Posted on 01/25/2016 5:52:45 AM PST by Kaslin
Politically we appear to be living in the year of the outsider. Donald Trump has shocked the established political class and its loyal journalistic following. Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders are upsetting governing elites almost as much as Trump. The public says it is angry and isn't going to take it anymore.
Yet the prescription offered by these three candidates is very different. The Donald constantly trumpets that he is a deal maker. Cruz and Sanders are more interested in the substance of the deal and always ready to say no deal.
There's no doubt that politics involves compromise. Even such dominant figures as Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan had to accept less than what they wanted.
However, all of them started with strong convictions as to what needed to be done. From there they pushed to get as much as they could. And they compromised when there was no alternative. For them, deal-making was not a substitute for principle, but the culmination of principle. How do you put your beliefs into practice?
For Donald Trump deal-making appears to be the end, not the means. Hence his book, The Art of the Deal. Businessmen who've worked with him say he is most interested in the hunt and loses interest after he bags his prey.
In the presidential race he rarely offers policy prescriptions beyond generalities and platitudes. He will make Mexico build a wall, for instance. What seems to excite him about being president is the same thing which energized him in business. "The problem with Washington, they don't make deals, it's all gridlock," he proclaimed. "I'll get everybody together. We'll make great deals for the country."
But what precisely are those "great deals"? Trump complained that President Barack Obama "signs executive orders because he can't get anything done." Actually, the president has done pretty well politically--unfortunately!
He won passage of a budget-busting "stimulus" bill that enriched Washington more than the public. He pushed through a health care "reform" measure which turned American medicine over to the federal government. And he has used presidential power to pursue his agenda even against the Republican congressional majority--which was no more interested in making "great deals" with the president than he was with the GOP.
Trump made a similar criticism of Cruz, who "doesn't have the support of one other Republican Senator." Complained Trump: "Guys like Ted Cruz will never make a deal because he's a strident guy."
Actually, Cruz has resisted deal-making in Congress not because he is strident but because he is principled. Much the same can be said of Bernie Sanders. For these two senators, the reason to be in office is not to pass legislation, but to pass what they consider good legislation. If that proves impossible, they are unafraid of gridlock.
Think about some of the most celebrated political deals, which have proved to be disastrous in practice. Ronald Reagan's 1983 tax-hike plan: the promised three-for-one in spending cuts never materialized. George H.W. Bush's abandoned "read my lips" promise to oppose tax hikes. Before the Democrats lost control of Congress Bill Clinton won big increases in outlays and taxes, which he later admitted were too high. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress passed a huge Medicare drug benefit which they made no attempt to pay for.
Then, as mentioned earlier, there's Barack Obama who, with the help of his Democratic friends in Congress, won approval of the "Affordable Care Act" that we never will be able to afford. They also gave us hundreds of billions of dollars in economic "stimulus" which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes even millions of dollars, for every job "created"--without boosting the economy. The president has made dubious agreements with Cuba and Iran; he's trying to make another on Syria and there's talk about him reaching out to North Korea. Imagine the other horrible "deals" which he might have made had Republicans not won control of Congress.
So the next time a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, starts talking about making deals, the right question is: what kind of deals? Would the new policy protect Americans' property and liberty? Would the new law respect our liberty? Would the new regulation advance our prosperity? Would the new measure bolster the moral foundations of our society?
If not, as president he or she should say "no deal!"
It's true that Washington isn't working. It certainly isn't serving the people. But the answer is not to elect a dealmaker. Rather, Americans need to elect a maker of good deals.
The contention in the title, for starters. It's impossible for a President to be effective if he can't make excellent deals. What made Reagan great?..the ability to form a consensus. A consensus is a deal.
I still remember him play acting in WWF Wrestling.
Now he is play acting POTUS candidate in a way. Young children don't know that TV is just actors play acting.
But my point was about the myth propagated by some here that he has this magical power to make anyone, like leaders of foreign countries cave.
And how he has no leverage over FNC.
I know, he will later claim he made FNC cave on some-thin and the Chumps will believe it. He does have that power and skill.
THAT! Let's call out the knee jerkers who seem to only want to harass and intimidate. I see a couple already.
He should show us those magical ‘negotiating’ skills that he keeps bragging about, instead of just playing victim on that.
Lets see him get Kelly kicked out of the debate.
A lot of people like the status of Washington D.C. as it is now, I don’t...that’s why I’m supporting Trump...
judging by our current president he has made no attempt to make any deal what so ever. If he doesn’t get his way, he executive orders it.
There ya go.
Young children don’t know that TV is just actors play acting.
That sentence reminded me of a post I saw on reddit the other day. A 15 year old kid was bragging about making phone calls for Bernie Sanders. The comments on the post were hilarious.
Think about it: Most of the voters today were not aware of Ronald Reagan as President.
To make a comparison, I always heard about FDR when I was kid—what a big deal he was (I am from MA, big lib area) and I never got it. I hear the republicans today spouting off to Millennials about Reagan...and we might as well be talking about the campaign politics of Grover Cleveland.
That is why they are not accepting Hillary—her husband’s dealings in the oval office are not “cool” to them. They don’t mind affairs, but not using his power to slam interns in the office. They don’t like that.
They are still thinking we need to go socialist and since Obama did not work, they think we need to go further left.
The largest part of our population has no sense of history.
They are going to get a dose of it, I am afraid.
Do these “Surging Ted” supporters ever even think through what they say or is it just a stream of ongoing silly crap?
Not so sure that comparing Cruz to Sanders is a positive analogy.
Thanks! Used to have respect for a lot of poster’s responses as WELL thought out and very much to the point.
Have lost some of that respect. I was told “You do not have to find something to eat in the slop pail.” Using that analogy I am beginning to dislike coming hear and seeing the discourse of concerned conservatives. We should be working ‘together’ in trying to turn this GREAT NATION America’ from this “Hope and Change.”
All I see now is “Change and Hope”.
Have now said too much will pull back and just observe? :)
Have to remember no matter what, “God is still in control!”
Take care.........pilgrim
Exactly, but then when do the rats not lie?
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Mark Levin does that all the time.
And that's also a Rushbo thing.
The problem with that is we had 8 years of GWB after 4 years of his dad, both left office leaving Americans with bad memories, after Reagan.
More-so those two and many others were very supportive of GWB, with a few exceptions, mostly his ‘deal making’ after Pelosi and Reid took congress back.
In a way Reagan is ancient history.
It is a vastly different country and world than it was in 1988.
You are welcome!!!
Sometime after reading some posts feel as if I need to be run through a disinfecting sheep dip and then a long, hot, soapy shower!
Appreciate your posts and there will be a time when this is all over, no matter who wins, that this forum will be needed.
Take care.........pilgrim
The same can be said about the Trump supporters!!!
Trump isn’t whining.
He is reminding people about the first debate and putting Fox News on notice.
He is also building suspense for the debate because people will watch to see what happens.
In the op-ed, or is it a blog post?
‘The Donald constantly trumpets that he is a deal maker. Cruz and Sanders are more interested in the substance of the deal ...’
You are right to feel frustrated.
The veto power is all about deal-making. It is an incredibly powerful negotiation tool.
Neither Cruz nor Sanders have more experience in deal-making. Trump is not about surrender-bargaining any more than Hillary believes in plea-bargaining.
Maybe if Trump called it ‘negotiations’ he would not be criticized so much by the ‘highbrows’.
Frankly? He doesn’t care.
It is not all about deal making.
It is also hiring the right people, being able to lead, and being able to make a decision.
Trump has all of these abilities in spades.
I agree that his complaining will boost the FNC Kelly debate ratings.
Those who want to see her get him upset again will not miss it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.