A Balanced View of Trump

Surely narcissism is a common complaint among politicians. Most of them care mostly about self-advancement. So, this isn’t saying much about Trump.

You’re right. That is a fantastically balanced view of Trump and a wonderful write up of Buckley.

The final few paragraphs (beginning with the one you quote in the post) remind me of something one of my colleagues here at GMU says:

“I can respect any person who held his nose and voted for Trump.”

What he means is what Brookhiser says: politics is calculation. A lot of people, like my friend, voted for Trump for a singular purpose: the Supreme Court (which personally I think his judicial appointments, with a few misfires, have been fantastic), to prevent Hilary, etc. You just had to hold your nose to do it.

In my personal view, Trump’s been better than I expected. He’s had great judicial appointments. he’s spent a lot of time deferring to Congress rather than just executive-order everything. He seems to have defeated ISIS. I’m fairly optimistic about how things go the remainder of his term.

@Bedarz Iliachi-

But how can a man who is, his defenders concede, just another self-advancing politician, inspire such worshipful devotion?

I asked the same question about Obama, and never got a satisfying answer

A wise economist once taught me to think on the margin. Charles Manson still had worshipful devotees on the day that he died. I would submit that, on balance, Trump has fewer fanatics than Obama. Again, what is our alternative? One party believes that high taxes and high regulations don’t harm the economy, but lip-service to open immigration and free trade is OK. So far, Trump has paid lip-service to protectionism. Immigration is not good, but at least, in part he’s restoring rule of law. You cannot oppose unlawful executive action AND support DACA. That would be illogical. The issue has to be solved by Congress, not the President. But on cutting regulations, appointing judges who believe that the Constitution means what it says, and taxes, Trump has been a success. When I think of Obama, I think of dead weight loss. Have you ever stayed at a Trump hotel? Gorgeous. Well run. Do you know what it takes to make that happen? Would you let Clinton or Obama run a supermarket? If I had my choice, F.A. Hayek would be President, but I didn’t get to vote for him. How’s that for a balanced view?

I think that if one evaluates Trump by looking at things that he did and things that he didn’t do, it is possible to have a balanced view, I guess. Or evaluate

But that is fundamentally the wrong way to look at it.

This is a man, after all, who won’t criticize Nazism. A man who openly laments the fact that, as President, he is not supposed to use the DoJ and FBI to throw his political opponents in jail. A man who openly criticizes the first admendent. One who does not deem physical abuse of 2 different wives by a subordinate to be a disqualifying characteristic… until it becomes public. One who openly uses his position to steer government (ie, taxpayer) money to himself and his cronies.

There’s no reasonable balanced view of any of that.

Sure, DoJ has thus far resisted Trump’s efforts to turn it into his own personal police force. That can hardly be considered a point in Trump’s favor, though.

Michael Byrnes

“I think that if one evaluates Trump by looking at things that he did and things that he didn’t do, it is possible to have a balanced view, I guess. Or evaluate

But that is fundamentally the wrong way to look at it.”

But since we know that institutions exist that make it impossible for Trump to follow through with his wilder whims, I would argue it is, in fact, the policies of his administration that matter most. Trump as a person isn’t as relevant as that.

Regarding criticizing the 1st amendment, not regarding abuse as disqualifying until it becomes public, refusing to criticize extremists – even violent ones – one one’s own side of the aisle, all three of these apply equally to, say, Hillary Clinton, the first and third apply to Barack Obama, and “openly uses his position to steer government (ie, taxpayer) money to himself and his cronies,” applies to most people in higher office.

Those who argue that power is in the wrong hands underestimate the corruptibility of power itself. Given the shoddy journalism Trump has received, Krugman and CNN deserve all the Fake News awards they get. That actually worries me because when Trump really does something bad, then those orgs will lack credibility. Interestingly, the Fake News meme was propaganda started by a Google think tank (Schmidt loves Hillary) and pushed by Obama before it backfired. That said, Trump has yet to do anything as heinous as Obama’s indictment of Jeffrey Rosen. By the way, Obama disparaged Fox News repeatedly. Where was your 1st Amendment sensibility then? In the end, none of these gentlemen were as bad as FDR’s FCC.

I think that if one evaluates Trump by looking at things that he did and things that he didn’t do, it is possible to have a balanced view, I guess. Or evaluate

But that is fundamentally the wrong way to look at it.

This is a man, after all, who won’t criticize Nazism. A man who openly laments the fact that, as President, he is not supposed to use the DoJ and FBI to throw his political opponents in jail. A man who openly criticizes the first admendent. One who does not deem physical abuse of 2 different wives by a subordinate to be a disqualifying characteristic… until it becomes public. One who openly uses his position to steer government (ie, taxpayer) money to himself and his cronies.

There’s no reasonable balanced view of any of that.

Sure, DoJ has thus far resisted Trump’s efforts to turn it into his own personal police force. That can hardly be considered a point in Trump’s favor, though.

@Michael Byrnes

You are about 8 years too late with your criticisms of the president.

@Mark Bahner
You may be right, look what happened to Scalise and Rand Paul.

@Brian McCarthy,
And this perception of yours dominates any consideration of policy or outcomes?
No. And you would know that if you actually bothered to read my balanced evolution of Trump that I linked to.

Michael,

If I remember correctly, neither Romney nor McCain were being investigated for any felonies at the time of their candidacies, so I think that may be apples and oranges. Moreover, one could argue that the IRS scandal during the Obama administration was a more egregious use of the state to target one’s political enemies than anything Trump has done yet. So, again, I’d say what sets Trump apart is merely tweets and dumb remarks; policy-wise, his administration will prove to be fairly typical, for better or worse.

@Hazel Meade

MO, the biggest problem with Trump (aside from his inhumane policies on immigration), is that he’s destroyed the political consensus in favor of free trade.

Has he, though? He’s been a lot of bluster and not much bite on trade. Yes, he pulled out of TPP, but some of his tariffs have been quite small or comparable to tariffs other presidents have imposed. He’s facing stiff resistance from swing and core states, and even from members of his own party and the Democrats, on his plan to renegotiate NAFTA.

You may be right in the long run, but I’m not seeing the rationale for that claim right now.

Has he, though? He’s been a lot of bluster and not much bite on trade.

Regardless of what Trumps actual action on trade will be (and dumping TPP is not negligible), the fact that he won on a platform of opposing free trade is going to change the political calculus for the Republican Party for many years to come. They now know that they can win by running against free trade, and the inexorable logic of that fact is going to compel them to continue to run on it.

I was pleasantly surprised to find some quite astute and even realistic views of PDJT here, together with some that truthfully gave the impression that the writer was suffering from an ailment that seemed to inordinately annoy Ms. Meade above.

That was the one that was most amusing, however, since it boldly stated that the “DoJ has thus far resisted Trump’s efforts to turn it into his own personal police force”, without the writer seemingly realizing the irony of that statement, given the goings ons during the previous administration, with particular relation to its conduct and co-option for nefarious purpose of the DOJ/FBI/CIA/SD both during and after the 2016 election.

The previous administration’s top figures are about to be (if you’ll pardon the expression) disembowelled for all the world to see. For a hint of what is coming, start by reading some of the recent articles by (former?) never-Trumper Andrew C. McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.

Even if Trump were a bad guy (and no, he’s not IMO) he’s going to be untouchable after his redemption this year. That dossier is going to be the downfall of many, and Trump will ride its tail to victory (if he cares to do so) again in 2020..

@Michael Byrne
“No part of that involves having the President of the United States lead chants of “lock her up” against his political opponents.”

I’’m not aware of this happening while he was President, though it did while he was a candidate (an entirely different matter). Perhaps you have been watching too much CNN, or are confused. And no, he did not “lead the chants” at CPAC if that is your reference – fake news indeed.

Perhaps you might care to clarify the hand waving statement “unorthodox (and, at least to me, reprehensible) methods”. Just what exactly are you referring to – you leave that unclear. You don’t like his style – fine, but perhaps you might have observed that his “style” has toned down mightily since he became President. Also that his exaggerated “style” on display during the campaign is quite different from his comportment as President (apart from some of his tweets). But it does not fit with the narrative, so….

“Words matter”.
You don’t quite get it, or you simply refuse to because you’re on the opposite team. These words that “matter” were spoken in a private meeting, and never intended or expected to be blasted all over the media. How many Presidents before Trump have said worse in private meetings? Likely every one. But none were burdened by opponents who were so determined that he not win the Presidency (and that he now be deposed from that role) that they would go to unimaginable lengths to smear, lie and spread continuous calumny about him. In this case, to run like tattletales at kindergarten to the media. Or perhaps you consider that honourable and “normal” behaviour?

“using their status to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the taxpayer.”
You make accusations without proof – how brave of you.

“I don’t think all of the negatives associated with Trump are fully appreciated as yet”
That may well be, but I suggest that the very same, and much worse, could be said about Obama, unless you re willing to turn a blind eye to that. Plotting to prevent the election of a candidate and then conspiring to force him out of office seems to me to be the very worst of negatives, and that is where the FACTS are leading us. And if you believe that statement to be mere hyperbole you must not be following events too closely – again with that blind eye.

Trump has offered to accept 1.1 million more DACA persons than requested by the Democrats, and has, from my Canadian perspective, asked for reasonable measures in return. You would have to be an ideologue to find fault here, but if the cap fits……

Trump certainly has his faults, and time will tell whether those faults will detract from his (generally very successful to this point from my POV) Presidency.

I suspect you are going to be VERY discouraged about the political fallout coming in 2018.

@Michaek Byrne

Well, several reasons.

Ok. I get that Trump has said dumb things. So what? Why does that mean the actions taken are reduced to null?

Consider Adam Smith’s invisible hand (I like his presentation in Theory of Moral Sentiments better than Wealth of Nations, but either example will do). Smith shows that the personal interest of the individual actor can (indeed frequently does) enrich us all. The brewer may be a bad guy who only wants to use his profits for selfish reasons, but does that mean that his beer has no value? The price gouger who brings bottled water to a disaster zone may only be interested in the money and not have a drop of the milk of human kindness in his veins, but does that mean his actions deserve no merit? That they shouldn’t be considered?

Channeling my inner Adam Smith, I’d say both the motivations and the actions should be evaluated. But we can evaluate them separately. Donald Trump may get an F for his motivations and a B or C for his actions. There’s nothing wrong with this sort of accounting. Yes, maybe his actions are only on net beneficial because of the institutions we have set up, but that’s true of anyone. Different institutions would have different outcomes (Smith makes this point throughout his writings, but in particular in Book III of Wealth of Nations). What we are trying to do here is evaluate Trump as President of the United States Government, subject to all the constraints and privileges thereof. Just as the brewer may be a jerk but can still be judged to have brewed good beer, so can Trump be a jerk and still be judged on his actions as a president.

Michael,

You’re assuming that they just want her arrested and incarcerated without due process. I’m suggesting they wanted her indicted and ultimately convicted for a crime of which they believe she was guilty.

Calling for people to be tried for crimes you think they’re guilty of is not a violation of due process.

@Jon Murphy:

He’s not getting resistance form his base about dumping NAFTA. He’s getting resistance from the Republican establishment. The same establishment that his base hates and wants to overthrow. In fact, his base is solidly behind his anti-NAFTA efforts, and, worse, mainstream Republicans and even many libertarians are currently busy rationalizing opposition to free trade so they can have an excuse to justify their mood-affiliated support for Trump. This is exactly what I expected to happen and expect to continue. People will confabulate reasons to support whatever their tribe is doing, and right now, their tribe has chosen Donald Trump as it’s leader.

Mark wrote:

You’re assuming that they just want her arrested and incarcerated without due process. I’m suggesting they wanted her indicted and ultimately convicted for a crime of which they believe she was guilty.

No. I don’t know what their intentions are and I’m not making assumptions about their intentions.

What I’m suggesting that due process of law is not possible if highest level government officials (or soon-to-be highest level government officials) are openly calling someone a criminal who should be incarcerated.

Throughout the Midwest, areas that staunchly supported him, are all fighting against renegotiating NAFTA.

Depends on what you call the “Midwest”.
Farmers like NAFTA (Kansas, Nebraska), but factory workers (Michigan, Ohio) hate it.

Also, among Republican voters, a majority now oppose it.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/13/americans-generally-positive-about-nafta-but-most-republicans-say-it-benefits-mexico-more-than-u-s/
More than half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have a negative view of NAFTA: 54% say the agreement is bad for the U.S., compared with 35% who say it is good.

On the plus side, Democrats views of NAFTA have dramatically improved, with 72% now saying it is good for America. Tribal politics uber alles. But if it sticks, libertarians might have to start rethinking their relationship with the Republican party.

@Hazel Meade

Your poll is interesting. I don’t think we can interpret it as saying a majority of Republican voters oppose NAFTA; the poll doesn’t ask that question. It asks whether or not the agreement is beneficial and who benefits.

Furthermore, I think the poll is rather strong evidence against your point that the GOP may be shifting against free trade. Given a substantial majority of Americans polled support NAFTA, if the GOP wants to remain relevant, they’d need to become more free trade than they have been.

@Hazel Meade,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. My comments below seriatim.
From my experience, most libertarians lean right, and tend to end up voting Republican.
From my experience, I see the first part–I would say that 70+ percent of libertarians “lean right,” depending, of course, on how you define “right.” As for voting, that’s not my experience at all. I know probably a few hundred libertarians, and I would say that 20% don’t vote, 20% vote Republican, and 60% vote Libertarian.
There are a lot more Republican-affiliated libertarians than Democrat-affiliated ones.
I might agree, but it depends on what you mean by “affiliated.” Maybe you could explain with an example.
That’s been justified by the Republican support for economic liberties, of which free trade has been a significant component.
Certainly many of us have been more pro-Republican than pro-Democrat because of Republican views on economic liberties of which, as you say, free trade is an important component. But immigration is an important economic liberty too, and the Republicans have been horrible on that, probably more horrible than most of the Democrats.
But that has to be weighed against a host of social issues. It’s interesting because a lot of libertarians have aligned with the right on culture war issues despite professing to be socially liberal, kind of locating a fusion on the platform of supporting gay marriage but opposing anti-discrimination law.
I think the word “despite” is misplaced. I’ll take me as an example. I was totally pro allowing gay marriage and, even as early as the late 1960s, allowing people to be gay without being beaten or imprisoned. I defended the right to be gay when I was in high school and I was the only one in class who did. (Admittedly, I wasn’t a libertarian then and didn’t even know the word, but my defense was totally about people’s rights to live their own lives peacefully.) I thought Stonewall was fantastic. But I predicted that once the gay marriage issue was achieved, many supporters of it would forget all their arguments about tolerance and favor laws and lawsuits requiring wedding cakes, non-discrimination in the workplace, etc. Usually I predict that things will happen more quickly than they do. But in this case, it went the other way. I remember saying on Facebook, when, only about a week or two after the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, people who were pro gay marriage started pushing for that restriction on freedom of association, “Well, that didn’t take long.” So now that allowing gay marriage has been achieved, it makes sense to look around for allies who oppose this restriction on freedom of association.
But if the Democrats become the party of free trade and along with all of those other issues, it starts making sense to affiliate more with the Democrats.
That would be fantastic. It would be the return of the Democratic Party to its roots. I don’t see it though. Notice that Chuck Schumer favors some of the worst of Trump’s proposed protectionist policies.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d much rather have a free trade agreement with Japan than a repeal of the public accomodations provisions of the civil rights act.
I don’t think it’s just you. I would take that deal too.

Michael Byrne
The legality of DACA is, at this time, an open question. A lower court ruled it illegal, but an appeal of that ruling is (or was) ongoing before Trump ordered an end the program.

MB, the justification that Obama used to not enforce DACA was his “prosecutorial authority”. Never before has a President applied that “prosecutorial authority” to a whole class of offenders numbering MILLIONS. Given that the oath of office and job description of being President require him to carry out the laws of Congress, I don’t need a judge to tell me that is wrong. Indeed, one of the worst developments in American cultural thinking is that the Constitution now belongs to lawyers, not the people (but that’s a whole other discussion). Regardless, immigration is good for the United States. I’m an immigrant myself. However, so is rule of law and we shouldn’t acquiesce and allow any President to stray too far from his duty, even if we like what he’s doing. Immigration law belongs to Congress.

@Mark,
Yes the optimistic scenario is that the Democrats become more free trade. But that makes Trump’s conversion of the Republicans into an anti-trade party all the more depressing. Now there is NO party advocating the loosening of trade restrictions, which is very bad from a libertarian perspective. That doesn’t make the Democrats better than the Republicans, it just makes the Republicans worse.

@Thomas Strenge:
It’s hard to call DACA recipients offenders, since they were below the age of majority when they came here and in many cases had no idea what was happening. There is a case currently going on involving a man who was brought here when he was one year old. This person is in every meaningful way, an American. This country is his home. And he’s being threatened with deportation.
How can anyone not find this morally appalling? The Dreamers are in every moral sense identical to American citizens. If there was a program designed to force 800,000 American citizens to relocate to Mexico it would be justifiably condemned as ethnic cleansing.

@Thomas Strenge,
The preeminence of the Federal Government on immigration is settled law.
If the ultimate decider is the U.S. Supreme Court, then you’re right. But if we go with the language of the Constitution and even with original intent, then you’re wrong.

@David Henderson
Hahaha, if we went with the original intent of the Constitution, then we wouldn’t have this conversation. 🙂 We might not know who the President was, and if we did, then it wouldn’t matter because s/he would have no impact on our lives. That, by the way, is one of the YUUUGGGE pluses of Trump: he appoints judges who would probably agree with that view.

Read what Peter Brimelow had to say about WFB in an obit in VDARE. WFB was talking about himself, not Trump.

@David Henderson,

“immigration is an important economic liberty”

This is a moral judgement more so than an economic one. This is quite controversial and contentious even among libertarians.

“It’s interesting, though, that the Constitution gives Congress zero power over immigration and that for the first few decades of this republic, states, not the feds, had power over immigration.”

The Constitution clearly gives the federal government implied, inherent, and explicit powers. Immigration has always been considered an inherent power of federal government. Many court cases ruled this, including the somewhat recent, but not new, 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:

The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….

“So if we are trying to justify things based on the Constitution, we would have to say that neither the President nor the Congress has any say.”

In addition to the clear argument I just made, the famous preamble to the Constitution says,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” is in reference to the founding population and their biological offspring. This is quite explicitly the opposite of an open border, right to immigrate, moral model.

Caplan says he advocates the morality he believes regardless of what the Constitution or any existing law or morality says. That has a certain honesty to it. Arguing that the Constitution doesn’t give immigration authority to federal government and doesn’t explicitly focus on the concerns of the existing people and their offspring rather than foreigners is not at all convincing.