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.
Time for Trump to Resign
The nearly four weeks since President Donald Trump’s inauguration have been the most divisive period of American politics since the end of the Second World War. The sharp lines that everyone is drawing in the sand pose a serious threat to the United States. On the one side stand many conservatives and populists who are rejoicing in the Trump victory as the salvation of a nation in decline. On other side sit the committed progressives who are still smarting from an election in which they were trounced in the electoral college, even as Hillary Clinton garnered a clear majority of the popular vote.
As a classical liberal who did not vote for either candidate, I stand in opposition to both groups. And after assessing Trump’s performance during the first month of his presidency, I think it is clear that he ought to resign. However, it important to cut through the partisan hysteria to identify both what Trump is doing right and wrong in order to explain my assessment of his presidency to date.
On the positive side is the simple fact that Trump won the election. What is right about Trump is what was wrong with Clinton—her promise to continue, and even expand, the policies of the Obama administration. The day after the election, it was clear that none of her policy proposals would be implemented under a Trump presidency, coupled with a Republican Congress. As I have long argued, there are good reasons to critique the progressive world view. Progressives believe that reduced levels of taxation and a strong dose of deregulation would do little or nothing to advance economic growth. In their view, only monetary and fiscal policy matter for dealing with sluggish growth, so they fashion policy on the giddy assumption that their various schemes to advance union power, consumer protection, environmental, insurance, and financial market regulation—among others—only affect matters of distribution and fairness, but will have no discernible effect on economic growth. In making this assumption, they assume, as did many socialists and New Dealers in the 1930s, that it is possible to partition questions of justice and redistribution from those of economic prosperity.
In taking this position, they fail to account for how administrative costs, major uncertainty, and distorted incentives affect capital formation, product innovation, and job creation. Instead, today’s progressives have their own agenda for wealth creation that includes such remedies as a $15 minimum wage, stronger union protections, and an equal pay law with genuine bite. But these policies will necessarily reduce growth by imposing onerous barriers on voluntary exchange. The fact that there was any economic growth at all under the Obama administration—and even then, it was faltering and anemic—had one cause: the Republican Congress that blocked the implementation of further progressive policies and advanced a pro-growth agenda.
Sadly, both President Obama and his various administrative heads pushed hard on the regulatory levers that were still available to them. And so we got a Department of Labor (DOL) decision to raise the exemption levels under the Fair Labor Standards Act from just over $23,000 to just over $47,000, in ways that would have disrupted, without question, several major segments of the economy for whom the statutory definition of an hour does not serve as a workable measure of account. Thus, at one stroke, DOL compromised the status of graduate students, whose studies and work are often inseparable; of tech employees, whose compensation often comes in the form of deferred stock payments; and of gig workers, who are employed by the job and not the hour. At the same time, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has taken steps to wreck highly successful, long-term franchising arrangements, by announcing henceforth that the franchisor may on a case-by-case basis be treated as an employer subject to the collective bargaining obligations of the NLRA. These, and similar decisions, are acts of wealth destruction, and they offer one powerful explanation, among many, for the decline in the labor participation rate to its lowest levels since World War II.
The misguided opposition to the Trump administration extends far more broadly. I was an advisor to the MAIN coalition (Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now) in the now successful effort to undo the roadblocks that the Obama administration put in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline, and still find it incomprehensible that any administration could engage in a set of collusive rearguard actions to block a pipeline that met or exceeded every government standard in terms of need, safety, and historical and environmental protection. The handwringing of the Obama administration over the Keystone XL pipeline was equally inexcusable. Two expertly crafted executive orders from the Trump administration removed the roadblocks simply by allowing the standard review processes of the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to run their course. Nonetheless, virtually every initiative to deregulate that comes from the Trump administration is greeted with howls of protest, whether the topic be healthcare, banking, brokerage, or consumer protection. Yet these very deregulations explain why the stock market has surged: collectively, they will help revive a stagnant economy.
Worse still are the attacks on the integrity and independence of Judge Neil Gorsuch from most, but not all, progressives. Georgetown University’s Neal Katyal should be singled out for his praise of Gorsuch as a person and a judge. Unfortunately, the vast majority of progressives, like Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, wail that Gorsuch is not a mainstream judge, is not sufficiently supportive of progressive ideals, and, most critically, is not Judge Merrick Garland. The United States sails in treacherous waters when members of either party think that any judge appointed by the opposition is not fit for service on the United States Supreme Court unless he publicly denounces the President who nominated him for that high office. I have long believed that any nominee should be judged on his or her record, without being called on to play rope-a-dope before hostile senators who only wish to bait, trap, and embarrass the nominee.
It seems clear that if President Trump went about his job in a statesmanlike manner, the progressive counterattack would surely fail, and a sane Republican party could gain the support of a dominant share of the electorate for at least the next two election cycles, if not more.
Yet there are deeper problems, because President Trump’s anti-free trade agenda will hurt—if not devastate—the very people whom he wants to help. Extensive trade between the United States and Mexico is indispensable for the prosperity of both countries. The looming trade war threatens that win/win position. The notion that the United States should run positive trade balances with every country is an absurd position to take in international economic relations, lest every country has the right to claim the same preferred status for itself. Yet it has never occurred to Trump that a negative trade balance amounts to a vote of confidence by other countries that it is safe to invest in the United States, allowing the United States to create new industries and new jobs. Nor does he understand that any effort to be successful in the export market requires importing cheap components from foreign firms—an oversight evident from his ill-conceived executive order calling, whenever legal, for American pipe on an American pipelines. If our trade partners retaliate, the current stock market surge will take on a different complexion. The Dow may be high, but the variation in future prices will be high as well. If Congress thwarts his anti-trade agenda, the domestic reforms should yield lasting benefits. If Congress caves, or if Trump works by aggressive executive order, the entire system could come tumbling down.
Speaking of executive orders, the President’s hasty and disastrous order dealing with immigrants has vast implications for America’s position in the world. In a global economy, the United States cannot afford to let petty protectionism keep the best talent from coming here for education and staying later for work. I, for one, believe that his executive order exceeds his executive powers. Others, like Michael McConnell, disagree. But no matter which way one comes down on its legality, nothing excuses its faulty rollout, petty nationalism, exaggerated fears of terrorism, and disruptive economic effects. The Trump administration agenda desperately needs to be rethought from the ground up by a deliberative process in which the President relies on his Cabinet.
So the question remains: does Trump remain his own worst enemy? My fears are that he is too rigid and too uneducated to make the necessary shift to good leadership. By taking foolish and jingoist stances, Trump has done more than any other human being alive today to bring a sensible classical liberal agenda into disrepute. Then there is the matter of his character. The personal moral failings of the President include his vicious tweets, his self-righteous attitude, his shameless self-promotion, his petty resentments, his immoral flirtation with Vladimir Putin, his nonstop denigration of federal judges, his jawboning of American businesses, his predilection for conspiracy theories, his reliance on alternative facts, and his vindictive behavior toward his political opponents.
Hence, I think that there is ample reason to call for Trump’s resignation, even though I know full well that my advice will not be heeded. And this welcome outcome will not happen so long as the attack against him comes solely from progressive Democrats. Sensible Republicans should focus on the threat that he represents to their plan, and recall that the alternative is no longer Hillary Clinton, but Mike Pence. I think that Pence is unlikely to abandon the positive aspects of the Trump agenda, and there is some reason to hope that he will back off Trump’s suicidal positions on trade and immigration, and put a stop to the endless train of uncivil behaviors demeaning the office of the President. Some miracles happen, but a Trump transformation will not be one of them. Unfortunately, his excesses could power a progressive revival. Would that I had the power to say to Trump, “You’re fired!”
Published in Law, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
If you have something potentially damaging or divisive to say, you say it in a way that bears fruit and isn’t an exercise in vanity.
Moderator Note:
Please avoid direct attacks upon your fellow members.I disagree. There is nothing in the article that deserved the response the commenters threw at the author. Yes, the conclusion is weak. Yes, there are holes in the argument. That doesn’t mean it the [redacted] response of the membership was warranted.
So riccochet is not above the use of “click-bait”?
Okay then as a student of history can you pick a time period where you think we got it right and that we should be striving to emulate?
The simplest explanation would be that Epstein failed in his effort to avoid Trump’s election so now he is hard at work to try for the next best outcome in his view. No? Illusions of grandeur?
I don’t see why the OP had to be damaging or divisive – it was the membership that chose to make it so. It could have been dealt with civilly and rationally. The Ricochet way.
Insert commentary on libertarianism by Bryan here. Yes should be in another thread.
No just bad faith on your part.
Of course it’s not! The hope is that click-bait around here is also substantive and civil. But how many sites striving to get noticed in the world would be entirely above click-bait?
Well played, sir. :)
When Trump ACTUALLY violates the constitution or does something in a way that isn’t such a toss up (the Immi EO), then see where you find Trump Supporters.
You have a lot conspiring against the Trump Supporter’s resistance to persuasion and it is all complete distrust of who is telling us we should be criticizing him already.
As has been pointed out, crying wolf over small things is not going to make us persuadable when he does do something wrong.
Also, expecting an immediate response to breaking news and then jumping on them will just push us more into never being persuaded because we distrust media and reporting so we wait for more information before claiming Trump screwed up.
I think nearly every Trump voter here has said he messed up on the EO. Some hold out that he is setting strategy, others that its understandable. But you have criticism!
Jamie… back off.
Here’s the issue: Richard clearly believes Trump has done something wrong. Many things. Egregious things. He attempted to make the case that this was so. That this doesn’t agree with many Trump Supporters ideas doesn’t mean he should write it based on his own beliefs.
Again, I agree with you here.
Professor Epstein’s argument is not so much a leftist or Marxist program (although in a non-doctrinal sense, that of undermining the legitimacy of our Constitution, it is a customary communist tactical ploy). The problem with it is that it is an anti-Constitutional proposal.
Our Constitution says how a President is to be selected. Mr. Trump was selected by that means, legally and fairly (the “popular vote” argument is arrant nonsense). Should the eligible voters have been far more limited? I think probably so, but the impetus in recent decades has been to open the rolls to every Tom, Dick and Harry in the country. Shall he now be turned out or office because of differences in judgment over the results of his first three weeks’ record?
Our Constitution provide only two methods for removing a sitting President: the first is by impeachment, and not even Professor Epstein holds that Mr. Trump has the committed a “high crime or misdemeanor” for which he should be impeached. And, there is no evidence of which I am aware that he has become incapacitated.
What Professor Epstein is wishing for is a system desired by political thinkers of the progressive sort since at least the end of the Nineteenth Century: the imposition of a cabinet style of government something like that of Britain, with the Congress functioning as does the Parliament in London.
This is the sort of argument that should be made to the Conservative Party in London to shed Theresa May, or to Labour to rid itself of Jeremy Corbyn. “We the People of the United States” have a very different arrangement and I think it the height of irresponsibility to try to subvert it.
Finally, this is a clear call for intervention by “the elites”, the denizens of official Washington and the “educated” (whoever that may mean: I expect that Mr. Trump is the only man among them who ever has met a payroll). Lest we forget, turning those people OUT was the goal of Trump voters, and mine.
As has been said here before, “Process Matters“, and what Professor Epstein advocates is not our process.
There are lessons learned everywhere, right and wrong things, partially right. Things that worked mixed with things that didn’t work…
No time is perfect or completely right. When trying to codebreak, we don’t try the alphabet from a-z and have it not work and decide we need a whole new system to break the code. There may be some letters in the code. We may also need something new – like numbers. But the necessary pieces could have already been found and paired wrongly and some pieces may need to be innovated.
I have more to say on protectionism specically, but its way off topic.
There is a precedent for a President resigning. Desiring such is not anti-constitutional.
Please point me to where Professor Epstein said Trump should be “removed”. President’s are allowed to resign there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from doing so.
You clearly have an idea on what constitutes conservatism. In order to have a fruitful discussion it would be helpful if you could actually outline it for us.
Citizens calling for the removal of a leader they find to be egregiously dangerous to liberty? I can think of no process more American.
Was Richard Nixon’s resignation unconstitutional? Would calling for Obama’s resignation after, say, Benghazi have been “an anti-Constitutional proposal”?
Again, we have a pretty clear precedent of a president resigning his office (albeit, under circumstances of immanent impeachment and removal from office). Regardless, people resign from public office for all sorts of reasons, and there’s no expectation I’m aware of that a resignation can only be justified by illegality.
The question at hand is whether Trump’s actions in office rise to this informal standard. Epstein argues that they do and lays out a case for for it (essentially, “Trump is temperamentally unsuited to the office and his trade policies would be disastrous.”). Personally, I find this underwhelming and unpersuasive, even though I share his basic concerns on these points.
I don’t see the downside to resignation. Any “victory” the Dems may feel at first would soon be washed away when they realize their raison d’etre is gone.
Surely, Trump supporters are not as equally reliant on Trump for their identity?
I’ll work on that and try to get it posted before the 1st.
Personally, I wasn’t calling for Obama’s resignation. And Nixon resigned after impeachment and before process for removal.
I wanted Obama and Hillary investigated and impeached. If they had been impeached, THEN I’d demand a resignation.
Were people really asking for his resignation? I recall many demands for impeachment process, but not resignation.
Yes, one president, Richard M. Nixon has resigned, and that was as impeachment charges were being prepared and a delegation of Republican members of Congress (his party) had gone to him to say that they could not support him in an impeachment proceeding. The whole business was fueled by the impending impeachment and the resignation was a product of it.
I think that desiring the resignation of a sitting president for the reasons advanced by Professor Epstein certainly IS anti-constitutional. His reasons go to whether Mr. Trump, on the basis of his personal qualities and his advocated policies ought to have been elected in the first place. That issue was settled on 8 November 20176.
The judiciary committee recommended that articles of impeachment be drawn up when Nixon redesigned, but he had not actually been impeached. Only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton have been impeached.
I don’t recall many calls for Obama’s resignation, either, but it wouldn’t affect my position if there had been. Again, there is no objective standard for calling for a president — or any public figure — to resign office; it’s entirely a judgment call.
FWIW, I think Epstein makes a poor case for his.
Trump is clearly WAY ahead of his time.
You’re saying that if any President resigned for any reason at any time that this would be a violation of the Constitution? That they should be forced to serve out their entire term? This would seem to be in violation of the 13th amendment.
Please explain why asking for a President to resign is anti-constitutional – what exact clause does it violate.
Nothing about Trump’s personal qualities or polices was “settled” on election day. All we know is that enough people in the right states didn’t care enough about those flaws to elect Hillary Clinton. Those flaws didn’t disappear on November 9th.
That is the entire tenor of the piece. Do you really think that the policy reversals and other changes made after consultation with his cabinet could or would be effected with out Mr. Trump’s removal? I should credit you with more sense.
But you needn’t puzzle over this. Here is what the good professor closed with:
This is exceedingly naive. As if the Dem’s raison d’etre wouldn’t shift to removing or obstructing Pence, or whoever else with an R next to their name becomes POTUS.
A Trump resignation would reinforce the liberal’s crybaby tantrum tactic. We’d never again see a Republican elected anywhere without some good ol’ fashioned “peaceful protesting.” Hell, why note throw in some Nazi-punching as well? Anyone to the right of McCain is a Nazi, don’t you know.