Rethinking Trump
One aftermath of the Kavanaugh hearings is that quite a few NeverTrumpers on the GOP side have decided Trump’s not so bad after all, and have said so in print. Public declarations of having changed one’s mind about something important and basic are unusual, particularly for well-known pundits.
A mind is a difficult thing to change, indeed. And yet minds do change.
Those who follow this blog probably recall that during the primaries I was not a NeverTrumper, but I was very negative about Trump and would have preferred almost any of the other candidates (almost—I drew the line at Kasich) to have won the primary instead. This was for several reasons: I thought Trump had no political track record, I noted that his previous statements on politics were inconsistent and many were liberal and some were alarming, he had character flaws that were quite obvious, and I felt he was very likely to lose to Hillary Clinton and the prospect of her presidency filled me with dread.
But I always understood Trump’s appeal (for example, see this). And once he became the GOP nominee I always said that if he were to win I’d be happy, very happy, to be proven wrong about how he would perform. Since Trump has become president I feel that I’ve evaluated him fairly and objectively, and most of the time I’ve been pleasantly surprised. In fact, at this point, I’m no longer surprised to be pleasantly surprised when he does things of which I approve (which does not mean I approve of all things he does).
But one group I’ve never seen change their minds about Trump has been the Democratic Party and of course the left. It’s been total opposition and ridicule from the get-go. That’s why this article by Devin Stewart, a self-described Democrat and an adjunct professor of international affairs at Columbia University and New York University, surprised me.
Here are some excerpts:
Like most Democrats, I reacted to the stunning 2016 election of Donald Trump with a combination of confusion and dread. After all, Hillary Clinton was the favorite and, to Democrats like me, a Trump victory seemed to portend certain economic disaster, nuclear war, and pretty much the end of America as we knew it.
But now nearly two years into his administration, Trump has presided over a “winning streak” that includes a booming economy and stock market, an unemployment level at a nearly 50-year low, two Supreme Court appointments, no new foreign wars or domestic terrorist attacks emanating from abroad, a significant degree of progress on trade relations with Canada and Mexico, a “needed reset” on the China relationship, and the prospect of peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Perhaps it is time that even his opponents reconsider Trump…
Trump’s presidency marks a return to realpolitik and great power politics. No one knows what goes on in Trump’s mind or if even he believes he has a strategy. What matters is what Trump does, so this essay looks at his actions, considers the bias of his critics, and seeks a new way to understand his policies. It considers the possibility that Trump has a method to his madness…
Of course, the verdict on Trump’s effort with North Korea is not yet in. But much of the press has not paid sufficient attention to the progress Trump has already made. His approach has secured the remains of some American troops lost during the Korean War, contributed to successful inter-Korean talks, and promised a follow up U.S.-North Korea summit. He is trying an unorthodox approach, but it is too soon to render conclusions about them because we are right in the middle of it. Experiencing the discrepancy between mainstream coverage of North Korea and my own analysis was eye-opening….
Like many Gen-Xers who studied politics or international relations in the 1990s and 2000s, I absorbed this gospel of liberal internationalism almost completely. But Trump’s early successes have already caused me to question those tenets of my education.
The Trump Doctrine takes previous policy assumptions and turns them on their head. Trump’s “America First” approach is a reversion to the idea of realpolitik and great power competition. It is better suited to a moment in which American power is much less dominant. The president takes each state-to-state relationship on its own terms. That’s why he’s often antagonistic with allies and friendly with threatening dictators. The consequences of insulting friendly countries, such as Canada, might be hurt feelings in exchange for better trade terms, while souring relations with an antagonistic one, such as North Korea, could result in serious security threats. He pursues the optimal outcome in a utilitarian sense rather than follow previous rules about diplomatic etiquette.
The entire article is worth reading.
The author appears to still be a Democrat, but he’s clearly an open-minded one who thinks for himself. Writing an article like that is no small act of courage.
I almost crossed over to the Never Trump camp, but in the end couldn’t stomach the thought that Hillary might win. There are still plenty of criticisms and concerns about the guy, but his victories are glaringly obvious, except to the willfully blind. People like Mr. Stewart are a breath of fresh air, and I know plenty of Democrats who are open-minded and pragmatic like he appears to be. Like you said, for pundits who are on record (over and over and over) to admit that Trump is not one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is a big deal. Trump has mostly done what he said he would do and has minimized the buyer’s remorse usually experienced by the voters.
Tucker Carlson summed it up very well in a speech last year. The key portion begins at the 3:00 mark and continues for about a minute or so. The entire speech is excellent, if you have the time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2dct9ErA_g
Trump was not in my top 5 in the GOP primaries, but I was completely against Mrs Clinton (of course, since I live in Calif, my vote for President didn’t mean anything). I thought that if Trump appointed proper originalists to the Federal Courts, all else was gravy. He exceeded my wildest expectations.
I still don’t fully trust him, though. I would not be surprised that if he were confronted with a Democrat controlled congress, he would value making “the deal” over everything else. That said, I’ll still probably vote for him in 2020.
People change their minds all the time, what they don’t do is admit it publicly, especially on such highly visible topics such political leaders and policy issues.
Funny, how people still think, or, as you apparently do, wonder what goes on in Trump’s mind, or if there is a strategy. I would posit a fair amount goes on in his mind, and yeah: there is a strategy. And it’s been out there for a while, but most people don’t look. (Sad, how ill-informed we are as an electorate.) Go and google the National Security Assessment for 2017, (it might be called the National Security Plan – don’t remember offhand, speaking of ill-informed), you will be able to find an outline of a rational, coherent foreign policy plan, primarily authored by H. R. McMaster and released in December of 2017. It stresses a “principled realism,” which means that the US is looking at everything from a new point of view, no longer locked into the post-war model we’ve been – often enough disastrously – using to look at the world since 1945. That model no longer reflects the world situation we have, does it? But it takes someone from outside the Washington DC treadmill to scrap it, and say, “hey! It ain’t working! Time for something different!” That would be Trump.
In the light of that, all of a sudden what Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, and Haley have been doing in their respective spheres makes sense. I’m sorry – but not especially surprised – more people haven’t read it.
A mind is a difficult thing to change, indeed. And yet minds do change.
no sh*t
their defenses wont entertain, or even try to read things that others suggest
IF they think that would do anythig like that…
i know..
nearly 15 years of trying…
waste of time all of it…
for instance… stalin erasing people is BAD
but how do you prevent that? by allowing others to share stage
refusing to, just does waht stalin wanted
you become complicit by this
and thats why its set up that way!!!
to use your own nature against you
and to use that nature against those that would teach
after all…
everyone knows the jews were rescued
the embarassment was and is that none of the others who are erased were
they were left behind, sold out, and more
the jews didnt even try to save those either
so its better to erase them, and never let others share the light
right?
this is why its a waste of time
anne frank wins because her people were rescued
others erased as embarasment in history
cause they were left behind to rot
erasing them hides that
they were also sold out at yalta
erasing them hides that
but even this wont change minds
and if it does
its not going to be what it was or is if honestly done
would it
so a complete waste
I appreciated your commentary in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Your criticism of Trump was fair. He also wasn’t my choice, but my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton determined my vote for whoever the Republican nominee was going to be. Trump’s pre-election judge list sealed the deal for me and actually within a week of the election I was looking forward to voting for him. We are so accustomed to campaign promises not being upheld, I think a lot of people discounted that list–didn’t take it seriously. If they had, I think he may have won with both the electoral and popular vote.
Have you read this article?
Trauma and Dr. Ford
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22850
Stilicho:
I don’t wonder if there’s a strategy. I do think there is a strategy, and I’ve written previous posts discussing it.
In this post I have quoted someone who wonders if there is a strategy. That person is not me.
An adjunct who will never get tenure, after such heresy.
“… have already caused me to question those tenets [of liberal internationalism] of my education.” – Stewart
This reminds me of Andrew Breitbart’s book where he came to understand very belatedly that much of his college education was an inculcation to cultural Marxism.
______
Trump’s speaking can be very succinct, skipping over steps in the middle. It can sound like knee jerk jumping to conclusions. Those conclusions are compelling to a wide swath of the country, yet abhorrent to you-know-who. Has he thought over, with help, those missing steps? The proof is in the pudding. As Stewart suggests, we don’t fully know yet.
The run time of a Trump speech always seems about right. Remember Clinton? His first time on the national stage, he gave a speech at the Dem. convention that was supposed to run 30 or 45 min.; but it ran over 90 min. How about that one SOTU speech? It ran very long and had dozens and dozens of little details, many of which were give-aways or sops to various interest groups. I thought, “What a mess!” The talking heads gushed in awe of his mastery of the details.
Urban Dictionary
the act of engaging in intelligent and interesting conversation purely for the enjoyment of your own greatness and individuality. Subjects range from obscure lp’s to cultural movements in preindustrial societies. Either delivered through grand monlogues or subtle conversation orientation
Mental Masturbation Deserves More Appreciation
Optimal Illusion: How to kid yourself where it helps, not where it harms.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ambigamy/201711/mental-masturbation-deserves-more-appreciation
[figures… feminist psych rag… never even interviews anyone from MGTOW before pontificating what professionals should think]
for fun things to do with your brain…
People often use items to intensify the sensation of mental masturbation. Such aids include fantasy or science fiction novels and Wikipedia. Hypno-erotic meditative recordings may also be used.
[edited for length by n]
Pretty interesting yearbook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ldnK2qLN8
It’s a mystery why the MSM and the Never-Trumpers can’t seem to understand that alternating the carrot and the stick, or using both simultaneously, is a strategy and seems to work quite well. The obvious explanation is that they do understand it and are just pretending not to.
Fools or knaves? Both.
I read the article by Stewart and was struck by how much he still ignores because it doesn’t fit his worldview. Trump was successful with Little Rocket man because he responded in kind when LRM began his usual trantrums and started threatening us. Past administrations would have folded and given him a few billion to shut up and go away while ignoring the fact that he was getting stronger with each threat and bribe. Instead Trump lined up the Pacific fleet on his front door to show him we’re fed up and ready to vaporize him if he put one toe over the line. Trump no longer bows to the globalist shibboleth that we’re the bad guys and must kowtow to every idiot punk on the globe. Stewart doesn’t seem to have absorbed that lesson.
Trump’s rejection of multilateral treaties unfavorable to us for bilateral treaties that benefit the US is a similar overthrow of blind adherence to the globalist worldview.
Stewart also missed the fact that Trump was working behind the scenes twisting the Chinese arms in the trade negotiations to make sure that they sat on their client, LRM, and made sure he understoood things are different now. This is known as bilateral trade with side effects.
Paul in Boston:
No doubt the author missed plenty. But he noticed a lot nevertheless, and I appreciate the effort he made to be fair.
Re: Mr Stewart
In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
(Probably) Orwell
@ jake – the PTSD article is only partly correct. From his perspective in dealing with military trauma single clear event, triggered, would seem good to him, but remote sexual or violent trauma is a bit different. The criteria for the diagnosis is here: https://www.brainline.org/article/dsm-5-criteria-ptsd Taking them one-by-one on CBF:
Criterion A – granted arguendo
Criterion B – shaky. CBF described anxiety and difficulty with general situations, not intrusion symptoms. Some clinicians would accept that
Criterion C – shaky – again, she talked about difficulty with relationships, not avoidance. Might qualify
Criterion D – (needs 2) meets one. partially meets several others, but it’s vague.
Criterion E – Doesn’t seem to meet this
Criterion F – Met easily, if symptoms above qualify
Criterion G – Uncomfortableness usually doesn’t qualify. Marginal.
Criterion H – Met.
As to Trump and strategy, I think the author, neo, and commenters are not all on the same meaning of what is strategy, what are tactics, and what are plans. I think Trump has shown himself excellent on tactics. I don’t know how much of strategy and plans are intuitive according to personal principles (which isn’t a bad thing) and how much is overarching specific goals.
By dispensing with some of the coded language or doublespeak we come up with this more succinct version of what Rhodes and Psaki are saying:
The Obama plan called for prominent NeverTrump Republicans to try and forestall a Trump victory or — God forbid! — a Trump inauguration by throwing the election to Clinton based on claims — and, no, I swear I’m not plagiarizing The Onion — that Russia had interfered on behalf of Trump. This Russia Hoax narrative had already been floated among some NeverTrump Republicans, and they liked this “bipartisan” approach — they would provide the cover needed for a coup. Planning had already gotten so far that Obama had directed his staff to develop an action plan for the event of a Hillary loss — the rejection of continued Progressive rule would be “historically unprecedented (in their minds) and thus invalid.
Trump’s ‘strategy’ is going with his gut instinct.
He knows where he wants to go and uses both the carrot and the stick because desire and fear are humanity’s primary emotional motivators.
And when you want to get people to move and effect change, emotion driven motivators count for more than intellectual contemplation.
neo on October 12, 2018 at 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm said:
Paul in Boston:
No doubt the author missed plenty. But he noticed a lot nevertheless, and I appreciate the effort he made to be fair.
* * *
A person cannot overcome a lifetime of bias in one article.
We hope he will continue to keep looking.
Some of these articles might help convince him that the crack in his cognitive world-view is opening him up to reality.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-trump-could-be-the-most-honest-president-in-modern-history
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trumps-list-289-accomplishments-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping
https://warontherocks.com/2018/10/trump-and-the-end-of-smugness/?fbclid=IwAR27dOa4gTbip0vrNnOYUxnZVS-Jd7Pf86YPy0QXg-SD8EaOXfDOfn5U5Jw
Brave fellow, Stewart.
Like Neo, and many others here, I was near appalled that Trump might, and did, win the GOP nomination. Once he became the candidate, I expected a disastrous Hillary Presidency.
I no longer doubt Trump. I don’t know about his grand strategy. I do believe that he has goals; and I suspect that his strategy is to follow the discrete path that he thinks will accomplish each of those goals. We have learned that one key element of his strategy is relentlessness; and that may be the most important element of all.
Trump seems to veer back and forth between a caring, sensitive human, and a buffoon and bully. He irritates me at times; but, I have come to believe that beneath his “New York” bluster there is a genuine person. I also suspect that the public behavior is often governed by what his instincts tell him will achieve a particular goal.
Pleasant personal moment today. Took wife to a plastic surgeon because she has developed a growth on her face that is unsightly and physically irritating. Surgeon was a charming young man from Tennessee; who came out here from DC. He was overdressed by California professional standards in a blazer and open neck shirt. I noticed that the liner of his jacket was a pattern similar to the American flag. He said the “suit” was made when he was in DC, and he just thought it would make a nice touch. Claims he gets no hateful looks in California; only surprise that he dresses so formally.
Late to the thread… djt has definitely surprised me. I totally, based on his public record pre2016, totally distrusted him although I voted straight R in 2016. Was he holding his true persona in for decades or late in life have an epiphany? I don’t know. But I like what he is post inauguration actions. I will support him hence forth. Hold a House majority and gain a larger majority in the Senate.
Working as a volunteer in my state, urge you all to do the same in your state.
I trust Trum to do what he feels is good for his cause. Just like when he did with Hillary to join the primaries and later when he left her alone to let her escape prison until her death.