David French:
We are one month from inauguration day, and it looks like the Donald Trump revolution is already almost over. In its place is a globalist establishment led by a rogue tweeter. Doubt me? Let’s review the great causes that motivated his base.
Since winning the White House, Trump has not “burned it down.” Instead, he’s “built it up.” Trump’s anti-establishment candidacy has put the establishment in charge. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell remain at the helms of the House and Senate. McConnell — the ultimate insider — may now be the most powerful Senate majority leader in decades, thanks to Harry Reid’s weakening of the filibuster. Trump’s core wanted to destroy both men. Instead, they rule their chambers and look primed to pass their own agendas through Congress.
Beyond Capitol Hill, Trump has stocked his staff and his cabinet with establishment fixtures and billionaires. His chief of staff is Reince Priebus, the former head of the RNC. His cabinet nominees include long-serving generals, the longest-serving governor in the history of Texas, the CEO of ExxonMobil, and a former Goldman Sachs partner.
Sure, he has a sprinkling of insurgents in the ranks, but his early supporters — insiders in outsiders’ clothing, such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Chris Christie — are notable mainly for their absence. Not one has yet earned a significant place by his side. They hitched a ride on the Trump Train and were ushered off before the last stop.
If Trump didn’t “burn it down,” he sure didn’t “drain the swamp.” In fact, just today Gingrich, interviewed by NPR, said, “I’m told he now just disclaims that. He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it anymore.” Well, how could he? Government by Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil is government by the swamp, of the swamp, and for the swamp. This isn’t a revolution, it’s a thoroughly conventional changing of the guard.
The list goes on. “Lock her up?” Nope. Trump already announced that he wouldn’t pursue charges against Hillary Clinton, and two weeks ago at one of his “thank you” rallies in Michigan, he interrupted the crowd’s chant with, “That plays great before the election — now we don’t care, right?” I guarantee the people who put “Hillary for prison” signs in their yard cared. But Trump never did.
It’s almost as if Trump said what he needed to say to win election, without regard for the truth or the consequences. Imagine that! Indeed, he even seemed to impute his own motives to his crowd. At a rally last week he said, “You people were vicious, violent, screaming, ‘Where’s the wall? We want the wall!’ Screaming, ‘Prison! Prison! Lock her up!’ I mean you are going crazy. I mean, you were nasty and mean and vicious and you wanted to win, right?” But now, in Trump’s words, “You’re mellow and you’re cool and you’re not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we won, right?”
For Trump, it was all tactics. And he appears to think it was just tactics for his supporters as well.
Perhaps nothing sums up Trump’s insincerity more than his secretary-of-state pick. To the extent that there was any cornerstone to Trump’s thoughts on foreign policy, it was his visceral disgust at George W. Bush and Bush-era interventionism. That was “globalist.” That was “nation-building.” He even went so far as to echo far-left talking points and claim that Bush lied his way into the Iraq War.
But in nominating the CEO of one of the world’s largest multinational corporations, Trump has nominated the very definition of a globalist.
As a Trump supporter for the past 6 months or so, I’m not surprised or disappointed (yet). As a businessman, I always saw Trump to be first and foremost a pragmatist, not an ideologue. These are early days, where Trump is still setting up his pieces. He’s not president for another month.
Again, as a businessman, I expect Trump to be more concerned about end results rather than how good the attempt looks in the papers – which is the exact opposite of typical politicians. So I expect compromises in order to get things passed, but the execution to be intensely pursued. So maybe there won’t be a shiny 20 foot fence across the entire Mexican border, but I do expect the effect as a whole is a dramatic reduction in illegal crossings, one way or another, for example.
@Dreadnought: The left could never understand what you wrote here. There is quite a difference when metaphors are used to describe the effort/results and how the results are achieved. Few would understand what Trump proposed if he had not simplified his intentions. They do understand that his promises will be kept.
Perhaps you could explain those intentions, for the benefit of people who suspect things are most likely what they appear to be, rather than what someone is claiming they are.
How Our New Corporate Overlords Plan to Thrive—with the man you love to hate, because he tells you stuff you don’t want to hear.
Do you know what H.R.6489 would do? Probably not. It’s not like it’s had any news coverage, what with all the distractions. Rep. Johnson claims it’s a plan to permanently save Social Security. The question is, What is actually being saved? Social Security can certainly be saved by reducing benefits to whatever level is necessary to keep it solvent. That’s not so hard. I could permanently save your house from the flood by burning it down.
Rep. Johnson’s Social Security Bill Would Cut Benefits
Have you given these guys a rubber-stamp president with a gift for keeping the public distracted? If so, you’d best keep your eye on your coat and hat.
@Greg: Well Greggie, you played the old Dimocrat stand by, “cut Social Security benefits” That is to scare the old folks that Trump wants to take their money away. Well, I’m one of those ‘old guys’ that currently get SS benefits and I’m smart enough to know that no one already getting SS will ever get a cut. If any reduction in benefits is ever passed, it will only reduce the amount ‘far in the future’ that persons will get. But those reductions will also be accompanied by reductions in the premiums being paid. So someone drawing 1800 a month today will always get that much, or more. On todays basis, someone retiring in say 5 years might start off at the equiv today of 1750. So no one is panicing about SS cuts, so go onto the next subject.
For those that ‘don’t believe’ The Border Wall WILL be built.
@RedTeam, #4:
Correct. Not to worry. Old people won’t be effected—only middle age people who will become old people a few years down the road, or people younger still. As Brenton Smith points out, virtually everyone born in 1961 or later would experience some degree of benefit reduction if H.R. 6489 or similar legislation became law; those hit hardest would be those who have high earnings and live the longest:
Of course, some privatization scheme gone wrong that redirected current FICA revenue elsewhere could wreck the existing system in very short order, so it’s important to keep a close eye on what Congress gets up to. Their objectives are not necessarily in the average person’s best interests, and their own rewards don’t necessarily depend on them remaining in office after the damages have been done.
@Dreadnought: That was very well put.
Peter Theil, PayPal CEO and billionaire, put it slightly differently:
The media took Trump literally, but not seriously.
Trumps supporters took him seriously, but not literally.
David French is still media.
He’s missing the forest for the trees.
FTA:
REALLY?