Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“There Are A Hundred Things Like That”
Now’s a perfect time to return to Donald Trump’s kick-off speech, wherein lies an extended passage that puts the lie to the notions that Trump is incoherent and short on specific policy proposals. This digression — presumably delivered with benefit of neither notes nor teleprompter — is a hypothetical scenario describing how President Trump would handle Ford’s announcement that it plans to build a new car factory in Mexico.
Savor the gorgeous prose that wafts from the Trumpian tongue. Marvel at his recognition that a U.S. president has dictatorial powers. Admire his willingness to be vindictive when defied. Drink in the policy mastery and wisdom demonstrated by the leading GOP candidate.
Now Ford announces a few weeks ago that Ford is going to build a $2.5 billion car and truck and parts manufacturing plant in Mexico. $2.5 billion. It’s going to be one of the largest in the world. Ford – good company.
So I announced that I’m running for President. I would, one of the early things I would do, probably before I even got in, and I wouldn’t even use – you know, I know the smartest negotiators in the world.
I know the good ones, I know the bad ones, I know the overrated ones. You’ve got a lot that are overrated. They get good stories because the newspapers get buffaloed. But they’re not good.
But I know the best negotiators in the world and I’d put them one for each country. Believe me folks, we will do very, very well. Very, very well.
But I wouldn’t even waste my time with this one. I would call up the head of Ford, who I know. If I was President I’d say ‘Congratulations, I understand that you’re building a nice, $2.5 billion dollar factory in Mexico and that you’re going to take your cars and sell them to the United States. Zero tax – just flow them across the border.’
And you say to yourself, ‘How does that help us, right? Where is that good.’ It’s not.
So I’d say ‘Congratulations, that’s the good news. Let me give you the bad news. Every car, and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax. Okay? And that tax is going to be paid simultaneously with the transaction, and that’s it.’
Now here’s what’s going to happen. If it’s not me in the position, if it’s one of these politicians that we’re running against, you know, the 400 people that we’re – and here’s what going to happen. They’re not so stupid. They know it’s not a good thing. And they may even be upset by it.
But then they’re going to get a call from their donors or probably from the lobbyists for Ford and say, ‘You can’t do that to Ford, because Ford takes care of me, and I take care of you, and you can’t do that to Ford.’
And you know what? No problem. They’re going to build in Mexico, they’re going to take away thousands of jobs. That’s very bad for us. So under President Trump, here’s what would happen: The head of Ford will call me back, I would say within an hour after I told him the bad news, but it could be he’d want to be cool and he’ll wait until the next day. You know, they want to be a little cool.
And he’ll say, ‘Please, please, please.’
He’ll beg for a little while, and I’ll say, ‘Sorry, no interest.’
Then he’ll call all sorts of political people and I’ll say, ‘Sorry fellas, no interest.’
Because I don’t need anybody’s money. It’s nice. I don’t need anybody’s money. I’m using my own money. I’m not using lobbyists, I’m not using donors. I don’t care. I’m really rich.
And by the way, I’m not even saying that to brag. That’s the kind of mindset, that’s the kind of thinking you need for this country.
So, because we’ve got to make the country rich. It sounds crass. Somebody said ‘oh, that’s crass.’ It’s not crass…
But here is what’s going to happen. After I’m called by 30 friends of mine who contributed to different campaigns, after I’m called by all of the special interests and by the donors and by the lobbyists – and they have zero chance at convincing me. Zero. I’ll get a call they next day from the head of Ford.
He’ll say, ‘Please reconsider.’
I’ll say, ‘No.’
He’ll say, ‘Mr. President, we’ve decided to move the plant back to the United States. We’re not going to build it in Mexico.’
That’s it. They’ll have no choice. They have no choice.
There are hundred things like that.
Only 99 more to go?
Image Credit: Andrew Cline / Shutterstock.com
Published in Foreign Policy
All true. But the real question is why this off-the-cuff bluster is so appealing to so many conservatives and traditional Americans.
“I have a phone and I have a pen.”
Conservatives and traditional Americans are urged every two years to vote Republican by the leaders of that political party which is supposed to represent our interests. After the elections, however, precious little gets done and the very same leaders who promised action to get our votes turn around and claim that they are mostly impotent.
We are encouraged to play by the rules even as we see the Democrats violate those rules – and win.
It seems only normal to balk at advice that amounts to “heads you win, tails I lose.”
It also seems normal to seek out voices which, whether exaggerated or not, project confidence and authority, rather than diffidence and weakness.
We all remember clicking on You Tube a few years ago to enjoy the latest Chris Christie confrontation with liberals. We all remember cheering Newt when he talked back to the media.
We’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. Trump may be a caricature of what works in 21st Century American politics, but there is a lot of virtue in good caricatures, as Herblock and Mike Ramirez prove.
Conservatives and traditional Americans are sending a message via the Trump cartoon candidacy. Instead of pointing out how unrealistic the cartoon is, the real question is, will anybody get the message?
Yes — but Christie and Gingrich respect the law. The lawlessness is still bigger problem than Republican weakness.
Let’s elect someone competent and tough, yes, and someone who is willing to use every trick in the book — but not someone who is willing to throw the Constitution out the window to tax imports at 35%. That’s a strong man indeed — the banana republic kind of strong man.
And what do we do if there is a part of the Republican party that just wants a strongman? If all the talk about the Constitution and the separation of powers and free markets and deregulation and all of the rest was just talk or something people simply tolerated if it would achieve other ends? Not all Trump supporters, but some of them.
Not trying to be a bummer. Maybe we have to start being clear-eyed about this. I’d like to run through all other possibilities first because it is a terrible thing to think about and even worse if it is true.
Human nature is what it is — and I am sure there is some percentage that does want exactly that. And this is at least pushing close:
I guess maybe she didn’t really think abortion took a human life after all.
But this is what they want, or think they want, right now. That does not mean they cannot be persuaded otherwise.
And I think it’s less that people don’t care about the Constitution than that they think it’s essentially done for anyway. If Obama keeps ignoring it, we’re fools to stick by it. (There is an answer to this. We need to make it.)
This is a guess, but my sense is that the Trump supporters overlap broadly with the Palin supporters from 2012 who never had a candidate that cycle. I don’t know if they stayed home, voted for various long-shots, voted for Santorum, settled for Romney, or some combination.
Score two points to Ann for honesty.
I hope you’re right. The alternative is terrible to think about it.
Oh, and she just said it’s the most impressive document since the Magna Carta. This is now beyond parody.
But outrage won’t really work in response.
I think “opportunities in the book” (if book represents the law and procedures) is a better way to state it.
The word tricks seems so dishonest, and, well, um…Obamistic.
The other thing is, there are so many procedural loops and holes in our legislature, that it is not always the law, but the procedures of making law, that causes the problems.
I think the biggest problem with The Donald is that he has NO IDEA of the procedural limitations of running our country. Our president is not the major shareholder in this country, and should not have the ability to pull a phone or pen out of his quiver of weapons.
Obama has been wrong in doing that. It is very important to that our next President acknowledge Obama’s behavior as a true danger to our future.
This country can not be run by dishonest people at the helm. Character, in the end, does count. That has always been true, but we’ve had many years of intensive review since Bill Clinton on that concept…will we pass the test in 2016?
I think Ann Coulter had some sort of brain surgery or shock therapy. I seriously can’t believe what comes out of her mouth these days.
would we describe her words as Mega-Hyperbole?
omg. I fear for her life, someone with an axe to grind might just go find her, with axe in hand.
From Trump’s paper:
Statement 2 is indisputable true, both bolded and unbolded.
Statement 1 is true, though I have mixed feelings about a wall, unless it is a measure of last resort. Maybe we’re reached that point. But I do believe in securing the border.
Statement 3 is something a Democrat would say. Government intervention on a matter of security is legitimate. Government intervention for economic reasons is not. Will he also establish industrial policy? Call for a raise in the minimum wage?
Fair enough.
What I’m getting at is that I would probably support some pretty drastic measures, like ending the filibuster if necessary. But not actually violating the actual constitution.
From the little actual analysis I’ve read on that plan so far, the correct response to Trump’s plan isn’t the outrage that will make people defensive. It’s that this is a “big-government solution” to the problem.
But someone has to offer a grown-up plan in response. If it is this vs. Bush/Rubio, we’re in for it.
It’s on you, Governor Walker and Senator Cruz.
except, if Trump spoke in public about any of those 3 points, it would be incomprehensible. I hope I am wrong.
I agree with you about #3. National borders are naturally the responsibility of our federal government.
The impetus for border control should be about keeping the defined national boundaries safe and secure. Closed.
The economics that result from a defined border will, and should, follow on its own, not be the inspiration for defending the boundary, or ignoring it.
Maybe our mistake from the beginning was to make immigration laws involving guaranteed quotas. We should bring in immigrants as needed to supplement our communities and workforce, not by some permanent and eternal quota system.
Clearly our needs are different than they were 50 to 100 years ago…
At this point, we need a “No Vacancy” sign, plus a verification and headcount of who is here.
Sometimes the challenges on our border seem not unlike the looting that everyone decries in Ferguson or Baltimore.
Just because you are, or think you are, disenfranchised does not give you permission to enter our country, and steal what does not belong to you.
yes to what you say.
I am torn about the filibuster thing. Isn’t that the ‘nuclear option’ that was added, quite underhanded?
The very nature of how the change was wrought seems to call for a reversal. But part of me wants the Dems to get their just desserts for doing that.
It is risky though, because if the Dems gain control…aren’t we cooked?
I’m torn too, in the abstract. But if it comes down to the point and some significant policy or the Supreme Court is on the line — the filibuster is extra-constitutional, though a good thing. If it has to go to reverse unconstitutional changes, I think that comes first. I fully expect that otherwise it would only last so long as it serves the Democrats’ purposes anyway.
I agree.
In what scenario would they revert the filibuster rule back to its original status?
edit:
Are there no advantages right now, for the R’s?
A plan to use it now, to accomplish specific gain? then a switch back to reverse the destruction Obama has wrought?
Let’s be honest: whenever it suited them. Once it’s gone, it is essentially gone unless it serves the majority leader’s purposes.
But the Constitution does not require a 60-vote Senate majority.
I like the John Yoo approach. When Republicans get the chance, take down the filibuster and retaliate. When our number reaches the number of appointments done under the nuclear option, reimpose. It combines doing the right thing with retribution on the Democrats for their actions.
John Yoo=Awesome.
We need this guy somewhere, where a pen and a phone are the proper strategy!
I’m on my way.
Thanks MwtA, someone’s got to do it. ;)