What's Tony Thinking

State of Emergency? Guess Not

The Democratic Party has long been telling us that a possible Trump Restoration constitutes a State of Emergency. But I guess they don’t really mean that. It was, apparently, mostly just talk.

At least the D’s don’t seem to be acting as if a potential Trump triumph in November, along with down-ballot losses in the Senate and House, require anything like all-hands-on-deck and man-your-battle stations response. Nothing like “in the face of this threat personal and factional agendas must be, for the time being, set aside. Sacrifices must be made.”

But then “States of Emergency” don’t seem to be what they used to be or what you might think the words would imply.

Seattle declared homelessness to be a “state of emergency” in 2015, nine years ago, without notable impact on the problem. True, a Regional Homeless Authority was created and a lot of money spent. But, at least in our part of Seattle, homelessness looks about the same. And downtown Seattle continues to be a place to avoid.

If the D’s response to the Trumpian Emergency is to boost Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket, that would be another indication that they don’t think we’re facing anything all that serious. There’s certainly a lot more talk about Harris replacing her boss. But that strikes me as the “it’s her turn” thinking that gave us Hillary Clinton’s failed candidacy in 2016.

Or it’s the continuing triumph of identity politics, wherein electing “the first” of this or that group is what it’s all about and in itself a sufficient accomplishment. You don’t need to actually do the job, just “represent.”

Back in 2022 Tom Friedman called for a 2024 “National Unity Ticket” made up of Joe Biden and Liz Cheney. Now something like that that would signal real seriousness. But now no one is considering anything even close to that.

Hyperbolic language can come back to bite you. Pretty much the moral of the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

And yet hyperbole and the language of crisis, catastrophe and apocalypse have become the norm. The effect of it all is that we may not be able to tell the difference between a real but manageable problem, an important challenge and a true crisis, not to mention a genuine state of emergency.

My hunch is that the real effect of our all-too-ready resort to extreme language is exhaustion and apathy. If everything is “a crisis,” then nothing is a crisis.

So I guess Trump’s re-election won’t be that big of a problem after all?

I beg to differ. Exhibit A: the Supreme Court.