Posts tagged as “Donald Trump”

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.

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.

Congress Emboldens Terrorists and Rogue Regimes with ‘War Powers Resolution’

Congress Emboldens Terrorists and Rogue Regimes with ‘War Powers Resolution’

By John R Guardiano on January 14, 2020

Is it asking too much of Congress to support American troops under fire in the Middle East? This, sadly, is not a rhetorical question. The House of Representatives has conspicuously failed to support our troops and the Senate is poised to follow suit.

How so? By passing a “war powers resolution” designed to restrict President Trump’s Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to authorize military action in defense of our troops. The House approved a war powers resolution last week and the Senate is expected soon to do the same.

Why now? Because of the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. Congressional advocates of a war powers resolution say it is needed to stop Trump from taking America to war. Never mind that the President has been extraordinarily restrained and tempered in the wake of repeated Iranian provocations.

In fact, it was the only after an American serving in Iraq was killed by Iranian-backed militia that Trump finally decided to strike back by taking out Suleimani. The President has since made clear, in both word and deed, that he has no plans or desire for a larger-scale war with Iran. Yet, says Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), “Congress cannot be sidelined on these important decisions.”

Of course, no one would deny Congress its rightful say in the use and disposition of American military power. Under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress authorizes and appropriates funding while conducting necessary oversight of the executive branch and U.S. military. But once U.S. forces are deployed—as they have been in the Middle East for decades now—then the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief, has a solemn responsibility to act with dispatch in their defense.

That’s exactly what Trump did when he ordered the strike against Suleimani, a terrorist ringleader who had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explains, we simply cannot have 535 Commanders in Chief. That is completely illogical and utterly impractical.

If the war powers resolution ever makes its way to Trump’s desk, it will be summarily vetoed. The President will not allow his Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to be usurped by Congress. Nonetheless, serious damage will have been done to America’s standing in the world, and our troops will be imperiled.

Terrorists and rogue regimes throughout the Middle East will interpret the war powers resolution as an impediment to Trump’s ability to respond to their provocations and defend our troops. They will see the resolution as an opportunity for them to terrorize U.S. and allied forces with minimal fear of reprisal: because, after all, Trump has been constrained; his hands tied by Congress.

Weakness invites aggression, and make no mistake: the war powers resolution signals weakness to America’s enemies.

What should Congress have done and what might it still do? Simple: pass a resolution that: a) condemns the Iranian regime for sponsoring terrorism; and b) supports the U.S. military strike against Suleimani. That would strengthen deterrence vis-a-vis the regime and limit the possibility of a larger-scale war in the Middle East.

President Reagan called this “peace through strength,” and it is still the right and strategically wise approach.

Imminence Is Irrelevant in Judging the Suleimani Strike

Imminence Is Irrelevant in Judging the Suleimani Strike

By John R Guardiano on January 12, 2020

One of the most pointless policy debates ginned up of late by the anti-Trump media and Dems in Congress is whether an Iranian attack on U.S. interests was “imminent” prior to the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. If such an attack was imminent, they say, then the U.S. military strike may have been justified; but if not, then the strike is probably illegal and Trump may have committed a war crime.

What this analysis ignores, of course, is that, regardless of whether such an attack was “imminent,” Iran has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.

Suleimani himself, moreover, had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans serving in Iraq for the past 16 years. Suleimani’s blood-stained record provided more than ample justification for targeting him while he was in Iraq plotting yet more terror attacks against American military personnel and civilian contractors.

Indeed, the U.S. military strike against Suleimani is best understood as a quick defensive measure taken when a moment of opportunity suddenly arose. Trump wisely seized upon this opportunity to free the world of a dangerous terrorist mastermind. A good deed and good riddance.