why the status quo wants trump out

[doodle]

american thinker

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... p_out.html

Just because Trump had some good ideas doesn't mean that he is at all capable of implementing them. His personality was undermining many of the changes that needed to happen and in radicalizing the opposition was making their future adoption even less likely. Immigration is a perfect example. It's something we need to address, but the way he went about doing that was entirely wrong. Besides, if he was really against immigration he wouldn't have to build a wall...all he'd have to do is prosecute business owners that hired illegals. But he didn't do that. Why?

[doodle]

And it's not all roses... everytime I go pick up overpriced lumber I thank Trump for his tariffs.

[glennds]

Thank you for sharing that. It's not a bad article. The second part gets a little hinky with the talk about Biden's mental health and Hunter's corruption and so forth.

But the first part about the entrenched status quo being threatened by an agent of change like Trump and maybe being comforted by a career politician like Biden, is sound logic.

I don't know that it is fair to paint the entire business community with this brush though. For example a big part of Silicon Valley's objection to the Trump policies have rested with his H1-B visa position. Tech companies are highly reliant on workers with tech skills that just are not available in enough supply domestically. Especially in the rust belt and rural communities where Trump is popular. So these companies either have to set up shop overseas, which is exactly what Trump has campaigned to prevent, or their other option is to suffer a worker shortage.

I agree that the status quo argument may work well for the pharma companies and health insurers. Paradoxically the opposite is true with the energy producers where Trump offers to keep the status quo where Biden is embracing renewable energy and change. So in this regard the author's argument makes the opposite case too.

Let's also remember this article is strictly about the business community and the economic prism. There are those that oppose Trump for non-economic reasons to do with things like domestic social issues, political divide, foreign relations, and other issues. Not saying one side is right or wrong.

[vnatale]

well said glennds..

I think glennds is the forum's ambassador, well able to navigate the oftentimes varying political views expressed here!

i love a good sane argument from the left, they are few and far between and rare (as they often are on the right as well)

one of the weirdest media phenomena i have seen recently is that Reason magazine which is libertarian, is now the only place i know of that even tries to make sound arguments from the left side... its bizarro world out there...

[pmward]

I think that article still had a lot of right wing tin-foil hattery going on. Not as bad as some I have seen, but using a lot of assumptions about corruption and the like. As you can see from anti-Trump arguments made on this forum, there are plenty of reasons to assume corruption on Trump's end as well. Making unsubstantiated claims makes for a weak argument, imo.

At the end of the day Trump is just not a likable person. This is the real reason he lost. This is the reason people wanted him out. He has created a lot of anger, hatred, and division in our society. His tactics might work in the business realm, but they were a bit too heavy handed for most Americans taste in a president. Trump lost a lot of the moderate Republican vote, as evidenced by him losing in a lot of states where Republican's won congressional battles. Losing a lot of the moderate Republicans (so-called RINO's) is the real reason why Trump lost.

Personality issues aside, let's not forget Americans historically tend to be moderate. While they might vote a far right/left populist in from time to time, they don't tend to stay in love with these populists very long. This is the same reason why the populists on the far left have not been able to win any national election bids. It's difficult for any populist to win nationally, but in certain far right or left pockets of the country they can easily win local congressional races. I don't think we ever will get to the point of something like a president AOC. And if by some slim chance she (or someone like her) were able to pull off the impossible like Trump did and get elected in the first place, it likely would end the same way, a 4 term president taken out because they were too far from center. I think Americans in a way like balance. If we pull the rubber band gently to the right, or gently to the left, we can hold that position for a few years before switching back. But when we stretch the rubber band super hard and fast, it snaps back the other direction super hard and fast. I think it's just kind of the way Americans always have behaved. Trump was not only far right, he was also one of those that just crams his way down everyone's throat as fast and hard and repeatedly as he can whether anyone likes it or not. He was a very polarizing president.

[pmward]

Personality issues aside, let's not forget Americans historically tend to be moderate. While they might vote a far right/left populist in from time to time, they don't tend to stay in love with these populists very long. This is the same reason why the populists on the far left have not been able to win any national election bids. It's difficult for any populist to win nationally, but in certain far right or left pockets of the country they can easily win local congressional races. I don't think we ever will get to the point of something like a president AOC. And if by some slim chance she (or someone like her) were able to pull off the impossible like Trump did and get elected in the first place, it likely would end the same way, a 4 term president taken out because they were too far from center. I think Americans in a way like balance. If we pull the rubber band gently to the right, or gently to the left, we can hold that position for a few years before switching back. But when we stretch the rubber band super hard and fast, it snaps back the other direction super hard and fast. I think it's just kind of the way Americans always have behaved. Trump was not only far right, he was also one of those that just crams his way down everyone's throat as fast and hard and repeatedly as he can whether anyone likes it or not. He was a very polarizing president.

this is generally true, i would counter that the trump presidency in many ways, is also a snap back from the hard pull of the Obama years, hopefully this is not representative of a new trend to be pulling hard and fast in either direction all the time...

I would agree with that as well. Not only a snap back from Obama, but also the GFC. The GFC created a lot of anger on both sides. I think this underlying anger, even 12 years on, is still very present today, and is the root cause of all the populism on both the left and the right. Dalio has spoken about this a lot in the last couple years as well. It's the same scenario that played out in the 30's with populists on the left and right being born out of the anger from the Great Depression.

[glennds]

Personality issues aside, let's not forget Americans historically tend to be moderate. While they might vote a far right/left populist in from time to time, they don't tend to stay in love with these populists very long. This is the same reason why the populists on the far left have not been able to win any national election bids. It's difficult for any populist to win nationally, but in certain far right or left pockets of the country they can easily win local congressional races. I don't think we ever will get to the point of something like a president AOC. And if by some slim chance she (or someone like her) were able to pull off the impossible like Trump did and get elected in the first place, it likely would end the same way, a 4 term president taken out because they were too far from center. I think Americans in a way like balance. If we pull the rubber band gently to the right, or gently to the left, we can hold that position for a few years before switching back. But when we stretch the rubber band super hard and fast, it snaps back the other direction super hard and fast. I think it's just kind of the way Americans always have behaved. Trump was not only far right, he was also one of those that just crams his way down everyone's throat as fast and hard and repeatedly as he can whether anyone likes it or not. He was a very polarizing president.

this is generally true, i would counter that the trump presidency in many ways, is also a snap back from the hard pull of the Obama years, hopefully this is not representative of a new trend to be pulling hard and fast in either direction all the time...

This has been the case many times in US history before. Some particularly striking examples:

JFK follows Eisenhower (idealistic young man vs. old soldier)
Carter following Nixon (Mr. Clean churchgoer vs. Tricky Dick)
Reagan following Carter (swashbuckling cowboy vs milquetoast gentleman)
Clinton following GHW Bush (life of the frat house vs traditional politician, a little bit milquetoast himself)
and now Biden following Trump??? (no strength left for descriptors)

Look at the pattern, it's like a pendulum swinging back and forth. I'm with you though. If the pendulum snap back swings further and further into the extremes, Lord only knows what's coming. From either side.

[glennds]

well said glennds..

I think glennds is the forum's ambassador, well able to navigate the oftentimes varying political views expressed here!


Vinny

Thanks for the compliment Vinny.
Seriously though, it's been getting a little hot around here.
TBH, it's not like there is zero redeeming value that Trump offers (or could offer). I don't know anyone that has ever wanted government to remain at status quo. So the platform of change is always popular but having change promised over and over and then getting repeat status quo politics has made us crave it more.
So when an agent of change like Trump comes along, the "let's upset the apple cart" mentality can be exciting and hold the promise of real change. His combative personality could also be an opportunity to overcome the resistance of the entrenched status quo interests. The first part of the article touches on all of this.

And here comes the BUT..... like any relationship, we have to negotiate the benefits against the drawbacks. In Trump's case, it's my opinion that the drawbacks are numerous enough and damaging enough to society that it's like one of those relationships where the whole country ought to look into a mirror and say I just don't like what I'm becoming, it's time to break up and move on.

There's never been a perfect President. If I were to try and create my own perfect combination, a Trump feature or two might make the cut, but many more would go to the scrap heap or into a hazardous waste container.

[pmward]

well said glennds..

I think glennds is the forum's ambassador, well able to navigate the oftentimes varying political views expressed here!


Vinny

Thanks for the compliment Vinny.
Seriously though, it's been getting a little hot around here.
TBH, it's not like there is zero redeeming value that Trump offers (or could offer). I don't know anyone that has ever wanted government to remain at status quo. So the platform of change is always popular but having change promised over and over and then getting repeat status quo politics has made us crave it more.
So when an agent of change like Trump comes along, the "let's upset the apple cart" mentality can be exciting and hold the promise of real change. His combative personality could also be an opportunity to overcome the resistance of the entrenched status quo interests. The first part of the article touches on all of this.

And here comes the BUT..... like any relationship, we have to negotiate the benefits against the drawbacks. In Trump's case, it's my opinion that the drawbacks are numerous enough and damaging enough to society that it's like one of those relationships where the whole country ought to look into a mirror and say I just don't like what I'm becoming, it's time to break up and move on.

There's never been a perfect President. If I were to try and create my own perfect combination, a Trump feature or two might make the cut, but many more would go to the scrap heap or into a hazardous waste container.

I think the problem with the "upset the apple cart" mentality is that it goes against our checks and balances system that is in place for good reason. When you have a president that is willing to go to extremes like declaring a "national emergency" on any policy that he wants that congress did not support, threatening states with withholding funding if they don't conform to his federal policies, putting laws that congress could not vote to get rid of before the Supreme Court asking them to go against congresses will, and even constantly hammering his own parties congressmen that don't "toe the party line" (see Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, etc)... you are going against the checks and balances that were put in place by our founders for a reason. This is authoritarian behavior. So yes, in a democracy with checks and balances things will move slower than in a totalitarian regime where the leader dictates exactly what is going to happen. In a democracy with checks and balances, there's no way to "tip the apple cart" in a single regime without assuming authoritarian powers that were not intended to exist. Trump claimed any legal grey area he could to try to force the system to his liking. Now that there is precedent, all future presidents will likely do the same thing. So all the Republicans that cheered when Trump went around his checks and balances will now be susceptible to Democrat president's doing the very same going forward. Be careful what you wish for and all that...

[glennds]

well said glennds..

I think glennds is the forum's ambassador, well able to navigate the oftentimes varying political views expressed here!


Vinny

Thanks for the compliment Vinny.
Seriously though, it's been getting a little hot around here.
TBH, it's not like there is zero redeeming value that Trump offers (or could offer). I don't know anyone that has ever wanted government to remain at status quo. So the platform of change is always popular but having change promised over and over and then getting repeat status quo politics has made us crave it more.
So when an agent of change like Trump comes along, the "let's upset the apple cart" mentality can be exciting and hold the promise of real change. His combative personality could also be an opportunity to overcome the resistance of the entrenched status quo interests. The first part of the article touches on all of this.

And here comes the BUT..... like any relationship, we have to negotiate the benefits against the drawbacks. In Trump's case, it's my opinion that the drawbacks are numerous enough and damaging enough to society that it's like one of those relationships where the whole country ought to look into a mirror and say I just don't like what I'm becoming, it's time to break up and move on.

There's never been a perfect President. If I were to try and create my own perfect combination, a Trump feature or two might make the cut, but many more would go to the scrap heap or into a hazardous waste container.

I think the problem with the "upset the apple cart" mentality is that it goes against our checks and balances system that is in place for good reason. When you have a president that is willing to go to extremes like declaring a "national emergency" on any policy that he wants that congress did not support, threatening states with withholding funding if they don't conform to his federal policies, putting laws that congress could not vote to get rid of before the Supreme Court asking them to go against congresses will, and even constantly hammering his own parties congressmen that don't "toe the party line" (see Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, etc)... you are going against the checks and balances that were put in place by our founders for a reason. This is authoritarian behavior. So yes, in a democracy with checks and balances things will move slower than in a totalitarian regime where the leader dictates exactly what is going to happen. In a democracy with checks and balances, there's no way to "tip the apple cart" in a single regime without assuming authoritarian powers that were not intended to exist. Trump claimed any legal grey area he could to try to force the system to his liking. Now that there is precedent, all future presidents will likely do the same thing. So all the Republicans that cheered when Trump went around his checks and balances will now be susceptible to Democrat president's doing the very same going forward. Be careful what you wish for and all that...

Well in response I will comment that there are productive AND destructive forms of innovation (or disruption if you will). Reaganomics was disruptive. FDR's New Deal reforms were disruptive, and LBJ's Great Society reforms were disruptive too. Many of these reforms were sweeping enough that it is hard to imagine the country today without them.
While there are both fans and critics of all three, I offer them as examples of change agents that did not carry their influence into destructive territory or authoritarianism. All three were masters of consensus building within the confines of legislative structure of Congress, so I do not think you can say change of this magnitude must take the form of authoritarianism.

With Trump, I was trying to say at the outset of his candidacy, his promises to disrupt the status quo in Washington were enticing to anyone who was fed up with the state of Washington politics over the last few decades. The jedi mind trick is that many of us visualized that change in the form we wanted it to take. What Trump proceeded to do was erode the guard rails of democracy and practice destructive politics, if not in an outright authoritarian way, then at least with authoritarian overtones. Not just domestically but globally too. This then forced the public to either rationalize his actions, or become a critic. Very few are agnostic.

[pmward]

well said glennds..

I think glennds is the forum's ambassador, well able to navigate the oftentimes varying political views expressed here!


Vinny

Thanks for the compliment Vinny.
Seriously though, it's been getting a little hot around here.
TBH, it's not like there is zero redeeming value that Trump offers (or could offer). I don't know anyone that has ever wanted government to remain at status quo. So the platform of change is always popular but having change promised over and over and then getting repeat status quo politics has made us crave it more.
So when an agent of change like Trump comes along, the "let's upset the apple cart" mentality can be exciting and hold the promise of real change. His combative personality could also be an opportunity to overcome the resistance of the entrenched status quo interests. The first part of the article touches on all of this.

And here comes the BUT..... like any relationship, we have to negotiate the benefits against the drawbacks. In Trump's case, it's my opinion that the drawbacks are numerous enough and damaging enough to society that it's like one of those relationships where the whole country ought to look into a mirror and say I just don't like what I'm becoming, it's time to break up and move on.

There's never been a perfect President. If I were to try and create my own perfect combination, a Trump feature or two might make the cut, but many more would go to the scrap heap or into a hazardous waste container.

I think the problem with the "upset the apple cart" mentality is that it goes against our checks and balances system that is in place for good reason. When you have a president that is willing to go to extremes like declaring a "national emergency" on any policy that he wants that congress did not support, threatening states with withholding funding if they don't conform to his federal policies, putting laws that congress could not vote to get rid of before the Supreme Court asking them to go against congresses will, and even constantly hammering his own parties congressmen that don't "toe the party line" (see Jeff Flake, Mitt Romney, etc)... you are going against the checks and balances that were put in place by our founders for a reason. This is authoritarian behavior. So yes, in a democracy with checks and balances things will move slower than in a totalitarian regime where the leader dictates exactly what is going to happen. In a democracy with checks and balances, there's no way to "tip the apple cart" in a single regime without assuming authoritarian powers that were not intended to exist. Trump claimed any legal grey area he could to try to force the system to his liking. Now that there is precedent, all future presidents will likely do the same thing. So all the Republicans that cheered when Trump went around his checks and balances will now be susceptible to Democrat president's doing the very same going forward. Be careful what you wish for and all that...

Well in response I will comment that there are productive AND destructive forms of innovation (or disruption if you will). Reaganomics was disruptive. FDR's New Deal reforms were disruptive, and LBJ's Great Society reforms were disruptive too. Many of these reforms were sweeping enough that it is hard to imagine the country today without them.
While there are both fans and critics of all three, I offer them as examples of change agents that did not carry their influence into destructive territory or authoritarianism. All three were masters of consensus building within the confines of legislative structure of Congress, so I do not think you can say change of this magnitude must take the form of authoritarianism.

With Trump, I was trying to say at the outset of his candidacy, his promises to disrupt the status quo in Washington were enticing to anyone who was fed up with the state of Washington politics over the last few decades. The jedi mind trick is that many of us visualized that change in the form we wanted it to take. What Trump proceeded to do was erode the guard rails of democracy and practice destructive politics, if not in an outright authoritarian way, then at least with authoritarian overtones. Not just domestically but globally too. This then forced the public to either rationalize his actions, or become a critic. Very few are agnostic.

Well said. Also, yes those are good examples of sweeping changes that came in through the democratic process. Most of which immediately followed some form of crisis so it was a bit easier to get the bipartisan buy in.

But yeah, with Trump you're either one of "us" or one of "them". He divided the country, and then declared open war on anyone that was classified as "them".