“Less Is More” in U.S. Presidents, Too?

“Less is more” is a kind of corollary of the golden rule that “that government is best that governs least.”

It never occurred to me in quite these words, but, when it comes to choosing our next President, “Less is more” is a kind of corollary of the golden rule that “that government is best that governs least.” This comparison began to take shape over many weeks of soul-searching, by which I mean consulting with my basic principles and values, about the candidacy of Donald J. Trump versus Hillary R. Clinton—a decision Americans must make next Tuesday.

Now, I see it almost in terms of a list. What doesn’t Donald Trump have? We could play with such a list, of course, beginning with his lack of a competent hair stylist, but my purpose, here, is serious.

Trump has no experience in political office. At age 70, his lifelong perspective has been that of a businessman trying to develop major construction projects in one of America’s most over-regulated cities, a corporate taxpayer, an investor—but never a politician. He notably is running against Washington a true outsider.

Trump is just not attuned to identity politics—the sacred—call it, obsessive—cause of politicians as well as those in education, academia, and the media: identity politics. While Ms. Clinton never speaks without addressing the supposed interests of Whites versus African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, American citizens versus illegal aliens, Blacks versus White law enforcement, gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals versus other Americans, and women versus men, this perspective seems absent from the thinking of Donald Trump. The only “identity” politics he raises are concerns about some 10-million or more individuals who have entered the United States illegally and so have incentives to avoid legal authority in all areas including taxes, Social Security, law-enforcement, and so on.

Trump has not built his career on any political constituencies—because he has not been in politics. He is not beholden to the hugely powerful teachers’ unions, the huge business lobbies such as the Chamber of Commerce and multi-million-dollar Wall Street donors, labor unions, various industries from energy to high technology, U.S. veterans’ groups…  Yes, some powerful groups have chosen to back him, including big bucks from the National Rifle Association (a cheap political date, since all they want is no new laws or regulations), veterans’ groups (a valid concern of government), and some business interests.

Trump’s support is among white voters without a college education (not sure why that is so important, though); they do not tend to be the source of huge financial contributions.

Notably, his support is among white voters without a college education (not sure why that is so important, though); they do not tend to be the source of huge financial contributions.

In fact, Mr. Trump has run a notoriously “cheap” campaign, raising less than half the funds that Ms. Clinton has raised, and he has put tens of millions of his own money into his campaign. No one has bought him and, given his wealth, no one can.

Mr. Trump has not been baptized, as has Ms. Clinton, into the religion of radical environmentalism, with its worship of the “natural” over the science, engineering, technology, and industry that meet the needs of human beings and make possible the economic prosperity that the radical environmentalists view as a threat to the planet. Mr. Trump does not attack environmentalism or deny it; he is reasonable, but just not sold on it as is Hillary Clinton, who lists “global warming” it as the number one threat to our future. His “Contract with America” pledges that on his first day in office he will initiate steps to reclaim from the United Nations the billions our country has handed over to environmentalists. He will focus his environmental program on clear air and clean water.

Mr. Trump does not view regulation as synonymous with the government’s power to do good and an automatic answer to any problem in any sector of American life. In fact, as a real-estate developer in New York City, where housing costs are triple and quadruple the rest of America—and still little housing is available—he understands that regulation is simply the “business,” the prosperity, the power of bureaucrats. In his “Contract with America,” he pledges a rule that for every new regulation proposed two existing regulations must cut.

Mr. Trump has not run his election with the support of the Republican Party; if he wins, he will not owe the party the slightest obeisance. That is rare, if not unique, in American history. There is one exception to this, and I view it as an important concern. Mr. Trump’s most fervent, numerous supporters include many Christian evangelicals who constitute the Republican party “base.” As must every candidate to have any chance at the Republican nomination, Mr. Trump had to pay lip service to “the right to life.” We know and his enemies have said again and again that that is not his real position. Nor can I recall ever hearing him emphasize it in speeches or the debates. What Mr. Trump did do is name Michael Pence his vice-presidential candidate and Mr. Spence is a serious Christian and leader of the right-to-life movement. I view this as a negative for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump, his enemies will whole-heartedly agree, lacks any sense of the “politically correct” (that is not true, just listen to pre-campaign Trump, who can be sensitive, politic, and strictly correct) in his campaign rhetoric or concerns. In 2009, President Obama had an opportunity to appoint an associate justice of the Supreme Court and chose Sonia Maria Sotomayer, thereby crossing himself by touching both “woman” and “Hispanic heritage.” We will see how she votes on the latest celebrated case to be accepted by the court: the right of transgendered individuals to decide on the public restroom of their choice. A Black President appoints a female Hispanic-American member of the Supreme Court to decide a case on transgendered individuals. Does that deliberately provocative characterization prove anything? No, of course not. But when Ms. Clinton in the debates was asked how she would make appointments to the Supreme Court, she answered with a long list of identity-politics concerns. She never mentioned the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Trump was succinct. He would appoint justices to uphold the U.S. Constitution, he said.

Mr. Trump brings scant foreign policy experience to the White House. As a businessman, he has considerable familiarity with the trade regulations, foreign competition, currency wars, and tariff changes that affect American enterprise in a global economy. In that area, he has definite ideas and it is not clear if they aim at “fair trade” or protectionism. It has been pointed out, again and again, that his goals can be achieved without protectionism; but there is no guarantee he will act that way. In other fields of foreign policy, Mr. Trump has no experience, but, then, neither did Ronald Reagan, who, based on clear principles and firm commitments, ushered in the end of the Soviet evil empire. Jimmy Carter had no foreign policy experience and was a disaster; Bill Clinton, too, had no special foreign policy experience. Nor did George W. Bush or Barrack Obama. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state for eight years, has a great deal of foreign policy experience, foreign travel, and familiarity with foreign governments and leaders.

How upset will President Trump be if the “New York Times” reports that school children are having bad dreams about his global warming policy?

Mr. Trump has not the slightest indebtedness to the media (laugh, here), nor incentive to heed their exhortations, or take seriously their urgings and recommendations. Sitting in the Oval Office, on a future morning, weighing decisions on policy, pity the obtuse aide or advisor who says, “Well, the New York Times urges that you… and CNN would editorialize in your favor if you… ” If Trump becomes our next President, it will in spite of the very worst the mainstream media can do. How upset will President Trump be if the “New York Times” reports that school children are having bad dreams about his global warming policy?

Trump is not stuck with the Affordable Care Act. He has said that if elected he will seek to repeal it; his alternative is tax-exempt medical savings accounts. As the most significant single legislative measure achieved by the Obama administration, there is no way Clinton will change Obamacare. It sounds as though she intends to fix its problems by extending it toward a truly socialized system.

Trump, to say the very least, will not ride into the White House on a wave of anti-gun, gun-control fervor—but Clinton will. Both are unequivocal. Trump will uphold the Second Amendment; Clinton will uphold her own version of the Second Amendment.

Trump will not bring into the White House a spouse with an admitted record of using the most powerful position in the world to seduce a 22-year-old White House intern. I mean, with Bill back in the White House what will be the special precautions to protect the youngest, most vulnerable women on the staff? Maybe he could be limited to kissing them inappropriately and on his birthday groping one.

What Donald Trump would not bring to the Oval Office is either proof positive that he is totally unqualified to be President or is the “less” that is more.

Well, in spite of best efforts, this list has degenerated to the level of a “New York Times” editorial on the campaign, so I will stop here.

Depending upon almost your “world view”—your version of something we now call “American values”—what Donald Trump would not bring to the Oval Office is either proof positive that he is totally unqualified to be President or is it the “less” that is more.

Related Posts:

1. 20 Reasons Objectivists and Libertarians Should Vote for Trump in 2020
2. The Debate Was “Folly”—but Ask What It Accomplished
3. An Open Letter to Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia

   

About the Author: Walter Donway

Walter Donway contributes to Savvy Street on political economy, science, and trends in fiction, film, and culture. Walter Donway’s most recent book is Donald Trump and His Enemies: How the Media Put Trump in Office (Romantic Revolution Books: New York, September 2017). His Amazon profile can be found here