No, Trump is not a liberal
I’ve written a lot about Donald Trump on this blog. And when I write, I try to be clear. So I figure that those of you who are regular readers ought to know pretty well what I think about him.
But as Karl Popper famously said, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” And if I ever needed further proof of that, this blog provides it.
Just as an example, I have never said that Trump is a liberal. Now, have I gone through everything I’ve ever written about the man in order to make sure I’ve never expressed that idea? No; it would probably take an inordinate amount of time to read every post and every comment I’ve ever made. I’ve gone through a great many of my major posts on Trump, though, and haven’t seen any statement like that. I can be fairly certain I’ve never said it, however, and the reason is because I’ve never thought it, and I try very hard to express what I think and to express it with some clarity.
Thus, this post of clarification, since several people in the comments section to this post seem to think I see him as a liberal.
In that post, I did write:
Trump is not a doctrinaire conservative, to say the least. One could even say he’s a RINO of sorts, albeit an idiosyncratic RINO who is very conservative on certain issues and somewhat of a liberal on others.
Note the relative emphasis there: very conservative on some issues and somewhat of a liberal on others. The link on “somewhat of a liberal” goes to an article with a quote of Trump’s where Trump says “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health.” That’s an example of what I mean, in Trump’s own words.
Now, it’s hardly being a liberal, but it’s exactly what I say it is: being somewhat of a liberal on some issues, while being conservative on others.
So to a commenter who writes: “come back and tell me [Trump] is a liberal in sheep’s clothing, that he has no policies and it’s all personality and no substance.”
I doubt I’d come back and say such a thing, because I haven’t been saying it in the first place.
What have I actually said? Here’s a sample, and I stand by it:
I have said Trump’s a “self-aggrandizing narcissist” who over the years has contributed to some liberals and supported some liberal causes.
I have said that Trump, like Obama, appeals to emotion in his supporters and does it very well, and that they fill in the blanks to make him what they want him to be and think he can somehow do what they want him to do.
I have used his own words to illustrate his vagueness about his policies or how he would actually accomplish things. I am aware that he has other people write policy papers that appear on his website, but he seems to have little interest in discussing them when asked, and in some cases has shown a lack of familiarity with them.
I have said that Trump’s record of attacking George W. Bush is abominable (saying Bush is “evil” and that he should have been impeached).
I have called him a battering ram.
I have pointed out some of his appeal but also his high unfavorable ratings.
I have called him a “happy warrior” and defined him politically as a populist.
I have pointed out the inconsistencies in the attitude of people like Mark Levin towards Trump a few years ago versus today, and I have also quoted Trump’s previous praise of Democrats and excoriation of George Bush.
I have pointed out that those conservatives who’ve been saying for years that they want a conservative candidate have one in Cruz and I would think they would support him if they meant what they said, because he is more conservative than Trump (which, by the way, does not make Trump a liberal).
I have also written many posts—so many I won’t bother to link to them—analyzing the polls, and Trump’s results in those polls.
I have pointed out Trump’s support of Kelo and an almost unlimited right of eminent domain for government, which is not a conservative position. I have also pointed out his lack of experience as a politician, which means that unlike the candidates who’ve been in Congress, he has no record of votes to pin him down and therefore can position himself as he wishes.
I have pointed out that Trump doesn’t talk about conservative principles, and also that:
I believe that Trump’s radical methods would include bypassing Congress and doing everything by executive order, much like Obama. I actually see him as very much resembling Obama in that and several other respects.
Trump is used to being the boss. He would consider himself the boss.
Conservatives have always considered methods and process to be as important as ends.
In other words, although Trump definitely espouses some conservative causes—prominent among them is cracking down on illegal immigration—he is not a conservative because not only does he espouse a few liberal causes (such as Kelo for example), but he is willing to use liberal methods.
In summary: he supports some conservative causes and some liberal causes, but he’s not a conservative in his methods. That does not make him a liberal. What is he? If I had to summarize (and a summary hardly does justice to him) I would call him a pragmatic populist who is exceedingly full of himself.
Some of his supporters find that appealing, of course; they want to fight fire with fire (there is an interesting discussion on that in the comments section to this post, which was entitled “What is a conservative?”). That is their prerogative. Many of them are the “let it burn” people. I happen to think such a burn would result in a conflagration that would not have a good end.
If I had to summarize (and a summary hardly does justice to him) I would call him a pragmatic populist who is exceedingly full of himself.
&&&
I’d have to ditto that.
I don’t see him as setting aside the US Constitution.
But I do see him expansively using the office — Andrew Jackson style.
&&&
The abject refusal of the Democrat Senators — and RINO GOPe Senators — to fulfil their Constitutional obligations makes me think that Barry is America’s “Sulla.”
And, that he has permanently damaged the institution of the Congress.
It’s a destruction — a demotion — that could not have happened without the calculated efforts of the MSM — to be INSIDE politics — instead of reporting fact and opinion.
%%%
Ted Cruz gives me pause on ONE factor: he is loathe to attack his opponent.
But, I deem that the Hill HAS to be deflated.
I don’t believe that the critical voting segment — the ditzes — can be swayed by Ted’s elegant arguments.
I’d much rather have Ted running the show than Trump.
I worry that Ted won’t connect with the LIV — and won’t counter-punch Hillary.
There are countless souls out there that can’t follow argument.
Such is the nature of universal suffrage… all must suffer.
&&&
Donald Trump is plainly ready for mud fighting.
&&&
Scott Adams is becoming manic over Trump’s rise.
I’d say he’s flipped over into True Belief.
What ever said about him his number up.
Why? This is the question need answers?
I think that’s a pretty accurate assessment.
If one follows the old maxim “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”, one could expect Trump the president to be a very aggressive, assertive, and even a little mercurial in general. And since he’s not exactly a conservative, he’ll most likely be very combative with congress. He’ll probably personally insult a lot of senators and congresscritters. If he becomes our next President I foresee some very eristic times, perhaps even worse than our current administration in some ways.
Nonapod is right. I would add that other than the wall and his tax plan, we have little idea of what he would do.
I know one thing about the super rich:They are used to getting their way.
Also think of his campaign as a WWE match.
Frank I. Luntz is a pollster, and once said something to the effect that it doesn’t matter what you say, it’s what people hear you say that counts. People will always claim you said something you didn’t.
Sometimes my comments are directed at other commenters and not you, Neo. Many in that last Trump thread were talking about a ‘cult of personality.’ That was my response to those people. 😀
Nonapod is right. I would add that other than the wall and his tax plan, we have little idea of what he would do.
If you really care, read his book. How many times do I have to say it? Or visit his website. He has policy papers there about several different things. But his books (from 2012 and the updated one from 2015) are probably the best place to look, don’t you think?
Trump knows that the majority of voters, sadly, don’t pay attention to policy details. So he is sticking to a broad message that will resonate. In his books, he has domestic and foreign policy in pretty decent detail for you to get a feel for where he is coming from.
I also have a low opinion of Trump’s character. His attack on Ted’s citizenship qualification to be president is completely reprehensible. And his method of attack is slimy.
He brags how at the closing table he threatened to walk unless the price was cut by millions. His daughter was with him and he just wanted to impress him. If dealing with Putin that’s okay, but a real estate deal is something else.
K-E
I looked. Five issues. He has said the same in the debates. Thin gruel.
President has more than five things to fix.
K-E:
Actually, I certainly don’t think Trump’s book is the best place to look, nor his policy papers (I have already talked about them in this post). Trump has often used ghostwriters (for example, in The Art of the Deal, and this; you can find tons more about Trump’s ghostwriters for several other books).
Ghostwriters aside, I have no doubt that Trump has the final approval of his books and that they represent what he wants to say. But what he actually HAS said is, for Trump, a much better way to learn about him. And that is represented by his speeches (which are extemporaneous and unscripted, and therefore a reflection of his actual thoughts) and his interviews, as well as his demeanor.
That’s what I have judged him on, and will continue to judge him on. I’ve paid a lot of attention to them.
Also, here’s a suggestion: if you’re addressing particular people in the comments section, it’s best to address them by name in order to avoid confusion, so I won’t think you’re addressing me.
That said, it’s still an interesting discussion to have, and I’m happy to clarify my position.
I certainly don’t remember you calling Trump a liberal neo but if memory serves, I remember you expressing doubt as to there being any definitive proof of his conservatism. A position in which I’m in agreement.
But Trump’s conservatism is secondary to his understanding of what the most critical issues consist. Trump’s comfort with excessive claims of eminent domain is not an issue that threatens national security, nor does it threaten our cultural stability.
That’s not an endorsement of Trump, just an honest observation. But if a President Trump can stop the illegal immigration, put a stop to Muslim immigration, root out the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in government and gut Common Core he will have done this country an invaluable service.
Mortal threats both physical and cultural have to have first priority. Second priority has to go to arresting the indoctrination of our young.
Trump seems more like a moderate or pragmatist, given his record. Hedge his bet against those in power by playing all sides.
But these days, “pragmatism” just means being a dictator like Hussein and HRC. What point would there be in trying to defend an idealistic liberty that even the livestock have forgotten. It makes no difference to the powers that be either way.
Mark Steyn nailed him better by going to one of his rallies and experiencing him, at the behest of his daughter.
Notes on a Phenomenon
by Mark Steyn
http://www.steynonline.com/7408/notes-on-a-phenomenon
Experience is important… most people dont experience anytning first hand, they just comment on assemblies of stuff..
i have met trump, bloomberg, the man who owns the daily news and a few others… with my first girlfriend a social register deb…
experience counts… most others just imagine, then work to assemble others imagination to prove theirs right…
its tiresome… even more so when one can just get up, go, and see what is goign on they are missing.
like the fact that when you see him, the cameras are ALWAYS in tight, so you cant see the crowd… and the cameras only turn when there are hecklers… meanwhie, the same technique is hding the fact that the leftist leaders who cant define the difference between socialism, and democrats, have very few people at their shin digs this time.
Just remember what another very famous socialist said about such things, and he was very populist..
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
i remember long ago arguing about the hiltons, and the fact that i knew nicky, her parents, the kids and paris in passing… means nothing over imagination of those who think they know from only the public images…
again
tiresome…
Neo:
“they want to fight fire with fire”
There isn’t a choice. The activist game is what it is. Or, there is a choice: fight fire with fire, or refrain and become obsolete, instead.
Hobbes before Locke. Politics are downstream of culture. Participatory politics are bigger than, precede, and subsume electoral politics.
Yet too many mainstream conservatives balk at doing necessary activism and cling to the self-excusing delusion that self-restricting to electoral politics and the GOP winning elections will by itself solve everything else, which only sets themselves up for disillusionment when it doesn’t. And can’t by itself.
In order not to go the way of the dodo under the pressure of the simultaneous crush by the activist alt-Right and the activist Left – which is to say, the same way that mainstream liberals fell under the activist assault of the Left – mainstream conservatives better collectively learn and embrace fighting fire with fire. ASAP.
The way you square activism with your tenet that “conservatives have always considered methods and process to be as important as ends” is to divorce the Right from the GOP.
If you would keep the GOP clean and effective for the sake of the republic, then the price is non-elected mainstream conservatives immersing fully in the activist game and dirtying themselves in order to compete as needed for social dominance everywhere around the republic. Employ the ends-justified “methods and process” that, while grating to your sensibilities, are yet necessary to compete for the culture upstream of politics.
All fire burns, but not all fire is the same. You can modulate your activism to make it as comfortable as you can, but the governing standard is neither your comfort nor cleanliness, but the need to win the contest that is forever.
Dominance won by mainstream conservatives in the activist game would afford you the luxury to lift the GOP above the dirty fray and empower the GOP, while wielding the social power to hold the GOP accountable to your preferred “methods and process” of governance, while simultaneously policing the culture upstream of politics with the “methods and process” of activism.
Preferred or not, the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Refraining from activism is the same as conceding the country to your competitors.
If you would keep the activism of the Left and alt-Right out of governance, the only way is for the Right to win the activist game everywhere else and seize the social dominance required to define American society and the American republic according to your preferences.
I’m sorry, what?
Trump isn’t a conservative. As I expressed earlier today on a different site, Trump:
has no problem with using eminent domain to get property transferred to private use
is a fan of single payer health care
at one point wanted higher taxes on the wealthy
Not exactly…conservative positions. Now, if someone could point out to me his Road to Damascus moments for those points were he realized “hey, I was wrong”, that would be great.
Otherwise: past behaviour is indeed a good indicator of future behaviour. He is a big spending crony capitalist, and likely has more in common with the Clintons than with an actual conservative or libertarian.
When has he spoken about our freedoms, those things that make America actually great?
Eric:
There are different forms of activism. I am hardly against activism per se.
We’ve had this discussion before; I don’t need to recap everything.
But Trump does NOT represent an activism I can support—a strong-man government president who will exceed his powers, who has no idea how government works other than “bribe corrupt people with money to get what you want for business,” and whose goals and principles are unclear and suspect.
This is not an activism a conservative can or should embrace, and saying that the situation is desperate is not an excuse for handing power to such a man.
You yourself have said that people need to be activists and not leave it to politicians. Certainly handing power to a single very-possibly-untrustworthy power-hungry person is not a good idea.
I am for a tough, uncompromising person as president, who will tell the truth and use power with respect for the constitution. This leaves a lot of leeway for action, without being dangerous. I believe that several candidates could do that, the most obvious one being Cruz. I am also for conservatives not whining and expecting some Great Leader to work magic through executive muscle (perhaps unconstitutional), imitating Obama, particularly a narcissist whose only strong interest so far has been making money, being famous, and marrying beautiful women. As you yourself have often said, activism requires grass roots activism, not looking to a leader to do it.
I am quite astounded that you don’t see it this way. It is as though the idea (propounded by Trump and many of his followers) that Trump is not only an answer but the ONLY answer has been swallowed without critical thinking or judgment by a great many people.
All this may not matter, since Trump is 100% right on the two big issues for this time and place: he is opposed to mass immigration, and he is very patriotic. Start with the big things of ending mass immigration, and then looking out for American interests for a change.
Besides, as an executive, Trump may end up delegating a lot, and listening to more experienced people. In contrast, it appears that Obama and his inner core have gone their own way, most clearly with foreign policy (hence the ensuing mess).
I live in a small state that has its primary in early March, but for what it’s worth, I’ve decided to support Trump. After all, it could be a lot of fun. And regardless of who gets the nomination, I won’t be one of those purity-obsessed crybabies, and I will vote for the Republican candidate in November.
Just to clarify things, since I missed Neo’s reply to another poster, I have the impression that Trump is a nicer guy than he may appear. With how he governs, it’s the people he appoints to the cabinet, and the foreign policy advisers he has that matter.
And by “purity-obsessed crybabies”, I mean people like Bill Kristol and George Will.
neo at 5:39 pm – Exactly. Fighting fire with fire is not the same as fighting a megalomaniac with a megalomaniac. IMO Cruz and Fiorina, and perhaps Rubio, would fight fire with fire with the intent of gradually turning the ship of state back towards a republic.
As usual, I find many of your points picayune and and only marginally interesting: Trump is not a liberal – OK – but then he is also not a conservative?
Therefore, he’s a moderate???? Or something???? But what?
The one hard and specific point you (neo) make to show that Trump is no conservative is eminent domain. Except that the point about prohibiting any takings without “just compensation’ is in our constitution. Insisting on this, alone, could well make Trump the constitutional conservative you want him to be.
Besides, the Kelo case that jumpstarted the eminent domain abuse by government movement has gone nowhere, since then. (And if the movement has an origin, I’d cite the works of Bernard H. Siegen, University of san Diego Law.)
If any presidential candidate wants to insistently reverse that neglect, would it go anywhere? It’s open to doubt. And if people are polled lately, how far down the list of priorities is it? Close to the bottom, I’d guess, because there have too many other dangers to contend with.
We can agree that as a populist, Trump is not – by definition – ideological. But can you cite anything better and recent than eminenet domain to make your case that Trump is dangerous for conservatives to support?
The substance of you case seems to rest on a flimsy assumption: populists lack ideological centering, and therefore cannot be trusted to act and protect in conservative ways.
I see Trump differently. He’s a man of action from a business profession that’s more intrinsically social than any but nightclub promoter. And therefore has been much more pragmatic in his social life. This has guided him into the mainstream of Northeast social life, and therefore has consorted and supported the leftists who control it, politically. (And political permissions deeply and inexorably control real estate development.)
But since Obama became president? He’s become increasingly more vocal. And he’s come “out of the closet” as a dissenter against the Left – and that means his substantive political core is being formed during this campaign run.
Furthermore, Trump’s motive is two-fold: problem solving (like the salesman and business man that he is), and legacy building: he doesn’t need his own financial empire like the Clintons did – he’s already done that. He of an age in life that being seen as doing good is important to him.
He’s already from a business that strategizes in terms of decades, not years. By the nature of his own career, he’s been as much or more of a conservative in the course of doing business than anyone else could be, because long-time frames inure him to preserving and enhancing value for the long-term – not destroying them
The singular operative standard in real estate is finding highest and best uses of property. Can anyone explain to me how such a devoted careerist to that objective
can convert, and come out as a flaming commie?
it defies my imagination. If you’ve got an example and good grounds, then I’ll reconsider my credulousness for Trump.
Neo, judging by other conversations with Eric, he doesn’t like or support the Alternative Right, meaning the ones backing and making sure Trump has gotten where he has.
A little bit strange since the Alternative Right, a coalition alliance of anti Leftists, were the first ones to use the Left’s weapons against the Left: activism it may be termed.
With a higher success track than might otherwise be expected.
So when he says people need to use activism to beat the Left or the Alternative Right, that would probably include Trump’s faction as well. But if the Alternative Right truly wants to see the Leftist alliance destroyed, then they are not merely Trump’s faction, in and of itself. They are an international faction, which doesn’t really care who the US President is, so long as it is somebody that allows the Alternative Right freedom of movement in the war. Which means the Alternative Right uses tactics more likely from someone like me, than someone who uses activist politics primarily. War over activism.
“The singular operative standard in real estate is finding [the] highest and best uses of property.” Orson
That is a patently absurd assertion.
Orson:
If you followed the links, you’d see many reasons to say Trump is not a conservative. Let’s see: calling Bush “evil” and saying he should be impeached? Praising Nancy Pelosi? Saying he’s in favor of single-payer healthcare?
And have you actually read Trump’s opinion on eminent domain? He’s in favor not just of eminent domain, but of using if for private concerns (like, for example, his own businesses).
See this for more details, if you care to learn something about Trump’s actual record.
Oh yeah, real conservative, and I’m sure the Framers would love it.
Art-THANKS for the LINK to Mark Steyn!
It’s really EXACTLY what I got out of watching Trump-mania on Youtube last August.
Steyn’s blog posts cry out for editing. It makes reading and taking in his substance quite difficult.
Therefore, for personal friends, I’ve edited and condensed his Burlington, VT encounter, before sharing it.
I think my new title is accurate and balanced: “Trump Exploits H L Mencken Because The Authentic (Spirally Evoked) Belly Laugh Beats Linear (and Rational) Political Messaging.”
I’m playing off familiarity with the Mencken quip about one belly laugh defeating a thousand sylogisms.
Here’s an excerpt of my efforts, BELOW.
After Steyn explains how Trump is a natural crowd pleasing humorist, Steyn explains his authenticity.
Does Obama offer ‘Hope and Change’ platitudes? Or simple, heartfelt realism?
I think the latter – together with humor – is the secret ‘sauce’ of his populism.
I am so tired of the “Trump is not a conservative” theme.
I would argue that the only conservative position on illegal immigration is “Build a wall and deport all the illegals who broke US law by crossing the border.
The conservatives running are “Cinos”; i.e. conservatives in name only. Take Ted Cruz as an example, since he is allegedly the most conservative of the professional politicians running.
His fundraising has been analysed at the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots Blog. Disclosure: my wife prepared that post. “Club for Growth” donor Bob Mercer gave $11 million to the $50 million Cruz super PAC, “Keep the Promise”. Cruz is beholden to his super PAC.
Club for Growth promotes fiscal conservatism and Free Trade. It was initially backing Paul, Cruz, Walker, Bush and Rubio. All of these candidates are squishy on illegal immigration and amnesty. Why would an allegedly “conservative” organization support candidates who are not conservative on illegal immigration. Mostly because such organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce, are in favor of open borders and cheap labor.
This American Thinker piece tracks Cruz’s evolving positions. Cruz has been steadily moving towards Trump, but still won’t commit to deporting all illegal immigrants.
Even if Cruz wins, can we trust him to carry out whatever his latest positions was before the election? I’d suggest he would turn out to be another “Cino”.
As I’ve pointed out frequently, GOP candidates talk “conservative” on the campaign trail, but fail to act like conservatives, once elected. We saw it in 2010, when a conservative tide gave the GOP the house, and again in 2014, when the GOP won the Senate. What did conservatives get in return? The Omnibus bill. Sarah Palin summed it up rather succinctly:
Illegal immigration is a massive problem that the GOP has failed to address ever since Reagan got conned into granting amnesty with the promise that the border would be sealed. Yet, illegal immigration wasn’t even an election issue until Trump brought it up. Everyone attacked him.
Compared to illegal immigration, eminent domain is a side issue. In Trump’s defense, his developments have revitalized complete neighborhoods. His Grand Hyatt project next to Grand Central saved midtown from further decay and turned it around. Government developments, such as schools and roads, depend on tax revenues. If you can’t create private enterprises, you won’t get the tax revenues. SCOTUS ruled and the courts will adjudicate. There isn’t much a President Cruz or Trump can do about about eminent domain, whatever their views.
Unlike politicians, Trump sticks to his major positions. Rather than shifting, Trump doubles-down on his original position. This is nor “Cino” behavior.
There is NOTHING conservative about Trump. He is pro-Establishment, and justg proved it by calling for more ethanol subsidies than Obama. Real Conservatives don’t support more intrusive regulations by the EPA. Real Conservatives don’t support crony capitalism or corporatism.
This is Trump. A Progressive in Conservative clothing.
Not a single true Conservatives supported Obama. Trump did.
Trump is totally clueless about how government works. The GOP has been cutting secret deals with Obama and Democrats since we voted them into office on promises of repealing ObamaCare, reducing the debt, reducing entitlements and subsidies, protecting Social Security to do exactly the opposite and fail to follow through on their promises.
There is no daylight between Obama & his far-left Commie Democrats and the Establishment RINO Republicans in Congress. What has ruined this country are these two anti-American criminals.
Trump’s naivete thinks that all it takes is making deals with the opposition – just as stupid as Obama saying we need to make deals with the people who want to kill us – like Al Qaeda, Hamas, PLO, Hezbollah, Syria, ISIS, and Iran.
There were NO deals made when Harry Reid ran the Senate and refused to hear over 140 bills put on his desk by the GOP. Reid also refused to entertain ANY Amendments.
No, Trump is a fraud. Unless we elect someone like Cruz, a principled Constitutional Conservative, our country is toast.