“Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he who would act the angel acts the brute.” – Blaise Pascal, Les Pensées (1669)
My primary concern with President Trump has been his anti-democratic bent, his abuse of the office for personal enrichment, and his sympathy toward the culture of greed. On the first two points, I believe he will not serve out his term. Frankly, I am surprised he has lasted this long. The man is likely a racist, though there is evidence of that accusation not being as true as many claim. Fortunately, one man’s racism does not a racist policy make. Many well-informed people consider the President to be unbalanced, perhaps mentally ill. Their arguments are persuasive. Fortunately, if the President really is ill, that illness is not the foundation of a policy carried out.
What bothers me is that people willfully mis-report what the President is trying to do; these partisans often focus on peripheral details to amplify them into evidence backing their bias. This practice, no matter how sympathetic I may be toward the view animating it, is intellectually dishonest and undermines the quality of democratic discourse we must maintain to sustain the Republic. Neither President Trump nor his actions are all bad, even in minute scrutiny. Had President Obama done the same on North Korea as President Trump is doing now, for example, he would have been hailed as a great humanitarian.
President Trump will never will a Nobel Peace Prize, to be sure, but his actions may well lead to a more sustainable peace and a right-sized role for the United States in that peace. While I believe this President’s days are numbered, I also want at least to be fair and, more importantly, accurate in my own mind about what he has accomplished in his first two years and will impart as a legacy when he leaves the White House.
In the end, I really hope President Trump is proven to be largely innocent of the charges against him. Yes, I would love to be wildly incorrect in my sentiments. Why? Because I love power for its own sake? No way. If the President is vindicated, that may end the systematic calumny aimed at our leaders by both parties and the vitriol flowing through the American people that is poisoning the body-politic. We need to act like citizens again. Here are five policy positives as I see them from this much-maligned Administration:
- border security;
- ending imperial meddling and over-reach;
- re-tooling;
- overtures to North Korea; as well as,
- the hole in the national soul.
The Wall. This is an issue of national security, much as I dislike the historical imagery of walls in Palestine and Berlin. Drugs and gangs flow through the U.S.-México border. In actuality other migration for labor is down and perhaps going the opposite way. The two threats of drugs and gangs are not the fault of the Mexican people; the government, however, can and should do more. This ‘wall’ proposal is not new. President Carter had the same idea of fences along the porous parts of the border with concertina wire. The Democratic Party’s alternative is stupid. Drones are not a substitute; an easy deke – rush one part of the border that gets the attention of I.C.E., the drones and the rest while another, bigger wave pushes through uncontested.
Using drones means using soldiers – a lot more soldiers. Let’s look at the economics here. To protect the border properly would require at least, on average, one soldier for every ten feet; that translates to some 750,000 troops, or 60% of our active duty force. Statistics vary on the cost of deploying a soldier. Let’s take 10% of the current deployment costs per soldier in one of these endless wars. The basic pay is $45,000 plus 10% of additional $955,000 cited to outfit a soldier during Operation Iraqi Freedom. So we’re talking about $100 billion per year for a ‘solution’ that may not be effective.
Using drones means using soldiers – a lot more soldiers. Let’s look at the economics here. To protect the border properly would require at least, on average, one soldier for every ten feet; that translates to some 750,000 troops, or 60% of our active duty force. Statistics vary on the cost of deploying a soldier. Let’s take 10% of the current deployment costs per soldier in one of these endless wars. The basic pay is $45,000 plus 10% of additional $955,000 cited to outfit a soldier during Operation Iraqi Freedom. So we’re talking about $100 billion per year for a ‘solution’ that may not be effective.
Bottom line: Previous Presidents have lacked the will to take a controversial stand to fortify the border. The wall will cost more than $5.6 billion and will not be able to cover the whole border; the construction will be a one-time expense and annual maintenance thereafter incidental. Nevertheless, the President’s approach will almost certainly be a fraction of the cost of what the Democratic Party’s proposal will be.
Syria. The fact is that the window of opportunity for U.S. military power to make a game-changing presence was in 2012, at latest 2013. President Obama failed to act. That military use might well have been a fraction of the costs now. What the current presence means is another endless war, draining U.S. resources. The Kurds are returning to President Assad’s fold not because we are exiting but because that is where their interests lie. The key question here is whether or not Syria is a flash-point for World War III. The withdrawal in this case appears to be precipitate, but we must get started.
Bottom line: President Trump is the first major political leader to declare our insolvency; we can not afford indiscriminate commitments.
North Korea. Overtures and ongoing discussions with North Korea should be welcome. The President has conceded nothing but has promised a lot in the way of incentives. President Clinton was a sucker, appeasing North Korea when discussions became difficult. President Obama further appeased China in permitting the world’s largest economy to prop up an outlaw régime while its people faced starvation. Bottom-line: President Trump is trying to do what he does best, at least in his own mind: transact with a counterparty in a mutually profitable manner. Yes, this transaction has many more dimensions than a real estate deal, but the President’s approach has the support of South Korea. Nothing ventured, nothing gained; nothing appeased, nothing lost.
The Trade War. Globalism has provided inexpensive consumer goods through comparative advantage as channeled through sweat-shops. That advantage is blighting our working and middle classes; it is shrinking our manufacturing base where it counts most – in steel and other basic materials. Manufacturing computers and other ephemera is not manufacturing; it is a marginal piece of that puzzle. The key question here is whether or not globalism has made the American people happier. The recent tax cut is less than ideal, far less. It is a start. The larger issue that people will not discuss – particularly this President – is the culture of greed that besets a declining empire.
Bottom-line: President Trump is part of the problem, to be sure, but he is initiating the painful steps to re-tool. No President since Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush has made a significant push to do that.
The War on Drugs. For decades this ‘war’ was a misnomer. But now that term’s time has arrived. The United States suffers more fatalities to opiates, particularly China’s revenge for the Opium Wars (i.e., jazzed up opiates), each year than the country did in ten years of Viêt Nam. The two previous administrations failed to act, such inaction becoming perilous under President Obama.
Bottom-line: President Trump’s language may not be pretty but his rhetoric is breaking down the national denial that we face a sickness inside the culture. Nevertheless, he is the first President openly to say, albeit inelegantly, that the world’s most powerful country has a gaping hole in its national soul. Re-tooling and ramped-up border security will begin to mend that terrible breach, but more, much more, will be required.
