Very often I'm told by Trump supporters how much of a conservative Trump is. That his conservatism is why they support him. That we want/need a strong conservative in the White House.
The question is...
Should I believe Trump, or Trump supporters?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Many, if not most, of Trump's policies and actions are to one degree or another conservative. Based on that, it would make less sense for him to identify as a leftist. Yet, even if he were to so identify, the conservative bent of so many of his policies and proposals suggests at the very least he's acted to serve his constituency, which is decidedly more conservative than not. And of course in promoting conservative policy, he ultimately serves the nation as a whole far better than any leftist could with leftist policies.
Thus, his supporters...if they're really saying HE is a conservative rather than his policies are, or that because his policies are then he must be, too...are worth listening to if you're looking to have them explain themselves in the process.
But I would ask, since you didn't provide it in the post, what is Trump saying that conflicts with the opinion that he's conservative? Keep in mind, by today's standards, JFK would be too conservative for today's Dem Party.
I can't help but feeling that you kind of danced around an answer here. To me it seems cut and dried, either we accept what Trump has said, or we accept what his followers have said about him.
Where I see the difference is in motivation or conviction. Someone who is a conservative is going to do things based on a coherent, overarching worldview. They have a conviction that conservative policies are the best solution to problems. Someone who's not a conservative, might do conservative things because they achieve something in the moment, or perhaps those policies or actions benefit a certain group of people. I understand how someone who is a pragmatist might pragmatically do some things that are conservative at one point, then do some things that are liberal at another point. based solely on what's "best" at a given point in time.
So, my question remains. Should I listen to and trust Trump in what he says, or should I listen to his fans?
Or, "Is Trump a conservative, or a pragmatist who's done some conservative things".
To answer your question (sort of) Trump has addressed the question and provide a direct answer. I'd rather hear your answer before anything else.
That JFK, and Truman for example would be too conservative for today's DFL is an interesting factoid, but has no bearing on this question.
Well it does without knowing what you expect me to believe Trump has said about himself. I can't really clearly and directly answer a question so vague. So it's not dancing around the question so much as answering based on the unknowns present in the question...specifically, what has Trump said about himself which you think is in conflict with any supporter suggesting he's a conservative.
And even that isn't a clear point. As in my case, I regard most of Trump's actions as aligned with conservative thinking, at least in the broadest sense: less taxes and regulation, a strong military, a strong economy, policies which benefit all Americans and not specific groups, starting no wars, judicial selections who are more act on what the Constitution actually says, rather than what they might prefer it says. These are just a few things which have appeal to most conservative people and would suggest to at least some people that he's a conservative. I'm not necessarily among the latter, but more so concerned with the conservative bent of the policies themselves. I expect we'll see more of the same should he not again be criminally cheated out of the presidency come November.
Getting back to JFK, he also lowered tax rates, which would have drawn gasps and Pamper wetting by the Dem Party. I don't believe he favored abortion (I really don't know) nor SSM. Despite his drunken youngest brother, I'm not sure he was keen on letting people flow across our borders as is happening now. These things would make him an attractive option to many conservatives today, because doing the right thing is a conservative principle.
I still get emails from an Illinois organization which involves itself in state politics. They sometimes send out notices to folks to send in witness slips on pending legislation to let their reps know how constituents feel about the proposals. One I got about a week or two ago, had about six or seven proposals the organization recommended supporting, with another four or five they thought should be opposed. As I looked them over, most of the proposals the org supported were proposed by Dems and just two by Republicans (as I recall). I couldn't believe any Dem would've proposed what they did, but because of what the proposal sought to do, I would've signed the slip in support of it.
Now imagine if one of these Dems constantly proposed things I found worthy of support. I would begin to suspect that Dem was actually a conservative. What matters are the proposals, not how a politician identifies.
"You know, people say, 'You’re conservative.' I’m not conservative. You know what I am? I’m a man of common sense. And a lot of conservative policies are common sense."
"I'm not a conservative" seems pretty cut and dried to me. Further, "common sense" is definitely subjective, and it's completely logical to conclude that Trump will find some liberal policies to be "common sense" as well.
Common sense might be subjective, but if one is conservative and what "common sense" policies enacted by Trump have great appeal to conservatives, then for his supporters to so label him is not in conflict with what he said. Moreover, I would take that to mean he's not as concerned with how he's labeled but how his ideas and policies are regarded, as well as the degree to which they result in positive outcomes.
But your original question as to who to believe is superfluous. The real question is whether or not one desires something more akin to life under Trump's first term, or what has resulted from Biden's or even both of Obama's term. That's a far easier and more substantive question and one for which there is really only one answer. Indeed, the answer is crystal clear to me. I want more of what Trump had done, if not an improvement of it. That's not possible with another Democrat in the White House or a Dem majority in either or both Houses of Congress.
Common Sense is obviously subjective. Yes, some of Trump's policies do have appeal to conservatives. But the reality is that those policies are not the result of a conservative worldview, they're simply pragmatic moves to gain support. Since they don't come from any sense of conviction, what's to say that trump won't pragmatically change his mind if he wins in Nov? He's already suggesting that he's open to "compromise" on abortion, why not a tax increase to pay down the debt?
Of course, you "take to mean" based on your subjective feelings about Trump and your beliefs about his wonderfulness. Of course you're going to put a spin on his comments that fits your narrative, it's only natural.
No, the question at the heart of the post is exactly the question that should be asked. If Trump is NOT a conservative, but merely a pragmatist, then we know that his decisions are not made from principle but from a subjective/pragmatic/shifting place, we have no way to predict what he might do when he no longer has to perform for his base.
It's possible that his potential second term might be as rosy and wonderful as your hopes and dreams project. But if it is, it's not because trump wants to bring a conservative worldview to bear on the problems, it's because he's following his subjective "common sense". Given that, why would anyone assume that he has any desire to find a conservative VP and set the VP up for the future? It seems just as likely that he'd pragmatically choose someone like Gavin Newsome because the pragmatic/common sense choice would be to appeal to voters who currently he doesn't appeal to.
Who knows what will happen. But knowing that Trump is not operating from a conservative worldview, but instead is simply applying what he subjectively believes to be "common sense", would seem to give conservative voters pause to consider this news.
It's unlikely that this news will change your mind one iota, and that's OK. But for those who are looking for a principled conservative, instead of a pragmatist, it's something to consider.
"But the reality is that those policies are not the result of a conservative worldview, they're simply pragmatic moves to gain support."
So, you're trying to say that's the "con" of which Dan so routinely speaks but never identifies? One would think if he's not acting out of conviction then at some point he'd do what exposes the real Trump. But he never did the first time around and I don't see evidence of that now.
I don't think he's compromised on abortion, but simply spoke to the very real possibility that promoting a total ban would mean no more GOP office holders. While that's certainly pragmatic, it doesn't suggest "compromise" as if he's supportive of it. (I'll be honest...I wouldn't wager on his personal beliefs about abortion. I'm just addressing your presumptions.)
As to tax increases, I hope you've had a chance to at last begin reading what I've sent you by email. If you agree it's a good plan, then tax increases won't be necessary if those like us send him this plan to digest. But to sit back and see what he does without being an active participant in this American experiment does not speak of well of anyone with such an attitude.
"Of course, you "take to mean" based on your subjective feelings about Trump and your beliefs about his wonderfulness."
Bite me. I take it to mean as I did because I give him the benefit of the doubt, not project upon him negative connotations as you do based on your subjective feelings about Trump and your beliefs about his being an evil guy. (Your turn.) Talk about spin!
" If Trump is NOT a conservative, but merely a pragmatist, then we know that his decisions are not made from principle but from a subjective/pragmatic/shifting place, we have no way to predict what he might do when he no longer has to perform for his base."
Wow. More spin! This presumes that pragmatism is a negative, that it's selfish and self-serving rather than believing the an action's consequences are obvious and thus to act according to or in opposition to those consequences has no moral basis which can also be regarded as "conservative". Sealing our borders, strengthening our military, reducing taxes and regulations, defending the Constitution...these things are all both conservative and pragmatic.
"It's possible that his potential second term might be as rosy and wonderful as your hopes and dreams project."
It's blatantly more likely than not. Good gosh, haven't you been paying attention to the last three and a half years???
"So, you're trying to say that's the "con" of which Dan so routinely speaks but never identifies?"
No. I AM saying that those who say that Trump is a conservative are wrong, and we know this from the horses mouth.
It's interesting that you, who have been quite an absolutist on abortion, insisting that 0 abortions is the only acceptable option, now seem wide open to trump's suggestion on a ban before somewhere between 13-20 weeks. That's quite a shift.
I haven't read your stuff, and your Coolidge stuff doesn't seem relevant to this conversation. I can totally see trump deciding that it's in his best interest to raise taxes at some point.
No thanks, I don't bite people. Look you can spin it a "benefit of the doubt", but the reality is that you've reached a subjective conclusion about the conservativeness of Trump's first term and you wish/hope that his second term is even better. It's OK to acknowledge that it's all about wishin' and hopin'.
No spin at all. It doesn't even assume pragmatism as negative. Merely that pragmatism would dictate different actions that principled conservatism. Some of those actions could be conservative, some not. It simply makes the point that there is no basis in principle that drives a pragmatist. To some degree it is based on what subjective "common sense" dictates is "best" for the person in power. It's crazy to suggest that it doesn't at least have that potential.
Yes, I have. But better than the last 3 1/2 years is an exceedingly low bar. I'd hope for more than just being barely above sucking from a "conservative".
"No. I AM saying that those who say that Trump is a conservative are wrong, and we know this from the horses mouth."
I'm not sure one expression such as you've presented here is determinative or decisive. Based on it, I'd say it's far more likely he was trying to make a point. And again, if "pragmatic" equals "common sense", I'd say it's more synonymous with conservatism than you'd rather it was if your point was to raise any concerns about the guy. Again, what I find common sense or pragmatic fits well within the term "conservative".
"It's interesting that you, who have been quite an absolutist on abortion, insisting that 0 abortions is the only acceptable option, now seem wide open to trump's suggestion on a ban before somewhere between 13-20 weeks."
I've expressed no such openness. Like you, and apparently like Trump, I'm willing to move the needle forward at a pace more accommodating to the infanticidal to save as many people as possible. We can get to full abolition in time. It's a common sense way to achieve our ultimate goal regardless of how distasteful it is that any should perish. That's not an acceptable option as far as moral reason goes, but it's better than doing nothing for the time being. But nice try on your part.
"I haven't read your stuff, and your Coolidge stuff doesn't seem relevant to this conversation. I can totally see trump deciding that it's in his best interest to raise taxes at some point."
Of course you can, because you don't like the guy. I could see him in a position whereby the only option available to him might include some kind of hike. But I also see that as wholly unlikely. When the economy responded so well to tax rate reductions, why do you think he'd do the opposite thinking that would work? It would be as if he agreed with Biden about border security after getting good results there. Your suggestion is absurd.
As to the Coolidge stuff, how can it not seem relevant if you haven't read it yet. It was one of two links I sent you, both being "my stuff". So you've confused me. But it is absolutely relevant as it demonstrated one president's methods resulting in an expanding economy benefiting all.
"Look you can spin it a "benefit of the doubt", but the reality is that you've reached a subjective conclusion about the conservativeness of Trump's first term and you wish/hope that his second term is even better."
So wait...you're saying giving another the benefit of the doubt is a bad idea? If you didn't make yourself understood on an important point, wouldn't you prefer to be given the benefit of the doubt rather than presumed to have been stupid, a jerk or some other negative thing? Or is it simply you can't find it in yourself to give Trump the benefit of the doubt? Rhetorical question, really. It's pretty clear you're not going to do that despite how much better life was under his four years than the almost twelve between Biden and Obama. But I don't think you'd like being treated that way, especially when the one not giving you that benefit is aware of your track record of service.
There's nothing subjective about my conclusion of Trump's first term. It was very much a conservative presidency. You're just keen on scraping for ways you can diminish the man's work, and frankly, it's a bit strange that you'd focus all your attention on that which has no real significance. It should be enough for you, if you are about your family and country, that despite all you hold against him, he still performed well in the job. And while I'm wishin' and a hopin' he'll do at least as well if not better, the probability is higher than the apocalypse you're clearly anticipating. Again, that's just the opposite of my attitude. You're cynical, while I'm optimistic. While it's true that past performance is no guarantee of future results, your cynicism isn't based on anything but your bad attitude about the guy. You expect the Chiefs to do well every year because of their past performance, but evidently there's no way Trump will in your mind.
"Merely that pragmatism would dictate different actions that principled conservatism."
You're going to have to explain how this is so. I believe you're just saying that wishing and hoping bad things will come to fruition to validate your dislike of the man.
"...there is no basis in principle that drives a pragmatist."
Again, you're just saying this. One must base such a thing on the desires of the person who claims to be acting pragmatically. If Trump's desires are for the good of the nation, to make it great again, to make it what the founders envisioned, in what way would being pragmatic be anything but based on the principles of the founders and others who wish for the same things?
Let's look at it this way: Does he see American the way Obama or Biden does? If so, pragmatism will manifest in a different way...in a way to "fundamentally change" the nation. I'm pretty certain that doesn't describe Trump's vision at all. So unless you can point directly and with certainty that his vision is somehow undesirable, then being a pragmatist who acts according to common sense is hardly a reason for concern. We already know there are many in the GOP who claim to be conservative and don't truly act that way. They may also speak of using common sense and being pragmatic. Clearly to leftists it's "common sense" to enable kids who think they're of the opposite sex. That pragmatism reflects their moral bankruptcy. I think it's common sense to allow kids the time to move out of that phase as research as shown is most probable. It's the pragmatic move.
"To some degree it is based on what subjective "common sense" dictates is "best" for the person in power."
This suggests you agree with those like Dan who think Trump's purpose is to serve himself rather than the nation. You've no more basis than does Dan. But it could be said that one serves himself by determining to perform in a manner which compels the highest praise. You seem determined to never give him any praise whatsoever, but if his performance improves the state of the nation, who cares that he only acted to provoke recognition of having done so?
Then of course, I think it's not at all a problem that those we elect to serve will think in terms of how his actions will affect him as a citizen of the same country he serves. We do want them to return home when their time is done to live under the laws they've passed and all that. So that he might also benefit by his own actions is not a problem in any way for me, so long as he's not the only one. Do you have evidence that he's only acting to serve his own self exclusively...or even mostly...with no regard to anyone or everyone else?
It's crazy to presume he's most susceptible to the corruption of power just because he's Donald Trump and for no other discernible reason.
"Yes, I have. But better than the last 3 1/2 years is an exceedingly low bar. I'd hope for more than just being barely above sucking from a "conservative"."
I think an argument can be made that he exceeded the work of the previous 16 years at least. Certainly the previous eight. And really, Craig...it's abjectly moronic to describe his time in office as "just being barely above sucking". Only a TDS sufferer would say such a thing.
But just for the record, would you prefer more "sucking" or "just being barely above sucking". Because since you're all about what ifs here, there's no guarantee that anyone you'd prefer over Trump would be better than Biden. Your best pick could suck worst of all. You can't disagree, but you'll give that person the benefit of the doubt. You'll grant that person's track record would suggest far better. You'll be gracious enough to presume things will be better than "just being barely above sucking" simply because that person's name isn't Donald Trump.
How very Dan-like.
Look, I get it. You're going to defend Trump and cast him as some sort of conservative icon, no matter what. If Trump disagrees with you, so what.
I'm not the one who keeps telling everyone that Trump will be better than the lase 3 1/2 years. Me pointing out that being "better" than P-BO and Biden is a low bar is just reality.
That's the problem. You're right. There are no guarantees. None. Not even that we'll have some sort of conservative renaissance if Trump wins in '24. But, I'm not the person who keeps saying that Trump just has to be slightly better than Biden.
Post a Comment