I think that David Brooks is wrong in his latest New York Times column. There is a strategy to defeat Trump:
Many strategies were deployed in order to discredit Trump. There was the immorality strategy: Thousands of articles were written detailing his lies and peccadilloes. There was the impeachment strategy: Investigations were launched into his various scandals and outrages. There was the exposure strategy: Scores of books were written exposing how shambolic and ineffective the Trump White House really was.
The net effect of these strategies has been to sell a lot of books and subscriptions and to make anti-Trumpists feel good. But this entire barrage of invective has not discredited Trump among the people who will very likely play the most determinant role. It has probably pulled some college-educated Republicans into the Democratic ranks and pushed some working-class voters over to the Republican side.
The barrage has probably solidified Trump’s hold on his party. Republicans see themselves at war with the progressive coastal elites. If those elites are dumping on Trump, he must be their guy.
lamenting that there is no strategy for defeating Trump.
I think there is a strategy and it is to disqualify him from running in 2024. I don’t think it’s the right strategy but I think that’s the strategy.
I think the right strategy is competence. Apparently, that’s too much to ask.
I think the right strategy is competence. Apparently, that’s too much to ask.
Who has had more leadership, policy competence – Biden or Trump? People continue to berate the latter president for character/personality dislikes. However, what about comparing their policy outcomes (inflation, energy, immigration), public engagement with people, the seriousness of lies allegedly spewed from each of them, foreign/domestic policy accomplishments, people’s impression of where the country is headed. Are we really better off under a Biden presidency than one channeled by Trump?
Another strategy would be blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
A third might be to appoint him Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
I mean something different, Jan. I mean competence on what gets done not just on what you would like to do. That requires much more nuts and bolts work with the bureaucracies than Mr. Trump managed to accomplish.
You cannot just rely on the federal agencies to do their jobs without overreach. That’s true whether you’re Donald Trump or Joseph Biden.
Dave, I am processing your response, and while I appreciate your clarification, I believe the former administration had a “to doâ€
checklist which he tenaciously tried to fulfill. Many items on that list were actions and policies that had been long ignored under former regimes – both democrat and republican. What really got in the way of accomplishing such an itemized list, however, was the very bureaucracy you felt he should work with. When you have a deeply embedded administrative state, following more the instructions and ideology of a past administration, there is far more of a struggle to realize the changes a president wants to get done.
For someone like Trump those changes/reforms were more significant than just tax cuts. He wanted to insure a safe, manageable border, reduce business-killing regulations, introduce fairer trade, make NATO a more financially responsible partner, shine a light on China’s disingenuousness and stealing our ideas, have a better alignment of ME countries with Israel, shore up elections making them less vulnerable to irregularities, address inequities found in sentencing laws, discourage off-shoring jobs and business, focus on our aging electric grid – such ideas/policies were aimed at not only helping workers, the middle class, the under class become more financially independent, but also our own country in developing a broader supply chain of necessities for ourselves. Most of the time, though, he was stymied by the establishment-dominated leadership in his own party during the first 2 years, and then by the Pelosi-run House who refused to work with him on almost everything (the wall, infrastructure bill, Dreamers), as well as snarling up most of his years in office with relentless investigations, allegations and impeachments.
I’m sure you see it differently. But, this is an analysis of the last presidency from another POV.
No, I understand. You want to give points for difficulty of execution.
The way I see it is that the hostile environment was part of the job. He was just the wrong guy for the job.
None of that justifies the own goals the Biden Administration has been making including the mess at the southern border and inflation. Biden has been politically adroit but he has performed largely as I predicted—since the inauguration he has been staying firmly in the center of the Democratic Party which is itself moving to the left.
Further observation: the last 15 years are what happens when ideology overwhelms problem resolution.
Competency? What percentage of Trump supporters do you think would leave him in favor of competency? I think close to zero.
Steve
“You want to give points for difficulty of execution…….The way I see it is that the hostile environment was part of the job. He was just the wrong guy for the job.”
I certainly agree its part of the job. But disagree with wrong guy. Only if you concur his chief mistake was not going scorched earth on the deep state. Wiping out all the major players and instructing them to hire afresh. With new marching orders. (Surely you know that’s turnaround 101.) Not wrong guy; he fucked up. Made a huge mistake.
I think he was too deferential to advisors. If he were to get elected again, which I doubt, I think between the pre- inauguration resignations and post firings you would see the biggest turnover in government jobs ever.
This scares some. They are fools. The country would not miss a beat. Been there, done that.