A SummaryArgument Against Trump

Why is Trump so bad? Why do people hate him? I know for myself I do not hate the man. I just have little use for the man, his administration or his policies. Hate is too strong a word. Hate is reserved for those who personally betray a love, or who take a loved one. Though he does I fear endanger a country I love, he has not, luckily, cost me a loved one as of yet. So, if to hate is as I describe, it is not hate that I feel. Perhaps more fear, dread. . .

There is a fear for this country if this President goes on to win in some fashion another four more years. I want to detail some of those general themes here and contrast those same issues regarding the Democratic challenger — Joe Biden.

I want to explore quickly three themes that highlight the failings of this President and point us to the Democratic challenger — Joe Biden.

Oligarch in the making
What is it to be an oligarch? For me it is the informal consolidation of political and economic power, which ultimately prevents the proper functioning of government. In our case the proper functioning of the federal government and its constitution.

Now some will respond that this President is both a populist and dealmaker. Both involve the informal mixing of politics and economy, but this does not prevent the proper functioning of our government and its constitution. Perhaps these traits are largely benign, however, at some point they converge into the malignancy of oligarchy and the abandonment of the norms of our government.

Let me point to several instances where we can see the beginnings of the challenge. The President-elect worked with the Carrier Corporation to preserve facilities and jobs in Indiana. On another occasion, the President has promised constituents in Ohio that GM facilities would remain open. Likewise, he went to Texas mid-term to celebrate the opening or expansion of an Apple manufacturing facility. All basically good things. Surrounding each of these there was a certain uncertainty whether any actual jobs had been saved or gained but let us assume that something of value was done here.

We progress now to the in process TikTok deal. That seems to simply be a petty political engagement involving a Chinese social media platform, whose American users embarrassed the President. The result being that the President wants to divide up the firm between American entities, and at least one of which involves a CEO who is a supporter and ally. Further for this transaction he is commanding a $5 Billion fee which he is dedicating to a ‘proper American history initiative’, which is a lot of history.

The above, I suggest is the beginning of oligarchy. To have something evolve out of embarrassment, and lead to the enrichment of both your administration and your allies, at the expense of the property rights of others is the act of an oligarch. Further to attribute the action to questionable national security motives only reinforces the case.

The disregard for norms
You discover quickly in our history that in addition to our constitution is a set of norms that have largely guided the US for the past 244 years. You realize quickly, however, that norms are much more fluid, and do evolve. The rate of change in the US over our history just requires such.

You see the consequence of their abandonment in the news today with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. You have the whole issue of the Democrats yelling hypocrisy on the part of McConnell, as he chose not to proceed with the Garland nomination 4 years ago and yet here we are proceeding. If he had honored the norm 4 years ago, there would be no issue.

Add to this the fact that today nominations are confirmed with a simple majority versus what was earlier a 2/3rds majority. If we went back to such a requirement, there would be no way that most of the current court would not be there today. It would simply be a much more balanced and probably boring court unless the senate had 2/3rds Democrats or Republicans, which is rarely the case. This means that the two parties would again have to compromise and pick someone that all could accept. And yes, we abandoned the 2/3rds majority rule under a Democrat. The whittling of norms has been embraced by all.

All of which is happening in Congress, yet the result is to raise questions regarding our judicial branch. Especially when you add to the above McConnell’s decision not to consider not only Garland but several hundred other Obama nominees for federal judgeships. In turn opening the flood gates When Trump did take office and then filling all of those appointments. The charge of stacking the courts can certainly be raised here and leads me to raise questions about whether one actually can get a fair trial in such a system. And I am talking about the United States courts here.

The same disregard for norms can be seen with executive actions and legislation passed by Congress and again with consequences. The trend over the last 20 years is that Presidents sign far more executive actions and Congress passes far fewer pieces of legislation. And Trump and this Congress has amplified both of these. Trump has steadily signed more executive actions than Obama and this Congress has done less than any of its predecessors.

This President was elected in part because of his disregard of norms. However, norms such as the limiting of executive orders and the embrace of legislation is simply to embrace our system of checks and balances. It is perhaps with this president that we reverse course and acknowledge that norms, though not law, should be respected. There is typically a reason for their existence, and we will in the long-term pay a price for their disregard.

Other norms include things such as the embrace of a blind trust to satisfy elements of the emoluments clause, Another is the sharing of tax returns when running for office. Yet another is the recognition that the executive branch and the Department of Justice must have some separation. Further the simple acknowledgement that commenting upon ongoing court cases by the President is with consequence. The list goes on and ultimately the charge can be levelled that the sum total of these disregards for our norms is ultimately a disregard for our system and its laws.

Again, I cannot stress enough the relation of an increase in executive orders to a decrease in legislation and point to an obvious failure of our system of checks and balances.

The problem of conservatism
Lastly, there is the question of conservatism. And before we start, he is most likely not a conservative, but his administration largely is. We quickly arrive at asking: What is the proper function of government. Or as the President likes to frame it: Are you a socialist?

I believe that you can advocate for a government that properly regulates the economy and environment and not be a socialist. A socialist typically entails government ownership of the means of production. No one is advocating such a position. Healthcare is of course might be said to be the exception. but even there no one is advocating doctors working for the government.

The question here is whether a market-based solution is up to the task in all cases. Can it handle small rural populations or even people with pre-existing conditions and be affordable? Historically, it has not, resulting in what we have today.

Add to this the mix of state and federal regulations. Many suggest that we just eliminate those and watch the market resolve the matter. Again, there has been too many instances where that has not been the outcome. Add to this the abandonment of norms, and likewise the further mixing of politics and money and you are not creating free markets but rather old fashion trusts and monopolies — the oligarchs going to the White House asking that norms be ignored and laws not enforced.

The problem or challenge of conservatism is being cheated here. I know. There is a case for conservatism. There is a proper question regarding the nature of government. There is a question of whether markets are adequate to the task when it comes to healthcare, and the environment. The short answer though is that there must be a compromise. That or the simple oligarchy I describe above. (I know that is not exactly the case.)

This essay was a race, which I am sadly losing. In each of the above I was providing some examples. And here in this one I have not. I urge you to look at the recent history of the EPA and likewise the USDA. Both are being largely disassembled. Broken, Likewise, the CDC. I myself have a new hobby of critiquing the failures of the CDC.

Each is a bureaucracy. Easy targets for conservatives. There is however, an argument that their neglect is at least one of the reasons we have 200000 plus deaths due to COVID today. A failure on the part of this administration and of the American public regarding what a government can and should do. That is the failure of conservatism.

At least for the moment.

And Biden. . .
Regarding Biden? I do not see him as an oligarch, though he is part populist and he did make some deals in Congress, but not an oligarch. With 47 years in Washington, I think he does appreciate the norms of the federal government. You think? He represents in part what Trump was campaigning against. Lastly, Biden values the bureaucrats and the functions of government they serve, that they provide. He, like I, sees a certain value in their work and likewise his 47 years of service.