Donald Trump as Herbert Hoover
As much as I love Ronald Reagan, Calvin Coolidge is the greatest president of the 20th century. If you prefer conservatism or libertarianism, you probably should agree. The man embodied the ideas of federalism and limited government.
Sadly, the Coolidge administration was followed by Herbert Hoover, who was no conservative. Hoover was a progressive tied in with the efficiency movement. Essentially, the efficiency movement believed that government could fix most every problem if only it was run better. Sound familiar already?
Then in 1929 we experienced the Great Crash which triggered The Great Depression. Many FDR and pro-government apologists look back at Hoover as a "do-nothing" president who presided over the onset of this mess. They believe Hoover attempted to ride out the depression instead of using government to fight back. That view is false. President Hoover, believing in the power of government, expanded its role in order to fight the onset of The Great Depression.
Among President Hoover's foray into government expansion:
Looking at those four bullet points above it shouldn't take long to recognize that Donald Trump has promoted each and every one of those ideas. His fundamental belief is that government just needs to be run better, including support for agriculture cronyism. He backs an increase to the federal minimum wage. His anti-immigration comments are well-known. And he wants to see more tariffs.
So let's go back to the 1928 and 1932 elections, and compare them to the 2016 and 2020 elections, respectively.
In 1928 no one really predicted the incoming crash. Here in 2016, however, there are a number of voices sounding the alarm about another recession coming our way soon. Not only is another recession likely, it's about impossible to argue that the United States economy has fully recovered from the last recession. In other words, the next U.S. president will take over a fledgling economy about to be hit by another tsunami.
So who should we turn to? Well, we know Hillary Clinton will likely look to FDR and Obama policies, meaning more government. But my theory is that Trump is like Hoover, meaning...more government. What I'm saying is either Clinton or Trump will oversee another massive recession and both would expand government, resulting in another paltry recovery.
Which brings me to the 2020 election. If both of these presidents will be a complete failure, would you rather is be a Democrat or a Republican? If conditions are as bad in 2020 as they may be, would you rather Republicans have to defend an incumbent Trump or oppose an incumbent Clinton?
See, if Trump is president and things are as awful as they likely will be under him, in 2020 Democrats will be able to run, and elect, someone like Elizabeth Warren. Meanwhile, if Clinton is president and things are as awful as they likely will be under her, Republicans will be able to run, and elect, someone like Ted Cruz. Or Mike Lee. Or Doug Ducey.
If Trump serves as Hoover, the result will be a time period of liberalism followed by pure, unbridled liberalism. FDR's presidency ushered in an era of big government that lasted virtually unopposed until Ronald Reagan became president (five decades!).
Of course, the biggest argument for Trump is the appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice, likely more. I recognize that argument as one not to be ignored. We know Clinton's nominees will be terrible. We truly don't know what we'll actually get from Trump. His list of potential nominees was great, but like so many other things Trump has actually said that sound good, he quickly noted that he wasn't definitely picking from this list. Even conservative and libertarian-leaning legal minds are split about the matter.
So lets set aside the 2020 election concern and live in a vacuum. It's possible Trump nominates folks like Don Willett, Diane Sykes, or Thomas Lee (Mike Lee's brother!) to one or more SCOTUS seats. It's also possible that the man who is such a great negotiator cuts a deal with the Democrats and we wind up with justices like Anthony Kennedy. Either option is a reasonable possibility. (For the record, Hoover put three justices on the court, Charles Evans Hughes, Owen Roberts, and Benjamin Cardozo. All ranged from left of center to very liberal).
Now let's exit the vacuum and consider 2020. After four failed Trump years the country wants anything different and votes for the Democrat. Now we have President Elizabeth Warren leading a liberal revolution that lasts at least through 2030 or 2040. Were a couple good justices worth the decades of adding liberal justices? Were a couple "not terrible" justices worth it?
I know I'm starting to ramble here a bit. I could be completely wrong about a Trump presidency being terrible, but all indicators point to him being a progressive Republican like a Herbert Hoover. I could be completely wrong about another recession being on the way, but plenty of people smarter than me see one imminent. Heck, it's even possible that Trump only wants one term as president anyway and conservatives don't have to pretend to defend him in 2020.
As always my underlining point here is that there is no good choice for conservatives. There is no good choice for evangelical Christians. Voting Trump, voting Gary Johnson, and not voting are all reasonable responses. After Johnson doubled down on being anti-Religious Liberty (and recognizing that his VP is just a moderate Republican), I crossed him off my list. Do I vote Trump? Do I not vote for president? I don't know yet.
Sadly, the Coolidge administration was followed by Herbert Hoover, who was no conservative. Hoover was a progressive tied in with the efficiency movement. Essentially, the efficiency movement believed that government could fix most every problem if only it was run better. Sound familiar already?Then in 1929 we experienced the Great Crash which triggered The Great Depression. Many FDR and pro-government apologists look back at Hoover as a "do-nothing" president who presided over the onset of this mess. They believe Hoover attempted to ride out the depression instead of using government to fight back. That view is false. President Hoover, believing in the power of government, expanded its role in order to fight the onset of The Great Depression.
Among President Hoover's foray into government expansion:
- Extended federal control over agriculture
- Pressured business leaders not to reduce wages (despite falling prices) and then later signed Davis-Bacon Act which required prevailing wages for all federal construction jobs
- Limited immigration
- Increased tariffs by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff
Looking at those four bullet points above it shouldn't take long to recognize that Donald Trump has promoted each and every one of those ideas. His fundamental belief is that government just needs to be run better, including support for agriculture cronyism. He backs an increase to the federal minimum wage. His anti-immigration comments are well-known. And he wants to see more tariffs.
So let's go back to the 1928 and 1932 elections, and compare them to the 2016 and 2020 elections, respectively.
In 1928 no one really predicted the incoming crash. Here in 2016, however, there are a number of voices sounding the alarm about another recession coming our way soon. Not only is another recession likely, it's about impossible to argue that the United States economy has fully recovered from the last recession. In other words, the next U.S. president will take over a fledgling economy about to be hit by another tsunami.
So who should we turn to? Well, we know Hillary Clinton will likely look to FDR and Obama policies, meaning more government. But my theory is that Trump is like Hoover, meaning...more government. What I'm saying is either Clinton or Trump will oversee another massive recession and both would expand government, resulting in another paltry recovery.
Which brings me to the 2020 election. If both of these presidents will be a complete failure, would you rather is be a Democrat or a Republican? If conditions are as bad in 2020 as they may be, would you rather Republicans have to defend an incumbent Trump or oppose an incumbent Clinton?
See, if Trump is president and things are as awful as they likely will be under him, in 2020 Democrats will be able to run, and elect, someone like Elizabeth Warren. Meanwhile, if Clinton is president and things are as awful as they likely will be under her, Republicans will be able to run, and elect, someone like Ted Cruz. Or Mike Lee. Or Doug Ducey.
If Trump serves as Hoover, the result will be a time period of liberalism followed by pure, unbridled liberalism. FDR's presidency ushered in an era of big government that lasted virtually unopposed until Ronald Reagan became president (five decades!).
Of course, the biggest argument for Trump is the appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice, likely more. I recognize that argument as one not to be ignored. We know Clinton's nominees will be terrible. We truly don't know what we'll actually get from Trump. His list of potential nominees was great, but like so many other things Trump has actually said that sound good, he quickly noted that he wasn't definitely picking from this list. Even conservative and libertarian-leaning legal minds are split about the matter.
So lets set aside the 2020 election concern and live in a vacuum. It's possible Trump nominates folks like Don Willett, Diane Sykes, or Thomas Lee (Mike Lee's brother!) to one or more SCOTUS seats. It's also possible that the man who is such a great negotiator cuts a deal with the Democrats and we wind up with justices like Anthony Kennedy. Either option is a reasonable possibility. (For the record, Hoover put three justices on the court, Charles Evans Hughes, Owen Roberts, and Benjamin Cardozo. All ranged from left of center to very liberal).
Now let's exit the vacuum and consider 2020. After four failed Trump years the country wants anything different and votes for the Democrat. Now we have President Elizabeth Warren leading a liberal revolution that lasts at least through 2030 or 2040. Were a couple good justices worth the decades of adding liberal justices? Were a couple "not terrible" justices worth it?
I know I'm starting to ramble here a bit. I could be completely wrong about a Trump presidency being terrible, but all indicators point to him being a progressive Republican like a Herbert Hoover. I could be completely wrong about another recession being on the way, but plenty of people smarter than me see one imminent. Heck, it's even possible that Trump only wants one term as president anyway and conservatives don't have to pretend to defend him in 2020.
As always my underlining point here is that there is no good choice for conservatives. There is no good choice for evangelical Christians. Voting Trump, voting Gary Johnson, and not voting are all reasonable responses. After Johnson doubled down on being anti-Religious Liberty (and recognizing that his VP is just a moderate Republican), I crossed him off my list. Do I vote Trump? Do I not vote for president? I don't know yet.
Comments
Post a Comment