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.
A Tale of Two Donalds
Donald Trump delivered two major speeches Wednesday, one in Mexico City and one in Phoenix. They might as well have been delivered by two different candidates.
Earlier in the day, Trump held a joint appearance with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in which the GOP nominee delivered a meek, conciliatory message stressing friendship. Trump spoke as much of Mexico’s need for job security and border enforcement as he did of America’s. He abandoned his threat to leave NAFTA, and instead proposed the countries work together to improve the trade agreement.
“A strong, prosperous, and vibrant Mexico is in the best interest of the United States,” Trump said. “Both of our countries will work together for mutual good and most importantly for the mutual good of our people.” He also stressed the importance of protecting manufacturing jobs not just in America, but throughout “our hemisphere.” Trump’s muted voice and bowed body language demonstrated even more contrition to the country he had spent a year inveighing against.
Pundits and journalists applauded the Mexico City speech as evidence of the heralded “Trump pivot.” He was kinder, gentler — presidential even. They should have resisted the “New Trump” reviews until more details trickled out of Los Pinos and until he spoke later that night. While standing next to the President of Mexico, Trump said that the two “didn’t discuss payment of the wall.” A couple of hours later, Peña Nieto said they had. “At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump,” the Mexican President said, “I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.”
Once he was safely back in the US, Old Trump was back. Before taking the stage, his supporters tossed slab after slab of red meat to the yelling crowd. Sheriff Joe Arpaio bragged about the illegals he’s locked up. Rudy Giuliani and Jeff Sessions spoke angrily of our broken border while sporting “Make Mexico Great Again Also” hats. A parade of moms shared one by one how illegal immigrants “slaughtered” their family members while a dad noted how an illegal “shot my son in the face.”
By the time he took the stage, the crowd was hungry for an anti-Mexico stance and Trump delivered. Instead of the promised policy speech on immigration, it was another rally for his biggest fans. When in Mexico, Trump didn’t discuss payment of the wall, but in Phoenix he said, “Mexico will pay for the wall, believe me — 100 percent — they don’t know it yet, but they will pay for the wall.” He claimed President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” deportation plan didn’t go far enough. Trump promised he would deport 2 million criminal aliens on “day one, my first hour in office.”
He insisted “there will be no amnesty” and joked that his anti-immigration force might also deport Hillary Clinton. As part of Trump’s “extreme vetting” he now will require “an ideological certification” to ensure new immigrants are properly pro-American. The 74-minute speech ended with Trump calling the moms back to the stage so they could detail again how illegal immigrants killed their family members and publicly endorse the GOP nominee.
As I noted between the two speeches, if Trump played contrite in Mexico and bombastic in the US, it would make him look vacillating and weak. An actual tough guy will take on a skeptical audience as well as a supportive one. Even if the tone is different, he would communicate the same message to wildly different crowds.
Instead, we saw Trump pander to whichever audience he was with at the moment. In Mexico he was servile; in Arizona he swaggered. In Mexico, diplomacy; in Arizona, derision. Presidential when meeting a president; outrageous when meeting the outraged.
Which Trump will we get if he makes it to the White House? We just can’t know.
Published in Immigration
I don’t know how he’s going to do it but I think we ought to employ the same tactic to clear Steelers post-game traffic.
So does the crazy guy at the end of the bar at 3pm but, like Trump, he’s quite unclear about what Presidents do.
If you will not admit that this is a change from his previous rhetoric then there is no point in discussing things further with you.
I have said it many times before, Trump is a salesman. This is what salesmen do. They tell their prospects what they think the prospect wants to hear. SSDD.
Is NAFTA an example of the ‘free trade’ that you favor? My take is that if NAFTA is free trade, it does not favor one country over another. If one country gets a favorable status, that’s not free trade. I don’t know what is in NAFTA. Are you saying that Trump and all his staff do not understand what is in NAFTA, in other words, that it is neutral and does not favor either country? If that, why does NAFTA exist?
NAFTA is designed to facilitate trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, and is considered free because of the elimination of tariffs, quotas, etc. We have a trade deficit with Mexico, which means business in the United States are importing more Mexican produced goods than we are exporting American produced goods to Mexico. Keep in mind part of the trade deficit is due to the fact that Mexico is a main supplier of oil for the United States.
Some data on the type of goods:
Exports to Mexico: “The top export categories (2-digit HS) in 2015 were: machinery ($42 billion), electrical machinery ($41 billion), vehicles ($22 billion), mineral fuels ($19 billion), and plastics ($17 billion).”
Imports from Mexico: “The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2015 were: vehicles ($74 billion), electrical machinery ($63 billion), machinery ($49 billion), mineral fuels ($14 billion), and optical and medical instruments ($12 billion).”
I am in favor of eliminating all tariffs and subsidies regardless of the actions of other nations. NAFTA is long and complicated – I leave it to @jamesofengland to explain why – but suffice to say I believe NAFTA is better than nothing.
Yes – I believe that Trump does not understand how NAFTA works or the basic economics underlying the arguments for Free Trade.
Continued from above:
In a trading relationship one country is going to come out on top of the other. The United States population consumes a lot of imports. We like our stuff.
You can look to the CAFTA-DR (Central America Free Trade Agreement + Dominican Republic) countries to see some, albeit small, trade surpluses. Overall, the US has a trade deficit with the rest of the world.
We also have a trade deficit with Canada.Edit: Looked at the wrong piece of data. Overall, we have a trade surplus with Canada due to services. We have a trade deficit in goods.
That’s just not true. Or its only true by a very narrow definition. Trade only takes place when both sides of the transaction are left better off.
I meant the narrow definition – one will have the deficit, the other will have the surplus. Politicians seize on that number to paint a bleak picture.
He clearly stated he wanted to change NAFTA to be more in our favor. Do you deny that it is possible to desire changes to NAFTA in our favor while seeing Asian exports as a common rival?
How does one change NAFTA to be more in our favor? And if you change a free trade agreement to favor one country over another, doesn’t that defeat the purpose?
Well, this is the theory of free trade I don’t get. Isn’t nothing ‘free trade’?
I just went to Trump’s website to see if there was any additional information about renegotiating NAFTA. There isn’t any. It would be nice to get more details on his policy proposals.
Is it now verboten to recognize your audience and aim your speech at the people you’re talking to? Must he robotically repeat the same words wherever he is? Good grief, said Charlie Brown. Please define “facts”, as I’m confused about its use describing one’s perception of a youtube speech.
Is it the North American Facilitate Trade Agreement? Sounds more like what the title should be.
Yeah, I’m sure the doubters would have given him all sorts of credit for being “presidential” if he ripped Nieto a new one in Mexico City. “Trump stands firm in face of adversity!”
Right. You, I, and everyone reading this know that had Trump done that it would have done nothing but reinforce every negative impression all of you have of him.
So he has to continue being reckless and belligerent or people like you will accuse him of inconsistency. Of course, if he stays reckless and belligerent, you get to criticize him for being reckless and belligerent.
It was also legislated to be reviewed periodically to ensure it’s fulfilling its original intent. That’s what Trump proposes.
If it were truly a free trade agreement, wouldn’t it be an agreement between all the governments not to interfere with trade between private parties within their countries or between private parties in one country and the government of another?
But news agency summaries of the Arizona speech talk about how reckless and hardline it was, so that’s plenty of evidence it was actually reckless.
The biased and untrustworthy mainstream media that’s been ridiculously unfair to every GOP presidential candidate since the fifties can now immediately be trusted without question when they’re criticizing Trump.
What is the matter, Mr Gabriel? Is this tactic distasteful to you? Was the ‘parade’ lacking floats or marching bands? Was their recounting of their tragedies harmful to you in some way?
I found their testimony moving and I think giving them a voice over ‘journalists’ and ‘opinion writers’ and other media vermin a much needed move.
But it makes Trump look bad so it’s okay.
Thanks for the info about the periodic review. I understand that Trump is proposing a renegotiation. I just wish there was more information as to how he proposes to change it.
You haven’t shown that he’s changed his rhetoric. But if you want to show that he has changed his rhetoric, then please do and then if you prove it then I’ll admit it. But you haven’t proven it.
Take a look at his announcement speech from last year. He said in it that he would “Renegotiate our foreign trade deals.” So tell me how he’s changing his rhetoric by saying that he wants to make NAFTA better for the U.S.?
You missed the second half of my sentence, but that’s ok.
Trump: “I shared my strong view that NAFTA has been a far greater benefit to Mexico than it has been to the United States and that it must be improved upon to make sure that workers, and so important, in both countries benefit from fair and reciprocal trade.”
Much of this has been argued in the posts on trade. The definition of better off is the trouble point. I see similarities with arguments between closed union shop advocates and right-to-work advocates. In the closed shop case, better off refers to the Union monolith and the average to below average performers are better off as a group but high performance workers may not agree. Something similar goes on with free trade and tariffs.
I don’t know what he plans to change. I’m just saying the accusation that he’s changed what he meant on trade is off-base. He’s said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA and he’s said he plans to deal with China’s currency manipulation. That’s consistent with the quotes provided in his thread.
Ok, fair enough. Perhaps this will give Mexico the opportunity to carve out a deal more beneficial to its farmers.
Don’t the specifics regarding this need to be known to evaluate? Even if called a ‘free trade agreement’, if Trump (or anyone, for that matter) identifies facts that show the agreement somehow is giving Mexico advantages over the U.S., changes might be in order.