Reflections on the Trump presidency after more than 100 days

by Rod Williams, May, 17, 2017- I did not vote for Donald Trump.  I still think he was the least attractive Republican candidate competing.  While I did not vote for Trump, if we would have had a national election for president however, where the popular vote mattered, which thankfully we do not, I would have voted for him.  I do think he was the less bad choice of two bad choices.  Due to the certainty that Donald Trump would get all of Tennessee's eleven votes, I had the luxury of not choosing the less bad of bad choices.

Since Trump has been elected, I have rallied to his defense, primarily out of disgust at the anti-Trump people who display Trump Unacceptance and Resistance Disorder. The violence of inauguration day and the massive demonstrations the day after and many since has led me to feel absolute disgust with the opposition. If Hillary would have won, we would not have seen the same reaction from those unhappy with the outcome. There would have been a period of respect and civility. Even on a personal level, I have experienced being ostracized and shunned by some who were so upset at the election outcome that they could not tolerate being in the presence of a Republican. The snowflakes who had to have their safe spaces and cry-ins have left me appalled. The rise of liberal fascism on college campuses prohibiting conservative voices from being heard, concerns me.   So, I may have displayed more Trump support than I sometimes felt due to a disgust with Trump opponents and a polarization that pushed me further into the Trump camp.

During the campaign, the one reason I did not support Trump is because I perceived him to be a liberal at heart.  He had a history of supporting Democrat politicians and socializing with liberal elites. He had donated heavily to Democrat candidates and helped elect Harry Reid. He had contributed much, much more money to Democrats than Republicans over the years.  He had also contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. He had also switched parties several times and at one time toyed with running for President on the Reform Party ticket.  I saw no reason to believe he was a real Republican.  I can understand one seeing the light and changing parties.  Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat.  Trump, however, has changed too often for me to believe he has had a conversion.  He seems to not know what he believes.

In addition to giving money to Democrat candidates and causes, he has espoused liberal policies.  He has praised single-payer health care, has opposed entitlement reform, has taken a more protectionist trade position than most Democrats and has said complementary things about Planned Parenthood.  He campaigned on a plan to spend $1 trillion dollars for infrastructure spending and promised a new paternal leave entitlement and child care entitlement. Those are hardly conservative positions.  I perceived Trump, if not be be a liberal, to be a populist without core values.  He struck me as the type of leader that determines which way the mob is running and works himself to the front of the pack. He says what people want to hear.  He is charged by the roar of the crowd.

It is not just Trump's support for Democrat candidates and liberal positions and a believe that he has no core values that turned me off on Trump, but also his demeanor.  He acts like a bully and he is crude.  It is one thing to refuse to be seduced by the liberal establishment and changing who you are in order to be liked and bending to political correctness, but is something else to be offensive and impolite and crude.  Ronald Reagan was a strong unbending conservative, but he was a gentleman.  I do not perceive Trump to be a gentleman. Maybe he is simply a product of the times and the nation has become more crude and plain spoken, but I don't like it. I know we are not electing a father or a pastor when we elect a President, but I still want to elect a good person. 

I am also concerned about Trump's temperament. He has a fragile ego and is easy to take offense and seems to speak before he thinks. He focuses on petty stuff like the size of the crowd at the inauguration. He picks fights with celebrity personalities that are insignificant. Trump's impromptu comments and style of governing, causes me unease.  I fear Trump may make an off the cuff comment that could be misunderstood by an adversary and lead to an avoidable war.  Trump is like a bull in a China Shop. He does not instill confidence.  He is not thoughtful and says what's on his mind without thinking and that scares me.

Since Trump's election I have been relatively pleased with the way he has governed.  I am delighted that Neil Corsuch has been placed on the Supreme Court. I am pleased with Trump's cabinet.  I am pleased to see America again take a leadership role in the world.  I approve of the US responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I fear that if Hillary had been elected, both North Korea and Iran would become functional nuclear powers.  I feel that is less likely to happen under Trump and the world will be a safer place.  I am pleased to see us rebuilt the American military.  I am pleased to see that Trump is proposing tax reform which has the potential to increase economic growth. I am pleased to see stepped up immigration enforcement and illegal border crossings down by 40%.  I am pleased to see the Keystone pipeline given the green light. I am pleased to see Trump use executive orders to reverse the excessive executive orders of President Obama.  There is much to be pleased about.

I still am waiting to see what he will do with the promised new entitlements and the proposed trillion dollar infrastructure program.  New entitlements should be resisted. There are ways to provide infrastructure spending without increasing the deficit, but if Trump proposes to simply borrow and add to the national debt, infrastructure spending should be resisted. I am concerned that his policies will balloon the national debt and I am convinced that America's deficit spending may be as big of a threat to national security as a nuclear armed adversary. Without entitlement reform we can not make significant debt reductions.  We can not tax our way out of the debt problem; increase taxes leads to decreased growth. While growth can help, neither can we grow ourselves out of the $21 Trillion hole we are in. We must bite the bullet and reduce spending. Entitlements must be on the table.

Syndicated columnist George Will recently wrote what I think was an insightful analysis on Donald Trump and expressed what I feel but have not been able to put into words. Almost every time Donald Trump speaks, I am fearful he will say something really stupid. I often cringe when he says something that is simply not accurate or shows a lack of understanding of the issues.  His defenders will point out that Trump is held to a different standard than Democrats. They will point out Hillary's various misstatements of fact or Obama's saying he had visited all 48 states as examples. That is a good defense but I think there is more to Trump's misstatements and the way he talks that cannot be explained as a biased press that is out to get him.

Trump is an embarrassment. He displays the vocabulary of a fifth grader. He speaks less to explain and more to reinforce opinions. He doesn't try to win over the undecided as much as he speaks to reinforce the opinions of the already convinced. Issues are simply presented as simply issues. I watch a lot of CSPAN and I read journals of opinion.  I know what a thoughtful and informed person sounds like and it is not Donald Trump. Even some people I disagree with, I can respect their grasp of the issue, ability to explain the complex, and use of logic.  I do not respect Donald Trump's intellect. 

George Will wrote that, "it is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about Donald Trump's inability to do either."  He said, "Trump has entered his eighth decade unscathed by even elementary knowledge about the nation's history."  "The problem isn't that he does not know this or that, or that he does not know that he does not know this or that. Rather, the dangerous thing is that he does not know what it is to know something." I think I agree with George Will. I wish I could respect Donald Trump and I wish I could trust his leadership, but I can do neither.  I just hope we can muddle through the next four years without a major disaster.

Top Stories

Margaret Thatcher RIP

Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke yesterday at the age of 86, becoming the last of the great leaders of the 20th century to have passed away.  She will be remembered for turning Britain away from their slide into mediocrity, poverty, and insignificance, for privatizing many of the socialist enterprises of England, and for standing shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul in declaring Communism to be an evil in the world and helping to bring about the end of the Communist era. The world is a much better place because of Margaret Thatcher.

For tributes and comments see below:


Heritage Remembers Margaret Thatcher (VIDEO)

 

At a time when the Soviet Empire was still a powerful force, oppressing millions of people, Lady Thatcher tackled communism head on as prime minister of Great Britain.

She believed in the crucial need for America to exert international leadership in the cause of freedom and partnered with conservative American leaders like Ronald Reagan and The Heritage Foundation to ensure individual liberty.

Her commitment to the principles of free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom lace the eternal friendship between The Heritage Foundation and Lady Thatcher.

Corker Statement on Passing of Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today made the following statement on the passing of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

“Margaret Thatcher will rightly be remembered as a plain-spoken and aggressive advocate for democracy and free markets and for her strong leadership in the fight against communism, which helped preserve and strengthen Western values and institutions for generations to come. Her courage, clear thinking and lifelong friendship with the United States continues to inspire us all,” said Corker.


Margaret Thatcher’s vigorous virtues 

By George Will, April 8, 2013 - .... She aimed to be the moral equivalent of military trauma, shaking her nation into vigor through rigor.

As stable societies mature, they resemble long-simmering stews — viscous and lumpy with organizations resistant to change and hence inimical to dynamism. Her program was sound money, laissez faire, social fluidity and upward mobility through self-reliance and other “vigorous virtues.” She is the only prime minister whose name came to denote a doctrine — Thatcherism. (“Churchillian” denotes not a political philosophy but a leadership style.) When she left office in 1990, the trade unions had been tamed by democratizing them, the political argument was about how to achieve economic growth rather than redistribute wealth, and individualism and nationalism were revitalized. (link)


TNGOP Chairman Statement Regarding the Passing of Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher 

“I had the opportunity to meet Margaret Thatcher a few years ago in a private meeting with former Senator Phil Gramm. I would describe Mrs. Thatcher as tough but graceful, bold but effective. The ‘Iron Lady’ was a dear friend to America who believed in the ideals of democracy and blazed a path for women across the globe. She often said, ‘In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.’ That certainly was the case with Mrs. Thatcher. She leaves a legacy of accomplishment for the United Kingdom and all who cherish freedom. She will be dearly missed.”

‘Iron Lady’ Who Set Britain on a New Course 

New York Times - ...by the time she left office, the principles known as Thatcherism — the belief that economic freedom and individual liberty are interdependent, that personal responsibility and hard work are the only ways to national prosperity, and that the free-market democracies must stand firm against aggression — had won many disciples. Even some of her strongest critics accorded her a grudging respect.(read more)

Top Stories

George Will at CPAC: The Dependency Agenda

This is great! This is George Will at his best.

Top Stories

Greed's Saving Graces

When in a provocative mood I have proclaimed to liberals that greed is a virtue. When I make such a statement, you can see their face turn red with anger and almost see the steam come out of their ears. How can one say such a thing? How can greed be a virtue? Greed is one of the seven deadly sins. Greed is a desire for excessive wealth. Greed is the inappropriate desire for excessive wealth. Greed is an excessive desire to acquire or possess more wealth than what one needs or deserves. Greedy people commit immoral acts to take advantage of others. Greedy people raise the price of gas in the summer. Greedy people price gouge. The payday lender is greedy. Big corporations are greedy. The ticket scalper is greedy.

Maybe “greed” is an unnecessarily provocative word. But “self-interest” or the “profit-motive” is a virtue. I accept that we need morality to moderate “greed”, but even without morality in a free market, greed is moderated. I would contend that the profit motive or self-interest or “greed” feeds, clothes, houses, and heals more people than generosity and sharing and caring could ever do. While we should condemn unfair practices, failure to honor contracts, deception, and cheating, the desire to obtain excessive wealth is a not to be condemned. If all of the greedy sold all of their worldly processions and gave the money to the poor, we would have a lot more poor and the poor would starve.

In this article George Will examines greed and argues that when markets are allowed to operate, greed generates its own punishment.

George Will: Greed's Saving Graces

Townhall.com - [excerpt] Greed, we are agreed, is bad. It also is strange. It has long been included among the Seven Deadly Sins, which suggests that it is a universal and perennial facet of the human fabric. But the quantity of it, at least in America, responds to political cycles.

Top Stories

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity denounce George Will and David Brooks

Last night I was watching Sean Hannity interview Rush Limbaugh and it all became clear. The conservative movement is badly splintered. On one side you have the likes of Charles Krauthammer, George Will and David Brooks and on the other side you have the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I will identify them as the “thinking-conservatives” and the “peasants-with-pitchforks-conservatives.” The pitchfork conservatives label this division as between “so called conservatives” and “genuine conservatives.”

I really hate that we have this division. A movement that is in the minority does not need to be split in two. I would not have wanted to verbalize this division. I would prefer to ignore it. But Limbaugh laid down the gauntlet. He apparently wants to read out of the movement anyone who is not a ditto head. Below are excepts from the Hannity-Limbaugh interview (link):

HANNITY: What about all these — these so-called conservatives that met with Obama? Were you invited to that dinner?

LIMBAUGH: No, I wasn't. I wasn't.

(LAUGHTER)

HANNITY: I wasn't invited either.

LIMBAUGH: No. The blueprint is there. Let me — here's what's going on in the Republican Party. And it's really not new. These people that we're talking about, the northeastern blue blood Rockefeller Country Club types, they didn't even like Reagan. They — Reagan was an embarrassment. They believe that he was the dunce, an amiable dunce.

But what it's about, Sean, is abortion. These northeastern moderate liberal Republican types all have wives. I know this is going to sound pedantic and simplistic. But I have experienced it and this is how I know it. These guys that we are talking — they are big-money people. They are contributors, donors, fundraisers, they are just embarrassed to be in the same party with people in the (sigh) of who are pro (laugh) and they go to NASCAR races and that's — that's at the heart of this.

They go to the convention, the Republican convention with these people they think are hicks and hay seeds. 24 million of them without whom they couldn't win. So it really is about that. They won't say so publicly. But it — and it's not just that. But that's a large part of it, the Obama — it's a great — if you have time for me to analyze.

HANNITY: We have plenty of time.

LIMBAUGH: Does anybody, anybody with even half a brain really believe that Barack Obama went to dinner with a bunch of conservatives to have his mind changed?

HANNITY: Good point.

LIMBAUGH: If he did, there are some genuine conservatives he could have talked to. He could have invited us. He could have gone to Human Events. He could have gone to some people at the Heritage Foundation. He doesn't want his mind changed. He is co-opting these people. He's bringing them in. He wants the establishment media inside the beltway, punditry and so- called journalism, to be afraid to criticize him. I mean if he's broken bread with them and he's made them feel good about themselves, and given them an inside view of exactly who he is, it's going to be very difficult for these people to criticize him. I don't think for a minute that he cared to have his mind changed.

Pardon me, but I am greatly offended. Brooks and Will are “so called conservatives?” They are the bright lights of the movement! As far as I can determine, both George Will and David Brooks were Reagan enthusiast. Both are pro-life. The difference is that Brooks and Will analyze issues and make rational arguments; Hannity and Limbaugh rant and play to peoples prejudices. Brooks and Will appeal to the intellect; Hannity and Limbaugh appeal to the gut.

Now, I will admit that I do see a certain class or regional division within the Republican Party as well as within American society in general. I have often felt that there is a certain segment of society that looked down their nose at those of us from the South or Middle America. I myself am not a NASCAR fan, but I know what Rush means. I am a son of the South. I am a Tennessean and proud of it. I love country music. Thank God I’m a country boy! Just because I talk slow does not mean I’m dumb.

This southern inferiority complex or regional chauvinism or class resentment however is not the basis of the division within the movement. It is not about NASCAR or accents or style. I am a southern boy with an accent who likes country music so I am not a “northeastern moderate liberal Republican.” I certainly am not a “blue blood Rockefeller Country Club” Republican. If there is a Will-Brooks vs. Hannity-Limbaugh division within the conservative movement it is not a regional or class division but a division between those who think and those who simply emote.

It this is the division that Hannity and Limbaugh want to force upon the conservative movement then I would much rather identify myself with the George Will- David Brooks branch of the conservative movement than the Hannity-Limbaugh branch of the movement. I refuse to accept their labels however. We should not let the peasants-with-pitchforks hijack the movement of Buckley, Brooks and Will and claim the mantel of Reagan. We conservatives who read and think should not accept the label of “so-called conservatives.”

Top Stories

Socialism? It is already here.

In his column today, “Socialism? It is already here”, George Will makes the point that spreading the wealth is nothing new. That is what any government action does that takes money from some people and gives it to others.

George Will argues, “The supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.” He gives the example of the protectionism provided the sugar industry. “Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year,” writes Will, “ but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.”

It struck me as phony that the Obama’s remark about spreading the wealth was treated as if it was a major revelation revealing Obama’s socialist, if not Marxist, ideology. In my post of November 7, “If Obama is a Socialist…So was Ronald Reagan” I made a point similar to what Will makes in his article today. Spreading the wealth is not new.

Will is critical of the conservative’s attempt to pin the socialist label on Omaba. “Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence.” And he says, “if conservatives call all such spreading by government ‘socialism’, that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health-care plan depended.”

I think Will is right.

Top Stories

The Politics of Resentment and Self-Pity.

By George Will
Sunday, January 6, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Like Job after losing his camels and acquiring boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to "take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending conservatives who want to take back the nation for James Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call "fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda. Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
* * * * *
Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons? (To Continue: The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion)

My Comment: Excellent article! I share Will’s concern about Huckabee’s believing he is God’s chosen. The larger point of the article is that both Edwards and Huckabee are populist who appeal to the worse instincts in people. As Will points out, the middle class is shrinking because so many middle class are becoming upper class. The politics of resentment and self-pity is dangerous to the Republic.

Top Stories