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.
Same here partner, in regards to you.
As is common to say here, you’ve become boring, repetitive, and tense.
Here’s a question: should all GOP legislators facing protests at their townhalls resign? They are obviously just creating an untenable situation by continuing to agitate the Left. Or is it only Republicans who don’t have the stamp of approval by National Review, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, or. Bill Kristol?
Is that really the entire substance of the post that you managed to glean?
Pretty much, yeah.
[redacted]
Honestly, this is one of the more remarkably unhinged and hysterical misstatements I’ve read, Mother Jones articles and Kurt Eichenwald tweets notwithstanding. Sure the noise to signal ratio has been high for a few months, but did I miss the Obama and Warren assassinations, the full scale battle outside the Democratic convention last summer, the eruption of most American cities into mayhem and arson and the community-by-community and family-by-family combat over a land war sending home 1,000 dead servicemen each month, with their emotionally battered comrades being subjected to scorn and abuse upon their return?
Could you be a tad less grandiose Prof. Epstein? Why pen open letters that aren’t read. There is a point when literary conceit just becomes conceit. Posing questions to Trump on the podcast about comparative advantage which if answered correctly would allow you to “permit” Trump to remain in office is silly pomposity.
Trump’s genius ability to cause his NeverTrump opponents to shed IQ and EQ points and start gabfesting is uncanny.
To be fair, Trump causes all of us to shed IQ and EQ points at times.
I see a resignation as a stroke of genius on Trump’s part. He would be going out on his terms, leaving America Great Again without the shame of impeachment or even impending impeachment. He will live a life of people forever calling him “Mr. President”, a member of the worlds most exclusive club.
Another bonus for the folks of Ricochet’s round table is that we annoying #Nevertrumpeteers will be denied the glory of your worst fear. That being the words, “I told you so…”.
Trump would go down on history as the most important and successful President of the twenty-first century. Win-win.
I knew you couldn’t answer my question. The law on the books gives Trump authority to prohibit entry of any alien based on class. The following may apply from Article II:
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
I guess if you make it complicated enough, we should just give up and let Fauxahontas rule us.
There is a dispute over the legality of the EO so you point isn’t as open and shut as you think.
The law on inadmissible aliens is clear as can be. Only clowns like the judges on the 9th circuit, and those who support them would think otherwise.
One of the problems with this line of reasoning as to the need to have Trump resign is that Trump did try to make it legal. The WhiteHouse press secretary said that the EO had been “approved by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel”.
So, while Trump himself may be the one in charge and the blame for it been badly done does fall, in part, on him, I do not believe that it was anything like a rogue action.
Trump had tried to make the order legal. Whether it was legal or not it was doesn’t matter in some ways when considering the quality of Trump’s decisions. It may have been the temporary head of the DOJ that failed. If I remember correctly, the person (head of the DOJ) in charge of making sure the order was legal was actually a Obama appointee. So, who is actually at fault? Who needs to resign? Oh wait, the head of the DOJ was already fired :) . Sabotage anyone? Okay, that would be a Conspiracy theory.
The idea that Trump is solely to blame and thus deserving of a call to resign is nonsense in my opinion.
And that “middle” voted for Trump and what he stood for during the campaign. I live with these people. Work and play with these people. They would not be happy if Trump resigned. Just the opposite. And if anybody thinks the loony left wouldn’t jump all over Pence for doing the same things as Trump just “nicer” then you are kidding yourself. I think you may get your wish in 2 years after the midterms. If Trump can accomplish the main things he campaigned on and set in motion most others, he will resign, on his terms, not before.
Prof Epstein, your reasons for wanting Trump out of the White House are not the same thing as an argument for Trump to resign. And after just three weeks? I’ve always admired your law commentary, but this post is not the least bit convincing. You seem to have given absolutely no thought to the precedent a resignation would set and the incentive it would create for even deeper polarization.
Troy Senik and John Yoo have got to be staring at each other right now, wondering who has to speak first.
I’m impressed with the lack of ***** Dr. Epstein gives.
I am not sure there is a subject that you do not have some advice for the new president. As a “classical” liberal, who did you think would be better suited to rectify the train wreck of the last eight years? Of course there is going to be vomiting, crying, gnashing of teeth, rendering clothing, because bad decisions, and the money and power behind them, are not going to go quietly. You didn’t vote for either, but its easy now to give opinion on every move. How is that helpful? Millions – hence the red looking US map, disagree with you. People seemed to believe that nothing less than a bulldozer could stop, and possibly reverse the country’s drive off the cliff.
I have read quite a few clergy services who are citing the state of our country and the challenges ahead. They would not agree with your assessments.
There is such a thing as “blood lust.” Have no illusions that a Trump resignation would pave the way for a kumbaya moment with the Left.
Richard,
Well, I guess you have removed all doubt. Trump has demonstrated that he intends to implement a vast array of policies that should make any Libertarian, any Classical Liberal, or any Conservative ecstatic. On the other side of the equation, you conjure fears of a yet to be demonstrated incompetence in trade. Trump’s obvious tactic is puffery first and then making a very rational deal second. You don’t even want to give him a chance before you pronounce him an imaginary future disaster. In addition, you voice a complete disdain for Trump’s character. Of course, in years past, say your formative years through to young adulthood, Trump’s behavior would have been described as typically male heterosexual. Surely Richard you never touched a woman before marriage when you were young. If you were ultra-orthodox, I might even believe you. Considering your youth was the 40s, 50s, and 60s I sort of doubt that you are lacking in carnal knowledge.
Richard, there is no moderate democratic party anymore. No Harry Truman no Jack Kennedy. There is no moderate Republican Party. No Dwight Eisenhower no Nelson Rockefeller. I’m really sorry to be forced to inform you of this. Perhaps you have been too submerged in technical legal issues to notice. The democratic party has wrapped itself around a socialist agenda and a deconstructionist soft Marxism. They are virulently anti-Israel as conclusively demonstrated by the U.N. vote + Kerry speech. For the last 20 years, even an old-line organization like ADL has labeled this level of anti-Israel obsession as ‘The New Anti-Semitism’.
I did not support Trump in the primaries. I was like Peter in that Trump was my 17th choice for Republican nominee. However, Gd has given me a Trump. I had no idea what that would be. I simply knew the other side was a disaster economically, politically, and morally for the country. I have been very pleasantly surprised by what Trump has done so far. This period has exceeded my wildest hopes for the possibilities of Trump.
Richard, it is reported in the Talmud that 3/4 of the Jews would not leave Egypt with Moses. They preferred to remain slaves under Pharoh rather than take a risk with the bizarre and outlandish Moses. If Gd offers you something you are very foolish to refuse. I suggest you think again.
Regards,
Jim
LOL. Apparently comments are being disappeared from this post.
George Orwell please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Honestly, you are delusional. I’m not a Trump supporter, in fact I was Never Trump for a long time. But he won. That is the only fact that counts.
All the problems are on the left. You see what you want to see. Your brain is playing tricks on you. Trump has been fine.
Demanding Trump resign from a legal, fair election is just insane. And Anarchy. It’s is uncivilized third world stuff. We have elections. Trump won it.
There is no such thing as a “popular vote” it is a made up thing to stir up the mobs in the streets. There never has been, or ever will be a “popular vote” for President.
So Clinton didn’t win it and Trump didn’t lose it. It does not exist. Each state has an election independent of the others and the winners of the popular vote inside of each and every state get the votes to take to the electoral college. Those are the rules now and forever.
Counting votes in any other way is just making things up. Like the total points a team might get in a basketball season means nothing. It’s the games they win that count. Making up some other system is bogus, and stupid.
If the left is hell bent on destroying this nation it will do it no matter who on the right would get elected. They destroy, it’s who they are.
Feeding the Bears will just make for more aggressive, hungry Bears…
Only comments that violate the Code of Conduct to which all commenters agreed before joining Ricochet.
No it would not change anything. I don’t actually like Trump. And the protests probably gain some momentum because he is so unlikeable, but they would still be protesting, they would still be putting genitalia on their heads screaming in the streets, and calling it feminism.
They would still be doing everything they are doing if Marco Rubio was President.
This is who the Democrats are. They are completely nuts. They destroy everything they touch and then protest it’s destruction!
You can’t argue with people who have given themselves over to base stupidity.
I’m going to like some things Trump does, I’m going to hate some things he does, but I realize I don’t get my way all the time, I live in a diverse country full of people different than I am, and sometimes they get their way and I don’t.
2017 Democrats have no concept of that. That is why they will soon have no power anywhere.
Without any feedback how do members know how they violated the COC?
Please explain why my comment expressing my shock that such a bizarre post must not have come from a distinguished professor of law but rather was the result of a malicious hack, Further, the comment wasn’t refuted by the Ricochetti, it was racking up a considerable number of likes.
PM your explanation if that is more of a safe space for you.
Closing Question: How has shadowbanning worked out for Twitter?
I’d like a specific point from the COC that my comment violated. For educational purposes for the Ricochet community.
I thinks it’s far from being pretty clear that Trump should resign. Why the rush to judgment? Rather than holding on to a view of Trump’s immigration order being disastrous, I’d like to see another assessment of the disastrous judicial decisions in the context of our constitution, something along the lines of the recent review in WSJ by David Rivkin and Lee Casey. This is more likely to create a crisis for our country before Trump will. Trump is just an easy target. You know the law. Why not focus on giving us a clearer of view of justice?
They could read it. Link is at the bottom of the page.
I did.
Obscenities and vulgarities, even using various symbols for letters, or shorthand (e.g., text messaging abbreviations). Ricochet style is to use “[expletive].”
Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against people, groups, or classes. Public figures may be exempt from this rule, provided the comment otherwise adheres to the CoC.
Anything that makes the Ricochet Community look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes. This includes 99% of conspiracy theories.
Spam, advertising, or off-topic comments. This can include posting a link to a website, even if it’s non-commercial, that isn’t related to the post.
Copyright violations or plagiarism, including, and especially, of images. Citations of others’ writing in a conversation-starter should be accompanied by the poster’s own original commentary, and quotations should clearly be marked as such.
All caps. Online, it’s yelling.
Defamatory, gossipy, or rude comments. Imagine you’re a guest at a dinner party with a group of seemingly nice people you don’t know… how would you handle yourself?
Confidential information you don’t have a right to post. If the information isn’t publicly known, then it’s best kept to yourself.
Misinformation, particularly if it appears intentional or is a recurring problem.
Which one did it violate. Enlighten me.