The Public Life of Burritos

Is it hypocritical for Trump administration staffers to eat at a Mexican restaurant?

[Stephen Miller] decided on Espita Mezcaleria in the Shaw neighborhood of Washington D.C., whose menu features dishes from southern Mexico, including a vegetarian mole verde for $22 and fish tacos “to share” for $35. A fellow diner called him a “real-life fascist.”

Two days later, U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, who helps oversee the implementation of “zero tolerance,” had a similar south of the border craving.

A group of Democratic Soclialists, including a paralegal with DoJ, protested against Nielsen inside the restaurant, forcing her to leave.

And the owners of a restaurant in Virginia told press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she was unwelcome and should leave. No inapt analogies to bakers and gay wedding cakes, please.

There were lines that weren’t crossed in the past. It’s not because the law forbade such action. It didn’t. It’s not because people didn’t harbor hatred or shriek the sky was falling. They did. These were the unwritten traditions, some might chalk them up to civility but that’s too loaded a word today as well, of keeping politics separate from private lives. Even the most hated politician, who was doing the most horrible thing ever, was left alone when he was eating a meal, with his family, taking some time to himself.

Now everything is fair game. There is no sanctuary from the storm.

To the insipid, this is understandable and acceptable, since whoever they hate deserves to be hated, and the hated deserve to be made miserable at all times. It’s no longer that something must be done, but that something must be done no matter what. The traditions, like kids are out of bounds, or you don’t speak ill of the dead, must give way to the outrage. In the minds of the unduly passionate, it’s not that these traditions are wrong or shouldn’t exist, but the target of their fury is so deserving, so evil, that it cannot be contained.

To note that this is unlikely to be acceptable when the other edge of the sword meets those whom they don’t hate is obvious. It only applies to the people you despise, since obviously the people you like aren’t deserving, which is why you don’t hate them.

There is little doubt that Stephen Miller makes a great target. What smarmy little jerk doesn’t? But even he needs to eat, and as awful as he may be, should be allowed to eat in peace. As much as you may feel he’s so awful, so horrible, that it transcends any norms of separating the public and private lives of people involved in politics, this rationalization holds true for every administration that’s held office. There is always someone who hates them, who believe they’re the personification of evil and that they should enjoy not a second of peace, not a bite of burrito, without being confronted by those who wish them ill.

When people internalize the insanely overheated rhetoric, that a president is “literally Hitler,” his supporters are Nazis and they must be stopped, no matter what, the next step is violence. When there are no norms worthy of respect because this time, this president, this administration is bringing the Apocalypse, some nutjob will act upon it and be the martyr to the cause. He will see the applause shown the protesters who won’t let Nielsen eat a meal, the restaurant owner who would throw Sander’s family out, and will take it that one baby step farther.

And hard as it is to imagine, when the tide turns, these norms of letting public officials have unmolested private lives will be gone when the other team, which is obviously wrong, do the same to the good guys who replaced the terrible guys. Or even worse, no good guys will want the job because they fear that they will never be able to enjoy a moment of quiet, feel secure that their children won’t be molested by the other team, if there is no respect for our tradition of leaving public officials alone in their private times.

59 thoughts on “The Public Life of Burritos

  1. Patrick Maupin

    Who knew how literally “Starve the beast” would be taken by the opposition?

    And what happens when the madness spreads to grocery stores? Will all the staffers be reduced to ordering sustenance online and hoping against hope that their boss stops trying his best to piss off Bezos?

  2. Hunting Guy

    Robert Heinlein

    “Sick cultures show a complex of symptoms such as you have named…but a dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot.”

    1. REvers

      I wonder what Heinlein would have to say about the current political climate? I can guess, of course, but it would be fascinating to hear it in his own words.

  3. Mario Machado

    The joke’s already on them for paying $35 for tacos. Want to twist the knife? Walk by the table and recommend the $80 fajitas.

    But, it’s Trump’s employees, so new rules apply. They’ll get cheap histrionics with a side of extra stupid instead.

  4. Richard Kopf

    SHG,

    Had I been Mr. Miller, I would have punched the rude protestor in the mouth, walked out of the Mexican joint without paying the bill and decamped to the Biergarten Haus, 1355 H St NE, Washington, DC. The German pub grub is to die for.

    All the best.

    RGK

    1. Mike G.

      Thanks Yer Honor. God forbid I ever have to go back to DC, I’ll try it out. Do you remember if they have Jaegersnitzel(sp) and Saumagen?

      1. Richard Kopf

        Mike G.,

        No sow’s stomach. After all, it’s D.C., not Ilbesheim. However, they do have Jägerschnitzel, a pork cutlet served with a Mushroom Hunter Sauce.

        All the best.

        RGK

        1. Greg Prickett

          Sir, had I known you liked German food, I would have invited you down to DFW a long time ago. One of our nation’s best German restaurants is in Plano, a suburb just north of Dallas, the Bavarian Grill. While the Jägerschnitzel there is good, I would recommend the Kase Platten to start, followed by their Schweinshaxe (it melts in your mouth), and followed with Apfelstrudel mit Vanilla Sosse. We can wash it down with either a Schneider Weisse Original Hefeweizen (if you like dark beer) or a Helles Schlenkerla Lagerbier (if you prefer a light beer).

          Of course, someone will have to bring a wheelbarrow to cart me out afterwards…

            1. Dan Quigley

              But you missed the opportunity to tie this all up neatly with something from the Flying Burrito Brothers.

              note: Sorry for blowing the order here, but I can’t reply to the Liberace post.

            2. Greg Prickett

              Dan, I’m ignoring both his bratwurst and Liberace posts as being the product of an obviously inebriated mind…. probably from wine, as all beer drinkers like brats…. lol

    2. SHG Post author

      Understandable, Judge, since in a battle wits, Miller would be unarmed and would have no option but to resort to fisticuffs.

      1. Richard Kopf

        SHG,

        I would pay to see him resort to fisticuffs. A pillow fight maybe.

        All the best.

        RGK

  5. Jay

    Given that you refuse to acknowledge what Trump is doing, this article is totally unsurprising. You are now that old guy without a clue. Maybe stop commenting on politics you don’t understand?

    1. Dan Quigley

      That was my visceral reaction when I read this. However, SHG is darkly right about an increased potential for the downstream impacts he mentions as a result of these disrespectful behaviors (which I took to be the central point). Outright lies, intentional misrepresentations, and mischaracterizations, no matter who employs them, are disrespectful, especially when there is evidence of an underlying arrogance when advancing them. Reacting with more deliberate disrespect is not the answer.

      1. SHG Post author

        I suspect Jay would be willing to pay the price. Others, who have lived through a few of the “worst ever” things politics has to offer, might have a broader view of whether this is, indeed, the end of times.

      2. Jake

        We’re not concerned about being thrown out of cracker barrel because we don’t eat there. -Coastal lib

    2. Richard Kopf

      Jay,

      Respectfully, and I mean it, what principle, political or otherwise, do you rely upon for accepting and perhaps encouraging the verbal harassment of government officials as they privately eat dinner at a restaurant? In short, I have no clue too. Please educate me.

      All the best.

      RGK

    3. Skink

      A primary rule of discourse, which is conversation about important stuff, is to be understood and clear. They are not the same thing. As always, you fail.

      “Given that you refuse to acknowledge what Trump is doing, this article is totally unsurprising.”

      This is a blog; what is written is a post. This isn’t a newspaper; it isn’t an article. “What Trump is doing,” should be followed by what Trump is doing. That’s simple discourse. By the way, he isn’t doing anything. Thinking people, like the people here, know he can’t personally do anything. A president has very little authority to decide anything. The authority is in the office, not the person.. As for the conclusion to this sentence, did you actually understand the post? That’s rhetorical.

      “You are now that old guy without a clue.” If you want to be understood, that sentence would be a clause, which would be followed by something approximating an explanation. Again, a “because” sort of clause would help you say whatever it is you’re attempting. Don’t you see that you’re attempting to denigrate SHG without making even a gentle foray toward that goal?

      “Maybe stop commenting on politics you don’t understand?”

      That isn’t a question. Sister Mary Therese taught me grammatical questions in the second grade. I’m sure you didn’t have a class with her. but someone made this attempt with you. Maybe you missed that day, but what happened in the decades since?

      This isn’t minor stuff, Jay. If you want your argument heard, it must be made in a manner that doesn’t make you look like an imbecile. If you pose your argument like an imbecile, your argument appears imbecilic. Get it?

      But you’ve done a remarkable thing: in three sentences, you said stupid stuff without making anyone stupider. That’s because no one listened.

    4. Nemo

      Let me see, the first sentence is a lie coupled with a reinforcing subordinate clause, for emphasis. The second sentence is an insult direct. Fun examples of what our Host was decrying, but it’s the last line that seals the deal:

      “Maybe stop commenting on politics you don’t understand?”

      While couched as a question/request, the nature of it is more of an order, since it repeats the previous insult, and commands SHG to toe the party line or shut up. at no point did you discuss any content of the article, and we are all now slightly dumber for having read it.

      My opinion (which is worth approximately what you paid me for it, added value is up to you) is that your comment reveals the basis for the issues laid out in the article, simply put, ‘our team’ must hold the other team accountable. The extent that ‘our team’ holds its own ‘accountable” is limited to stopping criticism of the Good Guys and re-directing it towards the Bad Guys, just as you tried here.

      And that’s the politics of the last decade or more, in a nutshell. We’ve been trying to “hold the Bad Guys accountable” on both sides of the aisle, and it has brought us to the current situation. Along the way, both sides have escalated their efforts to do this, and things have gotten progressively worse.

      Your comment reveals other things, as well, but since I tend to ramble and rant, today, my jurisdiction end here. My apologies for going long, but my editorial energy ended with chopping off the last half of this – which was still unfinished.

      Regards,

      Nemo

  6. Jake

    “No inapt analogies to bakers and gay wedding cakes, please.”

    Fear not, in one case it was a restaurant owner exercising their legal and well not customary right to toss out an individual for being an asshole, and in the other…An asshole discriminating against an entire class of people.

  7. Joseph

    Exposing officials to things they don’t want to hear is a timeless American tradition. I am unaware of any folk tradition dividing society into designated protest zones and protest-free zones other than maybe the right to be left alone in one’s own home, which restaurants and other public accommodations are not. (If an originalist aside can be made, colonial America certainly wasn’t in the habit of respecting the private time of loyalists even decades before the outbreak of war.)

    Nielsen and Miller might prefer they be exposed to citizens’ opinions they don’t like only during designated public comment periods, or not at all, but as neither are in the habit of holding town hall meetings the only time a citizen can make their voice heard by either is in their ostensibly private time. Even if you don’t encourage it, why shouldn’t people “accept” that sometimes people may be forced to hear things they don’t want to? The treatment received by Miller and Sanders was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to effectively deprive them of general access to the public accommodation we call restaurants.

    1. Richard Kopf

      Joseph,

      You conclude: “The treatment received by Miller and Sanders was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to effectively deprive them of general access to the public accommodation we call restaurants.” With respect, that’s hardly the point.

      Let’s flip the story. If former Attorney General Holder was having dinner with Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates at a soul food joint, and I screamed in front of all the patrons “Look real life hypocrites” would you approve?

      This is simple. Don’t be an asshole to people you disagree with while they are having dinner. It is gauche.

      All the best.

      RGK

      1. Joseph

        Dear Judge Kopf,

        No, I don’t think I would approve, because I don’t think the charge of mere hypocrisy is serious enough to justify interrupting someone’s dinner. But I would be more sympathetic if somebody angry about something more serious, like the gunwalking deaths, shouted at Holder about it in a restaurant. If someone thinks that an official’s decisions shock the conscience enough to justify intruding on their dinner I’m not likely to complain about said someone’s actions even if they are gauche.

        There are activities which I think are entitled to some level of dignity against intruding voices. I don’t think anyone should be accosted, say, at a funeral, or at a child’s graduation, or perhaps while on the privy. But eating is an ordinary life activity no more solemn than jogging or doing laundry or waiting for the bus. If somebody loudly accused Comey and Strzok of conspiring to destroy the Republic from the other end of the bar, or declared that Hillary’s comment about deplorables was so profoundly un-American that she should never be allowed to step into a soul food restaurant again, I would should shrug my shoulders and call the occasional receipt of uninvited criticism one of the occasional hazards of political life.

        I was going to add a statement along the lines of “if you make decisions that intrude on people’s private lives, don’t be surprised when people’s private lives come to intrude on you” before I remembered that I was talking to a federal judge, at which point I became aware that such a statement coming from someone not in public service and who goes out of his way to post unidentifiably was nothing more than crass self-indulgence. But as I thought it, I figured I might as well mention that I did.

        Regards,
        Joseph

        1. Richard Kopf

          Joseph,

          Sorry for the late reply. I thank you for your thoughtful response.

          Well argued! You and I simply disagree, and that’s perfectly fine.

          All the best.

          RGK

        2. Erik H

          If someone thinks that an official’s decisions shock the conscience enough to justify intruding on their dinner I’m not likely to complain about said someone’s actions even if they are gauche.

          ….if you make decisions that intrude on people’s private lives, don’t be surprised when people’s private lives come to intrude on you

          Just to be certain that you’ve thought this through:

          In a country of 300 million people, would you agree that there is probably someone whose conscience is shocked by just about anything, even if it’s an action which you and I would find perfectly fine? Most of the civil litigants I represent are sure that the other party has committed the Worst Thing Ever.

          Are you so sure you’ll be on the right side of the line–both in the “shock the conscience” and “affect other people” respects?

  8. Nemo

    Love the clip title. Since when did ganging up on someone you disagree with and shouting them out the restaurant become “heroic”, especially when the staff takes the side of the yellers? Millennial heroism; it’s quick, easy, and almost entirely free of risk.

    Just one more word that has lost all meaning, I guess.

    Nemo

      1. Nemo

        They did it for the “likes”, of which I’m sure they had plenty. They got paid in the coin they demanded, IOW. There’s a verse or two in the New Testament about people who make public displays of piousness, and their reward.

        I’m not required to tip them, on top of that, although I’m sure they view constructing a good paragraph as needing a heroic effort. If they want my praise, maybe something hard, such as totaling five two-digit numbers in their head. I’ve been told that things like that are a sign of mathematical “genius” by the younger set, so I’m not holding my breath.

    1. Hunting Guy

      Mr. T, wearing a MAGA hat, is walking down the street or in a restaurant. Mr. H comes up and gets in their face. Mr. T fears for his life, pulls a pistol and shoots Mr. H.

      We’ve been tiptoeing around it, but it’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

        1. James

          Thing is this has already happened. Example: In 2016 Darnell Hall was arrested for allegedly shooting Paul Jones Jr in a Cleveland bar over Paul Jones Jr claims that Trump would make a fine president.

            1. James

              None. Some random guy talking in a bar (reference to Hunting Guys 800 pound gorilla). Depending on reports, Jones wasn’t even talking with Hall. Hall just overheard the conversation and was offended.

  9. Justin

    Good post.

    I have to say, some of this feels more petty than you touched on in your post. Like, not only are we doing away with the rules of civility, but there’s a distinct feeling that the media wants voters to see all this. I’ve often suspected some of this is a form of punishment for not electing Hillary. Like, we could address this as controversy, but this is what happens when you vote an evil man into the White House.

  10. Lawrence Kaplan

    Already all over the internet people are comparing Sander’s being refused service to the baker gay wedding cake case. Speak about making people stupider.

  11. B. McLeod

    “Mexican restaurant” is a vague categorization. If you can’t order tripas, it isn’t the real thing. (At most restaurants that claim the label, you can’t). Nevertheless, many places that bill themselves as “Mexican” restaurants will offer very tasty Mexicali or Tex-Mex fare, sometimes with a few authentic Mexican dishes also on the menu. I patronize a lot of these establishments. I like the food, and also the people. Around here, they tend to be people who citizens and third-generation descendants of legal immigrants. Some of them still have family connections in Mexico and send money to Mexico and go back to Mexico for two weeks at Christmas. I have no issues with any of that. They’re here legally. The immigration debate is about that, and we get along. None of them have a problem serving me, and I tip well, plus bring a lot of other folks around. This thing with protesting where officials eat is stupid.

  12. Quinn Martindale

    This is profoundly silly. DIsruptive protest has a much longer and wider tradition than the “norms of letting public officials have unmolested private lives” which is not actually a norm.

    1. Morgan O.

      Awfully nice of you to clear that up for us, old boy. I’m sure any minute now, you’ll provide us with the Thomas Paine reference where he suggested interrupting the Governor’s dinner.

      Also, has it occurred to you that tactically speaking, disruptive protests that don’t disrupt the workplace but do generate personal animus on the part of the powerful might be…counterproductive? I mean these people are Literally Hitler. They haven’t started rounding people up yet, but I bet “Protect Public Servants From Harassment Act” would make it through Congress without even burning it down.

    2. Skink

      “This is profoundly silly. DIsruptive protest has a much longer and wider tradition than the “norms of letting public officials have unmolested private lives” which is not actually a norm.”

      So does beheading. What’s your point?

      I don’t suppose you have a problem with this Member of Congress:
      “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.
      Source: CNN

Comments are closed.