Word Network, which claims to be “the largest African-American religious network in the world.”

The 53-year-old has also signed on to host a new online series called “The Upside with Tavis Smiley” that will “celebrate the spirit of resilience” and be distributed over various platforms, including Apple TV, Amazon Fire and Roku.

This is not exactly the definition of keeping a low profile. That’s what damage control specialists will often tell those embroiled in a scandal.

In December, amid allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinates, PBS unceremoniously dumped Smiley when it indefinitely suspended the distribution of his nightly talk show after 14 years. Smiley quickly hit the airwaves to defend himself. Smiley admitted to “consensual” relations with employees. But he accused PBS of making a “huge mistake.”

PBS claimed that Smiley was inconsistent in his public statements and said he needed to get his “story straight.”

Now Smiley has filed a lawsuit against the network claiming racial bias and breach of contract. He calls PBS a “hostile work environment” and accuses the network of using the sexual allegations as “a pretext” to cut ties with him because he wasn’t the kind of African-American that PBS expected him to be. That includes being a grateful and obedient “team player.”

I’ll buy that. When you’re a person of color, nearly every opportunity comes with a rigid standard of how you’re supposed to behave, think and speak. Smiley could be part of the collateral damage of the #MeToo movement.

As I’ve written before, I’ve known Smiley for about 25 years, dating back to the time when the two of us — while still in our twenties — co-hosted a nightly radio show in Los Angeles.

In light of his new deal with The Word Network — along with a daily podcast, book deals, speeches, etc. — I’m tempted to say that Smiley has made a comeback. But the truth is, my old friend never left. Tavis Inc. has always been open for business — 24/7, 365 days a year. This is one media shop that never closes.

Yet his dismissal by PBS — which he still considers unjustified, as evidenced by the lawsuit — undoubtedly tarnished his brand and wounded him personally. He may even be wondering why it happened.

I have a theory: Some of this is about race. How could it not be? Until he was dismissed he was one of the only African-American hosts on television, and the only one to ever host a talk show on the network. That comes with a learning curve. It’s possible that PBS didn’t know how to navigate it. Besides, the media landscape can often be hostile to minorities.

Dating subordinates is not smart. It is also not new. Doctors date nurses. Pilots sleep with flight attendants. Senior partners at law firms date junior associates. Media is one of the worst offenders; I know one former newspaper editor who dated three reporters at the same time.

After our show ended in 1995, Smiley became a leading voice for African-Americans. He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Ebony magazine named him the No. 2 African-American change agent in media on its Power 150 list; No. 1 was Oprah Winfrey. Smiley makes people think. And he has made millions of dollars doing it.

Growing up in a large working-class family in Indiana with nine siblings, my friend came up from nothing and got this far in life the old-fashioned way — with lots of talent, long hours and dedication to his craft.

Along the way, Smiley stumbled. But he picked himself up, and — through hustle and hard work — he is still standing.

You see, in America, it’s true that the doors don’t just swing open. But they also don’t stay locked forever.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — Conservatives like to preach that people should take responsibility for their actions and not play the victim.

Thus, it is not a good look when they themselves refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead play the victim.

The latest right-wing victim is Laura Ingraham. The Fox News host is steadily bleeding advertisers from her primetime show after she messed with the wrong kid. She is now on a “preplanned vacation.”

Preplanned? If you believe something that far-fetched, you must be a regular viewer of Fox News’ primetime lineup. There, the theme seems to be: Democrat-voting illegal aliens are taking your guns!!

Things went awry when Ingraham mocked 17-year-old David Hogg in an attempt to defend the National Rifle Association. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student — who has called for stricter gun laws since the Feb. 14 shooting on that campus in Parkland, Florida — had revealed his college admissions setbacks during an interview on another network.

Firing up her 2.19 million followers on Twitter, @IngrahamAngle tweeted: “David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it. (Dinged by UCLA with a 4.1 GPA … totally predictable given acceptance rates.)”

Here you have Ingraham, a full-grown woman who — besides writing books and hosting a daily radio show — also has a nightly show on Fox News that attracts more than 2 million viewers, and she still finds time to pick a fight with a teenager.

Guess what? The teenager won. Via Twitter, Hogg playfully asked Ingraham for a list of her advertisers — saying he was “asking for a friend.” Then he called for a boycott.

Ingraham’s list is shorter now that nearly 20 companies have bailed, including Bayer, Office Depot, Hulu, Johnson & Johnson, TripAdvisor, Nutrish, Expedia, Honda and Nestle.

Conservatives responded by making whine.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tweeted: “@IngrahamAngle Your gutless former sponsors need to reflect, what little will be left of God given American Liberty if this de facto censorship persists?”

John Nolte, a writer for Breitbart: “Let us call this what it is — un-American McCarthyism, a partisan witch-hunt in which the establishment media is an active participant and cheerleader.”

Hulu pulls its ads off a TV show, and, all of a sudden, it’s a reboot of McCarthyism? Exaggerate much?

To help you navigate the nonsense, here are three things to keep in mind about L’Affaire Ingraham.

• Everyone has rights, and they are all free to exercise them. Ingraham has the right to tweet whatever she likes. But Hogg also has the right to take offense and call for a boycott. In turn, advertisers have the right to protect their brands by running away from an unpleasant figure like Ingraham. Finally, Fox News executives have the right to call Ingraham into their offices for a meeting and pull the plug on the whole show if that is what they ultimately decide to do.
• Other conservative talkers — most notably Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh — have survived boycotts. But they’re likable. Ingraham isn’t. I’ve listened to, and often enjoyed, her commentary for more than 20 years. She is smart and telegenic. She’s also mean, condescending and snarky. She is missing the chip that tells our subconscious: “Don’t say that. It’s not appropriate.” She says what pops into her head, with no filter. Heck, if you’re going to use social media, you ought to have social skills. Ingraham doesn’t.
• Young people like Hogg who play in the adult sandboxes of politics and media aren’t immune to criticism. But victims often can be. The Parkland students became experts in the gun debate the moment they found themselves staring down the barrel of a high-powered rifle. Just as pro-immigrant liberals shouldn’t downplay the suffering of families of those killed by illegal immigrants — like Kate Steinle, who was slain in July 2015 along a pier in San Francisco — pro-gun conservatives also shouldn’t attack the victims of school shootings.

If she wants to continue being invited into people’s homes, Ingraham needs to be the dinner guest that people hover around and not the one they flee. When she returns from vacation, she ought to be less acerbic and more humble. If she can’t do that, her bosses at Fox News should put her back on vacation. Permanently.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group

SAN DIEGO — Mexican-Americans are doing a stint in our own version of purgatory. It’s called the Trump Era.

After all, Donald Trump’s ascension into the world of politics — his campaign, election and presidency — has been filled with mean-spirited insults toward Mexicans and Mexican-Americans.

And on March 31, what would have been the 91st birthday of one of our most iconic figures, Cesar Chavez, Mexican-Americans must stomach the crushing irony that the farm labor leader’s anti-immigrant nativism and “America First” protectionism were early precursors to much of President Trump’s agenda.

The story of Chavez and the United Farm Workers union he helped start is a tale that I know quite well — perhaps too well.

As a native of the San Joaquin Valley, I was raised an hour’s drive from the town of Delano, which was ground zero for the UFW. Both my parents, and all four of my grandparents, picked fruits and vegetables. I’ve been studying, writing and speaking about Chavez and the union for more than 25 years. I have had separate and ugly confrontations with Chavez and UFW co-founder Dolores Huerta. I’ve seen the legend and the lore up close, warts and all.

Meanwhile, as a journalist, I’ve covered Trump since he came down the escalator at Trump Tower in June 2015, declared his candidacy, and said that my Mexican grandfather came to this country with “lots of problems” and brought crime and drugs. I’ve called Trump a racist, a bully and a demagogue. Then I got mean.

So, believe me: If this were Star Wars, Chavez would be telling Trump, in the voice of James Earl Jones: “Donald, I am your father.”

Trump thinks a lot about the U.S.-Mexico border. So did Chavez, who observed: “As long as we have a poor country bordering California, it’s going to be very difficult to win strikes.”

Trump is hostile to competition. So was Chavez, who used strikes to rig the law of supply and demand so that growers had to use laborers represented by the UFW.

Trump thinks that immigrants hurt U.S. workers by taking jobs and lowering wages. So did Chavez, who tried to protect union members by ridding the fields of non-unionized immigrant farm workers through what he called the “Illegals Campaign.” It used intimidation, violence, calls to immigration agents to report undocumented immigrants, and demands that those who crossed the picket line be arrested and deported.

Trump sees Mexicans as inferior — the kind of folks who come from what the president calls a “shithole.” So did Chavez, who — as someone who was born in the United States and saw the world as an American, not a Mexican — often referred to Mexican immigrants as “illegals” and “wetbacks.”

Trump pushes populism and bashes the rich and powerful. So did Chavez, who said: “History will judge societies and governments — and their institutions — not by how big they are or how well they serve the rich and the powerful, but by how effectively they respond to the needs of the poor and the helpless.”

Trump blames free trade for the loss of American jobs. So did Chavez, who — if he were alive today — would likely oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement as hurting union workers who have to compete with the productivity of workers in other countries and whose wages fall as a result.

Trump only cares about winning and doesn’t seem to have any moral qualms about how to get there. Chavez was the same way, and he observed at one point: “There is no law for farm labor organizing, save the law of the jungle.”

Finally, Trump has often been accused of carrying things too far and inciting violence. So was Chavez, who, despite preaching non-violence, was accused of condoning violence carried out by others. Case in point: the infamous “wet line.” In the 70s, Chavez’s cousin Manuel — on behalf of the UFW — set up a human barrier to stop Mexican immigrants from crossing the border by beating them bloody, according to reports like one in the Village Voice which accused the UFW of waging a “campaign of random terror.”

As a pair of petty, self-centered, unpleasant and deeply flawed human beings, Trump and Chavez would have gotten along great.

And with that realization, the purgatory in which we Mexican-Americans now find ourselves gets a bit more uncomfortable.

Ruben Navarrette’s email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com. His daily podcast, “Navarrette Nation,” is available through every podcast app.

(c) 2018, The Washington Post Writers Group