Great summary of the Republican agenda. I would only add that Never-Trumpers ignore Trump's policy positions and triumphs we might never had with other Republican candidates. I doubt John McCain or MItt Romney would have reduced taxes, slashed regulations, built the wall, secured the border, appointed conservative judges, withdrawn from the Paris and Iran accords, made NATO countries pony up, confronted China, promoted peace and comity in the Middle East, or made inroads with minority groups. Trump broke molds many conservatives have long sought to shatter. I, like most conservatives, would prefer another candidate in 2024, but only one with Trump's chops. A Florida governor comes to mind.
I completely understand why Mr. Mirengoff would find Allahpundit courageous, what with the shabby treatment he received at Powerline, but the difference between the two could not be more stark. Where Paul had reasoned and legitimate criticisms of Trump and Trumpism, he also recognized the immense good Trump did. Where Paul was a bit overly COVID-shy than he should have been, he supported his concerns with reasoned arguments and data. Allahpundit was broken by Trump. His mind ceased to function in a rational manner, to the point where if Trump said the sky was blue, Allahpundit would rant for 800 words about how terribly false that was. He is a sick man, incapable of nuance or understanding. Paul is vastly more intelligent, which makes the divorce from Powerline sad, as opposed to Allahpundint the Insane leaving HotAir, which is welcomed by all.
One more difference between the GOP and Democrats: the former supports Israel, the latter either is “even-handed” towards Israelis and Palestinians, or outright hostile towards Israel and Zionism and favors the end of the Jewish state.
While the never-Trumpers can myopically focus on some issues with the Trump GOP, they don’t acknowledge there were serious issues with the old GOP. Trump Fair trade vs. GOP free trade, Trump Immigration vs. GOP duck/cover, Trump NATO vs. GOP scrape/bow, Trump Middle East... while I don’t want Trump to run again, I would prefer him to Romney or McCain type candidate. Those were my choices the previous 2 elections that the never-Trumpers were happy to see go down in flames (seemingly the candidates weren’t upset either)
"The GOP stands for enforcing U.S. immigration laws"? Really? Since when? What, exactly, has the GOP actually DONE to enforce U.S. immigration law? What enforcement actions have occurred?
The GOP did plenty in the period from 2017-2020, the only period in the past decade when it had the power to set immigration policy. It would have done more if courts, and to some degree congressional Democrats and resistant local governments, hadn't limited that power.
The Trump administration issued 472 administrative orders designed to curb illegal immigration and other immigration-related abuses. And using creative funding methods when necessary, it built as much of the border wall as circumstances allowed.
It changed the asylum system to limit asylum at the border. It blocked the entry of foreign nationals who pose a health risk. It barred foreign nationals who receive public assistance or are deemed likely to receive it from becoming legal permanent residents.
It significantly increased the number of adjudications by immigration courts. It significantly reduced the number of refugee admissions, and was doing so pre-pandemic. It more than doubled the non-criminal share of ICE arrests.
It attempted to end the DACA program, and when that failed, to limit it. These efforts were thwarted by the courts.
These are only some of the highlights. A fuller discussion of the administration's successes (and failures) would require a separate post.
Trump's efforts had the backing of his party. I think it's reasonable to expect a renewal of these or similar efforts by the next Republican president whether it's Trump, DeSantis, or Tom Cotton whose bona fides as a "hawk" on these issues are well established.
Republican administrations and Congresses have come and gone since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and before that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Somehow there ended up being at least 11 million illegal aliens at the start of the Obama administration, most from Mexico and Central America, with estimates as high as 20 million and more now: Corporate agriculture and construction thank you.
I’ve lived long enough to remember both laws being passed and enforcement at the southern border by wink and nod over all those years since. And over all those years, the GOP sold the idea of enforcement to its bubba base while always finding reasons for never quite managing it and then had the chutzpah to try to sell the idea of amnesty as necessary reform after helping to run up the tally by neglect. I find your narrative less than…compelling…given history as I’ve seen it, and with enforcement of immigration law at the southern border as representative of GOP governance and treatment of its voter base generally.
Trump had the backing of his party, but I wouldn’t call the national party’s backing enthusiastic because that wasn’t how it rolled for the better part of 60 years: How soon we forget Jeb, Marco and the various amnesty gangs in Congress that existed right up until Trump barged into DC like Rodney Dangerfield as Al Czervik arriving at the country club in Caddy Shack, and about as welcome.
I seem to recall hearing for the better part of the Obama administration that, given the chance, a GOP Congress and presidency would result in the repeal and replacement of the PPACA. Repeal and Replace! was a campaign and fund raising slogan. How did that work out between 2016-18?
Thoughtful analysis (once again): reasoned, logical, and with inferences drawn from facts. What a breath of fresh air. One can see the obvious flaws Trump and some of his most rabid acolytes have without completely going off the rails. It's self-destructive in my judgment, as the current administration is so clearly showing.
I do not see how Trump backs anything remotely resembling the Republican Party's pre-2016 agenda. He pursued the Iran and North Korea policy of Barack Obama, the military policy of John Kerry, and the trade policy of Walter Mondale.
Trump is the most anti-military President in our country's history, and the most anti-military major party candidate besides George McGovern, who at least served. Trump doesn't like the military; he likes soldiers. Specifically, he likes soldiers who dress up in fancy uniforms and parade. At the thought of them actually DOING anything he throws a temper tantrum. Trump opposed every American military action in his lifetime, other than the ones HE ordered -- not most actions, every action. He opposed our work in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and even threw a tantrum over Reagan's use of the navy to escort oil tankers. A man who rages against everything the military has done in the last 76 years does not support the military.
The deeper issue is that Trump does not see America as good: He said that we kill people just like Russia; he told the UN that we do the same thing everyone else does, looking out for ourselves, etc. If we are not good, then American soldiers are just bullies like other armies when they do anything more than march in parades. Where is there any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi on this?
Obama's Iran deal had three parts: Obama promised not to use force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; Obama delivered $150 billion to terrorists; and Obama lifted sanctions. Trump made clear he would never use force, and he didn't try to get the money back. Trump never fully reimposed industrial sanctions on Iran; he reimposed the oil sanctions only in November 2018, 22 months into his term. This means that the oil sanctions were lifted longer under Trump than the 18 months under Obama. It's Trump's nuclear deal more than Obama's.
Trump's North Korea policy is the same as Obama's: Do nothing while Kim Jong Un develops nuclear missiles.
Trump supports Obamacare. The central tenet of Obamacare is that people are not presumptively responsible for laboring to provide for their own cost of living -- i.e. not having to pay based on individualized risk. The "pre-existing condition" policy IS Obamacare. To support that, as Trump did, is to support Obamacare. That is true both in theory and in practice, as Paul Ryan found out when he discovered that it was impossible to dismantle Obamacare once Trump demanded keeping that one part.
Trump showed so little interest in border enforcement that did not request appropriations for the wall until Anne Coulter shamed him over it.
As for "woke"-ness, Paul himself documented at Powerline how Trump left progressives in charge at the Department of Labor. He simply didn't care enough to check up on what his appointees were up to. It was a freak accident that he hooked up with Alex Acosta to run the DOL while teaming up with Leonard Leo to appoint good judges. It could easily have been the reverse. All his policies are a crapshoot stemming from whomever he happens to listen to. Similarly, the white-bashing propaganda in the military which I have read about from many sources, including Powerline, metastasized under Trump. He didn't care.
Paul himself notes that Trump fell for the Democrats' jailbreak legislation hook, line, and sinker.
Moreover, to the extent that he does oppose the Democrats' agenda, it is mostly due to personal animosity. If Chuck Schumer had been smart and started out flattering Trump, he would have had Trump eating out of his hand.
Thanks for this comment. Lots of good points to consider here.
I stipulated that Trump departed from GOP orthodoxy on foreign policy and trade. Much of the rest of this reader's comment goes to Trump's (1) sincerity and (2) follow-through, rather than the positions he took.
It's fair to wonder about the extent to which Trump's positions are based on genuine conviction as opposed to personal animosity, as the commenter says, and/or opportunism. I suspect it's a combination of the three, but don't profess to know which of them is the primary driver.
I hope it's also fair to note Trump's lack of follow-through on matters like fighting wokeness, because I too have complained about this, both on Power Line and Ringside. Here at Ringside, I've compared Trump unfavorably to Ron DeSantis on this score, noting that while Trump gives good speeches on the subject, DeSantis knows where the bodies are buried and what to do about them.
Even so, Trump launched several anti-woke initiatives late (too late) in his presidency. The 1776 project was one of them. The Justice Department's suit anti-discrimination suit against Yale counts as another.
On the military, I would characterize Trump's record as mixed. Spending on the military increased appreciably but not dramatically during his administration. And if I recall correctly, Congress, which has the final say, did not authorize the full amount of spending that Trump proposed for fiscal year 2020.
In any case, the Trump-led GOP was better on policy pretty much across the board than the Democrats. A GOP led by DeSantis, Cotton, or others we could name would be better still, in my opinion.
Allahpundit doesn't quite understand most of the things he mentioned Trump supported. AP is talking about RINO's who stand for nothing because they lack balls and spine to do anything that might be controversial. Thats where MAGA comes in, MAGA candidates are not fearful to do what needs to be done.
“Woke” is just the next word Commies are trying out in their ever-expanding struggle to rebrand their evil intents make them acceptable to the youth. About five years from now, it will be so tainted and unpopular, they will claim they never said the word.
Re: trade. I can’t believe how Trumps position on trade is distorted by people that refuse to be honest about him like Allahpundit and all other NeverTrumpets. He is not against free trade, he is against unfair trade agreements that decimated our nation’s manufacturing employment base so a few of the Oligarchs and their cronies at the chamber of commerce could get filthy rich while impoverishing a massive cohort of the lower middle class. Call this a more “nuanced” position than the one attributed to him by his enemies…
Great summary of the Republican agenda. I would only add that Never-Trumpers ignore Trump's policy positions and triumphs we might never had with other Republican candidates. I doubt John McCain or MItt Romney would have reduced taxes, slashed regulations, built the wall, secured the border, appointed conservative judges, withdrawn from the Paris and Iran accords, made NATO countries pony up, confronted China, promoted peace and comity in the Middle East, or made inroads with minority groups. Trump broke molds many conservatives have long sought to shatter. I, like most conservatives, would prefer another candidate in 2024, but only one with Trump's chops. A Florida governor comes to mind.
Jim Dueholm
I completely understand why Mr. Mirengoff would find Allahpundit courageous, what with the shabby treatment he received at Powerline, but the difference between the two could not be more stark. Where Paul had reasoned and legitimate criticisms of Trump and Trumpism, he also recognized the immense good Trump did. Where Paul was a bit overly COVID-shy than he should have been, he supported his concerns with reasoned arguments and data. Allahpundit was broken by Trump. His mind ceased to function in a rational manner, to the point where if Trump said the sky was blue, Allahpundit would rant for 800 words about how terribly false that was. He is a sick man, incapable of nuance or understanding. Paul is vastly more intelligent, which makes the divorce from Powerline sad, as opposed to Allahpundint the Insane leaving HotAir, which is welcomed by all.
One more difference between the GOP and Democrats: the former supports Israel, the latter either is “even-handed” towards Israelis and Palestinians, or outright hostile towards Israel and Zionism and favors the end of the Jewish state.
While the never-Trumpers can myopically focus on some issues with the Trump GOP, they don’t acknowledge there were serious issues with the old GOP. Trump Fair trade vs. GOP free trade, Trump Immigration vs. GOP duck/cover, Trump NATO vs. GOP scrape/bow, Trump Middle East... while I don’t want Trump to run again, I would prefer him to Romney or McCain type candidate. Those were my choices the previous 2 elections that the never-Trumpers were happy to see go down in flames (seemingly the candidates weren’t upset either)
"The GOP stands for enforcing U.S. immigration laws"? Really? Since when? What, exactly, has the GOP actually DONE to enforce U.S. immigration law? What enforcement actions have occurred?
Thanks for the comment.
The GOP did plenty in the period from 2017-2020, the only period in the past decade when it had the power to set immigration policy. It would have done more if courts, and to some degree congressional Democrats and resistant local governments, hadn't limited that power.
The Trump administration issued 472 administrative orders designed to curb illegal immigration and other immigration-related abuses. And using creative funding methods when necessary, it built as much of the border wall as circumstances allowed.
It changed the asylum system to limit asylum at the border. It blocked the entry of foreign nationals who pose a health risk. It barred foreign nationals who receive public assistance or are deemed likely to receive it from becoming legal permanent residents.
It significantly increased the number of adjudications by immigration courts. It significantly reduced the number of refugee admissions, and was doing so pre-pandemic. It more than doubled the non-criminal share of ICE arrests.
It attempted to end the DACA program, and when that failed, to limit it. These efforts were thwarted by the courts.
These are only some of the highlights. A fuller discussion of the administration's successes (and failures) would require a separate post.
Trump's efforts had the backing of his party. I think it's reasonable to expect a renewal of these or similar efforts by the next Republican president whether it's Trump, DeSantis, or Tom Cotton whose bona fides as a "hawk" on these issues are well established.
Republican administrations and Congresses have come and gone since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and before that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Somehow there ended up being at least 11 million illegal aliens at the start of the Obama administration, most from Mexico and Central America, with estimates as high as 20 million and more now: Corporate agriculture and construction thank you.
I’ve lived long enough to remember both laws being passed and enforcement at the southern border by wink and nod over all those years since. And over all those years, the GOP sold the idea of enforcement to its bubba base while always finding reasons for never quite managing it and then had the chutzpah to try to sell the idea of amnesty as necessary reform after helping to run up the tally by neglect. I find your narrative less than…compelling…given history as I’ve seen it, and with enforcement of immigration law at the southern border as representative of GOP governance and treatment of its voter base generally.
Trump had the backing of his party, but I wouldn’t call the national party’s backing enthusiastic because that wasn’t how it rolled for the better part of 60 years: How soon we forget Jeb, Marco and the various amnesty gangs in Congress that existed right up until Trump barged into DC like Rodney Dangerfield as Al Czervik arriving at the country club in Caddy Shack, and about as welcome.
I seem to recall hearing for the better part of the Obama administration that, given the chance, a GOP Congress and presidency would result in the repeal and replacement of the PPACA. Repeal and Replace! was a campaign and fund raising slogan. How did that work out between 2016-18?
Thoughtful analysis (once again): reasoned, logical, and with inferences drawn from facts. What a breath of fresh air. One can see the obvious flaws Trump and some of his most rabid acolytes have without completely going off the rails. It's self-destructive in my judgment, as the current administration is so clearly showing.
I do not see how Trump backs anything remotely resembling the Republican Party's pre-2016 agenda. He pursued the Iran and North Korea policy of Barack Obama, the military policy of John Kerry, and the trade policy of Walter Mondale.
Trump is the most anti-military President in our country's history, and the most anti-military major party candidate besides George McGovern, who at least served. Trump doesn't like the military; he likes soldiers. Specifically, he likes soldiers who dress up in fancy uniforms and parade. At the thought of them actually DOING anything he throws a temper tantrum. Trump opposed every American military action in his lifetime, other than the ones HE ordered -- not most actions, every action. He opposed our work in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and even threw a tantrum over Reagan's use of the navy to escort oil tankers. A man who rages against everything the military has done in the last 76 years does not support the military.
The deeper issue is that Trump does not see America as good: He said that we kill people just like Russia; he told the UN that we do the same thing everyone else does, looking out for ourselves, etc. If we are not good, then American soldiers are just bullies like other armies when they do anything more than march in parades. Where is there any daylight between him and Nancy Pelosi on this?
Obama's Iran deal had three parts: Obama promised not to use force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; Obama delivered $150 billion to terrorists; and Obama lifted sanctions. Trump made clear he would never use force, and he didn't try to get the money back. Trump never fully reimposed industrial sanctions on Iran; he reimposed the oil sanctions only in November 2018, 22 months into his term. This means that the oil sanctions were lifted longer under Trump than the 18 months under Obama. It's Trump's nuclear deal more than Obama's.
Trump's North Korea policy is the same as Obama's: Do nothing while Kim Jong Un develops nuclear missiles.
Trump supports Obamacare. The central tenet of Obamacare is that people are not presumptively responsible for laboring to provide for their own cost of living -- i.e. not having to pay based on individualized risk. The "pre-existing condition" policy IS Obamacare. To support that, as Trump did, is to support Obamacare. That is true both in theory and in practice, as Paul Ryan found out when he discovered that it was impossible to dismantle Obamacare once Trump demanded keeping that one part.
Trump showed so little interest in border enforcement that did not request appropriations for the wall until Anne Coulter shamed him over it.
As for "woke"-ness, Paul himself documented at Powerline how Trump left progressives in charge at the Department of Labor. He simply didn't care enough to check up on what his appointees were up to. It was a freak accident that he hooked up with Alex Acosta to run the DOL while teaming up with Leonard Leo to appoint good judges. It could easily have been the reverse. All his policies are a crapshoot stemming from whomever he happens to listen to. Similarly, the white-bashing propaganda in the military which I have read about from many sources, including Powerline, metastasized under Trump. He didn't care.
Paul himself notes that Trump fell for the Democrats' jailbreak legislation hook, line, and sinker.
Moreover, to the extent that he does oppose the Democrats' agenda, it is mostly due to personal animosity. If Chuck Schumer had been smart and started out flattering Trump, he would have had Trump eating out of his hand.
Thanks for this comment. Lots of good points to consider here.
I stipulated that Trump departed from GOP orthodoxy on foreign policy and trade. Much of the rest of this reader's comment goes to Trump's (1) sincerity and (2) follow-through, rather than the positions he took.
It's fair to wonder about the extent to which Trump's positions are based on genuine conviction as opposed to personal animosity, as the commenter says, and/or opportunism. I suspect it's a combination of the three, but don't profess to know which of them is the primary driver.
I hope it's also fair to note Trump's lack of follow-through on matters like fighting wokeness, because I too have complained about this, both on Power Line and Ringside. Here at Ringside, I've compared Trump unfavorably to Ron DeSantis on this score, noting that while Trump gives good speeches on the subject, DeSantis knows where the bodies are buried and what to do about them.
Even so, Trump launched several anti-woke initiatives late (too late) in his presidency. The 1776 project was one of them. The Justice Department's suit anti-discrimination suit against Yale counts as another.
On the military, I would characterize Trump's record as mixed. Spending on the military increased appreciably but not dramatically during his administration. And if I recall correctly, Congress, which has the final say, did not authorize the full amount of spending that Trump proposed for fiscal year 2020.
In any case, the Trump-led GOP was better on policy pretty much across the board than the Democrats. A GOP led by DeSantis, Cotton, or others we could name would be better still, in my opinion.
Allahpundit doesn't quite understand most of the things he mentioned Trump supported. AP is talking about RINO's who stand for nothing because they lack balls and spine to do anything that might be controversial. Thats where MAGA comes in, MAGA candidates are not fearful to do what needs to be done.
Is it fair to blame people like Allahpundit for this state of affairs: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/athena-thorne/2022/09/06/in-bidens-america-1-in-6-u-s-households-cant-afford-their-energy-bills-n1627233
“Woke” is just the next word Commies are trying out in their ever-expanding struggle to rebrand their evil intents make them acceptable to the youth. About five years from now, it will be so tainted and unpopular, they will claim they never said the word.
Re: trade. I can’t believe how Trumps position on trade is distorted by people that refuse to be honest about him like Allahpundit and all other NeverTrumpets. He is not against free trade, he is against unfair trade agreements that decimated our nation’s manufacturing employment base so a few of the Oligarchs and their cronies at the chamber of commerce could get filthy rich while impoverishing a massive cohort of the lower middle class. Call this a more “nuanced” position than the one attributed to him by his enemies…