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.
I guess we disagree. I think it would be a victory because they managed to get him to leave. Any time the GOP does what the Dems want, they are winning. Zero sum game.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Please clarify.
That’s rather thin gruel to base an entire assessment over. It’s clearly a rhetorical device useful for this specific President based on his past media history. Do you really believe that that Professor Epstein wants to give one citizen the power to remove the President at will?
The constitution does not mandate or — so far as I’m aware — allude to the circumstances that could trigger a resignation.
I’m no scholar on this point, this phrasing implies to me that resignation is a completely independent way to leave office than the others mentioned. As I’m reading this, the president can resign for any reason he pleases, even — perish the thought — earning Richard Epstein’s opprobrium.
I’ll cite the only in-office resignation I am familiar with, that of Gov Palin. The same fears were present at the outset of her resignation. There was a minor industry in this state devoted criticizing her. When she turned the Governorship over, the critics claimed victory. Now, the Democratic Party is near non existent in Alaska. They are rebuilding, for sure, but the tools of destructive rhetoric are not the official mode.
Nope. Epstein owns this one by going for click bait.
So the CoC is meaningless if the headline disrupts delicate sensibilities? Nonsense.
[redacted] Those ‘people’ to whom you refer surely had numerous questions regarding the President’s personal qualities but few issues regarding his policies and have suffered little disappointment in that regard. Get real!
Where did I indicate otherwise? That doesn’t change anything for those that had issues with those policies. Should they shut up now?
The editors should have rejected the post.
Why?
No, but neither should anyone expect that constant reiteration of those views that failed to prevent Trump’s election will garner any respect from his supporters.
Maybe it wasn’t directed at you? In my opinion people should speak the truth regardless of its popularity.
I disagree, but you can have the last word. I can’t keep up with your posting volume.
Sorry – but since we pay for moderation and the moderators have done their job – I think the Ricoverse is perfectly reasonable in their disdain for Prof Epstein. The problem (since the mods have ‘adjusted’ the comments) is the weak argument.
It is the vast holes in the argument.
The (remaining) response of the membership is perfectly warranted – (because the well paid mods removed what was not.)
[redacted]
It is important that every Ricochet member feels free to speak his or her mind, civilly and respectfully, on this thread.
Clearly there are some differences of opinion, but they will not be solved by the people on one side telling the people on the other that they have only two choices: either to give up their beliefs, or to keep their mouths shut.
There is room for more than one opinion here. Please respect all of them. Thank you.
Now the next question pops up in my mind. Will the Richard Epstein’s of the country, who offer cogent analysis but occasionally wrong conclusions, be joining forces with the Bill Kristol’s of the country, to prefer the deep state shadow government embedded by Obama over the duly elected government of President Trump? So much fake news and fake twitter around that I cannot count on what I see but it is out there. Same question might be asked of anyone showing similar preferences to the extent they support a call for the POTUS to resign.
What is the point of this comment?
So far I haven’t told anyone who I voted for. But if you’re smart enough to figure out the problem with Hillary’s e-mails, you’re probably smart enough to guess. I will neither confirm nor deny.
I haven’t said Trump messed up on the EO and won’t say that he did. There are so many mess-ups in our government that it would be misleading and deceitful to call this one a mess up.
You may ignore this comment.
Summarizing my major post on the member feed, my major problem with Epsteins post, is that he doesnt understand political reality. He lives in a belief that somehow sensible people are somehow involved in electoral politics and that if Trump simply resigns it all work out nice and simple and President Pence and a unified Republic Senate and House will easily resolve all the problems and go live happily ever after.
We here in the comments section live in this place called the real world, and understand what kind of giant *BLANK* that would happen as a result.
Perhaps someone can translate the results into faculty/university speak. I lack the energy.
You mistake my position. I did not say that seeking a president’s resignation is un-Constitutional; I said that it was anti-Constitutional.
I understand an un-Constitutional act or claim to be one contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, such as a President’s assuming the right to legislate or declare war. I understand an anti-Constitutional act or claim to be one contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution.
I consider seeking the resignation of a President anti-Constitutional because it is the form, intent, and spirit of the Constitution that persons elected under its provisions (presidents, senators, and Congressmen) to serve for prescribed terms of years, not during the time that their actions, demeanor, or other characteristics are favored by the Congress, their cabinets (men elected to no office), or their parties. The exceptions to this expectation being the commission of impeachable acts.
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, not un-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.
Of course that is not what I have said. Please see #411 above to ascertain why I said that forcing a president to resign would be “anti-Constitutional”.
Well, he was elected in accordance with the Constitution, so the question of his “personal qualities or polices” was settled in his favor just as it was in all the elections with which I personally am familiar, those of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, et al. through the last holder of the office before him. The political system of this country awarded him the office, and did so after an exhausting and thorough campaign. You obviously do not like it, but the fact is that he won the election in which his “personal qualities [and] polices” were thoroughly explored, challenged, and accepted. In my judgment, that is “settled”, at least for this quadrennium.
Long story short @m1919a4 is correct.
You had an election. Its over he and those agree with him won.
In fact I just remember the last time I saw someone do what Richard Epstein did. It was election night 2010 and senator Bernie Sanders demanded that the Republicans in the congress not push to keep the Bush Tax Cuts. Something about them not have an electoral mandate, despite the fact they ran on keeping those tax cuts and winning the house in the biggest landslide in 60 years.
If you have a problem with that there are ways to handle it, including using your free speech to demand that he resign.
Just as we on the other side have every reason to laugh at such an un-serious post and think that the actions are childish.
You make a lot of assumptions about Prof. Epstein that have no basis in reality.
Thank you!
He has said it’s time for Trump to resign. In my opinion, he has the same information, no more no less, than he had when he chose not to vote for Trump but the American public elected Trump. The assumption I am making is that Epstein is having trouble accepting the Constitutional outcome of that election based simply on his essays. I’m not making any further assumptions, just posing a question more or less asking is he going to continue his campaign. I pointed out that some others, people who have also alleged themselves to be ‘rule of law’ Americans, are openly supporting illegal leaks of intelligence. Epstein could, for example, hold his fire until he gets some new facts that might give him a reason to write another essay of this ilk.
Bottom line. There has never been an ideology that bureaucracy couldn’t ruin in 5 minutes.
“Accepting,” and “approving of,” are not the same thing. The fact that Trump won , and that his win was legitimate are irrelevant to whether or not Prof. Epstein thinks he is fit to lead, nor should it prevent him from speaking his mind on the subject.
You are implicitly associating Prof. Epstein with said people based on nothing more than their shared dislike of Donald Trump. Prof. Epstein has said nothing to indicate that he agrees with Bill Kristol’s shameful comments. There was no reason for you to bring it up other than to shame Prof. Epstein by association.
Ah yes, I remeber how everyone on Ricochet remained silent about President Obama and his failings after 2012. How silly of me.
Moderator Note:
Baiting.[redacted]