Please President-Elect Trump, close your Twitter account

On November 10th, 2016, President-elect Trump tweeted: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

 

On November 11th, President-elect Trump tweeted: "Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!"

 

I hope Trump can be persuaded to close his Twitter account.  His tweets demonstrate visceral reactions that are not well-thought-out and will undermine his goals.

 

He has said that he wants to be the President of everyone.  These protests gave him an opportunity to demonstrate his intent.  His second tweet would have been OK if it had been his only tweet.  It would have been even better had he left out the words "small groups of".

 

These protesters and passionate and in some cases idealistic.  They have reason to be very concerned.  They have been almost entirely peaceful.  Unfortunately, many have chosen wrong messages.  (Let's see... who might be their model in that regard??)  It would be much better to stay focused on issues (such as "Don't Deport My Relatives") than to say "He's Not My President", profanities or other such messages.

 

Hopefully we can encourage protests to be short, peaceful and on-topic.  And hopefully we can all be sensitive to their concerns.

 

If President Trump does not abandon tweeting, I'm afraid he'll alienate a lot of people.

Why Did Trump Win?

I’ve been asked to comment on the following 3 issues. 

      1)      Where do we go from here?

2)      Why did Trump win?

3)      What caused the change at the end of the campaign?

I’ve addressed #1 already.  In this post, I’ll address #2.  Please remember these are just one person’s thoughts.

Why Did Trump Win?  (If you want to skip to what I think were the reasons Trump won, go to the top of page 3.)

Like many elections, this election was so close that you could argue that a large number of different issues “made the difference”.   There is a tendency for people who lose an election to grab on to a relatively minor reason that makes them feel justified in thinking that their side was cheated or was defeated by people who lack positive values.

Donald Trump set up such an excuse for himself by arguing that the elections were rigged.

I think Hillary Clinton supporters are making similar mistakes when they attribute her loss to people being anti-immigrant, racist, against women, etc. or to FBI Chief Comey.

It seems undeniable that a high Caucasian turn-out helped Trump succeed.  A couple of things worth noting in that regard:

1)      From a political perspective, most third-party votes were more aligned with Republican views than Democratic views.  Adding Jill Stein’s vote to Clinton’s vote and Gary Johnson’s and Evan McMillin’s votes to Trump’s total, the Republicans secured 51.4% of the vote.

2)      We had 4 million fewer voters in 2016 than in 2012. The vote distribution shifted more rural, even though it is generally agreed that Democrats are better organized to “get out the vote”, that Trump did a poor job of creating a “get out the vote” support network and that it seems easier to do so in urban areas than rural areas.  It seems that Trump voters were personally more determined than Clinton voters.

In those senses, Clinton’s defeat was a bit larger than many people think.

Typically, people would argue that non-voters lean Democrat.  So if we had 100% participation, Clinton may have won.  We could have raging debates, however, as to whether it is good to have elections decided by unengaged voters who have not considered the issues carefully.

Immigration: Liberals have mis-framed the immigration debate.  Few people are anti-immigrant; most are opposed to illegal immigration.  There is a big difference here. 

• I would agree that illegal immigration played a meaningful role in this election.  Hopefully the liberals will understand that many people fear that amnesty without well-managed borders is a disastrous approach, encouraging more illegal immigration.  If we can convince people that our borders are adequately protected, amnesty will be much easier to support. 
• Legal immigration was a tremendously smaller issue.  Many people favor easier immigration for people who have skills critical to our economy.  Such people were more likely to vote for Trump.  In this sense, Trump’s voters could be viewed as more pro-(legal)-immigrant than Clinton’s voters.

Racism: Some people cite that Trump did better than Romney among African-Americans.  13% of black men and 6% of black women voted for Trump compared to 6% of all African-Americans voting for Romney.  That’s not much of a tribute to Trump, recognizing that Romney ran against an African-American whereas Trump did not.  The possibility of an African-American president had a dramatic effect.  George Bush got 11% of the African-American vote.  Compared to Bush, Trump did worse.

I have not perceived racism to be a problem for President Obama during his 8 years in office.  Surely there are some people who were opposed to having an African-American president but they were few.  Furthermore, they lacked influence.  While there were loud “birther” people, they were ignored or rejected by almost everyone.  (Note: birthers were not necessarily motivated by racism; some may have been motivated by politics and others by wanting disclosure.)

When people tell me they are not racist, I wonder whether they are being dishonest or are trying to fool themselves.  It is extremely difficult not to be racist to some degree in our society.  But a great many Caucasians want to convince themselves that they are not racist.  Voting for President Obama and speaking well of him provided a great way for them to show that they are “not racist”.  President Obama benefited from that during his campaigns and his two terms as President.  It also extended to the press, who seemed very reluctant to criticize President Obama.

Recent polls indicate that President Obama has a 56% approval rating.  Yet Trump won because he represented change.  The “change” people wanted is from politicians in general, not President Obama solely.  However, if the populace wanted change from Republican politicians but not Democratic politicians, they would have voted for Clinton.  Therefore it appears to me that the voters were repudiating President Obama’s politics to a significant degree while they favor him personally.  That does not demonstrate racism in my opinion.

Supreme Court: I think the Supreme Court was a factor.  Hillary Clinton scared a lot of people by having a long list of litmus tests (see my comments in my “Where do we go from here?” post) that she would use to vet Supreme Court candidates to assure that they would serve as advocates rather than judges when appointed to the Supreme Court.

Rejection of President Obama: I think the biggest reason Trump won was the rejection of President Obama’s policies.  Clinton tied herself to President Obama and Trump tied Clinton to President Obama.  Clinton’s ties to President Obama were the single issue that both campaigns agreed upon.  Each candidate encouraged voters to decide based on this issue and the voters complied.

People wanted change primarily because President Obama divided our country (even though some may not have blamed him for it) and weakened us internationally.  They disliked “Obamacare” to a lesser degree and only some of the Obamacare dislike led to Trump (those who had wanted a government single-payer system were less likely to be Trump voters).  The deception involved in passing Obamacare helped Trump somewhat.

When President Obama got elected, the country was mostly elated.  People were excited to have an African-American president and hoped to see him succeed.  Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell made a stupid comment (“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”).

President Obama is a great speaker and motivator.  Had President Obama acknowledged the contributions and sufferings of various groups and asked them all to make sacrifices, I believe he could have had an extremely successful Presidency and a great legacy.    

Unfortunately, Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, and Barney Franks pressured President Obama to ram legislation through without any consideration of Republican ideas.  (Pelosi has publicly taken credit for this.)  They used McConnell’s statement and outright lies to trick their supporters into thinking that President Obama had reached out to Republicans but been rejected. 

Over the past six years, many friends have argued strenuously to me that President Obama reached out to Republicans.  But when I ask for evidence, they cite that President Obama said he reached out or they cite McConnell’s comment (which of course does not even address whether President Obama reached out).  I’ve been able to cite one example of “reaching out”, but Democratic internal correspondence has shown that effort was insincere, intended to entrap Republicans rather than reach out.  (Please note that I have never taken the position that the Republicans would have responded positively had President Obama reached out to them.  I don’t know and harbor significant doubts.  But I believe that he did not do so.)

Because he spurned working with Republicans and/or because Republicans did not like his proposed health care program, he was dependent on every Democrat vote.  Unfortunately, the “blue-dog” Democrats did not like PPACA because they believed it would drive up the debt.  So President Obama tried strong inducements (some were rolled back because they were determined to be illegal) and other pressure to get those Democrats to vote for his health plan.  The result was that the blue-dog Democrats were voted out of Congress because they abandoned the principles cherished by their constituents.  They were replaced by Tea Party Republicans. 

Before I heard anyone else complain about President Obama inciting class warfare, I registered complaints about that to my wife and perhaps friends.  (Note: I had voted for President Obama in 2008, so this complaint was coming from a supporter at that time).  Instead of recognizing that business people pay a large percentage of our taxes and create a large number of jobs, yet appealing to them for sacrifices, President Obama chose to try to mobilize the country against business people.  Instead of strongly encouraging students to apply themselves to get a good education, he fostered the idea that they were being abused by the system and encouraged them to occupy Wall Street.

I’ve cited this legacy of President Obama for 6 years now, but it has not been obvious to people.  Most people have perceived that his health care program would be his legacy.

 But this election proved that many people are unhappy with President Obama’s presidency.  Our surprising election result seems likely to wipe out his health care program and some of his other legislation, leaving his divisiveness as one of this two greatest legacies.

The other legacy is his preference for a weak United States.  He took the position that we had wielded strength inappropriately and should withdraw from international influence.  While I disagreed with the foreign policy of George W. Bush, the world had a relatively peaceful second half of the 20^th-century, much of which was attributable to USA strength and leadership.

President Obama wanted to use more diplomacy than President George W. Bush.  More diplomacy would have been a good idea, if President Obama had been a strong negotiator internationally.  Unfortunately, he abandoned negotiation points unilaterally before negotiations started and made it clear that reaching agreement was more important to him than to the people on the “other side of the table”.  He seemed to have a “Pollyanna” belief that other countries would respond favorably to his sincere weak posture, rather than taking advantage of it.

He backed away repeatedly from our staunchest mid-eastern ally (Israel), confusing the Palestinians into thinking he would support their entry into the UN, then upsetting them when he did not do so.  He went “all in” on the Arab Spring, for example insisting that Egypt’s President Mubarak step down immediately rather than manage a peaceful transition.  He drew a red line in Syria then backed down.  These actions exposed a lack of understanding of his adversaries. 

I think President Obama’s two main legacies will be that he divided our country and weakened us internationally, opening the door to Trump’s success.  In other words, Trump is President Obama’s legacy.

Now that Trump is President-elect, where do we go from here?

I’ve been asked to comment on the following issues. 

1)      Where do we go from here?

2)      Why did Trump win?

3)      What caused the change at the end of the campaign?

In this post, I’ll address #1.  In another post, I’ve addressed #2.  I’m not sure if I will address #3.  Please remember these are just one person’s thoughts.

Where do we go from here?

Although I was an early and consistent “never Trump” person, I am taking an optimistic view.  As Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech, “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.”

In his victory speech, Trump voiced some encouraging intentions:

• He urged us to “dream big and bold and daring”
• He said he would seek “common ground, not hostility”, “partnership, not conflict” and would “deal fairly with everyone”.
• My favorite words from his victory speech were when he said he had “spent my entire life in business, looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world.  That is now what I want to do for our country.”  “Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential.”
• He also vowed to fix inner cities and infrastructure.

Would anyone disagree with those intentions?

As I noted in earlier writings during this campaign, I did not vote for some presidents who subsequently did quite well, in my opinion.  Many candidates change when they become president, most often shifting toward the center, which enables them to accomplish more and makes them more acceptable to people who voted against them.

Trump seems more unpredictable than any previous president-elect in my lifetime because he is a pragmatist and inexperienced in politics.  Past inconsistencies make it harder to anticipate his actions.  Until now, he has not had to put together a political administration and develop a comprehensive program.  However, he has much more management experience than many past presidents.  Whether we voted for him or not, we owe it to our country to give him the benefit of the doubt and to help fulfill the admirable goals of his victory speech.

With a Republican Senate and House, Trump has a stronger chance to be able to affect change.  However, it is important to recognize that many of the Republican legislators were not Trump supporters and that Trump is quite independent himself, often supporting positions which have typically been Democratic rather than Republican.  As a pragmatist, Trump may be more concerned results than how goals are achieved.  For these reasons, there may be an opportunity for vigorous discussion which may stimulate more creativity and healthy cross-party votes on legislation. 

Separation of Powers may be less at risk.  Many of the Republicans in Congress have been staunch defenders of the Constitution.  Trump will likely roll back President Obama’s aggressive executive orders.  Hopefully, Trump will not issue new executive orders of that type.  With a Republican legislature, he has less reason to do so and he may want to set a good example for the future.  I suspect that my friends who supported President Obama’s power grabs despite my protests are now more accepting that such power grabs are wrong regardless of which side is doing the grabbing.

The Supreme Court should have fewer vacancies under Trump than would have been the case under Clinton.  Ginsburg, in particular, is likely to try to hold on until another Democratic president comes to office.  Breyer and Kennedy may take a similar approach. 

Unfortunately, with our aging Supreme Court, we could have a constitutional crisis if one of the judges shows signs of dementia.  The only option to remove a judge is to impeach the judge for bad behavior.  Particularly because of the momentous impact of selecting a new judge, there would likely be strong disagreement as to whether the judge had dementia and whether his/her condition justified impeachment.

Although Trump did not adopt Clinton’s position that the nature of the court should be changed from judges to advocates, he did cite two “litmus tests” – pro-life and pro-gun. 

I hope litmus tests will not be applied.  Litmus tests are inappropriate because justices should not decide cases until they have heard the evidence and the pleadings of the attorneys and have discussed the principles with each other.

Relative to particular issues:

·         In foreign policy, Trump seems much less likely to ignore a “red line” he has drawn.  I hope he is wise in identifying when and how to draw such lines.  I am a strong believer in diplomacy, but diplomacy works best when there is strength behind it.  (Teddy Roosevelt’s “walk softly but carry a big stick”.)  Trump seems to believe in having clear strength.

·         Relative to international trade, it is easier to negotiate a good deal when your leader has limited the other side’s expectations, which Trump has already done.  I hope we can negotiate good deals and maintain them without rupturing relationships.  Renegotiating past deals is risker, because it can undermine trust that lasting deals can be reached with the USA.  I hope Trump proves wise in such efforts.

·         I have always felt that the vast majority of citizens can be satisfied if we stem illegal immigration and then address amnesty.  Amnesty with leaky borders encourages more illegal entries.  I’d guess that Trump will support more visas for people with vital skills needed by an organization.  I can imagine significant progress on the immigration issue during a Trump presidency.

·         Relative to guns, I believe some politicians spurned widely-accepted legislation because they feared less public support for their more extreme goals if some restrictions were put in place.  Their peers might abandon politicians taking such a stance.  I’m hopeful progress can be made that will satisfy most people.

·         Trump should be able to stimulate a positive turn-around in the formation of small businesses and more hiring in large businesses.  But it is really up to all of us.  A healthy culture, including an emphasis on education and hard work, and a strong economy should stimulate business development, hence more jobs.  My impression is that Reagan’s trickle-down approach did not work optimally because too many employers reaped benefits, rather than finding ways to support “trickle down”.  We should have another chance now and hopefully will manage the economy in a way that instills hope among those of us who have not yet achieved economic success.

People often tell me that those who are financially poor will always vote for hand-outs.  I don’t think that is true.  Over the course of our history, such people have had hope to improve themselves and have supported the capitalist system.  We must foster hope rather than a welfare mentality, by reducing the need for a safety net and maintaining a safety net in a fashion which rewards productivity.  Ms. Clinton’s ideas to encourage employee-owned companies deserve consideration.

·         The national debt is a particularly important issue to me.  I was a big fan of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles proposal.  Unfortunately, I do not foresee this issue being effectively addressed in the new administration.  I pray I am wrong in that regard.

·         I hope President Trump decides not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  Her mishandling of her emails has already cost her the election, which is punishment enough.  She has learned her lesson and will not be receiving classified information in the future anyway.  There is little to gain and much to lose from prosecuting her.

I believe peaceful protests are the right of our citizens and can be healthy expressions of opinion.  However, I believe they should be focused on issues.  Calls for impeachment before Trump takes office are inappropriate.  “He’s not my president” is inaccurate and rudeness is counter-productive.  Regardless of which presidential candidate we favored, we can perhaps help people channel their frustrations in a positive fashion.

Does everyone have a right to the best medicine?

A friend recently asked me what I think about the following:

UN Human Rights  Council says everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  Here are my thoughts:

As I wrote in my health care paper years ago, there are 3 different types of health care system which can work:

·         One-payer
·         Assured floor with rising tide that helps all ships
·         Libertarian

I favor the “rising tide” approach but people have the right to vote for any of those approaches.  Fortunately, there are some common principles which apply across all three types.  Unfortunately, those principles are not adhered to.

I don’t agree with the belief that everyone has a right to everything.  Essentially, this is the belief that everybody has the right to equal results, as opposed to equal opportunity. 

Health advances have occurred thanks to efforts in two sectors:

·         Government initiatives in terms of sanitation, requiring vaccination, etc.
·         Private enterprise – the medical advances discussed here fall into that sector.

The private sector advances have occurred because individuals have had incentive to take a variety of risks in order to pursue advancement.  Over time, all the advancements have reduced in cost, hence become available to a broader population.  Charitable organizations have contributed to spreading availability.

The risks are greater today than ever because:

·         Lawsuits make it scary to make many of these products available today.  Products have been pulled off the market.  Research is dulled also as a result.  This is a significant market access issue that the UN Human Rights Council seems to have ignored.

·         Government processes increase costs substantially and make returns more delayed and less certain.  This impacts price substantially.  Some of it (maybe a lot of it) is justified.  But there is also a restriction on human rights when a government forbids an individual from using a medicine that individual wants to use, as well as an impact on price and development.

·         Competition is much more severe in all aspects of business in the world today.  So you can get beaten to market or have a very short-lived product.

Nonetheless

1.    Profits might be too high in pharmaceuticals, but that is a huge topic that can’t be adequately addressed here.  I don’t like the short-term views of corporate management, in general.  Part of the short-term view is attributable to larger cities and more distant competition.  Businesses no longer have the same relationship with their local communities.  I’m not sure how to change this.  It is partly cultural.  However, encouraging more entrants generally leads to more competitive pricing. New technology in dealing with RNA and DNA enables gene-splicing very inexpensively, which lowers barriers and costs, helping to develop new medicines and reducing cost.  We need to encourage such competition, not discourage it.

2.    Certainly there is an opportunity to provide better health services worldwide.  For example, I love generics, but the inventor must be protected for an appropriate amount of time.

The UN Human Rights Council proposes to “delink medical research and development from the prices of medicines, diagnostics and vaccines”.  The article gave no indication of how they propose to do so.

What is Patriotism?

Robert Reich created this YouTube video What is Patriotism?, in which he defines 5 principles of patriotism.

Here are my alternative 5 principles of patriotism:

1.      Work toward the common good.

2.      Pay fair share of taxes.

3.      Respectfully discuss issues honestly and educate the public.

4.      Avoid overburdening future generations with crushing debt.

5.      Protect individual rights (including but not limited to free speech) and the separation of powers

Reich argues that we should love our government rather than hate it and we should work to improve it.  Unfortunately, Reich supports huge central government which is NOT patriotism.  Patriotism involves protecting individual rights.  It is striking that, other than the freedom to vote, Reich’s 5 principles do not mention defending individual freedom, which is the foundation of our government.  Nor does he cite the importance of separation of powers, which I think is the most important governmental characteristic that has made our country great.  Separation of powers is fragile, threatened and must be defended.  Government has a role in protecting our rights, but we must be diligent to avoid providing government powers that can lead to oppression.

Protecting the right to vote includes protecting the legitimacy of the vote.  Identification is required for many mundane things in our daily lives, yet he opposes protecting the legitimacy of vote which he cherishes.  Unfortunately, Reich and his allies have shown no interest in finding a solution to avoid election fraud, instead simply arguing fatuously that it does not exist. It does not exist?  Reich’s allies funded substantial voter fraud performed by ACORN.  We had an election in Missouri that was decided by one vote; a relative of the “winner” voted in the wrong district, thereby deciding the election.  There may well have been other fraudulent votes as well.

Reich urges that we not “buy off politicians”.  Of course, this is “apple pie”, but it is a narrow issue to address.  More broadly, politicians’ integrity should be a key litmus test in voting.  Instead most voters reward dirty politics, false campaign promises, etc.  If politicians are being bought off, we are voting for the wrong people.

Reich cites being involved politically as a principle of patriotism.  Our involvement should protect and respect free speech and educate voters by clearly defining the issues and potential consequences.  Politicians in both parties provide slanted, emotional and even false information, ignoring valid points their opponents make, preferring to persuade citizens to disrespect their opponent’s positions.  Reich’s allies are particularly guilty of trying to limit speech which is not “politically correct”.  Such repression has been typical of our universities, for example, for generations.

Reich’s 5 principles include not pandering to divisiveness.  I agree strongly, but Reich strongly supports spending money we don’t have to pander to uninformed voters at the expense of future generations.  Driving our country into insolvency is the antithesis of patriotism, in my opinion.

George Gordon is right: we need respectful discussion

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/as-i-see-it/article87291222.html

I applaud George Gordon’s “As I See It” article in the KC Star on July 4, 2016 (link above)!  We certainly need more respect for different opinions.  If probed, we'd find more common values than each side may think exist.

In Mr. Gordon's article, he did not mean to say that, in general, either side is devoid in the values of the other, solely that one side favors them more.  In some cases, the sides are much closer than people might think.  For example, the sides each value creativity, but different types of creativity, in general.

A key difference that I suspect Mr. Gordon would agree to add is that the "Main Street" mentality is more concerned about creating burdensome debt that will crush our society and our descendants.

I disagree (could be worked out by discussion) with his position that the "Liberal Arts" group values freedom of thought more than the "Main Street" group.  My observation is directly opposite.  For example, there have been repressions of freedom of thought on our campuses for decades.  The "Liberal Arts" (aka "left") has largely supported freedom of thought only for those who share their "politically correct" opinions.

We greatly need to have respectful discussion particularly among politicians and need political leadership that works successfully at bringing us together rather than dividing us.  Unfortunately, we have not had a president with a unifying approach since Bill Clinton 16 years ago and both of our 2016 presidential candidates have historically been dividers rather than unifiers.