The other day, I ended this post by saying, “a second Trump term would likely be considerably worse than his first term was.” That statement drew some pushback, both in the comments section and in private emails from friends.
All fair concerns, but regarding your point about punishing his enemies: they need to be punished, the FBI leadership and elements of the DoJ and regulatory state in particular. The left in this country has adopted an "any means necessary" approach to achieving and holding power. The list is too long to go through here, but you're familiar with it: false FICA warrants, a bogus special prosecutor investigation, process crime frame-ups of Flynn and many others and bogus impeachments. Now they are now using tools of the state to imprison their political enemies, and that includes the lawyers of their political enemies.
It is absurd. Rudy Giuliani, a man who did more to beat back organized crime than all of the big-talking politicians and US attorneys before him, now stands accused of organized crime!
Nothing screams "democracy" like putting your political opponents in jail or blocking them from the ballot or taking their property and livelihoods. The overall impact of this oppression is not just felt by republicans or MAGA supporters; it is generally demoralizing to the entire country, encouraging a cynical attitude that the US is an elitist oligarchy, not a constitutional republic.
If it is to be a constitutional republic, these tactics must stop, but they won't stop until democrats suffer monetary consequences or successful (and fair) prosecution for their actions.
Punishment could be firing people, not imprisoning them; defunding their programs rather than turning a blind eye to them; and prosecuting leakers and federal officials who commit serious violations of the law.
It certainly won't be pretty and it will make a lot of people on the right uncomfortable, but what is the alternative except sheepish acceptance of tyranny?
These are reasons a second term would be an unmitigated disaster from which we might never return. Those of us who are both concerned with the long term job of defeating the leftist project AND restoring an expectation of legal traditional and constitutional norms cannot support Trump. His movement must be defeated so that it can be replaced by one actually capable of accomplishing the tasks I mentioned. While I dread the idea of a second Biden term I dread even more the restoration of Donald Trump for all the reasons Paul mentions and much much more. Those who oppose the left must paradoxically work to defeat Trump. I still pray he somehow loses the nomination.
A typically nuanced and persuasive analysis from Paul. My hope is the real world will tell whether he is or I am right, for there's a good chance Trump will defeat Biden --- Trump now has a narrow advantage in betting odds --- for Biden is a truly awful president, in the company of James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, and father time would make him even worse. Jim Dueholm
Agreed on all points Paul. Well said. But and However, (If Trump is the republican winner) whomever he goes up against will definitely make him look like the best thing since sliced bread. And that is the pathetic sad reality we face as voters in the United States today. I have voted for the least leftist candidate since Reagan. And by the way, If Trump wants to punish his enemies, let's let him go at it, full tilt. Because if he doesn't, they will keep coming at him in ways no one could imagine. The standards of the leftist (I can't believe I just typed that; the leftist have no standards) need to be directed directly at their heads to do the most damage possible.
I think Trump would be as effective, and no more dangerous, than he was in his first term.
Trump may be less respectful of constitutional norms in his second term, but as an electoral victor and sitting president he would have no need to do some of the outlandish things he's done as a defeated candidate. He might play fast and loose with executive orders, but every recent president has done that.
Trump might go after enemies, perceived and real, but only in a way we should generally support. There is rot at the top of the DOJ and FBI, but he would clean house by firing enemies, not prosecuting them. As for the likes of Kelly and Barr, he could rail, but he can't make a prosecutorial case against them.
He may get legal advice from second rate lawyers, but I don't think that would have much impact on policy. For one thing, the Office of Legal Counsel is generally the last word on legal matters.
He might be at odds with Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, but he's proud of his first term judicial appointments, and he attacks Leo and the Society from the right, so I think he second term judicial nominees would be conservative.
I think he would curb the administrative state. This is something near and dear to him as a self-proclaimed business mogul.
No doubt he would be more tariff happy than most presidents, but with the increasing enmity of China, tariffs have to be considered as national security as well as economic issues.
He is clearly not a fan of aid to Ukraine. On the other hand, his policies are often at odds with his rants, and I doubt he would veto congressional aid to Ukraine. Besides, he wouldn't have power until January 2025, when the Ukraine war would be nearly three years old, and if it's a never-ending war we may have to reconsider our policy, at least to the extent if pressuring Ukraine to come to some accord with Russia.
He is not a fan of legal immigration, but this is another area in which I don't think he would defy Congress, particularly if legal immigration is paired with meaningful steps to improve border security. Jim Dueholm
I agree that if Trump wins in 2024, he won't violate constitutional and democratic norms regarding the election of presidents, unless perhaps one of his kids runs in 2028. With that caveat, this particular norm will be safe.
But that's of very little comfort if one understands Trump's reaction to the election as evincing a more general willingness to violate or ignore norms that stand in his way or just annoy him.
And there will be many such norms in a second Trump administration. Things like separation of power, willingness to honor judicial decisions, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and so on.
The issue isn't whether Trump will violate these norms to the point that "our democracy" will collapse. I've stipulated that he probably won't go that far. The issue is whether he'll go further down this road than he did in his first administration.
It's clear to me that Trump will. For one thing, your belief that Trump won't do so relies on guard rails that stand in the way of his acting on vindictive and extra-legal desires. But the more Trump feels constrained by guard rails, the more likely he is to try to knock them down. Indeed, the message I'm getting from Trump World is that his biggest regret from the first term is allowing himself to be constrained by "squish" advisers who tried to keep him from going over those rails.
In addition, if Trump wins in 2024, it will mean that his attack on the norms of presidential elections didn't cost him politically. Flush with this triumph, it's reasonable to expect that he will be more inclined to violate other norms than he was during his first term.
On Executive Orders, the issue isn't whether Trump will use them more abusively than Biden and Obama -- though I think there's a good chance he will. The issue is whether he will use them more abusively than he did in his first term. For the reasons stated above and in my initial post, I'm pretty sure he will.
On the administrative state, I agree it should be curbed. But, as I said, the emerging view in Trump's movement is that the goal should be to use the administrative state to promote national conservative ends, not to rein it in. This view fits Trump to a T.
On prosecutions, of course law breakers in the deep state should be prosecuted. But Trump isn't out to punish law breakers, he's out to punish enemies. And being an enemy of Trump isn't the same thing as being a law breaker.
Trump, though, seems to equate the two. How else can one explain his desire to investigate Barr, Kelly, Milley, and Cobb? Maybe they won't actually be prosecuted, but if Trump demands of a yes-man AG that they be investigated, then investigated they likely will be. And in closer cases, Trump's enemies may be prosecuted, even though they shouldn't be.
On tariffs, it's one thing to use them against China, which, I agree, might well be a good idea. But Trump wants to go well beyond that and impose a universal tariff. Not only would this hurt our economy, it would lessen our ability to rally our allies -- all of whom would suffer from the Trump tariffs -- to act collectively against China.
On Ukraine, three years isn't a "never ending war." If the U.S. can't help finance a war against an enemy nation for three years (at no cost in American lives), -- a war that's degrading the Russian military at a fairly rapid rate -- then instead of being "great again," we'll be pitiful. And a laughing stock in Moscow and Beijing. I
A win for Putin in Ukraine would be just as harmful and against our interest in 2025 as it would be in 2023. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to incur the losses necessary to stop and turn back Russia's aggression of 2022, we should support them.
Trump seems unwilling to do so.
I deny that Trump's attack on (or disenchantment with) Leonard Leo is "coming from the right," It's In coming from the usual Trump source -- personal grievance. He blames Leo, unfairly I think, for the Rod Rosenstein appointment.
Is the more general attack from the Trump camp on the Federalist Society "coming from the right." I guess that depends on how you define "the right." The point is that it's not coming from a conservative place. It's coming from a movement that wants to use "progressive" means to accomplish nationalist, reactionary ends.
Even if one thinks this is a good idea in theory -- I don't -- it will likely lead to chaos and defeat.
I suppose one could say that Jeff Clark, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman were coming at the 2020 election from the right. Give me BIll Barr and the conservative mainstream over that crew any day.
And speaking of Leo and the FedSoc, is Trump really proud of the judicial nominees they helped him select? A number of them have ruled against him on various matters. If the Supreme Court reaches issues relating to Trump's legal problems, some of the Justices he appointed may rule against him.
And if Trump abuses his power as president, he will probably lose some Supreme Court cases. Trump fully abided by Supreme Court rulings during his first term. He's less likely to do so in a second term. Or so it seems to me.
All fair concerns, but regarding your point about punishing his enemies: they need to be punished, the FBI leadership and elements of the DoJ and regulatory state in particular. The left in this country has adopted an "any means necessary" approach to achieving and holding power. The list is too long to go through here, but you're familiar with it: false FICA warrants, a bogus special prosecutor investigation, process crime frame-ups of Flynn and many others and bogus impeachments. Now they are now using tools of the state to imprison their political enemies, and that includes the lawyers of their political enemies.
It is absurd. Rudy Giuliani, a man who did more to beat back organized crime than all of the big-talking politicians and US attorneys before him, now stands accused of organized crime!
Nothing screams "democracy" like putting your political opponents in jail or blocking them from the ballot or taking their property and livelihoods. The overall impact of this oppression is not just felt by republicans or MAGA supporters; it is generally demoralizing to the entire country, encouraging a cynical attitude that the US is an elitist oligarchy, not a constitutional republic.
If it is to be a constitutional republic, these tactics must stop, but they won't stop until democrats suffer monetary consequences or successful (and fair) prosecution for their actions.
Punishment could be firing people, not imprisoning them; defunding their programs rather than turning a blind eye to them; and prosecuting leakers and federal officials who commit serious violations of the law.
It certainly won't be pretty and it will make a lot of people on the right uncomfortable, but what is the alternative except sheepish acceptance of tyranny?
These are reasons a second term would be an unmitigated disaster from which we might never return. Those of us who are both concerned with the long term job of defeating the leftist project AND restoring an expectation of legal traditional and constitutional norms cannot support Trump. His movement must be defeated so that it can be replaced by one actually capable of accomplishing the tasks I mentioned. While I dread the idea of a second Biden term I dread even more the restoration of Donald Trump for all the reasons Paul mentions and much much more. Those who oppose the left must paradoxically work to defeat Trump. I still pray he somehow loses the nomination.
Amen to that. Delightful discussions, as wide ranging as a solitary mountain lion. Jim Dueholm
A typically nuanced and persuasive analysis from Paul. My hope is the real world will tell whether he is or I am right, for there's a good chance Trump will defeat Biden --- Trump now has a narrow advantage in betting odds --- for Biden is a truly awful president, in the company of James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, and father time would make him even worse. Jim Dueholm
Thanks, Jim. To be continued at our next lunch -- along with the usual discussion of U.S. history and sports.
Agreed on all points Paul. Well said. But and However, (If Trump is the republican winner) whomever he goes up against will definitely make him look like the best thing since sliced bread. And that is the pathetic sad reality we face as voters in the United States today. I have voted for the least leftist candidate since Reagan. And by the way, If Trump wants to punish his enemies, let's let him go at it, full tilt. Because if he doesn't, they will keep coming at him in ways no one could imagine. The standards of the leftist (I can't believe I just typed that; the leftist have no standards) need to be directed directly at their heads to do the most damage possible.
I think Trump would be as effective, and no more dangerous, than he was in his first term.
Trump may be less respectful of constitutional norms in his second term, but as an electoral victor and sitting president he would have no need to do some of the outlandish things he's done as a defeated candidate. He might play fast and loose with executive orders, but every recent president has done that.
Trump might go after enemies, perceived and real, but only in a way we should generally support. There is rot at the top of the DOJ and FBI, but he would clean house by firing enemies, not prosecuting them. As for the likes of Kelly and Barr, he could rail, but he can't make a prosecutorial case against them.
He may get legal advice from second rate lawyers, but I don't think that would have much impact on policy. For one thing, the Office of Legal Counsel is generally the last word on legal matters.
He might be at odds with Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, but he's proud of his first term judicial appointments, and he attacks Leo and the Society from the right, so I think he second term judicial nominees would be conservative.
I think he would curb the administrative state. This is something near and dear to him as a self-proclaimed business mogul.
No doubt he would be more tariff happy than most presidents, but with the increasing enmity of China, tariffs have to be considered as national security as well as economic issues.
He is clearly not a fan of aid to Ukraine. On the other hand, his policies are often at odds with his rants, and I doubt he would veto congressional aid to Ukraine. Besides, he wouldn't have power until January 2025, when the Ukraine war would be nearly three years old, and if it's a never-ending war we may have to reconsider our policy, at least to the extent if pressuring Ukraine to come to some accord with Russia.
He is not a fan of legal immigration, but this is another area in which I don't think he would defy Congress, particularly if legal immigration is paired with meaningful steps to improve border security. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for this well-argued comment, Jim.
I agree that if Trump wins in 2024, he won't violate constitutional and democratic norms regarding the election of presidents, unless perhaps one of his kids runs in 2028. With that caveat, this particular norm will be safe.
But that's of very little comfort if one understands Trump's reaction to the election as evincing a more general willingness to violate or ignore norms that stand in his way or just annoy him.
And there will be many such norms in a second Trump administration. Things like separation of power, willingness to honor judicial decisions, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and so on.
The issue isn't whether Trump will violate these norms to the point that "our democracy" will collapse. I've stipulated that he probably won't go that far. The issue is whether he'll go further down this road than he did in his first administration.
It's clear to me that Trump will. For one thing, your belief that Trump won't do so relies on guard rails that stand in the way of his acting on vindictive and extra-legal desires. But the more Trump feels constrained by guard rails, the more likely he is to try to knock them down. Indeed, the message I'm getting from Trump World is that his biggest regret from the first term is allowing himself to be constrained by "squish" advisers who tried to keep him from going over those rails.
In addition, if Trump wins in 2024, it will mean that his attack on the norms of presidential elections didn't cost him politically. Flush with this triumph, it's reasonable to expect that he will be more inclined to violate other norms than he was during his first term.
On Executive Orders, the issue isn't whether Trump will use them more abusively than Biden and Obama -- though I think there's a good chance he will. The issue is whether he will use them more abusively than he did in his first term. For the reasons stated above and in my initial post, I'm pretty sure he will.
On the administrative state, I agree it should be curbed. But, as I said, the emerging view in Trump's movement is that the goal should be to use the administrative state to promote national conservative ends, not to rein it in. This view fits Trump to a T.
On prosecutions, of course law breakers in the deep state should be prosecuted. But Trump isn't out to punish law breakers, he's out to punish enemies. And being an enemy of Trump isn't the same thing as being a law breaker.
Trump, though, seems to equate the two. How else can one explain his desire to investigate Barr, Kelly, Milley, and Cobb? Maybe they won't actually be prosecuted, but if Trump demands of a yes-man AG that they be investigated, then investigated they likely will be. And in closer cases, Trump's enemies may be prosecuted, even though they shouldn't be.
On tariffs, it's one thing to use them against China, which, I agree, might well be a good idea. But Trump wants to go well beyond that and impose a universal tariff. Not only would this hurt our economy, it would lessen our ability to rally our allies -- all of whom would suffer from the Trump tariffs -- to act collectively against China.
On Ukraine, three years isn't a "never ending war." If the U.S. can't help finance a war against an enemy nation for three years (at no cost in American lives), -- a war that's degrading the Russian military at a fairly rapid rate -- then instead of being "great again," we'll be pitiful. And a laughing stock in Moscow and Beijing. I
A win for Putin in Ukraine would be just as harmful and against our interest in 2025 as it would be in 2023. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to incur the losses necessary to stop and turn back Russia's aggression of 2022, we should support them.
Trump seems unwilling to do so.
I deny that Trump's attack on (or disenchantment with) Leonard Leo is "coming from the right," It's In coming from the usual Trump source -- personal grievance. He blames Leo, unfairly I think, for the Rod Rosenstein appointment.
Is the more general attack from the Trump camp on the Federalist Society "coming from the right." I guess that depends on how you define "the right." The point is that it's not coming from a conservative place. It's coming from a movement that wants to use "progressive" means to accomplish nationalist, reactionary ends.
Even if one thinks this is a good idea in theory -- I don't -- it will likely lead to chaos and defeat.
I suppose one could say that Jeff Clark, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman were coming at the 2020 election from the right. Give me BIll Barr and the conservative mainstream over that crew any day.
And speaking of Leo and the FedSoc, is Trump really proud of the judicial nominees they helped him select? A number of them have ruled against him on various matters. If the Supreme Court reaches issues relating to Trump's legal problems, some of the Justices he appointed may rule against him.
And if Trump abuses his power as president, he will probably lose some Supreme Court cases. Trump fully abided by Supreme Court rulings during his first term. He's less likely to do so in a second term. Or so it seems to me.