Trump Ascends to the Cherry Blossom Throne - Tyler

We are two days post election and already seeing people predicting what a potential Trump Administration will look like. Estimates are all over the place, with the people who confidently predicted Trump could never beat Hillary confidently predicting how his administration will be run. Obviously, they have learned nothing. If we are to understand what a Trump Administration will look like, we must consider and accept a few facts to develop a reasonable analysis.

First, Trump is unprecedented in what he has done, and the way he did it. Running a guerilla campaign, the man put to bed the two most prominent political dynasties in the US (the Bushes and the Clintons), in his first national campaign. A reminder: this is a group that contains: 3 former presidents, two governors, a senator, a secretary of state, and the director of the CIA. This is not a feat that should be underplayed or disregarded. I say this because there is a tendency to regard Trump as an “amateur”, and this is reminiscent of the “he is not really trying!” rhetoric we heard during certain parts of the campaign. Keep in mind this accomplishment when trying to figure out how he will go forward or making ridiculous claims.

We must also consider who did not support Trump, and who did. The “NeverTrump” faction was mostly neocons who were upset about his Jacksonian style engagement, and wanted a hot war with Russia over Syria, Pussy Riot, and transsexual bathrooms. The appearance of those who espouse certain neocon platitudes (Bolton, Flynn), should be noted, but it should also be taken into consideration that Trump is a deviously fast learner. The man saw the pitfalls and tar babies that the Bush II and Obama Administrations entered, won the Presidency partially on saying he’d avoid foreign entanglements, and I imagine he knows very well who these people are and what they want. In the case of Bolton, the man’s boisterous nature over certain foreign policy entanglements is offset by the fact he seems very “America First” when it comes to foreign policy. However, the hardcore neocons such as Krauthammer and Wolfowitz will not be allowed within missile distance of a Trump Administration. I wouldn’t freak out about Trump bringing in certain personages, as he seems to adopt the maxim about “friends close, enemies closer”.

The two largest ideological brakes on any neocon influence will be Senator Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller. These two men are very much opposed to the “invade the world, invite the world” of neocons like McCain and the others, and seem to play some very vital, important role in his administration beyond what their public personage suggests. I would not be surprised to find out that they wield as much influence with the man as Ivanka, and their usage in his administration is likely going to be spectacular in some way. Remember, Sessions has been the Godfather of Immigration Enforcement hawkishness, and is a leading senior senator to boot. The man will get what he wants and can make it happen finally.

More on this. Finally, let us consider Trump personally. While much is made of his oversized, boisterous personality, when we consider the private man we see a different side that is thoughtful, analytical, and not prone to hasty decisions. To borrow a reference from popular culture, he is Tywin Lannister in a way, where he states that if his enemies bend the knee, it is his responsibility to help them to their feet. Look at his treatment of Ted Cruz for instance. While their relationship is tense, Trump hasn’t held Cruz at length, but instead brought him into the campaign. The same goes for Christie, Carson, and others. Each of these men is going to have a role in the new Trump Administration. I would not be surprised if Cruz gets a SCOTUS nod, depending on factors such as how hard will Cruz work for Trump in the Senate.

So, what policies will Trump bring in his first six months? Right now, it seems health care reform and tax reform are on the table, as well as infrastructure. All things we can get behind. I cannot speculate exactly on what is planned, but I will make three broad points on these issues. Health care reform will not be the usual Republican giveaway to big business, but will have a decidedly populist bent while not being socialized for everyone. People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up, but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs. Look for large tax cuts to the middle class as well as corporate tax reform, and infrastructure reform will include funding the wall. Trump will get this by slicing off the Populist Wing of the Democratic Party (Warren & Sanders) and giving them trophies to wave around as showing that they are “with the people”. These overtures have already been made, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered one or two them positions in his Administration.

Foreign policy wise, Trump will begin rapprochements with Russia and other “nationalist/populist” governments across the world, such as those Eastern European countries that refused to heed the diktats of the EU. Trump married an Eastern European after all, and one of his ex-wives is Eastern European. Obviously, the man has a fondness for the region. Look for closer ties with these countries beyond “catspaw against Russia”.

Speaking of Russia, look for an axis to form between the two countries with respect not only for spheres of influence, but cultural considerations as well. There will be less of the attempt to impose secular hedonism on the world, but instead a respect for how each nation tends to its affairs. Ironically, it will be an actual diversity instead of the faux diversity espoused by the globalist adherents of secular hedonism. In the short term, look for the conflict in Syria to wrapped up neatly (as these things go), by the end of the year.

On the domestic front, you are already seeing the resurrection of the paid Soros mobs that exist to sow chaos and attempt to cause an overreaction by the authorities. Think of these as domestic “color revolutions” and funded Maidan Squares. Again, the Left doubles down on a failed policy. It refuses to realize that Trump ran on a law and order platform, and he knows what he owes the people who put him in power. You will see a series of short, sharp responses from an unchained law enforcement able to do its job. There will be the usual MSM propaganda showing the one bleeding baby and woman while claiming that you had a (white) police officer giving them the business with both hands on his nightstick. Rioters will inevitably be classified as “peaceful protesters” even as the vehicles are on fire around them. The MSM will further lose cachet. Some of you wonder why Trump wants to expand libel laws against the media – here is why. It is the nature of the Left, which is in permanent revolution, to overplay its hand. We are seeing it again.

On immigration, Trump does not need to pass broad sweeping laws. He only needs to enforce the ones on the books, something the Obama Administration has not been doing. Look for cries of outrage when Trump replaces many US Attorneys (like when Bush II did the same), and remember this wasn’t an issue when Obama did the same thing. Cutting off aid to sanctuary cities, enforcing immigration law, and making the process of living in the US so onerous for those here illegally will go a long way to reducing our illegal alien population.

Remember when I mentioned Senator Sessions? I would not be surprised if he has stacks of papers on what can already be done. Again, look for more staged incidents of “brutality” in order to attempt to shape a narrative. You are about to be surprised by the amount of would be doctors and rocket scientists claiming to exist in the illegal alien population. Furthermore, Trump does not need to pass a law to build a wall. He simply needs it in the budget. I imagine he will have no problem getting that and pointing towards anyone who attempts to obstruct it as putting the needs of foreign citizens before US citizens. This is powerful rhetoric.

I’ll close by saying let us remember that “everyone” said Trump couldn’t win. Trump did win. Do not make the mistake of assuming Trump won’t do what he says he’s done so you can sleep easier, forming opinions on a mirage you create in the space of your mind. Instead, my friends on the Left, worry that he will not only do what he said he would, but he’ll go above and beyond, and the people will love him for it.

Comments

[BillWade]

"The MSM will further lose cachet." Geez, I didn't know they had any left at all, lol. Folks will say they were just not smart enough about their polling but my own opinion is that they used their own numbers in order to sway the election. I would have much preferred Ron Paul but Trump is fine with me.

[Muzaffar Ali]

President Trump, Zinda Baad.

Translation: Long Live President Trump!

[John Minnerath]

Well done Tyler.

[Joe100]

Well done and hope you are as right here as on the election!

Any thoughts on China/South Asia?

[Martin Oline]

Very good, Tyler. Thank you for this. I'm impressed. I've read a lot of opinions here on what Trump will do but they are just wild a$$ed guesses in my opinion. How can anyone know what another will think or do.
You have obviously studied the man and the people around him and I find your analysis knowledgeable and insightful. I hope that you are correct.

[irf520]

"I imagine he knows very well who these people are and what they want."

Babylon 5 fan?

[Tyler]

An addendum:

Trump needs do only two things to succeed.

- Not start a shooting war with Russia
- Follow the law

That's it. I include Obamacare under "Follow the Law" because it is currently held up by an unwieldy foundation of administrative diktats, groaning under its own weight. This is his power, his Trump card, if you will. Argue all you want to, but the reality is that while Trump is not responsible for Obamacare like the Dems are, he controls what will happen with it. Not Pelosi. Not Schumer. If he steps back and says "I'm just going to follow the law as written" that thing is DONE the next day in spectacular fashion.

To quote Dune: "The power to destroy a thing is absolute control over it." Remember that going forward.

He will give the Democrats one chance to pass what he decides, he will even bring them into the process to give them some investment in it, but if they try to stymie him he will let them have exactly what they want, and wait for the 2018 elections for them to get swept out in the tide. Because you know what? If he does let Obamacare collapse under its own weight, he will make sure that everyone knows its the Democrats causing them the pain because they refuse to fix it. So they will have two choices: save themselves or save the legacy of an unpopular president who will never run again.

I think we know how these creatures will run.

[Dante Alighieri]

Is it just me, or why has Trump fanboy blather so much in common with the Obama fanboy blather of 8 years ago? Disappointment is sure to come and will be in the same order of magnitude.

[Tyler]

Why thank you, John.

[Tyler]

Joe100,

I do not see the global hegemony in the South China Sea issue being the main thrust with China. The trade stuff is where the real issue is going to happen. Look for China to either phase in a currency valuation or face increasing tariffs on their goods.

[Tyler]

irf,

No. Is that a reference then?

[Tyler]

Martin,

I understand the interplay between one's demeanor, and one's nature. The former can be flipped on a dime depending on circumstances. The latter though, is intrinsic.

Everything about Trump points to someone who is not simply the brash New Yawker that sells Trump Steaks and does pizza commercials. There is a depth to the man who presents that persona because he realizes it is better to have your faults overestimated and your virtues underestimated by friends and enemies alike.

[Mishkilji]

One of Stephen Miller's intellectual godfathers is David Horowitz. It will be interesting to see how the anti-Zionist tone of this forum deals with this pro-Zionist strand in the Trump Administration.

[Tyler]

Obama was a cipher that white liberals could project their fantasies on and had the entire MSM at his beck and call just to beat a tired Senator who wanted to give us 4 more years of Bush after two wars that were quagmires.

Trump defeated the two leading political dynasties in the country in his first national campaign while flying around on his personal 757 with 24k seat belts to win a 300+EV blowout with the entire media and political establishment.

Do you really think there is commonality here, or are you concern trolling?

[Swampy]

Trump =/= Obama.

Come on, Dante. But if you insist, Obama never really gave a f--- about most Americans, while Trump cares about all of us.

And if he goes the normal way of disappointment prone to career politicians, His name, his brand and his rep is forever tarnished. The same things he spent his entire life building. Someone who worked tirelessly and accomplish a feat of this magnitude, is someone who simply does not regard the responsibility lightly.

You're welcome to wallow in whatever miserable reality you imagine.

[kao_hsien_chih]

I think there is much to be cautiously optimistic about the coming Trump administration. Trump has right general intuitions about many policy ideas, foreign and domestic, but being from outside the Beltway is both a boon and a curse. I didn't trust Obama much when he came in, and in retrospect, I am actually pleasantly surprised that he managed to outperform my expectations, even if he let down many who expected him to perform miracles. I remain convinced that Trump is Obama dressed in a different suit of clothes, but I'm also convinced that he is a man of both considerable ability and some principles who will try to do the right thing when he can. I don't expect him to perform miracles, but I think he'll be at least alright and, maybe, he will be able to do great things.

Whatever the case, he will be our president and I believe we have a moral obligation to treat him with the goodwill that he deserves.

[GulfCoastPirate]

Tyler,

As I read this I was laughing uncontrollably but not at you for writing it. What you are describing is one of the biggest Keynesians since FDR to occupy the White House.

You wrote:

' Right now, it seems health care reform and tax reform are on the table, as well as infrastructure. All things we can get behind. I cannot speculate exactly on what is planned, but I will make three broad points on these issues. Health care reform will not be the usual Republican giveaway to big business, but will have a decidedly populist bent while not being socialized for everyone. People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up, but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs.'

What you are describing is single payer via payroll deduction much like Social Security. FDR couldn't have written it better himself (if you know anything of the history of Social Security). In this way everyone is invested in the system and everyone (or at least most - you take care of the rest through something like Medicaid) pays something into the system. Remember, Obamacare was a Heritage Foundation creation that used forced entry to attempt to solve the problem of cost shifting between freebies showing up in emergency rooms and the emergency rooms themselves. What you are describing is something similar to the Swiss system where everyone pays a percentage of their salary for health care and a basic policy. If you want additional coverage you purchase it privately much like seniors do today with Medicare and Medicare supplement policies. Democrats have arguing for something like this for ages and would have gladly implemented it if they could have gotten it through McConnell's filibuster. If I misunderstand what you have in mind by all means say so but I see no other way you get anything close to what you are talking about without some form of single payer.

It also helps solve one of the reason for decreased demand for other goods and services as medical costs for individuals is fixed giving them additional spending power in other areas.

You then continue:

'Look for large tax cuts to the middle class as well as corporate tax reform,'

Really? You could probably get Nancy Pelosi to sponsor the bill but certainly not McConnell or Paul Ryan. First of all we are by definition not an overtaxed society. If we were we would't be running deficits. Second, how will Mr. Trump pay for this? I thought all you Republican types were against deficits. This is a straight out Democratic type plan if the tax cuts are actually going to the middle class and what should be done in a recessionary time.

Please don't try to tell me the tax cuts will pay for themselves. This is an impossibility as is any type of 'dynamic' analysis that attempts to show any such thing.

Then you move on:

'infrastructure reform will include funding the wall. Trump will get this by slicing off the Populist Wing of the Democratic Party (Warren & Sanders) and giving them trophies to wave around as showing that they are “with the people”. These overtures have already been made, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he offered one or two them positions in his Administration.'

If all it takes is a wall Obama would have built it. You're not going to 'slice off' any part of the Democrats - populist or not - as they will all go along with this if the infrastructure spending is large enough. Trump could not only have his wall but airports all over the country named after him.

The rest of this is the usual alt-right talk about Soros, the Russians and so on. Even the immigration talk is small potatoes. Enforce existing law. Great but we're going to need a lot more people to do it as the democrats have been pointing out for years. Of course that is more money. How are you going to pay for it? However, I have no doubt if he leaves those already here alone if they aren't criminals even Mrs. Pelosi would sponsor a bill to give him money for chasing off a lot of the others.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you intend but I don't see how you get to some of your conclusions without describing one of the greatest Keynesians of all time. I would even vote for much of this. My biggest question is how do you get it through a Republican Congress and how do you pay for it?

[Tyler]

Mishkilji,

I would have a hard time characterizing Miller as a "Zionist". I would say more he is a Nationalist, and a patriot. The fact he is Jewish doesn't seem to be a massive part of his identity.

[Tyler]

GCP,

I disagree on how you think things will turn out.

I will say in response to your last paragraph that you are operating under an old paradigm assuming that the Republican Party is still the three legged stool of Reagan's time. You are seeing a realignment now. This is like if I was arguing that the Democratic Party are the real raycists because Bull Connor.

Things have changed.

[GulfCoastPirate]

Tyler wrote:

'Argue all you want to, but the reality is that while Trump is not responsible for Obamacare like the Dems are, he controls what will happen with it. Not Pelosi. Not Schumer. If he steps back and says "I'm just going to follow the law as written" that thing is DONE the next day in spectacular fashion.'

Umm, Tyler no. You don't seem to have a basic understanding of economics. We have Obamacare because the business community wanted it. If you remember at the time because of the cost shifting insurance rates to businesses were rising rapidly and companies were cutting off insurance. Obamacare doesn't affect anyone who gets their health care from an employer other than the rates to their employers didn't go up as fast as before. That's what the business community wanted. Whether or not an individual doctor or other supplier wanted to cooperate with the new insurance rates was not something for the government to force. Trump is not going to let it be 'done' under any circumstances because he knows he would have to replace it with something else unless he wanted businesses to start dropping coverage for employees.

Please don't consider this a defense of Obamacare. I don't like it at all since I don't think it went far enough but I'm just pointing out Trump doesn't have as much freedom of action as you seem to think.

[Tyler]

GCP,

This is historical revisionism. People associate Obamacare with Obama and the Democrats. They shoved it through using parliamentary tricks, and a supine SCOTUS did mental gymanastics (it was a tax..but now its not!) to keep it in play.

This thing is held together with chewing gum and farts, and the gum is wearing out. We'll just see what happens, but he has exactly as much power as I think he does.

When you rule by administrative fiat, you die by administrative fiat.

[GulfCoastPirate]

Tyler wrote:

'I disagree on how you think things will turn out.'

Fair enough but you still have to pay for all this. Where will the money come from?

Then Tyler wrote:

'I will say in response to your last paragraph that you are operating under an old paradigm assuming that the Republican Party is still the three legged stool of Reagan's time. You are seeing a realignment now. This is like if I was arguing that the Democratic Party are the real raycists because Bull Connor.

Things have changed.'

No Tyler, they really haven't. It will take money - a lot of money to do all this. All of this could have been done without Mr. Trump and you aren't discussing anything that hasn't already been discussed. If the realignment is that a portion of the Republican Party has become Keynesian in its approach to government then there is really no realignment at all as Reagan was originally a Keynesian. His mistake was tax cuts were not the proper policy at that point in time.

I guess I really don't understand what you are saying. Please explain it to me. To me, I think I've seen all this before.

[Tyler]

GCP,

Yes, things have changed. You're arguing through assumption with nothing to back it up.

Economic growth and tax reform will pay for it, as he's said. I'm trying to be polite here, but don't be a badgering a--hole demanding a line by line plan for every dollar that we both know you're just going to handwave away.

[David Lentini]

Excellent comments that I'll be sure to share with my traumatized Clinton-voter friends and other melting snowflakes.

[Keith Harbaugh]

"People don’t want Grandma not getting her check-up,
but they also don’t like seeing people get hand-outs."

Yeah, that is always the line people use when they plump for expanded support for "health care".
But look at an example of what the poor insurance-paying citizen now has to pay for:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/these-sisters-are-surviving-a-dangerous-heart-ailment-together/2016/06/27/1f9cdf60-1dfe-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html
I'm old enough to remember when there were no such things as heart transplants.
When your ticker wore out, that was it. XXXX for you.
No need to pay millions for people who can't hold a job.
The idea of a "right" to heart transplants, and other super-expensive health care,
seems to me to be an oxymoron.
The problem is: How does American society pay for such expensive luxuries and stay economically competitive with societies that don't lavish such luxuries on their citizens?