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.
No because I think it’s pointless to engage in this speculation. Trump isn’t going anywhere. You and Epstein need to deal with it.
Yes, some great men wrote a document based on this precept. It’s called The Constitution.
Process matters.
Of course this is a very divisive time in American. So many people who did not vote for Trump refuse to accept that he is the President. In the face of this Trump should just resign? This does not sound very rational.
What precedent does that set for future elections? Does every future President have to unite us and have perfectly smooth operations, without most of his/her cabinet, in the first month of office or step down?
I read the whole article – Pr. Epstein makes a phenomenal case for defeating Hillary, and salutes Trump for his nominations. He then condemns Trump for the executive order, which is fairly debatable. However, the crux of his argument against Trump is not based on legal matters, but rather on his brash, crude, and uncouth personality. It is disappointing to see the professor give an opinion driven so strongly by emotion & distaste rather than reasoning.
I like ctlaw’s comment, but I dare not say it myself or…
Time for NT’s and the squishy GOP to retire to their fainting couches and let the rest of us deal with reality. Did I really see a reference to Clinton in this thread?
So now you’re changing your response from the answer is obvious to its just not worth engaging in speculation.
I’m going to say you don’t really have an answer to my question.
Could you imagine though what 3 more years of Nixon would have meant? We probably would have gotten socialized medicine and a great Depression at the rate he was going with his price controls and EPA. Other than winning elections and sucking up to the Communists and loosing Vietnam I don’t know what the man was good for.
Your tactics are old and transparent. You love to abuse the superlative in mischaracterizing other people’s statements. Are you now telling me I “can’t call out” a public figure when I disagree with their policy? Just like I merely tried to apply the same rules to the professor as he applied to the President, I turn your words back on you.
You literally just said that of Professor Epstein and all (all, not just “professional” or “elite” #nevertrumpers). I’m throwing your own tactics back at you. If they’re old and transparent stop using them.
The constitution is a creation of the people of the USA, written in plain English, that is easy to read and understand. The President has final authority over immigration details with respect to aliens and national security.
Process matters when you’re cooking. Process can be a shield for sloppy thinking, misdirection and obfuscation in this case. Instead of merely repeating the mantra of process matters, how about you describe exactly where Trump violated the Constitution to the degree that the professor thinks he should slink from the public stage in defeat and humiliation? You can’t.
Using the impeachment standard, Trump is purported to be committing “high crimes & misdemeanors”? A classically liberal value is a reverence for the stability that constitutionally directed terms of office brings. As people may recall, I didn’t vote for either Trump or Hillary, but this seems a bit like using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito-infested pond. Put some frogs in the pond to eat the mosquitoes; don’t blow the whole thing up.
The law of unintended consequences is a bear; be careful what you wish for.
Who would be a one term president for sure. And probably the last GOP president for a generation. But if the GOP takes advice from Libertarians, who have a problem mustering 5% in an election they deserve it.
We live in the age of Trump, why should reason start playing a role in anything now? No baby. This is all glitz and glam, you have to understand this is an opening bid. Epstein isn’t the usual political commentator he doesn’t play by your PC establishment t rules of lining up like sheeple behind the President. Burn the system down. Shake things up, drain the swamp….
Not in the Constitution he doesn’t. This was a particular power granted to him by statute passed by Congress. A power that is constrained by other statutes passed by Congress.
How government does things is as important as the results. Getting what 51% of us want through tyranny is still tyranny.
Process matters.
What question?
Well…I totally wish he would resign. However, it’s not going to happen, and calling for it doesn’t win any credibility with those who disagree. How about making almost all of the same points, but with this statement in mind (one you made in this article): President Trump is his own worst enemy. This statement is easily defensible. Save the call for resignation for if/when he actually commits an impeachable offense. (I’d estimate about a 33% chance that he’ll commit such an offense. Just off the top of my head).
What are you talking about? People who support Trump have never said that you can’t criticism him (well, not seriously). I have to admit that there are a few things that I would like to see Trump have done better with.
However, calling for Trump to resign is unreasonable. Is there any other president who you would call to resign for a couple mistakes? Obama? Bush? They made mistakes too. Will you argue that every imperfect president should resign?
I will echo the call for NeverTrump pundits to step down, take a year off, and come back with constructive criticism.
I consider it a moral imperative to forgive mistakes when appropriate. Would you fire an employee for the first mistake they make when working for you? Would you disown a family member the first time they step out of line?
Would you trust someone who wouldn’t forgive even the slightest mistakes and immediately calls for the resignation of a president for doing what they said they were going to do but made a mistake while trying to do so? That is why I echo the call for the NeverTrump pundits to step down. They are not being productive giving constructive criticism.
“literally”? Not even “figuratively”? Said what? “can’t”? Where? How do you distinguish that from “shouldn’t”?
The only place I literally said “can’t” was in “who just can’t get over it”.
Donald Trump has not transformed in office – he is the man the American People elected, warts and all. There has been no deception. We chose him.
Epstein’s argument is embarrassingly weak. But it makes one thing clear: The “Establishment” is alive and well. To the GOPe, rolling back government is a bad thing.
Trump’s actions (not words) in office have been superb, with a decent success rate. More, please!
Wait, Richard Epstein is the establishment?
I honestly have no clue what’s going on here. I’m so confused that anyone would call for his resignation at this point when he seems to be learning from a lot of his mistakes and adapting. There’s a huge potential here for gains. So he doesn’t represent our character, so what? The damage was already done in that category by electing him, it’s not like impeaching him and claiming the moral high ground would be good for anybody other than democrats that I don’t trust at all to put it kindly.
I think Trump is doing great!
Is this true? I have hopes that it is but don’t have a source on that. Could someone provide a link or reference to some evidence to that. I am on team Trump, but like to have the evidence.
Off the top of my head I’m thinking about him being more diplomatic with the China/Taiwan situation. The joint statement with Japan seemed to be stronger than previous stories with foreign relations (think Australia, but I haven’t looked into the truth of the Australia phone call claims myself). I don’t think he’s shot himself in the foot since the immigration order, and I’m predicting he’ll be more cautious with concerns to EOs in the future. That last one of course is a prediction, but I’m sure there are other indicators as well in the last week alone.
Trump is President. Get over it Rich.
Yes I know that but thinking that Trump is the reason for the Leftist rage as opposed to the notion that these people would have rioted anyway is dumb. You people look at what they did to Romney and tell me that they would be acting any different now if it had been anyone but Trump? You people better realize that speaking eloquently and not being confrontational is not going to stop the burning out of cars and the smashing of Starbucks windows. In this race the nice guy finishes last and gets thrown in a gulag for violations of beating Democrats in an election.
I missed Pr. Epstein getting an orange spray tan and a taste for gaudy decor. I do look forward to golfing at the Riparian Rights course, however.