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."

[wardaddy]

You’re pathological honey

[wardaddy]

Lol

You’re kidding right

[papertyger]

I think it's fair to say you think my standard for integrity is too high in this case.

Not at all. I think your "standard" is actually form of deceit.

For example:

You have a candidate X for president who was a major supporter of Rep. Charlie Rangel. Supported Senate democrats, Harry Reid included. Supported House democrats, Nancy Pelosi, etc. (this is during the time Obamacare was being rammed through). Supported Hillary Clinton.

Now to yet again chant this litany without a breath of acknowledgment that "Candidate X" has shut down every single republican party detractor, including a sitting U.S. Senator in a major national debate, by simply reminding of his "support" for them too, (And we all know how many critical interests Trump has in Kentucky) smacks not of integrity, but duplicity.

So when I see such high-minded, shiny "standards" of integrity, what I really see is this....

[Arthur McGowan]

Yes.

I haven’t paid enough attention to be sure, but NR is in the tank for Bush, aren’t they?

[AndyJackson]

You have to follow the law.

You really are a naïf. No one has any clue what the law actually is. Dozens of state and federal agencies each write bookshelves full of regulations, and too frequently, if you comply with one you violate another.

[mkjessup]

You're lying.

Sorry, still not taking the flame bait. Just too old for it.

Are you too old to read and comprehend what D1 has repeatedly pointed out to you? When he comes into a thread, he comes armed for bear, and always has the facts, figures and quotations to back up what he says.

What have you brought, besides your twisted interpretations and unsupportable opinions?

And if you're 'too old', you ought to know not to try that childish 'flame bait' argument because that is NOT at all what D1 has been engaged in with dealing with the likes of you, of course someone who is unable to defend their position is naturally going to feel like they're being 'flamed' which is exactly what you are demonstrating.

If you have the courage of your convictions, go back and REFUTE with hard data, the counter arguments that DoughtyOne has made in this thread in response to your disinformation and false statements.

I've known D1 for many many years, and he only comments when he's got the facts behind him, he is an esteemed researcher and if he says it, you can take it to the bank that it's the truth, and that it's accurate.

As for you?

Not so much.

[kiryandil]

You should quit foaming about Kelo and start working at the local and state level to get "your" property back.

Kelo is just another act in the Kabuki Pretend Theatre of "You Own Your House And Land".

You don't. The government does. "Pray they don't alter the deal any further."

[noinfringers2]

My wife of 61 years has told me of the wringer questions she was asked as a Swede when she wanted to visit the US and some very upstanding relatives. I am glad she passed the tests. The US also gained.

[RitaOK]

I appreciate the ping. Never heard such a kerfuffle, but it wouldn’t have mattered to me. I thought maybe a couple shared a *Cincinatus tag. I know what you mean about what “ ‘used’ to be considered an old woman “. (smile)

But, you’ve been a very bad girl, and run off many of your play mates. I’m afraid when we elect to set a field on fire, we are obligated to participate in fighting it, or risk being called a delinquent. :)

That’s just one of those “rules”. Thanks, Rita

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Cool, rational reply.

Thank you.

:D

[ConservingFreedom]

We don’t have a drug problem or an alcohol problem. We have a God problem, or rather a “we don’t want God” problem.

Agreed - and the most that government can do about it is to regulate alcohol/drugs/etc. to minimize the collateral damage (which they can do only for legal products) ... and, of course, to stop waging war against expressions of faith.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s a band-aid kind of solution and of itself, this is like putting band-aids on a creeping skin cancer. You know the result of the cancer, with no treatment, is going to be to kill you, band-aids or no.

Opening up a more permissive attitude towards faith (including getting away from overly squeamish interpretation of the establishment clause) would be of help, as would be the Romans 13 solution of lauding instances of beneficial faith. That is at the government level. But frank evangelism needs to happen at the private level.

[ConservingFreedom]

We don't have a drug problem or an alcohol problem. We have a God problem, or rather a "we don't want God" problem.

Agreed - and the most that government can do about it is to regulate alcohol/drugs/etc. to minimize the collateral damage (which they can do only for legal products)

It's a band-aid kind of solution and of itself, this is like putting band-aids on a creeping skin cancer.

Agreed again. The most that government can do about it is not much. Strange that many alleged "conservatives" won't recognize the limits of government ability in this area.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There is also context-based treatment of the issue. A doctor who kept killing patients when the practice was known to be far better in its capabilities, would soon find himself facing manslaughter accusations if not worse. I don’t go to extreme libertarianism, but I believe the deemed crime should be in the way something is used, not in the item itself. Deem it a crime to misuse a gun or a drug, and we can validly debate over what should be deemed misuse — and that might include some kind of irresponsible sales policy — but not to basically have the gun or the drug.

[D-fendr]

I’m sorry to be so late on following up on this. I had a medical condition that kept me under a bit.

The thread seems dead, so I’ll be brief and summarize:

I’m arguing that Trump is for government-paid for universal healthcare. You’re arguing that he isn’t. My points are:

1) He says things both ways: he supports single-payer, universal, he supports private sector solutions.
2) His support for universal, single payer, Hillary-care goes back further than his private sector support.
3) His support for government-paid for universal healthcare is as recent as the 60 minutes interview I posted.
4) In which he also supports private sector..
5) Which we both know is incompatible with universal, single-payer, government-funded, etc.
6) Trump’s policy is inconsistent, self-contradicting.
7) He says whatever he thinks people want to hear and changes with the winds.
8) As evidenced by his position on many other issues: gun-control, Syria/Russia/ISIS, abortion, Obama, the Clintons...
9) Which comes back to other of my points: he lacks integrity and is not a conservative.

Sorry for my delay in response and hope all is well with you.