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.
It is not, as Epstein makes abundantly clear.
Is the mod hat donned here?
Internalizing every criticism of a politician in this way makes civic discourse impossible. I do not believe that was the intent here at all.
And Jamie wasn’t making this argument anywhere.
Folks, please note this comment again – I know a lot of people are trying to catch up with all that went on here yesterday and overnight, but there is a lot of covering of the same ground over and over here, and responding to comments where others have already responded too.
Please do not keep stirring up old arguments from 2 or 3 pages back, cut each other some slack at this point.
http://ricochet.com/410945/time-trump-resign/comment-page-7/#comment-3709305
Wrong on its face, there is not a single Marxist or leftist argument advanced in the OP and I challenge you to demonstrate even one. The failure to distinguish such is the reason most people on this thread can’t see past their emotions.
Dealing with the arguments isn’t about satisfying me, it’s about playing by the rules we all agreed to when we signed up.
I also take it as an affront from the coterie of the disconnected ruling elite, a group Epstein has now firmly joined. I voted for Trump enthusiastically for the very reasons on display now. He fights, he is acting to implement conservative goals, and he loves our citizens. Diabolically abuse him and by extension you are abusing me. Three weeks of admirable and not-Marxist action make us stupid? You asked about personal affront, so here’s your answer. I disagree on the merits and resent his post.
Merely a few statements of fact, and a couple of what I thought might be unexceptional, and uncontroversial suggestions.
If you’re not minded to find them so if I’m not wearing my hat, I doubt you’d be minded to find them so, if I were.
So, I don’t see that it matters all that much, unless you’re wont to endow me with far more power, in one of my manifestations, than I believe I actually have.
If comments keep veering into arguing about what we’re even arguing about, or responding to meta-arguments that were already put aside pages ago, I’ll recommend to the eds that we lock comments for a couple of hours just on the grounds that everyone needs to get caught up on what was already said.
That way we can all start afresh. As @jamesofengland said earlier, there is much in the OP worthy of criticism without getting back into the “you said, no you said” side arguments.
Please. The post’s title. All else is interesting commentary.
More psychoanalysis? Comment or not.
Remember when one of the arguments advanced during the campaign was that everything was okay because Pence was more conservative than Trump and that even if Trump resigned we’d come out ahead with an even more conservative President. Ah, the good ole days.
That is the plain meaning of the words written. Care to demonstrate why it’s not?
What about the title is Marxist?
OK. I was simply wondering if you were trying to make a point about the discussion’s direction, w/r/t the CoC. It does make a difference if you’re joining in the discussion about the merits of Epstein’s post or if you are moderating. I most certainly wasn’t denigrating you comment, per se.
Use of the word internalizing.
To be fair: The same could be (and has been) said of Marco Rubio and the Gang of Eight, and people still want to have that tattooed on his forehead for all eternity.
And that is exactly what that comment did by the plain meaning of the words. Taking criticism of Trump as criticism of oneself, something not evident in the OP in any way.
It’s my new preferred shorthand label for the left. Most of their activities are reasonable if you’re a socialist, communist, progressive, BLM, LGBTQAA, ad nauseum. Their view is that citizens are reduced to political action figures and ecomonic pawns.
Hi She. Professor E is too genteel to say such a thing directly. But the knife in your back is never wielded in the hand you can see. Let’s look at what has him upset …
“President Trump’s anti-free trade agenda will hurt—if not devastate—the very people whom he wants to help.”
Regarding the executive order on immigration … “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…”
“…. he is too rigid and too uneducated to make the necessary shift to good leadership. … taking foolish and jingoist stances … ”
“… 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.”
Nearly every word of this could have been written prior to the election. Nothing is new. So…What’s different? What has raised the Professor’s ire anew? Why Trump got elected!!! And it seems he is actually trying to DO the things in his agenda. That’s the difference. The boob is President! And whose fault is that? The Trump voters.
I get your drift, but since their sins involved supporting illegal aliens, the stain lasts quite a while.
Again, what part of the title exhibits any of that?
That Marxists might agree with a statement does not make it a Marxist position. “Whatever Marxists believe, I believe the opposite,” might be mostly true as a descriptive statement, but it should not be taken prescriptively.
I can’t speak for Jamie, but I don’t agree with the professor. One does not have to agree with him in order to find the incessant personal attacks tiresome.
How about Mike Pence? Again, why does every insistence that Trump should act like an adult always end up with President Hillary?
I don’t agree with the professor’s conclusions, but I do agree with you. I think the analysis here is pretty good, just the conclusion that is wrong.
Process matters. That’s impeachment, in case you missed that part. Resignation is only there to avoid impeachment. Process matters and Epstein is…
I don’t think Professor Epstein claimed Trump’s failures rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanours. If I missed that in the OP please point it out to me. There is nothing wrong in calling for the resignation of a President you believe exhibits gross negligence in their job performance. I don’t think the good Professor made the case for such a conclusion, but I’ve seen very little in the way of attempts to argue that. The ad hominem and pundit hate for everyone who doesn’t agree with commenters particular positions was stale years ago.
Agree. Let’s say you’re looking for a conservative website and you find Ricochet by googling. This is what you find on the main feed by a man you thought was a conservative:
-Time for Trump to Resign
-Why the Ninth Circuit Was Right to Put Trump’s Executive Order on Hold
-A Further Qualified Defense of the Ninth Circuit Attack on Trump’s Executive Immigration Order
-Trump’s Immigration Insanity
And we can only hope the googler stops before he comes to Claire Berlinski’s contributions such as “Why I Voted For Hillary” and worse. Think that person will want to join? I don’t. I am disgusted and seriously thinking of leaving. Oh don’t worry, I’m sure if you think, “Let’s see, we can have Epstein and Berlinski or we can have RightAngles,” I can guess who you’d pick and it won’t be me.
What the literal …?
Ah… ok. There it is.
Professor Epstein, with respect, this is the sort of thing that many (including myself) take as elitism. It will convince very few. In fact, it will achieve the opposite. The backlash against such perceived elitism is what got Trump elected in the first place.
What exactly was the intent here?
This is not a rational argument. It would never happen. Seriously, the people who did not vote for me are really angry at my single month in office, so I hereby resign. Is that the new standard for every politician?
It is understandable that some people may not want to go point by point through the criticism when the author has reached an extreme conclusion.
Internalizing every criticism is not helpful. This is a bit different. After a month your vote was wasted and this guy should resign, is a little different than this trade policy is bad. Not all “criticisms” are created equal.
The above isn’t the first time I’ve heard a lawyer on Ricochet reveal that he or she thinks anyone who didn’t go to law school is a yahoo who reads at a third-grade level. It’s even infecting the PIT lately. But the professor and others guilty of this should realize that sometimes maybe, just maybe, they might be speaking to someone who has a higher IQ than they do.
Has anyone tried making an Ad Hominem attack? Or saying #NeverTrump three times in the mirror?