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.
Hence, my word “likely.” That covers the “doesn’t necessarily follow” possibility. But do you really think in the case at hand – not Creationism or anything else – do you really think the split between Democrats applauding Trump’s resignation and Republicans applauding Trump’s resignation wouldn’t be substantial? Well, anyway, I think it’s arguable and plausible, if not extremely likely, that by a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio the Left would favor his resignation. Why is why I think the recommendation to resign qualifies as a Leftist idea.
I like Richard Epstein, in my opinion he is unusually bright and interesting. I have always enjoyed and will continue to listen to Law Talk.
On suggesting Trump should resign four weeks into his Presidency, I believe Professor Epstein is out of his effing gourd.
I’m sure Trump will continue to say and do some stupid things and we will give him something of a pass as long as he keeps enacting Conservative policies, why shouldn’t we allow Richard Epstein the same courtesy and see what he has to say in the days ahead.
I don’t see why it matters. He reasons for applauding such an event would not necessarily be the same. Outcome is not determinative of principle. It’s why a conservative icon like Justice Scalia could reach conclusions at odds with his preferred outcome – he held another principle in higher regard than mere politics.
I can see why you might think I’m splitting hairs over this, but it’s one matter to say “the Left will agree with your argument more than the Right will” and another to say “your argument is a Leftist argument”. Epstein is not coming at this from the left, and even if he reaches a conclusion they favor, it’s still for all the wrong reasons.
You see this all the time in court cases, where the reasoning behind a decision is at least as important as the decision itself. The reasoning is what guides future case law because the reasoning tells how you get from A to Z. The reasoning establishes the necessary conditions for the decision.
As a sidebar – this is why Roe v. Wade is considered horrible case law by even the pro-abortion judges. The decision rested on perjured testimony, false evidence, and tortured logic beyond all reason to get where Blackmun wanted it. This is why so many subsequent cases have had to essentially re-write their own reasoning largely from scratch, the reasoning in Roe is useless to them.
Good grief. Those aren’t arguments. They’re statements. (That’s not a criticism of @skipsul, let me make perfectly clear. I agree completely with his statements.)
Three comments earlier you, as you are wont to do, demanded: “I want coherent arguments…” Then you get 4 statements and declare them “a good argument.”
I don’t think you know the definition of the word.
Ok, I see your point. You’re not splitting hairs.
I suppose from the outset I should’ve been more clear as to the object of my “Leftist” charge – that it was the conclusion, the headline. Not the parts of the argument that clearly aren’t Leftist arguments.
(All of which, I think, stemmed from a sarcastic quip! I’m too tired now – 1:36am AST – to go back and review, but I think that’s where this began.)
[dons moderator hat for a moment]
@dittoheadadt and @jamielockett:
While each of us is composing our comments, other comments are getting posted, so a lot of what is brewing up here is due to time lag. Can you two cut each other some slack and hold off on the meta-arguments and “he said / you said” at this point? It’s all cross talk at this hour.
Can we also all agree on one point?
Resolved – Epstein’s conclusion is not something we favor under current circumstances as it is an extreme reaction to events.
[doffs cap]
He’s saying he believes it would be bad because it would result in those things. I find that to be a good argument. I’m sure he can flesh out why if he wanted but the comments here degenerated into ad hominem so quickly Skip is just trying to keep things afloat at this point.
Yeah, it’s 12:40 here so I’m off to sleep shortly myself.
Example of the time lag while we all type.
Neither. He was one of the most intense and diligent of the Never-Trumpers, along with Charon and Nodlinger, and he’s too proud to step down.
Take a pill, Richard. Have a brew and relax.
Just to remind people what was actually said.
@rightangles said the post could have been written by a lefty, which is arguably true but, as @jamielockett explained, irrelevant to its truth value.
@dittoheadadt responded, “Who says it wasn’t?” the clear implication being that maybe it was written by a lefty. As @jamielockett and @skipsul have ably pointed out, the idea that Prof. Epstein should be accused of being a lefty, not merely of writing something agreeable to lefties but actually being one, is ludicrous in the face of his extensive body of work advocating for Constitutionally limited government. This is especially true given that while the conclusion may be bone-headed, the concerns leading to it are neither crazy nor left-wing.
Remember when standing by one’s principles even when it might be detrimental to one’s career was a good thing?
I would like to know why this OP wasn’t redacted for violating the CoC, in particular this provision:
Anything that makes the Ricochet Community look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes.
I suppose it could be argued that nobody would take Professor Epstein to represent the Ricochet Community, but given his status as a contributor that would be a pretty weak argument.
[Redacted]
If this post was written by a lefty, it would not have been interesting, in my view. If it had been written by one of our member NeverTrumpers, likewise.
This piece was written by Prof. Epstein, though. Forget about what this essay says about Trump; read this essay as a non-trivial chapter in the evolution of a major figure on the American right. If you want to get angry about it, fine, just try to do so within the bounds of the CoC, but if you want to read interesting and illuminating things on Ricochet, this may be up there as one of the more important documents we’ve hosted.
It’s not a unique shift. Epstein has always had more than a little in common with Richard Posner, who is also incredibly smart and talented and incredibly focused on developing a consistent and coherent legal philosophy so powerful that he has been able to force the rest of the world to conform somewhat to his views rather than merely he to it. That approach comes at the cost of being even as grounded as, say, John Yoo (a Yoo/ Senik podcast is one that I would greatly look forward to).
There’s a reason that conservatism as a philosophy has always been so strongly opposed to this sort of rigorous consistent paradigm building. It strikes me that this post is far more helpful in helping us understand why that is than previous heresies along the lines of his mistaken gun grabbing and such. Those were simply weak on the facts, something that could happen to anyone who specializes in unrelated fields. This article, particularly since it highlights the sorts of agreement that Prof. Epstein has with the right, shows how important it is to remain connected to concrete history and tradition as well as to abstract reasoning. It’s a chance to explore a mindset that is far from that shared by most members (particularly, with Gorsuch approaching, judicially minded members). If it’s a mindset you find yourself close to it might be an even more useful warning.
I guess someone has to be first.
Really bad idea, consider that many people voted for Trump who wouldn’t have voted for another candidate. Do you expect these people to just shut up and just go along with leadership musical chairs from the Republican Party? Because it hasn’t worked out so well in Australia. Just to be clear, you are proposing the solution to current instability and uncertainty is to create more instability and uncertainty.
If you are that disenchanted Richard I suggest you start another party. You have 4 years to make it a viable option for voters.
What’s striking isn’t so much the argument, but that Prof. Epstein, who has written so eloquently on so many topics, has descended into blatant concern trolling.
I suggest a vacation from all media is in order.
Dear Professor Epstein,
I had no idea you even knew how to water-ski, and yet I see you have jumped the shark.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. As someone who admits they voted for neither candidate in the recent Presidential election you should be reminded of Archibal Cox’s quote – “Not to decide IS to decide!”
Regards,
Ekosj
Best and most concise description of the OP.
A left that claims they care about children, homosexuals and women but has sided with child-killing abortionists, homosexual killing Islamists and sexual predator elected officials getting mired defending why they side with Richard Epstein calling for Trump’s resignation? Skip, you give the left less credit than they deserve for their ability to use whatever tool comes to hand for maintaining their power.
Two out of three of those comments were “disappeared”. Guess which one wasn’t?
Perhaps it is time to refocus our discussion on the merits, or lack thereof, of the original post.
For those of you who would like more information on Richard Epstein than is provided in his profile, here is his Wikipedia entry.
He’s been a contributor here at Ricochet as long as its been in existence, and I’m sure that, of the 441 to date, some of his posts have been among its best, and have generated much in the way of informed discussion.
Please stick to the issues, and stay away from impugning the motives or the thought processes of those who disagree with you. Thanks.
I think David Harsanyi gets it right:
http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/14/why-the-resistance-is-the-best-thing-that-could-have-happened-to-donald-trump/
The more I think about the OP the angrier I get. Professor E’s arguments are not so much that Trump has done something in office that merits his resignation but rather that his policies, personality, education (or lack thereof) and rhetoric render him unfit to be President in the first place. This line of argument is directed not at Trump but at those apparently ignorant rubes who voted for him. How could they have chosen so poorly? The only solution the learned Professor offers is to overturn the results of a free election because he disapproves of the outcome. How dare he? How dare he?!?!?
Where are you seeing criticism of Trump voters in the OP? I see several paragraphs excoriating the progressives, followed by a paragraph criticizing Trump’s ‘anti-free trade agenda,’ followed by a discussion of the confusing and ill-organized rollout of his Executive Order on immigration (something even many Trump supporters would agree with, I believe), followed by, and interspersed with, a few paragraphs describing what Professor Epstein believes are Trump’s personal failings. These seem to me to be the meat of his argument that Trump should resign.
I think it’s possible to disagree with Professor Epstein’s conclusions without taking his whole post as a personal affront.
Is this a penumbra emanating from a great legal mind? The stuff folks are blowing gaskets over is small ball, ineptitude caused by inexperience and not being able to trust several layers down into the bureaucracy because Democrats are obstructing confirmations. There is also run away imagination based on campaign tweets, sound bites, dislike of the president’s personality and his inarticulate off the cuff remarks. We have great effort and maybe big money trying to destroy the Administration, living out their adolescent fantasies of overthrowing Nixon and some on our side, people I greatly admired joining the hysteria. This is deeply foolish, short sighted, and itself narcissistic. We may need some balance in the near future and these guys are blowing their credibility and potential access over emanating penumbras.
Arguing about motivations in comments and going on about minutia don’t contribute much or signal engagement, either. The title of the post overwhelms all the nuanced pretty words and ideas contained therein. The theme rules. It is unarguably a leftist, Marxist, position to recommend that Trump resign.
We don’t have to “refute” anything just to satisfy you, Jamie. Is “ad hominem” becoming the new “racist”. Just tell us why you hate Trump enough to agree with the professor. And, what’s the denouement? We force David French at gunpoint to become the next GOP pinata? We apologize to Hildabeast and crown her?
I am going to cover this in a larger post when I get home.
Short answer he shouldn’t resign.
I like the donning and doffing, Skip!