Donald Trump Can’t Say 'No' - Is That What We Want in a President?

National Review ^ | November 20, 2015 | Charles C. W. Cooke

[Cincinatus' Wife]

As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."

So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:

"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"

"Sure. We're going to look at everything."

"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"

"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."

"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"

"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."

"GooGooGooJoob?"

"I'll be looking into that."

Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.

The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?

If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?

Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.

Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."

[Charles Henrickson]

Cruz I support. Trump I do not support. I do not think he is a conservative. I think he is shallow, lacking substance and lacking basic deeply-held social and constitutional conservative principles. I do not trust him.

[D-fendr]

I find it highly unsettling you spend almost all of your posting time here attacking Trump

I sincerely appreciate you bringing that up.

Here's my motivation: I strongly believe Trump's candidacy is harmful to the conservative cause. I think he would be a disaster as a president - and he would lose to Hillary before that eventuality anyway.

I think, as you likely do, that this is an incredibly important turning point election. And we need to, we must, get on about the serious business of choosing the best conservative to go against Hillary and lead our nation.

Again, I believe Trump is a harmful distraction and delay to that most important task for conservatives.

If I thought he was conservative, would be an ok president, could beat Hillary even.. I would act differently; but, I don't.

I don't think I'll have any impact on die-hard Trump supporters - those someone on here described as "Me no care; him build wall" Trump backers. Maybe others will take a hard objective look though.

But hey, I'm just an anonymous voice on the interwebs..

Thanks for your reply.

[mkjessup]

Thank you D1, a Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, and I concur completely with that sentiment, when we ask God to help us, sometimes the help He chooses to send may not be what we envisioned, but it is always the right kind of help, and it arrives just in time.

[AdaGray]

Donald Trump being in the race certainly has turned the spotlight on the NRO’s elitist sentiments.

[Cobra64]

Six position papers. Read ‘em.

[Charles Henrickson]

Six position papers. Read 'em.

Perhaps Trump should read them first. :-)

[D-fendr]

You’ve have done a good job of summarizing my view as well.

thank you..

[edpc]

No, Trump has NOT been the only one to say no to amnesty. In fact, he was quite critical of Romney's anti-amnesty position during 2012. He STILL says we need to do something for those who have been here working for years. Cruz has been the only one to reject the idea outright and he's been doing it for years.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/19/interview_senator_cruz_on_the_amnesty_bill

http://humanevents.com/2014/07/18/ted-cruz-introduces-stop-amnesty-bill/

[EDINVA]

Actually, it wasn’t “always.” The law requiring hospitals to accept anyone in need of ER services (EMTALA) is only 30 years old. Before that the hospitals usually did refuse anyone who didn’t have insurance.

[nopardons]

Reagan did NOT ever lay out his plans during the primary seasons, nor did when he was the nominee. NONE OF THEM DO, but Trump has 1) blasted Obama 2) trashed Hillary ...both on what they have and have NOT done to this nation.

He has also released his specific ideas on taxes and other topics, which other candidates have now somewhat copied.

You don't "believe" that Trump has any CONSERVATIVE stances, because you don't want to.

He's FOR the 2nd. Amendment for EVERYONE.

He's VERY pro-military and for the vets and he means it.

He LOVES America; especially the way it was and how it should be.

He's all for our laws and the Constitution.

He wants to lower taxes.

He wants to do away with ObamaCare and no...he doesn't want single payer.

He wants to stop over payments/fraud/and waste in the government.

But to some posters here....oh hell, he's a "liberal".

[D-fendr]

That was all BUSINESS related and yes, "crony capitalism", which he decries, but it's how the game is played.

That is a textbook hypocrisy: That which he decries, he did.

Someone with integrity does not play that game. There are many successful businessmen who did not and will not.

So, again, that is a lack of integrity.

[fieldmarshaldj]

If Trump is a harmful distraction, it is to the RINO Establishment. He’s done an unbelievable job of clearing out the trash and the weak sisters and exposing the true frauds in the party who were running for President, but were nothing but toadies for the corrupt uniparty cabal. One reason CW has gone ape$hit crazy is that her hero is the biggest casualty (so far), the former Conservative hero Scott Walker (a man I suggested 3 years ago drafting for the Presidency).

Absent Trump, we’d be seeing a media-orchestrated contest between El Jebbe and Walker over which would earn the right to lose to the Butcheress of Benghazi. Instead, one is out and Trump has helped expose and neutralize “Tippy Toes.” This man has so far been a godsend to the Conservative cause in the Presidential race. Harmful ? Not on your life.

Add in he can not only motivate the base to turn out to vote for him proudly (that hasn’t happened for a GOP nominee since Reagan in 1984), but he can also get non-traditional voters into the game to do so, and with a poll that showed he was getting 1/4th of the Black vote, which has not occurred since Nixon in 1960, that means it is virtually impossible for him to lose in a general election.

He’s our “once in a generation” game changing nominee against a truly evil and criminal bitch who should’ve gone to prison decades ago for her activities and is in it to win it. We should consider ourselves blessed and fortunate that Trump stood up to run, because at his age, he could’ve chosen to retire or stayed in the private sector, but is volunteering his senior years to putting our country back on the right course. As long as he adheres to the Conservative agenda he stresses now, gets the right people into positions, he has the ability to be one of our greatest Presidents (and if he only accomplishes two things, of getting our budget into balance and securing our borders/expelling illegals — that will vault him past Reagan).

If I thought Trump were a fraud and Socialist ringer like McQueeg and Willard, both of whom were put in place to assure the most corrupt regime in the history of the republic was to be installed and remain for 8 years, I’d fight his candidacy to the death. Thank heavens I won’t have to.

[Jim Robinson]

Go, Trump, GO!! When they’re throwing up so much flak, you know you’re squarely over the target!!

You’ve got the media, the dems and the GOPe RINOs and amnesty pimps coughing up hairballs.

[nopardons]

You couldn’t be more wrong, if you tried harder to be.

[SaveFerris]

+1

[nopardons]

He wrote them.
You should read them; he doesn’t have to !

[nopardons]

LOL....you’re just so full of it!

[grania]

It's normal not to say no until one has their facts. Asking for a flat-out "yes" or "no" to a gothca' question is unfair.

I don't understand the point of trying to deny Trump the nomination. He was the only one who was ahead of the curve with total anger and disgust about ISIS, and a focus on that and stopping the invasion of the US. Re-establishing borders is part of what needs to happen in order to thwart global terror.

If the 'pub establishment figures out some dirty trick to deny Trump the nomination, we're looking at a hillary presidency, for sure. I don't get it that the establishment is willing to accept that.