The Electoral College voted for Trump. Did the voters vote for Trump or for his policy agenda?
Thad Guyer makes the case that Trump laid out a clear nationalist agenda that reverses the internationalist free trade bipartisan consensus held by former presidents. Trump's victory was a direct repudiation not only of Obama and both Clintons but also most of the positions of both Bushes, McCain, Romney, and even the lodestar policies of Reagan. Trump preserved the constituencies of the GOP because he preserved the political tone of Reagan: aggressive full throated patriotism and pride in traditional white Christian identity.
The fact that he was un-churched and impious did not matter. What mattered was that churchgoing Christians liked that he was on their side on Supreme Court judges and guns and abortion. He was new to these positions but he asserted the new-Trump view with plain talk. He brought along traditionalists, the religious, and GOP loyalists. He won with st coalition.
Trump did not change the positions of professional Republicans, the office holders who staked out positions for decades and who want consistency in their own beliefs. This is why he is having trouble with establishment Republicans like Ryan and also ideological ones like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and the Freedom Caucus.
Trump connected with voters and voters will eventually lead the office holders. But there is a presumption here, that the voters actually cared about Trump's policy statement. I doubt that. I believe they largely ignored his actual policy statements. His victory was personal, not policy.
Voters liked something in Trump--his strength, his apparent courage to change the system, his overt disrespect for foreign countries and foreign interests, his unapologetic support for law enforcement. And the liked that he was not Hillary and being not-Hillary was nearly enough in itself. My own view is that voters voted for the Trump brand, the Trump tone, the Trump style, but not for Trump-ism.
I believe Americans took a chance by voting for a personality they found oddly appealing. They found attractive the very things that appalled the polite society of mainstream media and office holders.
There was no real commitment by Trump for policy change, as documented by his quick abandonment of Trumpcare. Thad Guyer says there was a policy agenda. I agree but I think it was nearly irrelevant to his victory, and that the agenda will evaporate and disappear.
We will learn over the next year which of us is correct. The answer will be demonstrated by whether Trump actually fights for and achieves some of the agenda Guyer lists below. This blog has suggested that he did not really fight to replace and repeal Obamacare. He was faking it on that one and was happy to concede defeat because it wasn't really defeat. It was strategic retreat and actual political victory.
Guest Comment by Thad Guyer
“2016 Was Most Issue Specific and Toxic Election in Decades”
Below are 10 specifically articulated and poorly debated policy issues that Trump prevailed on over Clinton. This was the most issue-specific election of my adult life. Our political polarization is now fueled by broad-spectrum policy debate far more than mere rhetorical ideological rifts. The most dynamic feature of these 10 Trump campaign policies is that most voters can readily name at least five of them, and Upclose readers can recite them all.
The most disturbing aspect of the is the speed with which the Trump-Bannon-Kushner triumvirate are achieving or positioning them. The collective danger in this policy juggernaut is that we the opposition are struggling with denial, mired in a "Trump didn't really or legitimately win" malaise, and obsessed with a "he won't be there long" fantasy. These 10 policies are thematically linked to constitute a neo-nationalist party platform with a manifesto appeal to bipartisan centrism.
Democrats must engage on these policies on their merits, beyond a "just say no" humanist demur. Donald Trump is not a static ideologue, he is a politically and culturally dynamic force equipped with a nuanced grasp of human nature. He will elaborate these policies, reposition them as needed, and innovate new ones. Our children need to be inoculated against the proven mass appeal of these policies, not indoctrinated with flimsy counter-hate. The vaccine is not immediate, but a slow and deliberate resolve of informed First Amendment debate on the merits of these 10 issues.
1. Stop illegal immigration, deport violators, erect a border wall, punish sanctuary cities, restrict Muslim visas, and curtail refugee programs.
2. Confirm a pro-life pro-gun strict constructionist to the Supreme Court from Trump list of 20 pre-vetted judges.
3. Deregulate coal and other emission industries, and exit the global climate change coalition.
4. Kill TPP trade agreement, impose punitive import taxes, threaten and sanction US companies moving manufacturing to Mexico, and deregulate capital markets to fund job growth, especially Dodd Frank.
5. Repeal and otherwise destroy Obamacare and deregulate health insurance companies from restrictive state laws.
6. Reallocate tax dollars from public schools to religiously based charter schools, and kill federal education standards like Common Core.
7. Dramatically increase military spending and projection of military power, correspondingly deemphasize soft diplomacy, coerce NATO members to meet 2% of GDP military buildups, reverse closure of Guantanamo, and press legal boundaries on waterboarding and torture.
8. Give law enforcement less scrutiny and more discretion in fighting crime, to specifically include expanded stop and frisk powers.
9. Align US and Russian military operations in Syria to specifically include support of Assad in combating ISIS.
10. Disengage from the UN global order, and pressure it to tolerate Israel's Palestinian policies.
All 10 of these were driven home by Trump in one mass rally after the other.
1 comment:
All very interesting and succinct. Each of those 10 points are emerging as battles in a growing war for the established order. Each will most likely be fought to partial wins and unsatisfying draws where both sides can declare victory.
However, I lean towards a hypothesis that the Trump/Bannon symbiosis enables Trump to pursue his agenda which, simplistically, is to become richer than Vladimir Putin (anecdotally the wealthiest man on the planet). Bannon provides a policy framework that appeals to the right wing base and is acceptable to the GOP donors.
The longer this goes on the more surreal it becomes. For now the situation is being handled as a quirky out of normal political shift by the media and the governing establishment. Where it's heading is into territory not previously navigated in modern times, and it will challenge everyone who opposes this nation descending into a decade of turmoil.
Post a Comment