Blame Trump’s Supporters

by Ray Keating

So, how do we explain the Trump phenomenon?

Well, quite frankly, I’m sick of the seemingly endless gymnastics being performed to pin blame for Donald Trump on seemingly anyone but the people actually supporting and voting for Donald Trump.

The list of excuses turns out to be quite lengthy.

Some say it’s President Barack Obama’s fault. After all, he’s been such a bad, weak, left-wing president – and he most certainly has – that Obama has driven people to support Trump. Of course, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

And then there’s the nefarious, mysterious and elusive “Republican Establishment,” which supposedly has not done enough to take on Obama. As a result, the excuse goes, frustrated voters have no choice but to turn to Trump. For good measure, so-called “conservative” talk radio hosts feed the idea of Trump being anti-Establishment, and their listeners follow, accordingly. What the “Establishment” actually is really makes little sense any more, amounting to little more than name calling, while ignoring Trump’s long affiliation with those long distrusted by conservatives, such as Hillary Clinton.

Of course, there also are those darn foreigners. According to Trump, illegal immigrants and free trade with other nations lie at the core of our economic troubles, and the entire D.C. establishment – this time both Democrats and Republicans – stands unwilling to do anything about it. But Trump is ready to round up 11-12 million illegals and kick them out of the country, build a massive wall on our border with Mexico, and dump free trade agreements and impose some big time tariffs. Never mind the economic havoc this would wreak, as well as the human rights violations.

In the end, I don’t even blame Donald Trump for Donald Trump’s success. After all, any candidate who, for example, has flip-flopped (from liberal to populist or conservative) on nearly every major issue for pure political convenience, favors crippling the economy via protectionism and a massive government-forced migration, supports taking private property in favor of crony capitalism, takes foreign policy advice from his own “good brain” and watching television, attacks women (including the wife of anther candidate and Megyn Kelly) in seemingly countless ways, advocates using the military to kill innocent people, donated to his most likely Democratic opponent, mocks war heroes for their brave actions during war, indicates that riots and violence in support of his campaign are okay, has a long list of bankruptcies and shady business dealings, and is not too fond of the First Amendment, deserves only the votes of the flaky few.

Nonetheless, Mr. Trump is well on his way to gaining the Republican nod. There’s no one to blame for this other than the people who are actually voting for this ignorant, dangerous individual. Anger, frustration or whatever other excuses simply do not hold water.

We are each responsible for our actions, and have the responsibility to be informed voters. Trump voters either fail to understand such responsibilities, or care nothing about them.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The U.S. Version of the Spanish Civil War?

by Ray Keating

Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump in November reminds me of a U.S. political version of the Spanish Civil War. That is, when fascists square off against communists, everyone loses in the end.

Of course, I might be stretching things, but bear with me.

First let’s get something straight about the Spanish Civil War. In Spain in the late 1930s, the losses were grim, with hundreds of thousands being killed at the hands of both fascists and communists. It’s odd that to this very day, the American Left still views one side favorably in this brutal conflict. In reality, the Spanish Civil War was not about forces of democracy battling against Franco and the fascists. Rather, it was a power struggle between two nearly indistinguishable ideologies that raise up the state, crush the individual, and eradicate liberty. It was a matter who would acquire power in order to expand government throughout the economy, society and the culture. Franco and the fascists received aid from Germany and Italy, while the so-called “republicans” or “loyalists” – that is, in reality, the communists – were backed by the Soviet Union. It was a no-win scenario, to the extreme.

As for the U.S., I pray that we never descend into such chaos. But on a different level, an election between Hillary Clinton (or for that matter, Bernie Sanders) and Donald Trump would wind up being another no-win scenario.

There’s nothing secret about Hillary Clinton. She obviously has dedicated her political life since becoming first lady to expanding the size of the state in most aspects of life in the U.S., including increased taxes, expanded regulations, more spending, and greater government control over such areas as health care and education. Also, like her leftist allies, including President Barack Obama, Clinton fails to recognize as legitimate those opposing her views and policies.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has morphed his views – most recently, flip-flopping on nearly every major issue – to fit his personal needs and desires. When acting as a businessman, Trump contributed to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, invited her to his wedding, and was friends with her. Now, with his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination, Trump opposes and attacks Mrs. Clinton. This reality TV star stands out as a glaring example of the inflated ego who seeks power, and is committed only to his personal power. He certainly has little regard for the Constitution and our political process given his lack of respect for the First Amendment, his unwillingness to reject violence in support of his candidacy, his personal attacks on and thinly veiled threats to anyone disagreeing with him, his bizarre claims that no one has been treated as poorly as him in the history of politics, his disturbing declarations on illegal orders he would give our military, his crudeness, and his populist strategy of setting up the bogeyman of foreigners (see his anti-trade and anti-immigration messages) as the causes of America’s woes.

The Spanish Civil War was a blood-soaked battle between supporters of two ideologies that, in effect, were one and the same. They struggled to see who would gain power, and be able to turn the power of the state against the individual.

Meanwhile, the 2016 election in the U.S. provides little hope that voters will have any kind of real choice at the ballot box. Assorted conservatives and libertarians in recent times have rather childishly complained that no real differences exist between Republicans and Democrats. Saying, for example, then that Republicans in control of the U.S. House of Representatives are no different from President Barack Obama reveals a stunning lack of discernment. However, worrying that, in the end, the policies served up by a President Donald Trump would vary little from what a President Hillary Clinton would impose is a very real concern, based on experience and the realities we see at hand.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

How Bad Could This Presidential Election Get for Republicans?

by Ray Keating

Just how bad could it get for the Republican Party in November if Donald Trump winds up being the GOP nominee, as is the most likely outcome currently?

This is not an idle question. After all, Trump has astoundingly bad numbers in terms of his favorable-unfavorable ratings. Indeed, his unfavorables run at about two-thirds. That’s simply unheard of. Any candidate with unfavorable or disapproval ratings hitting 50 percent is pretty much assured of losing. So, if Trump becomes the GOP nominee, and anything close to these unfavorables persist, the question is not will Trump lose, but how bad will he lose.

Of course, Hillary Clinton also possesses poor favorable-unfavorable ratings, with her unfavorables running at about 54 percent.

Indeed, a Trump-Clinton contest would have two significantly unpopular candidates facing off. Based on these numbers, neither should win. But someone has to, right?

At least at this point in time, Trump’s woes are far more significant than Clinton’s, especially given the significant share of Republicans who would be dissatisfied – 48 percent according to an ABC/Washington Post poll – with Trump as the party’s candidate.

As a result, even with all of her problems, Mrs. Clinton could wind up with the best showing of any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Consider that in the post-World War II era, only three Democratic candidates for president managed to gain at least 50% of the vote – Barack Obama did it in 2008 at 52.9% and in 2012 at 51%, Jimmy Carter in 1976 at 50.1%, and LBJ in 1964 at 61.1 percent. The other victorious Democrats failed to hit 50% -- Truman in 1948 at 49.6%, Kennedy in 1960 at 49.7%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 at 43% and in 1996 at 49.2%.

It is bizarre, yet at the same time, given Trump’s negatives, not difficult to envision Hillary Clinton topping 55% of the vote, especially given the very real possibility that many conservative Republican voters could simply stay home and not vote. And the negative fallout for the GOP would then be felt down the line in terms of lost U.S. Senate, state and local races.

It pays to recall that there was at least a purpose to Goldwater’s big loss in 1964. That is, it was the dawn of the conservative movement within the GOP, and it eventually led to Ronald Reagan becoming president. In that sense, Goldwater’s loss ultimately was a party building positive for Republicans. Donald Trump is the exact opposite, that is, he is an unprincipled, populist force that promises to undermine the GOP, with a good chance of sending the Republicans into a political wilderness.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Throwback Thursday: No Difference Between Candidate Obama and Candidate Trump on Trade

by Ray Keating

In 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama was a protectionist who wanted a do-over on NAFTA, for example. Sound familiar? Yes, candidate Obama held much the same positions on trade, that is, being anti-free trade, as does presidential candidate Donald Trump today. Once in office, President Obama went silent on trade for his first term, and eventually got around to signing trade deals negotiated by President George W. Bush, and now even favors the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord, though he has spent little, if any, political capital in making it become a reality. This Long Island Business News column from early January 2009 raised similar questions about Obama then as we would face if Trump actually won the race for president in 2016 …

Will the real President-elect Barack Obama please stand up when it comes to international trade?

Well, apparently, not just yet. Unfortunately, trade policy presents another uncertainty for entrepreneurs, businesses and the U.S. economy in general.

The President-elect’s position on trade matters a great deal. Consider the importance of exports, for example, after the 2001 recession. Export growth accounted for 20 percent of GDP growth from 2002 to 2007.

Unfortunately, Obama had a thin and contradictory record on trade during his brief time as a U.S. senator. He voted in favor of trade agreements with Oman and Bahrain, but voted against the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

While vying for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, Obama highlighted his opposition to pending trade deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama, and declared a desire to renegotiate the 15-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. It was a disturbing display of protectionist pandering for votes.

But during the general election against John McCain and since his victory on November 4, Obama’s protectionist talk has pretty much disappeared. It has been replaced by silence.

Indeed, President-elect Obama seems to have everyone guessing on trade. Will he choose the generally pro-free trade path followed by most U.S. presidents for over three-quarters of a century, or flirt with protectionism for the first time since the bad old days of Herbert Hoover?

Do Obama’s picks to fill key posts in his White House offer any clues? Well, again, the signals are mixed, but offer some hope.

U.S. Rep. Hilda Solis, California, is Obama’s choice for labor secretary. The AFL-CIO, according to The New York Times, pushed Solis for the position. Since being elected to Congress in 2000, Solis seems to have never met a free trade accord she liked.

However, more encouraging are the President-elect’s selections for Commerce Department secretary and U.S. trade representative.

Obama’s choice for trade representative is former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk. He has been a pro-free trade voice, including advocating the construction of a “NAFTA Freeway” to speed the transportation of goods between the U.S. and Mexico, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Commerce Secretary-designate is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. In a June 2008 interview at the Council on Foreign Relations, Richardson said, “I’m a free-trade Democrat. I’m also an endangered species in the Democratic Party.”

Unfortunately, Richardson is right about his own party. In recent times, the Democrats have moved in a protectionist direction at the urgings of labor unions and environmental activists. While rejecting the “protectionist” label, these groups advocate inserting labor and environmental regulations into trade agreements. That is, they want to impose U.S. domestic regulations on other nations. But if such requirements have real teeth, then other nations will simply not enter into trade agreements, thereby limiting opportunities for U.S. entrepreneurs and businesses.

This version of protectionism is not exactly a new trend. The free trade leanings of President Bill Clinton’s administration during the 1990s, for example, clearly were an exception among Democrats. In fact, Clinton needed strong support among Republicans to get NAFTA passed. The sentiment among congressional Democrats has only become more stridently anti-free trade.

President-elect Obama has two – and only two – choices when it comes to trade. He can remain linked with the protectionists in his own party. Or, Obama can join with his Commerce secretary and trade representative by becoming that rare breed, i.e., a free trade Democrat.

Given the current economic challenges, Obama would have an excuse for shifting his position. After all, U.S. businesses and workers need to be free to capitalize on all possible opportunities. That means passing bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that reduce governmental barriers to trade.

After being sworn into office, Obama should push Congress to pass the pending trade deals negotiated by the Bush administration with Colombia, South Korea and Panama. That would send a positive signal to businesses and markets that the threat of protectionism during an Obama administration is dead.

The next steps would be to move aggressively on free trade agreements covering from North America to South America, and the Pacific Basin.

If President-elect Obama is serious about real change, about working in a bipartisan manner, and about getting the U.S. economy back on track, then free trade is a must.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel