Posts published in “Politics”

Trump’s Presence at the March for Life Shows How Policy and Personality Interact to Make Him a Consequential President

Trump’s Presence at the March for Life Shows How Policy and Personality Interact to Make Him a Consequential President

By John R Guardiano on January 26, 2020

If you want to understand the Trump presidency, you need to understand Trump’s personality and psychological makeup.

However, if you want to understand Trump supporters, you need to understand not Trump’s personality, but rather his administration and its public policies: because while Trump supporters may not like or admire the man personally, they do like and admire his public policies.

Conversely, Trump may not think or care much about public policy. However, he cares intensely about what people, allies and enemies alike, think about him; and this, in turn, drives his actions as president. Abortion is a telling example.

The 47th annual March for Life took place Friday on the National Mall. Trump was the first president to attend the March for Life; and as the Was hington Examiner explains in detail, he is indisputably the most pro-life president in American history.

Critics complain that Trump is not really pro-life because of things he said and did before running for president, and because unlike, say, Ronald Reagan, he hasn’t seriously grappled with “ideas about inherent human dignity,” as Jonathan Last puts it.

But that’s ultimately irrelevant. We cannot discern what is in Trump’s heart, mind and soul. All we can judge and evaluate are his public policies; and, when it comes to abortion at least, those public policies are indisputably and consistently pro-life.

The interesting question is: why? I think the answer is obvious and it tells us a lot about Trump. While he may not have thought much about human life and human dignity, he does think in very Manichean terms: You are either with him or against him.

Trump is well aware of who is against him and who is with him—and who elected him president. He knows that the pro-life movement is politically strong (especially at the grassroots level in many red states, and especially within the Republican Party) and supportive of his presidency.

And while abortion may not be an issue Trump particularly cares about or has thought much about, he does know that pro-life voters are with him; and so, he is with them, too. This is what critics mean when they say Trump is a “transactional politician.” They mean he has no (or few) real convictions. Instead, he does for you if you do for him.

There is something to this; but at the same time, what this tends to mean in practice—and certainly, what it means for the pro-life movement—is that Trump can be more firm and resolute than even many so-called conviction politicians like Reagan and Thatcher: but only if you are his friend, ally and supporter, and only if he perceives you as such.

That is why even occasional Trump critics like GOP Senators Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul go out of their way to show that they are all-in for the president.

Indeed, Graham will sometimes criticize Trump for being too weak or dovish on foreign policy, while Paul will occasionally criticize him for the opposite reason: for supposedly being too much of a neocon warrior. However, both Graham and Paul leave no doubt in anyone’s mind: They support the president, and don’t you forget it!

For them, and for GOP officeholders more broadly, this is a political imperative. GOP congressmen and senators realize that, to retain any influence on Trump, the president must view them as allies, not enemies. There is no middle ground in Trump’s mind.

Ironically, then, that is why and how a president who never much thought about public policy, and still doesn’t, can nonetheless be one of the most significant drivers of public policy ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Equally ironic, it is also why people who probably don’t like Trump personally, and are not fans of his obnoxious tweets and other regrettable public utterances, can nonetheless be among his most steadfast champions and supporters.

Feature photo credit: Carlos Barria/Reuters via National Review.

Mike Pompeo’s NPR Tirade Shows How Trump Has Turned the GOP’s Rising Stars Into Politically Damaged Goods

Mike Pompeo’s NPR Tirade Shows How Trump Has Turned the GOP’s Rising Stars Into Politically Damaged Goods

By John R Guardiano on January 24, 2020

One of the saddest and most disappointing things about the Trump administration is how it has tainted some Republican officeholders who, by all accounts, should be the party’s rising stars and perhaps even its future presidents and vice presidents.

Case in point: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The former congressman from Kansas’s 4th Congressional District served three terms in the House of Representatives before Trump picked him to serve as his CIA Director and, subsequently, Secretary of State.

Pompeo graduated first in his class at West Point, served in West Germany as an armor officer with the 4th Infantry Division, and then graduated from Harvard Law School. Together with two West Point friends, he founded a successful aerospace manufacturing company before serving as president of Sentry International, an oil drilling manufacturing firm.

In Congress, Pompeo was a widely respected conservative legislator admired for his brains and insight on defense and foreign policy matters. But as Secretary of State, Pompeo has felt a palpable need to Trumpify himself, so to speak, by being angry and nasty toward journalists who ask him tough but fair questions.

Of course, as a congressman, Pompeo never seemed to vilify the media; but in Trump’s Washington, being a non-belligerent in the culture war against an independent and sometimes adversarial press is not an option.

Pompeo knows that one of the best ways to connect with his boss is to demonize the fourth estate and rail against so-called fake news. Thus he does so and in Trumpian fashion.

Pompeo also explains and defends Trump administration foreign policy by incessantly and gratuitously taking swipes at the Obama administration.

This is unseemly and unbecoming, and it has become tiresome; but Pompeo knows that the best and perhaps only way to persuade Trump to do anything is to convince him that Obama did the opposite. Hence the constant disparagement of all things Obama.

Still, despite his manifest efforts to ingratiate himself with his boss, Pompeo has been relatively constrained and contained. Until now that is, when he seems to have blown a gasket, so to speak.

Indeed, Pompeo quite literally blew up at National Public Radio (NPR) reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she had the effrontery to ask him a timely and topical question about Ukraine during an exclusive, one-on-one interview.

Specifically, Kelly asked Pompeo whether he owed former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, an apology for failing to defend Yovanovitch against attacks by Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others. It was a completely fair and legitimate question that Pompeo should have anticipated, since his failure to defend Yovanovitch and other State Department officials caught up in the Trump impeachment has been in the news for months now.

But Pompeo clearly resented the question, refused to answer it, and cut the interview short. He then became angry and belligerent, while giving voice to his inner Trump. Kelly told Ari Shapiro, the host of NPR’s All Things Considered, what happened after the interview ended. MSNBC correspondent David Gura summarized Kelly’s exchange with Shapiro in a tweet:

Pompeo’s little tirade will no doubt earn him plaudits in the Oval Office; however, it reflects very poorly upon him and on President Trump. We expect, or at least should expect, a certain professional etiquette and decorum in our elected leaders. Indeed, as the President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, well put it:

“I thought it was the responsibility of the Secretary of State to explain to Americans why they should care about Ukraine, not to berate a journalist asking legitimate questions about his lack of support for foreign service officers acting professionally.”

The Trump era, moreover, will soon end; and, when it does, voters will be looking for political leaders prepared to break from the buffoonery and incompetence of the present occupant of the Oval Office. By debasing himself in order to remain in Trump’s good graces, Pompeo is disqualifying himself in the eyes of many voters.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater in a different context: Independent-mindedness in defense of decency is no vice, and servility in the pursuit of vulgarity is no virtue. That’s something our Secretary of State might wish to consider as he contemplates his own political future.

Feature photo/illustration credit: Paul Rogers/The New Yorker.

Senate Republicans Must Acknowledge Trump’s Wrongdoing—Even, If, and Especially If, They Don’t Convict Him

Senate Republicans Must Acknowledge Trump’s Wrongdoing—Even, If, and Especially If, They Don’t Convict Him

By John R Guardiano on January 22, 2020

Given that we’re less than 10 months out from the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, it is reasonable and legitimate to conclude that:

a) what President Trump did vis-a-vis Ukraine was wrong and perhaps even impeachable. However,

(b) because of the proximity to the election, he should not be convicted by the Senate and removed from office. Instead,

If Republicans were making that argument, there would be little to quarrel with.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans have insisted that Trump did nothing wrong: that he is the victim of a political witch-hunt and an ongoing political vendetta by angry Democrats who have never reconciled themselves to his election as president.

Trump himself, moreover, has never acknowledged any wrongdoing. To the contrary: he continues to insist that his phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “perfect conversation” and “totally appropriate.”

This is patently false and a complete denial of reality. In truth, as we now know beyond the shadow of a doubt, Trump abused his authority as president to try and secure personal political favors from a foreign government, and he tried to use Congressionally authorized aid to that government as leverage to secure these favors.

This is the very definition of an abuse of power and a violation of the public trust.

Now, whether this rises to the level of an impeachable offense is legitimately debatable. And whether the Senate should convict Trump for this offense and remove him from office is even more debatable. But there can be no debate about the underlying offense and wrongdoing by the president.

The facts don’t lie, but political partisans often do. And too many Republicans, in Congress and the media, are lying and spinning about what Trump did, why he was impeached, and why he is now being tried in the Senate.

In so doing, they are contributing mightily to a debilitating national cynicism that ascribes all political disputes to a raw lust for power and revenge.

To the cynics, and to the wild-eyed partisans, there can be no principled, good-faith disagreements, just high-pitched, life-and-death political struggles in which anything goes. Just win, baby. Truth, after all, is relative.

This, of course, does not serve our country and our politics well. It results in a hardening of the partisan arteries, political arteriosclerosis, and legislative paralysis. Nothing gets done because the two sides refuse even to communicate honestly, fight fairly, and legislate respectfully.

For Republicans eager to secure the border, check the regulatory state, reform entitlements, rebuild the military, and liberalize healthcare, this is an ominous and foreboding development.

Worse still, by failing to speak honestly and forthrightly about Trump’s wrongdoing, Republican officeholders are handicapping themselves when the next Democratic President abuses her power and authority to, say, ban and confiscate guns, grant amnesty and citizenship rights to illegal immigrants, limit options and choices in the health insurance marketplace, force local schools to accommodate transgender identity and “inclusion,” and make college “free.”

What standing, after all, will Republican congressman and senators have to oppose these naked power grabs after they spent the better part of a year rationalizing and excusing Trump’s abuse of power?

A republic if you can keep it, warned Benjamin Franklin. Let’s at least try to keep it by honestly calling out wrongdoing no matter where it occurs, and regardless of which side of the political aisle it originates. That may not mean convicting Trump and removing him from office; but it surely means leveling with the American people about his abuse of power and wrongdoing.

Note: Tim Carney and Quin Hillyer at the Washington Examiner, and the editors at National Review, share similar thoughts about the Senate Republicans vis-a-vis the Trump impeachment.

Feature photo/illustration credit: QuotesGram via Tunnel Wall.

Why, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump is Fighting for Black Votes and Dems Are Desperate to Stop Him

Why, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Trump is Fighting for Black Votes and Dems Are Desperate to Stop Him

By John R Guardiano on January 20, 2020

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s most significant political legacy, of course, is enfranchising millions of black voters in the South and raising the importance of the black vote there and, indeed, nationwide. Black voters before and since have voted overwhelmingly Democratic.

However, today, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, 2020, we see clear indications that Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting hard, if not always scrupulously, for the votes of African Americans.

President Trump and Vice President Pence, for instance, both went to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., to pay their respects to the slain civil rights leader. The White House made a video of their visit, which the President tweeted to his 71 million-plus followers.

Trump also issued a Presidential Proclamation commemorating Dr. King and pledging to ensure that all Americans, regardless of their race, class or gender, “have every opportunity to realize a better life for themselves and their families.”

Trump touted the nation’s historic economic growth, the creation of more than seven million new jobs, and record-high employment for backs and other minorities. “Economic opportunity,” he noted, “is the greatest engine for empowering individuals and families to overcome adversity, and we will continue to fight for opportunity for all Americans.”

And of course, Trump took to Twitter to underscore, in his own inimitable way, the good news for African Americans:

Trump and the GOP are wise to fight for black support. The President and his team have a very good story to tell and an impressive record of achievement that, arguably, has disproportionately benefited African Americans and other minorities.

Indeed, not only is the unemployment rate the lowest that it’s been in half a century, but wages are rising and the barriers to entrepreneurship and business formation are falling.

Trump and the GOP also can point to criminal justice reform, which disproportionately benefits African Americans and other minorities by allowing federal inmates early release opportunities and a second chance to find work.

Doubting Thomases complain that these efforts are all in vain because Democrats have a hard lock on the black vote. African Americans, after all, vote 90-percent+ for Dem presidential candidates and have been doing so now for decades.

History. This is true, but the past is not necessarily prologue. Recall that from the end of the Civil War in 1865 up until the New Deal in 1936, African Americans were a reliably Republican voting block. Voting patterns can and do change over time, but only when candidates and parties actively reach out to voters and seek their support.

So, it is good thing that Trump and the GOP are making a genuine, good-faith effort to reach out to black voters. It is not good for the country when one political party monopolizes a key voting demographic. Competition in the political marketplace, no less than competition in the economic marketplace, is beneficial because it spurs (policy) excellence and innovation.

As for the Democrats, they, too, recognize the importance of the black vote. Thus eight of the party’s presidential candidates locked arms today and marched together toward the state capital building in South Carolina to commemorate the King holiday.

Paradoxically, the Democrats’ utter dominance of the black vote may make them more vulnerable politically—if not in 2020, then certainly, in the years and decades to come. It would take just a small shift in the black vote, after all, to completely upend the Dems’ strategy for victory in presidential contests.

“Increase Trump’s share of the black vote to even as low as 15 percent, and Democratic chances of winning the electoral college become very low,” writes long-term political observer Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Dem Desperation. In short, the Democrats desperately need to retain their lock on the black vote and they know it. Which is why their default position every four years is to accuse GOP presidential candidates of racism and bigotry. Their intent is to scare black voters, so that they keep voting Democratic.

It was not surprising, then, that Joe Biden went to a black church in South Carolina Sunday and charged that Trump is allied with the Ku Klux Klan. Although ludicrous, outrageous, and clearly beyond the pale, such a charge is utterly unsurprising.

This is what Democrats running for president do: because they know that they can ill-afford to lose black voters, either now, in the primaries, or in the November presidential election. Just win, baby.

These vicious and unscrupulous race-baiting tactics are a stain on American politics. The good news, though, is that both political parties recognize the importance of black voters and are competing hard for their support, and that’s something to be thankful for on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Feature photo credit: The Valley City Times Record.

Vladimir Putin Is More Focused on Economic Growth Than the Dem Presidential Candidates

Vladimir Putin Is More Focused on Economic Growth Than the Dem Presidential Candidates

By John R Guardiano on January 15, 2020

If you want to get a sense of how backward and upside down our politics has become, juxtapose these two events: yesterday’s Democratic Presidential debate and today’s speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin on the state of the Russian Federation.

The Democratic Presidential candidates talked about their myriad plans to grow the size and scope of government; yet, the words economic growth never once left their lips. But in the absence of robust economic growth, it is impossible to see how these Dem presidential wanna-bees could finance their costly schemes to create new and vast federal entitlements such as “Medicare for All.”

“‘We are literally talking about increases in government spending that would double the size of government as a share of gross domestic product,” Maya MacGuineas told CNN reporter Ron Brownstein. Brownstein and MacGuineas calculate that Sanders is proposing an astronomical $30 trillion to $60 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years.

MacGuinease is “President of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit group that advocates [for] reducing federal deficits.”

Admittedly, Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) may be in a league of their own when it comes to making government huge again. But the rest of the Democratic field isn’t far behind, truth be told. They all want to make the government much bigger and more dominant vis-a-vis the private sector. Economic growth to them is just assumed and taken as a given

Not so for Putin, who, according to CNBC, told the Russian people:

“High economic growth rates are essential. This is the only way to overcome poverty and ensure steady and perceptible increases in income. This is the key to success.

“[By] 2021, Russia’s economic growth rate must exceed 3% and stay above the global average afterwards. This objective should not be discarded,” he said.

Putin said that areas to focus on were labor productivity, improving Russia’s business climate, removing ‘infrastructural constraints for economic development’ and lastly, “training modern personnel.”

Clearly, Putin is more focused on economic growth than the Democratic presidential candidates! The Russian dictator realizes that, unless his country’s economy grows much more rapidly than it is now, all of his dreams and aspirations for a greater, imperial Russia are for naught.

Would that Bernie, Elizabeth, Pete, and Joe all had similar situational awareness and understanding.