A fine site

Month: October, 2016

Donald Trump has never made the status quo seem so refreshing

Elections tend to sharpen the contrasts between the parties and their candidates. Every four years as the vote in November approaches, from my perspective, it seems that the Republican presidential candidate – whether it’s Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney – has never looked so radically menacing. Maybe in the years before the race (and certainly after he lost and no longer had a claim to power), the prior Republican standard bearers occasionally appeared to be reasonable, measured and in the case of Dole and McCain even charming and funny.


This election cycle I have heard conservative commentators say that liberals are hyperventilating over Donald Trump and slapping him with the same outlandish labels just the way they do every presidential election cycle. Hadn’t we declared Romney (or George W. Bush for that matter) an enemy of the state a few short years ago, only now to look back on them charitably, if only to point out the new evil lurking? This year it’s Trump; in four years it may be someone like Paul Ryan receiving hyperbolic, rhetorical shade.

The fact is that Donald Trump is an entirely different beast.

As election day 2012 approached, I feared a Romney presidency would mean the loss of many of President Obama’s greatest achievements: the Affordable Care Act, Wall Street regulation, Marriage Equality, etc.

This year I fear that a Trump presidency would mean the loss of my (and my countrymen’s and women’s) basic constitutional rights and putting the nation that I love on the path toward a fascist dictatorship. How would the liberal constitutional order Madison crafted from Locke, the delicate checks and balances that Jefferson borrowed from Montesquieu and the democratic institutions (from the independent judiciary to the free press, to public universities to social welfare groups) that de Tocqueville so admired in American society hold up to the despotic torrent of a man who thinks that only he alone can fix what ails us?


I went back and looked at what invective I had thrown at Mitt Romney last time around. I found a column that I wrote on November 4, 2012, in which I charged that Mitt Romney’s policies would roll back the welfare state of the post-New Deal era and return us to another Gilded Age of low regulation and high concentrations of wealth.   I approvingly paraphrased a critique that Barack Obama himself had used in the third presidential debate (which somehow we managed to survive that year as well) to the effect that Romney wanted to return to the foreign policy of the 1980’s, the social policies of the 1950’s and the economic policies of the 1920’s.

Last time around it seemed truly scary that despite his etch-a-sketch pivot in the general election, Romney was really beholden to the Tea Party conservative wing of his party.

reagan-trumpBut compared with what Trump is expounding this election, Mitt Romney, even Ronald Reagan for that matter, looks like a saint. Previous presidential contests focused on the proper size and scope of government.

Now we have to contend with Trump’s:

  • Muslim Ban
  • Wall with Mexico
  • Immigration deportation force and demonization or minorities
  • Degradation of women – and desire to punish them for exercising their right to choose
  • Tariff barriers that would likely crash trade and the market
  • NATO abolition – or turning the organization into a protection racket
  • Praise of Putin
  • Re-tweeting of and failing to separate himself from white nationalist hate groups
  • Unwillingness to abide by the outcome of the election and threat to the peaceful transfer of power
  • Loosening of libel laws so he can sue the press for unfavorable news coverage
  • Lack of understanding or respect for the separation of powers
  • Encouragement of violence at his rallies
  • Utter lack of respect for facts or truth, dark conspiracy theories and egomaniacal black soul


Here’s the thing: this is the first election in my lifetime when analogies to 1930’s Germany or the 1950’s Soviet Union don’t seem that farfetched. (See how I managed to avoid calling Trump “Hitler”?) A google search of “McCain” or “Romney” and “fascist” doesn’t turn up many hits, but try that search term with “Trump.”

michael-moore-hayes-01-614x412Left-wing documentarian Michael Moore and blogger and British-Tory turned Obama-progressive Andrew Sullivan both grouse that Trump has fashioned a winning argument that he is the agent of change (or as Moore call him, a “human Molotov cocktail”) against a gridlocked political system in Washington and the corrupt elites who run it. “It’s a rigged system, folks.” And Trump has explicitly run against Hillary Clinton as the embodiment of the political class – a person who has been in government for 30 years and done nothing to fix it because she is the problem.

But a funny thing happened on the way to election day: the debates.   We always have high hopes that43542128-cached the smart liberal – Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry and Obama himself – will out-debate the Luddite conservative. Somehow in the past, even when the Democrat made the intellectual points, the Republican often proved more convincing to the electorate. Or the debates were interesting but failed to change the trajectory of the race.

Until this time.

Despite running for what many see as Obama’s third term with the fundamentals of the race against her, Hillary has (strategically) made the election a referendum on Trump – his lack of temperament, qualification and judgment to be president. She effectively prosecuted the case against him, showing him to be erratic, easily baited and utterly devoid of basic knowledge about government policy or the world in which we live. At the same time, she has presented herself as steady, assured, knowledgeable and extremely competent. I keep coming back to Mrs. Clinton’s biting statement in their first debate about Trump criticizing her for preparing for the encounter. To which she responded, “And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”


The (hopeful) irony would be that Trump’s electoral collapse not only elects Hillary Clinton president but also returns control of Congress to the Democrats, enabling them to enact a good chunk of the DNC progressive platform negotiated with Bernie Sanders (who was the one seen on the left as the change agent).   Rather than merely settling for the status quo, Hillary may be able to strengthen ObamaCare (even add back in the public option where red state governors have crashed the exchanges), make college affordable, build public infrastructure, regulate shadow banking, rebalance the tax code – and with a Senate tie or majority, fill Antonin Scalia’s seat (and other likely upcoming vacancies) with jurists who don’t think the Constitution has been frozen in time sHillary Clinton Begins New Hampshire Election Campaignince 1789.  She may also be able to use her considerable social and negotiating skills with Republicans (which were much admired when she served in the Senate and as Secretary of State) to forge some bipartisan compromises, particularly on comprehensive immigration reform and climate change.

In other words, Hillary may be able to resume where President Obama left off in 2010 after losing the House in the Tea Party midterms and become the refreshing change we can all believe in


Hillary Clinton wins second debate by not losing it, but doesn’t deliver a knockout blow


I almost wasn’t going to write a column after tonight’s debate because I didn’t get the TKO of Donald Trump that I was hoping for.  As I reflect on what we just saw, I think my expectations were just too high.  Trump adjusted from his awful first debate appearance; didn’t interrupt nearly as much; and landed a few (low) blows.  Fundamentally though, the Donald delivered a rambling, scowling, stalking performance full of non-sequiturs and untruths. He just wasn’t as bad as at the first debate.

After the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on Friday catching Trump on a hot mic bragging about grabbing women’s privates without consent, there were some premature declarations that the campaign was over.  But it won’t be until the last elector is chosen.

The race may not have ended tonight, but the trajectory didn’t change either.  And that’s okay because Hillary Clinton was winning before the debate began and is still winning coming out of it.

Hillary spoiled us with a master class in debate combat last time – with Trump taking the bait at every turn: on his unsavory business practices; non-payment of taxes; and insults of a Miss Universe winner who happened to be Latina and is now registered to vote.  Last time Trump wilted after the first 20 minutes; this time, he roamed around and looked alive for the full 90 minutes.  If this had been the first encounter, Donald would have received more criticism for his menacing body language and constant sniffling.  Compared to the last debate, however, his body language was actually an improvement.

As George W. Bush might say, Trump benefitted from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

But if Donald didn’t crater, neither did he excel. His pre-debate Facebook press conference with Bill Clinton’s female accusers was mostly a head-fake that received only passing reference at the beginning of the debate – and only after Anderson Cooper directly brought up the groping tape. Trump’s threat, should he become president, to appoint a special counsel to prosecute and jail Hillary was absolutely chilling and unbecoming.  He made the United States look like a third-rate dictatorship where political opponents are killed or exiled to Siberia.  And Trump’s explicit disagreement with Mike Pence on intervention in Syria (“He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree”) reinforced the impression that the Republican standard bearer is not only at odds with his party but with his own running mate.

Hillary seemed content to rest on her laurels from the last debate, asking the viewing public to consult with fact-checking website instead of crisply rebutting Donald’s outlandish claims about her emails, the origins or birtherism and wikileak’s hacking of her Goldman Sachs speeches. She did, however, competently discuss how to improve ObamaCare instead of repealing it; how her tax plan does not raise taxes on the middle class (or anyone making less than $250,000) but his gives big tax breaks to the rich and corporations; and how to combat “violent jihadist terrorists” without declaring a counter-productive war against Islam itself.  I thought she missed an opportunity to thump Trump harder on his denial of climate change and the public policy consequences.

Clinton’s one interruption of Trump was to real-time correct him that she was no long secretary of state when President Obama failed to enforce the red-line he drew on Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

Trump’s oft-repeated theme running through both debates is that he’s the agent of change and that Clinton is the embodiment of 30 years of the status quo. Hilary’s theme remained that she is the qualified adult in the room who can, and will, deliver real results for real Americans. – whereas Donald isn’t fit to serve.   As with the first debate, Hillary looked and sounded presidential. And slow and steady wins the race, even if a knockout would have been more emotionally satisfying.