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.

There are 448 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Wait, Richard Epstein is the establishment?

    Everyone who is not 100% behind Trump is the establishment. You should know this by now.

    • #121
  2. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    Good luck with an appointment to fill the Notorious RBG’s seat, Professor.

    • #122
  3. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    billy (View Comment):

    James Of England (View Comment):

    billy (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    LOL. Apparently comments are being disappeared from this post.

    George Orwell please pick up the white courtesy phone.

    Only comments that violate the Code of Conduct to which all commenters agreed before joining Ricochet.

    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.

    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?

    Are uses of rhetorical devices banned by the Ricochet Code of Conduct?

    Only if you aren’t teachers pet.

    • #123
  4. Quinnie Member
    Quinnie
    @Quinnie

    What a truly asinine post.  I am reminded of Mr. Buckley’s comment that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard.   How did this post even make the main feed?

    • #124
  5. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    I believe Mr. Buckley was certain  Donald Trump resided in New York at the time.

    • #125
  6. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    billy (View Comment):

    James Of England (View Comment):

    billy (View Comment):

    Jon Gabriel, Ed. (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):
    LOL. Apparently comments are being disappeared from this post.

    George Orwell please pick up the white courtesy phone.

    Only comments that violate the Code of Conduct to which all commenters agreed before joining Ricochet.

    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.

    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?

    Are uses of rhetorical devices banned by the Ricochet Code of Conduct?

    No, but if you weren’t actually claiming that Epstein was the victim of a hack then the most obvious meaning of your words was an unnuanced insult. Those are prohibited. You know that they’re prohibited. Since you know what you did and its relationship with the CoC, I don’t understand why you’re going to so much effort to complain through various channels.

    Epstein provided a piece that is easier to launch legitimate criticisms of than anything that’s been on the front page for quite a while. There’s no need to play the man when the ball is such a gentle pitch over the plate.

    • #126
  7. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    No GOP president should ever again resign. No Democrat ever would. When you are at war, don’t side line Patton because he hit a soilder.

    This is pretty absurd if taken to its conclusion. So a GOP President that puts 50% of the population into forced labor camps should not resign?

    Which 50%?

    Process matters.

     

    • #127
  8. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    No GOP president should ever again resign. No Democrat ever would. When you are at war, don’t side line Patton because he hit a soilder.

    This is pretty absurd if taken to its conclusion. So a GOP President that puts 50% of the population into forced labor camps should not resign?

    Which 50%?

    Process matters.

    • #128
  9. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Sash (View Comment):
    I believe Mr. Epstein’s idea of a sane Republican Party is one which allows Democrats to have everything their way.

     

    Why must it always come down to this? Why must the only choices be, “Trump acts like a jackhole,” and total surrender?

    To put it another way: Why must calls for Trump to stop acting like a jackhole be interpreted as calls for everyone to stop fighting? Why can’t we demand that the President fight intelligently?

    I disagree with Prof. Epstein’s conclusion (Trump emphatically should not resign after a mere three weeks,) but his concerns are legitimate.

    • #129
  10. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Sash (View Comment):
    By comparing Trump to Hillary, I actually can’t find much fault in anything he’s done so far.

     

    See, that’s the problem. The election is over. Hillary is irrelevant. Trump needs to be judged on his own merits. On his own merits I’d call it about 60-40 in his favor. Would Hillary have been worse? Probably. Does that matter now? No.

    • #130
  11. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    James Of England (View Comment):
    No, but if you weren’t actually claiming that Epstein was the victim of a hack then the most obvious meaning of your words was an unnuanced insult. Those are prohibited. You know that they’re prohibited. Since you know what you did and its relationship with the CoC, I don’t understand why you’re going to so much effort to complain through various channels.

    Epstein provided a piece that is easier to launch legitimate criticisms of than anything that’s been on the front page for quite a while. There’s no need to play the man when the ball is such a gentle pitch over the plate.

    Look let’s just lay the cards on the table: the idea that Trump should resign a month into his presidency is just nuts. It is just unhinged nuttery.  I first met Professor Epstein nearly 30 years ago when my college roommate suggested we go over and hear this guy talk about his new book about the 5th Amendment.

    Later I watched Joe Biden wave around the book, Takings, as he demanded of nominee Clarence Thomas, ” Have you read this filth?”*

    Well I thought Biden was nuts then, just like I think Epstein sounds nuts now. I tried saying it bluntly and I was redacted. I’ve tried saying it subtly, and my comments just disappeared. So here we are.

    *He may have worded it differently, it was a while ago.

    • #131
  12. harrisventures Inactive
    harrisventures
    @harrisventures

    billy (View Comment):
    Look let’s just lay the cards on the table: the idea that Trump should resign a month into his presidency is just nuts. It is just unhinged nuttery.

    Concur.

    • #132
  13. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    harrisventures (View Comment):

    billy (View Comment):
    Look let’s just lay the cards on the table: the idea that Trump should resign a month into his presidency is just nuts. It is just unhinged nuttery.

    Concur.

    I also agree, in case that wasn’t obvious.

    • #133
  14. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    harrisventures (View Comment):

    billy (View Comment):
    Look let’s just lay the cards on the table: the idea that Trump should resign a month into his presidency is just nuts. It is just unhinged nuttery.

    Concur.

    I also agree, in case that wasn’t obvious.

    And yet we’ve seen it on the main feed now. Twice.

    • #134
  15. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    billy (View Comment):

    James Of England (View Comment):
    No, but if you weren’t actually claiming that Epstein was the victim of a hack then the most obvious meaning of your words was an unnuanced insult. Those are prohibited. You know that they’re prohibited. Since you know what you did and its relationship with the CoC, I don’t understand why you’re going to so much effort to complain through various channels.

    Epstein provided a piece that is easier to launch legitimate criticisms of than anything that’s been on the front page for quite a while. There’s no need to play the man when the ball is such a gentle pitch over the plate.

    Look let’s just lay the cards on the table: the idea that Trump should resign a month into his presidency is just nuts. It is just unhinged nuttery. I first met Professor Epstein nearly 30 years ago when my college roommate suggested we go over and hear this guy talk about his new book about the 5th Amendment.

    Later I watched Joe Biden wave around the book, Takings, as he demanded of nominee Clarence Thomas, ” Have you read this filth?”*

    Well I thought Biden was nuts then, just like I think Epstein sounds nuts now. I tried saying it bluntly and I was redacted. I’ve tried saying it subtly, and my comments just disappeared. So here we are.

    *He may have worded it differently, it was a while ago.

    I agree that the idea is nuts; you should have at the awfulness of the idea. If you go after the man, though, you can expect to continue to see your insights only temporarily shared. This also goes for other members.

    • #135
  16. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    No GOP president should ever again resign. No Democrat ever would. When you are at war, don’t side line Patton because he hit a soilder.

    This is pretty absurd if taken to its conclusion. So a GOP President that puts 50% of the population into forced labor camps should not resign?

    Which 50%?

    Process matters.

    Clearly not to you if this is your response.

    • #136
  17. Rocket Surgeon Inactive
    Rocket Surgeon
    @RocketSurgeon

    Prof. Epstein, I think your otherwise excellent article would be improved if you had just omitted the last paragraph and made the title Time for Trump to Realign.  Who knows, maybe somebody in the White House follows Ricochet and the miracle will ensue…

    • #137
  18. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    0% of the Predidents you don’t ask to resign, resign. You never know until you ask.

    • #138
  19. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    James Of England (View Comment):
    I agree that the idea is nuts; you should have at the awfulness of the idea. If you go after the man, though, you can expect to continue to see your insights only temporarily shared. This also goes for other members.

    My first comment gave the professor the benefit of the doubt and assumed that such an off-the-wall opinion could only be the result of a prank pulled at Mr. Epstein’s expense.

    My second comment regarding a Member’s hypothetical that Trump would cart off 150 million Americans to concentration camps and that most Ricochetti would be fine with that, well it reminded me of  a time in prep school.

    It was the last two weeks of the school year, and we had two senior Venezuelans who decided to spend the end of high school completely baked. They were going to make a truckload of money working for their dads, so grades didn’t matter much. So one night I snuck out with them.

    We smoked so much: I have never, before or afterwards, been that high in my life.

    Yet as stoned as I was, it never occurred to me that then President Reagan would place half the country under arrest.

    So maybe it is unfair to assume [redacted]. Not even pot can make you that….

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • #139
  20. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):
    0% of the Predidents you don’t ask to resign, resign. You never know until you ask.

    This was not my parents’ experience with Nixon, but perhaps Epstein’s experience of the persuasive impact of his silver tongue gives him a greater appreciation for when it is wisely used than we have.

    • #140
  21. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    billy (View Comment):

    James Of England (View Comment):
    I agree that the idea is nuts; you should have at the awfulness of the idea. If you go after the man, though, you can expect to continue to see your insights only temporarily shared. This also goes for other members.

    My first comment gave the professor the benefit of the doubt and assumed that such an off-the-wall opinion could only be the result of a prank pulled at Mr. Epstein’s expense.

    You’re returning to the claim that this was not a rhetorical device, but a good faith literal claim?

    My second comment regarding a Member’s hypothetical that Trump would cart off 150 million Americans to concentration camps and that most Ricochetti would be fine with that, well it reminded me of a time in prep school.

    It was the last two weeks of the school year, and we had two senior Venezuelans who decided to spend the end of high school completely baked. They were going to make a truckload of money working for their dads, so grades didn’t matter much. So one night I snuck out with them.

    We smoked so much: I have never, before or afterwards, been that high in my life.

    Yet as stoned as I was, it never occurred to me that then President Reagan would place half the country under arrest.

    So maybe it is unfair to assume [redacted]. Not even pot can make you that…..

    What is your goal in doubling down here? Has the goal of the various channels through which you’ve complained about your ad hominems being redacted to persuade those who have been redacting you to stop doing so? To persuade others to see the truth of your insights? I’d like to think that deliberate and explicit violations of this sort had some purpose.

    • #141
  22. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    billy (View Comment):

    My second comment regarding a Member’s hypothetical that Trump would cart off 150 million Americans to concentration camps and that most Ricochetti would be fine with that, well it reminded me of a time in prep school.

     

    So maybe it is unfair to assume [redacted]. Not even pot can make you that…..

    You are aware that Mr. Lockett was fully aware of the absurdity of his hypothetical and that it was meant to point out the absurdity of saying that no Republican should ever resign no matter what, right?

    • #142
  23. billy Inactive
    billy
    @billy

    Look I will just cancel my membership. Ricochet has become a boring and fruitless conversation.

    • #143
  24. dittoheadadt Inactive
    dittoheadadt
    @dittoheadadt

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    billy (View Comment):

    My second comment regarding a Member’s hypothetical that Trump would cart off 150 million Americans to concentration camps and that most Ricochetti would be fine with that, well it reminded me of a time in prep school.

    …So maybe it is unfair to assume [redacted]. Not even pot can make you that…..

    You are aware that Mr. Lockett was fully aware of the absurdity of his hypothetical and that it was meant to point out the absurdity of saying that no Republican should ever resign no matter what, right?

    You mean to say that the comment that “no Republican should ever resign no matter what” wasn’t hyperbole?  Or, that Mr. Lockett’s treating such hyperbole literally wasn’t fair game?

    When I read Mr. Lockett’s concentration camp, etc., reply my first thought was how asinine it was.  I’m just glad I didn’t act on that thought.

    Well…until now.

    • #144
  25. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    Sash (View Comment):
    By comparing Trump to Hillary, I actually can’t find much fault in anything he’s done so far.

    See, that’s the problem. The election is over. Hillary is irrelevant. Trump needs to be judged on his own merits. On his own merits I’d call it about 60-40 in his favor. Would Hillary have been worse? Probably. Does that matter now? No.

    Hey, I’m holding onto the Hillary comparisons to insure my equanimity if Trump’s merits fall below 50-50.

    • #145
  26. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    This is pretty absurd if taken to its conclusion. So a GOP President that puts 50% of the population into forced labor camps should not resign?

    Since a Democrat president did this very thing and did not resign nor was the harm reversed for about 30 years then no he should not resign. Even though the Washington Post used the case of Korematsu to illustrate this very thing just this very week.

    Since the current president is not advocating for this Jamie lockett should put himself in the corner for about a week.

    Since the country of Australia is the one putting people into concentration camps for the last 3 years Jamie Lockett ought to have some appreciation of the irony.

    • #146
  27. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    [redacted]

    • #147
  28. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Our Main Feed continues to be polluted with this kind of tripe. I don’t enjoy Ricochet so much anymore. This post could have been written by – pick a Lefty, any Lefty.

    • #148
  29. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    Common people. There has been a few comments that were either funny or good rhetorical devices that I don’t consider to be misplaced in this conversation.

    There was the hacked account comment, one about writing under the influence, and the putting 50% of people in camps.

    Let’s not get outraged. They make a point whether you like it or not. A little humor isn’t a bad thing in my mind and trying to be to stiff seems to not work well.

    Let’s take a breath and try not to nitpick on the details, and instead try to understand the reasoning behind the comments.

    • #149
  30. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    I would pay @richardepstein good money to addendum this essay with the single word PSYCH!

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.