Is the Trump Administration All That Different?

Trump has been a politically polarizing politician, but policy-wise, his administration is not too different from George W. Bush's in many respects. And on some things, he basically continued with Obama's policies. The major difference between him and Obama are 1. conservative judges and 2. deregulation. However, many of these regulations only came into place under Obama, so there isn't actually a striking difference between the way life was under Bush and what it's like under Trump. So then, leaving aside, Trump's personal qualities, why is the reaction to his administration so hysterical, when there isn't actually all that much that has changed, much less negatively affected anyone in the US? (I have yet to see one person who lost medical coverage because of Trump). Three things:

1. The hysteria started under Bush with completely over the top reactions to Iraq war. Many of the people who expressed their differences over the war were so hateful in tone that I wonder to this day whether they knew who the real enemy was. The people who now fondly recall the Bush eras, tend to forget the utterly hateful rhetoric surrounding the war in Iraq and all the names Bush was called, and so forth. Bush himself was significantly more civil in tone. Trump supporters now call it weakness. I think there is a middle ground between allowing your adversaries to walk all over you and reacting impulsively to every single negative comment about you. Those who think that Trump comes out as strong and in control by lashing out are doing so because they are projecting their own wish to see someone respond to the annoying media and leftist loons.

 And gratifying as it may be emotionally, it does absolutely nothing for Trump's image otherwise. No one except his most hardcore supporters actually believes he is a strong president due to that. That's not to say that people won't vote for him given no other Republican alternatives. Incumbents tend to win, and most people are doing ok for now, so there is no reason to believe that unless his policy ends up putting us on a crash course, history won't follow the examples of previous presidents who got reelected despite not being particularly outstanding on any one thing. But let's not kid ourselves about how Trump actually comes across. Or that someone less polarizing wouldn't have gotten the same share of attacks. Same people who "wanted" Jeb or Rubio would have turned to calling them fascist Islamophobes the moment they took office and shown opposition to the Iran deal or cracked down on terrorists (and they would have done exactly that).

2. Media - for all the talks about the failing media, there are now many more media outlets than under Bush. These echo chambers started mushrooming under Obama as a reaction to each other. On the part of the left, it was a deliberate strategy of amplifying the message, on the part of the right it was a reaction to a perceived bias in the MSM, and MSM's unwillingness to cover issues of concern to conservatives or give voice to conservative perspective. All of which is perfectly ok, of course, so long as people are still willing to examine the other side. But neither the journalists nor the readers were willing to do that, although there is a number of very fair minded conservative journalists who do excellent investigative work. But many of them are outright dismissed as political hacks by all of the left, regardless of what they say. Yes, there is bias and tunnel vision on both sides. But I would say that more conservatives are at least willing to hear what the other side says, if only to debunk it, than progressives who don't even read what conservatives have to say.

3. The rise of activist movements - BLM, Occupy Wall Street, and BDS movements have all contributed to the radicalization of the discourse on the left. And they are not really comparable to Tea Party, which had very specific economic goals, and moreover organized around electing more conservative politicians, rather than just having actions for the sake of actions, or changing culture, or infiltrating the academe. To some extent, I think it's the failing of the conservatives to utilize the Tea Party momentum to that end. But regardless of that, I think it's clear that the rise of radical activists galvanized the left, though not necessarily towards any helpful ends such as getting elected. It definitely influenced rhetoric and perceptions, so that even very mainstream, old-school Democrats found themselves having to move to the left in order to keep up with the party messaging and not be left out in the cold. You might say that Trumpism did the the same for conservatives, but ideologically that's not really the case, because Trumpism didn't make anyone (not one peson) more "conservative" in any traditional understanding.

It shifted the focus of conversation to particular concerns popular with the conservatives in recent years, but whereas the conservative platform had a broad spectrum of issues and perspectives, Trumpism was a nativist/populist focus on a few very narrow issues to the exclusion of discussion and understanding of anything else. To some extent, it's more a demagoguic exploitation of deeply personal fears and problems than any political movement that that affects the reasoning of the party about its platform. it's not cohesive, it's not based in any principles, it's reactionary, and unfortunately, it plays on emotions and poor understanding of economics and foreign policy for overwhelming majority of people, instead of addressing their concerns in a thoughtful way (which is the failing of conservatives - and that's how Trumpism took advantage of the vacuum). It's not that conservatism holds no answers, it's that a combination of corrupt or weak politicians, lack of access to broader discourse with the public, and failure to organize conservatives on a grassroots level made the public ripe for a quick takeover by loud over the top brash voices, which are perceived as strong, more confident, more decisive, and having solutions because they tell people what they want to hear.
No one really wants to discuss the downsides of these "solutions". That's old school. That failed. That's out the door.

 So at the end of the day, left wing activist movements took the Democratic party through the triumph of cultural rhetoric and socialist economic appeal, while the right has been largely abducted by populist nativism, which actually has very little to do with "nationalism" as most people view it. It's more like the combination of 1920s nativism/Know NOthing party and early post-revolutionary Soviet Union, with the focus on taking down the corrupt economic elites and installing the Peope who surely knew how to address their own needs. That was actually the underlying political premise of the first years of Bolshevism. Though Trumpism doesn't embrace communism, it actually has a lot more of socialism in it than anyone would care to admit, and anyone who compares it to Italian fascism or German Nazism is sorely deluded. The underlying premise is actually very particular to early Soviet populism, minus the violence. That Trumpism and left wing cultural activism both rely on Alinsky tactics to carry out their agendas, makes them both more alike than they are different. That's not to say that Trumpism is practically useless, and that someone who embraces it, cannot execute a policy successfully. But let's see who's actually executing some of the more successful Trump policies. Are they actual true believer populists? Or are they hardcore pragmatists, who'd be doing the same thing in any Republican administration? I actually think there are significantly fewer populists in the administration than people on either side of the aisle believe.

I think if Trump were to retire from politics, the movement will quick die down for lack of leadership, so long as more traditional conservatives get their act together and put forth a cohesive vision, which they had failed to do during the election. And I think, results will sooner or later speak for themselves. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but Trumpian isolationism is not consistent with the security demands of modern reality, nor with the economic demands of a colossal economy that we have in place today. All of that will fall by wayside, and Republicans will either feel betrayed once again, or others will emerge to take advantage of the things the administration did right and build on it in a more traditional and thought out manner. It remains to be seen what actually happens. But from the left, no matter who takes the mantle after Trump, expect nothing but more hatemongering, dismissal and Alinskyite tactics. To contrast with conservatism, they are forced to rely on the polar extreme, simply because of who their constituency is. I am not sure how the left can ever roll back the excesses of intersectionality given the generations of mindless drones it has produced. If they do try to do so, it may end badly.

The Rise of Political Hackery on the Right

Where is the outrage of the Trump supporters over the disastrous position his administration took over the course of this week, and the inane statements by the State Department, that are no different in tone or in substance from what we would have gotten from (and did) from the Obama administration?

There has been nary a word from the usual suspects, who've dedicated their precious time not to pushing their movement's leader to do better, but to discuss three subject matters: Harvey Weinsteing, NFL nonsense, and bashing anyone who is not a Trump groupie. Yes, I'm using this word deliberately, because rational people, no matter how much they support whoever they support, have something of substance to contribute to the discussion other than bashing critics and dwelling on the failures of others. Instead, I see my entire feed deteriorate into schadenfreude about the leftists and hatred aimed at George W., Bill Krystol, and anyone who dares say a word against Bannon, Trump himself (of course), or any of the policies that are worth at least discussing.

Being a yes-man does not make you any more loyal to the country, t he party, or for that matter, the president, than someone who is genuinely trying to ways of improving things that need to be fixed. Notice that you won't find me complaining about the administration's regulatory policies, judiciary appointments, or anything that I think they get right. I give praise where it's due. Likewise, I have praised Democrats, in the admittedly rare instances where they demonstrated rational thinking, moral clarity, or for whatever reason said and did the right thing. ((Here's loooking at you, Sen. Blumenthal, Schumer, & Menendez & Joe Biden).

I find it disheartening and infuriating to see people I once respected even when I disagreed with their political choices turn into unpleasant, bitter, political hacks who take on the worst aspects of the very things they once hated without blinking an eye, without realizing how much damage they are doing to their own purported causes.

Unwarranted Hysteria Over George W. Bush's Speech

I hate to say it, but all the Trump apologists who were bashing George W. for allegedly attacking Trumpism have just taken a page out of the leftist playbook. Not in terms of being effective Alinskyites, but in terms of jumping the gun and embarrassing themselves and their leader. You know how insecure leftists get when you read some awful quote and it sounds like it could have been Obama and Hillary but it turns out to be someone else together? Or, you make a general statement condemning corruption or some such and they immediately jump in assuming that you are talking about O.?

And we all laugh and laugh and laugh because such assumptions are generally a sign of the guilty conscience? Well, in this instance, that's exactly what happened. The White House correctly issued a statement that no one there took Bush to be referring to Trump (and in fact, he spent a great deal of his speech bashing the left, and the racist intersectionalists)... but Trump's supporters immediately assumed it was about him.

Why exactly would anyone make comments that Bush was bashing Trump, when the context was clearly about the left unless deep inside you think that if he HAD meant Trump, he may have had a point>? Why are Trump's OWN die-hard supporters giving ammunition to the left? To be sure, Bush is no great example of conservatism. Neither is Trump himself. But what kills me is when allegedly super-conservative elements of the party begin to attack everyone around them as not conservative enough in an attempt to defend their party leader who is not conservative at all, and as a result, make themselves look foolish. Stop it already. You want party unity? Begin with yourself.

What Will Not Defeat Trumpism - and What May

RINOism is never going to weaken Trumpism. It will only empower Trumpism. The only real response that could possibly sway Trump supporters in a different direction is strong, principled, consistent conservatism without the overblown populist rhetoric and buffoonery.

At the end of the day, while many people may prefer Trump and Trumpism to Democrats, they want a non-chaotic, consistent, and well thought out response to the issues they are concerned about. If the Republicans can develop that brand that is responsive to national concerns, while also eschewing the excess of Trumpism and the populist elements that feed off fearmongering and ignorance, they will be able to overcome this current wave or movement or whatever you want to call it.

 But the likes of Jeff Flakes and Mitch McConnell are part of the problem; they are certainly not the solution, and cannot be any part of it unless they learn their lesson and start siding with the conservatives. In the long run - if conservatives play it right, and it may be a very long run indeed - the rise of Trump, while disastrous on many levels to the brand of the party, may yet prove to be the best thing that could happen to the rise of constitutional conservatism. We shall see.