Posted on 01/25/2016 5:52:45 AM PST by Kaslin
Politically we appear to be living in the year of the outsider. Donald Trump has shocked the established political class and its loyal journalistic following. Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders are upsetting governing elites almost as much as Trump. The public says it is angry and isn't going to take it anymore.
Yet the prescription offered by these three candidates is very different. The Donald constantly trumpets that he is a deal maker. Cruz and Sanders are more interested in the substance of the deal and always ready to say no deal.
There's no doubt that politics involves compromise. Even such dominant figures as Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan had to accept less than what they wanted.
However, all of them started with strong convictions as to what needed to be done. From there they pushed to get as much as they could. And they compromised when there was no alternative. For them, deal-making was not a substitute for principle, but the culmination of principle. How do you put your beliefs into practice?
For Donald Trump deal-making appears to be the end, not the means. Hence his book, The Art of the Deal. Businessmen who've worked with him say he is most interested in the hunt and loses interest after he bags his prey.
In the presidential race he rarely offers policy prescriptions beyond generalities and platitudes. He will make Mexico build a wall, for instance. What seems to excite him about being president is the same thing which energized him in business. "The problem with Washington, they don't make deals, it's all gridlock," he proclaimed. "I'll get everybody together. We'll make great deals for the country."
But what precisely are those "great deals"? Trump complained that President Barack Obama "signs executive orders because he can't get anything done." Actually, the president has done pretty well politically--unfortunately!
He won passage of a budget-busting "stimulus" bill that enriched Washington more than the public. He pushed through a health care "reform" measure which turned American medicine over to the federal government. And he has used presidential power to pursue his agenda even against the Republican congressional majority--which was no more interested in making "great deals" with the president than he was with the GOP.
Trump made a similar criticism of Cruz, who "doesn't have the support of one other Republican Senator." Complained Trump: "Guys like Ted Cruz will never make a deal because he's a strident guy."
Actually, Cruz has resisted deal-making in Congress not because he is strident but because he is principled. Much the same can be said of Bernie Sanders. For these two senators, the reason to be in office is not to pass legislation, but to pass what they consider good legislation. If that proves impossible, they are unafraid of gridlock.
Think about some of the most celebrated political deals, which have proved to be disastrous in practice. Ronald Reagan's 1983 tax-hike plan: the promised three-for-one in spending cuts never materialized. George H.W. Bush's abandoned "read my lips" promise to oppose tax hikes. Before the Democrats lost control of Congress Bill Clinton won big increases in outlays and taxes, which he later admitted were too high. George W. Bush and the Republican Congress passed a huge Medicare drug benefit which they made no attempt to pay for.
Then, as mentioned earlier, there's Barack Obama who, with the help of his Democratic friends in Congress, won approval of the "Affordable Care Act" that we never will be able to afford. They also gave us hundreds of billions of dollars in economic "stimulus" which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes even millions of dollars, for every job "created"--without boosting the economy. The president has made dubious agreements with Cuba and Iran; he's trying to make another on Syria and there's talk about him reaching out to North Korea. Imagine the other horrible "deals" which he might have made had Republicans not won control of Congress.
So the next time a presidential candidate, any presidential candidate, starts talking about making deals, the right question is: what kind of deals? Would the new policy protect Americans' property and liberty? Would the new law respect our liberty? Would the new regulation advance our prosperity? Would the new measure bolster the moral foundations of our society?
If not, as president he or she should say "no deal!"
It's true that Washington isn't working. It certainly isn't serving the people. But the answer is not to elect a dealmaker. Rather, Americans need to elect a maker of good deals.
Well as Trump says time after time these are idiots making these kinds of deals...at least on the Republican side.
“There’s More to Being President Than Deal-Making”
So true...like, for instance, the recent Obama(/Kerry) Iran deal.
Pathetic.
he will be able to make offers that dare not be refused
now that’s going to be the deal
‘Ronald Reagan’s 1983 tax-hike plan: the promised three-for-one in spending cuts never materialized. George H.W. Bush’s abandoned “read my lips” promise to oppose tax hikes.
Both times, the Democrats lied.
I’m not sure it’s been asserted by anyone that being President ONLY involves deal making. Of course there’s more to it. Who said there wasn’t? Goofy premise for the author to straddle.
There’s more to being president than community organizing and golf vacations.....
Guess nobody told him.
Please, if nothing but for today, let’s respond to what is posted!
No ‘poo’ flinging.
No denigrating the poster.
Just plain old courtesy and staying on topic.
If we can’t do that why even open or read the post. Somehow the computer here will let me go to another post.
Take care.........pilgrim
Gorby was the spitting image of my late father. Even my mother thought so.
If Obamalamadingdong can do it, anyone can do it. There are no standards after Obama.
He keeps saying stuff like that.
Here's a great test. Here he is whining about Megyn Kelly who will be asking him questions in the next debate.
Instead of whining about her he should show us his great power of persuasion with FNC and show how he can scare FNC into removing her from the debate.
But now it looks like he is just whining about it.
There are words and there are actions, Trump is words as shown by this.
I agree. Trump says GOOD Deals.
There’s no place where he has said he wants bad deals.
You used the word “whining” three times. I see it as eating up news cycles. People still don’t get what he’s doing.
If he isn’t generating something to talk about, the focus shifts back to the dwarfs running against him. The other candidates are dying for publicity and DT is doing his wrestler promotion thing. Maybe next year people will have caught on.
Please!!! Leave off complaining about what articles are posted here. Kaslin is a regular and valuable contributor here.
Don't like the subject matter? Scroll past it. Or find something in it to disagree with.
He should just bend over and take it like a good Republican?
The problem is that the vast majority of politicians are in office for themselves. They want to accomplish something, anything really, so they can point to it for re-election and perpetuate their source of power, prestige and wealth.
Frankly, I would prefer a do-nothing Congress. No laws are better than more bad laws. My record of posts show that while I support Cruz I have been complimentary of Trump and very glad that between the two of them they have taken out the establishment Republicans. However, my biggest complaint with McConnell and Boehner/Ryan has been their willingness to accept a bad deal as opposed to no deal. Cruz is being criticized for being the one saying to just walk away from the table until you get a better deal. I hope that Trump criticizing Cruz for not being willing to strike a deal is just politics and not indicative of a proclivity to take a bad deal instead of walking away from it.
The executive branch is about executing the laws passed by Congress, and the President specifically is the Commander in Chief.
The President also represents the country in foreign policy and is the defacto head of their party.
That said, Trump excels in recruiting some of the best managers and he allows them to manage well. He does not micro manage—He sets the vision and expects his staff to work towards that vision. That is the sign of an excellent leader.
Negotiating is a major part of working towards his vision. A good negotiator understand the landscape, and understands what he needs to “win” for his side, while allowing the other side to win as well. Trump is a 10 out of 10 on this as well.
I am not impressed by his campaign style, which I find too boisterous and full of some pretty off the wall statements.
That said, if he were to be elected I think you would see Trump the manager/executive/leader. Those who did not vote for him the first time will find him to be fair and willing to give in order to get. Those who find him “conservative” today will be a little disappointed, but will find his “patriotic” stances and his dedication to the country to be very attractive.
As a politician, I am not a fan. I have been a fan of his management style since the “Art of the Deal.” We could do a lot worse for President—and we have since 1988.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.