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.
Senate couldn’t even agree to vote Andrew Johnson out of office. I wouldn’t hold my breath..
This is a fine example of a stubstantive and CoC compliant disagreement with the OP.
I respect Richard. I really do. But sometimes he is just flat out wrong. This post reminds me of the time he saw fit to lecture us about gun ownership, exposing himself as completely ignorant about firearms in the process.
There’s a lot I don’t like about Trump. I did vote for him though because the alternative in the form of a thoroughly corrupt woman and political machine that are trading our secrets and security for her political and pecuniary interests is much worse than anything Trump might do.
The result? Trump is changing the rules. The democrats have controlled the terms of the political debate for my entire life, including when Reagan was president and for the first time someone is refusing to play by their rules.
Yet Richard seems to think that we should go back to the days of following the democrats’ rules because then he would feel more comfortable.
Screw that.
I believe Mr. Epstein’s idea of a sane Republican Party is one which allows Democrats to have everything their way.
Trump’s existence is not causing the left to overreact to every little thing.
The lack of self control and the lack of ability to tolerate opinions that differ from their own are what is causing the problems.
Statesmanlike behavior is in the eye of the beholder. Many times I thought Obama, and knew for sure Bill Clinton were acting in ways most statesmanlike. Apologizing to the world and having affairs in the Oval are really beyond the pale for me. But alas, the Democrats thought the opposite.
Once again, any Republican who won this election would have been treated almost exactly the same as they are treating Trump. That is who Democrats are. They did the same to Bush. In fact this is mild compared to how they treated Bush.
Trump exists. Get used to it.
One my shadowbanned comments merely admonished the Ricochetti not to comment while under the influence of recreational drugs. I think that is just good common sense, not a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Exactly. I don’t like Trump and would much rather Rubio was President. But Trump is far better than Hillary, and that was the choice.
I would have been really in mourning if Hillary had won.
By comparing Trump to Hillary, I actually can’t find much fault in anything he’s done so far.
He actually didn’t do a Muslim ban at all, it’s hard to see how they still can justify saying he did.
The left is just crazy in the head.
Let’s be honest for a second — if Dr. Epstein wasn’t here to make these arguments — where else would you go to flex your vitriol?
Aaaaaaannnnd…there goes the other shoe.
“You went full Zubrin, man. Never go full Zubrin!”
Lol now this is how you vex.
Resign after 4 weeks of near total success? Are you crazy, or do you just get all your news from NPR and the New York Times?
As one of the, apparently, many whose comment was “disappeared”, I’ll second this emotion as it applies to the esteemed Professor’s prowess concerning matters of law. Along the same lines, I understand Noam Chomsky is universally acknowledged as a brilliant linguist.
There wasn’t much else. How many other presidents have issued erroneous EOs and have not been asked to step down by this “professor”? Besides if it isn’t a salient point why did he put it in as one of his reasons?
It would seem if anything Epstein’s second call in a couple of weeks for Trump to resign is problematic.
From the COC
Anything that makes the Ricochet Community look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes. This includes 99% of conspiracy theories.
I know the COC technically doesn’t apply to contributors.
Maybe it should.
Because it would. It’s the way humans behave. They eat the wounded.
I have a better idea. All democrats in national office should resign.
And every 2-year-old should get the toy, or the candy, or whatever they have their tantrums over.
As well as much of the GOP establishment.
The Fonz called. He wants his shark back.
The original post is really funny if you read it in Keith Olbermann’s voice.
This is also quality.
LMAO
That is an unwonted cruelty.
Billy, was it your genuine, good faith, belief that the most likely reason for this post appearing on Ricochet was that Prof. Epstein’s account had been hacked? You promise in all sincerity that this was not a rhetorical device?
With all due respect…
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Mr. Epstein, you are completely and utterly wrong on this issue.
With all due respect.
You’ve suggested elsewhere that it was your intent to imply that a specific member was under the influence of recreational drugs. Was that not true? If you intended to offer a general PSA and were not engaging in a base ad hominem that would change my understanding of what happened (I was not the person who removed the comments, but I believe that they also understood you to be making a specific and personal statement rather than a generalized exhortation to good behavior).
I totally agree with everything TW has written. I voted for President Trump to avoid the criminality that is the Clinton Cabal. Now I am proud to stand with the deplorables. Trump has made great choices in his nominations and his popularity is growing. The public is on to the MSM and their lies. He has brought out the worst in democratic party behavior and held it up to ridicule for all to see. and; Yes Richard Epstein’s article is an embarrassment to Ricochet.
Did Richard call for Obama to resign? I’ve listened to every one of the Law Talk podcasts, and many of the Libertarian podcasts. Do not believe I heard him call for it. Not once. Despite a similarly chaotic and extremely questionable set of decisions made by Barry and Co.
Is Prof. Epstein sharing an account with Bob Michel?
Are uses of rhetorical devices banned by the Ricochet Code of Conduct?