Tag: Trump

2020 Election, Politics

An American Nationalist Voting Index – Character and Final Score

Bob Claude |

This is part of a series examining the issues in the presidential election. To see other articles in the series. click on the “2020 Elections” link on the Home page.

Final Score

Issues (linked to past articles)BidenTrump
Governmental Reform0-1
Foreign Policy-2.5+1.5
Antitrust & Trade Regulation-.5+2.0
Conservation & the Environment+.5-.5
A Strong America-1.5-1.0
Character(0*2)=0(-3*2)=-6
FINAL SCORE-4.0-5.0

The American presidency is unique in the western world because it combines two functions of government generally separated in other countries – chief of state and chief of government. The chief of state is a unifying figure, often a king or queen, that symbolizes the history and values of the nation. In short, he or she symbolizes its character.  In contrast, the chief of government is usually a prime minister elected through a partisan democratic process and tasked with advocating and implementing certain public policies. Theodore Roosevelt filled both roles as well as any President in history precisely because he had a strong and intelligent character.

Up to now, this series has concentrated on the policies an American nationalist president should pursue; i.e, his role as prime minister. However, the chief of state role is equally important.  An American president who cannot symbolize the nation and its character cannot really be said to be nationalist.  Thus, the score for this role will be doubled to reflect this importance.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  History may conclude that Trump’s most important accomplishment was winning the 2016 election and shattering the ossified political culture that existed over the previous generation. In one fell swoop, Trump proved the intellectual and political bankruptcy of the foreign policy of liberal hegemony and the domestic policy of small government conservatism.  He had a unique opportunity to develop a new political coalition around a nationalist agenda. Instead, he relied on a self-centered, divisive and authoritarian appeal that left American politics coarser and thus weakened our national character. His attempt to blackmail the Ukrainian government to dig up dirt on Biden justified impeachment (see my post here). His juvenile insults of his opponents reflected his own weakness as a democratic leader, not theirs (see this post).  He seemed to have utter contempt for the basics of American constitutional democracy. Finally, his erratic leadership on the coronavirus pandemic and recent dangerous statements about the efficacy of masks abdicated the chief of state’s role to soothe the nation and unify it to fight a common enemy.  These are just some of the ways Donald Trump has shown his complete inability to serve as an American chief of state.  Roosevelt would have been disgusted and horrified by such a lack of character in a President.  He thus deserves the worst score of -3, which, after doubling, becomes a -6. 

Biden comes off better only in comparison to Trump.   His years in the Senate and then the Vice-Presidency have given him both an appreciation of American democracy and the negotiating skills necessary to navigate the system successfully.  He is not a left-wing woke firebrand, though the same cannot be said of his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris. Her presence on the ticket raises the issue of how often a Biden-Harris Administration would descend into divisive identity politics.  Finally, Biden has definitely shown his age on the campaign trail and in the debates. Does he have the energy and the will to face down the firebrands in Congress or his own appointees (as TR did) and unite the country, or will he be simply a figurehead?  These uncertainties cannot support anything but a zero for Biden, and two times zero is still zero.

As the negative scores above show, we are faced with the sad fact that, once again, there is no true American nationalist running for President on a major party ticket this year.   Even if you exclude the character score, Trump only earns a net +1 for his policy accomplishments.   American nationalists are thus left with the agony of choosing the least globalist candidate in the race.

A Personal Decision

Given these scores, I cannot recommend or endorse either candidate in this election.  I admit that a small disagreement on the scores on any issue could tip the scales significantly either way.  However, Roosevelt’s comment about the importance of national character haunts me.   The decision comes down to whether Trump’s character and behavior best represents the American character.  I strongly believe it does not.

It is a bitter pill to swallow, but I will be voting for Biden in today’s election.  His administration will require strong oversight to control his globalist tendencies and thus I will be voting Republican for Congress. It is especially important that the Senate remain Republican since its confirmation powers over treaties and presidential appointments give it key powers in the foreign policy arena.   After this election is over, American nationalists will have the difficult task of rescuing the nationalist brand from the damage Trump has done to it and building for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

Go vote, and God bless America!

2020 Election, Domestic Policy, Environment, Politics

An American Nationalist Voting Index – Conservation and the Environment

Bob Claude |
Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir in Yosemite

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as the farmer behaves with reference to his own children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children, leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism, August 31, 1910

Score

Biden +.5 Trump -.5

The two men pictured above represented different conservation philosophies reminiscent of today’s environmental movement. Unlike Roosevelt, John Muir believed that conservation and development could not be reconciled.  Despite Muir’s famous overnight camping trip with TR in Yosemite Park, he voted for William Howard Taft in the 1912 election.  Muir eventually went on to found the Sierra Club.

The contrasting philosophies of TR and Muir are reflected in the environmental approaches of Biden and Trump. However, in the end, their policy differences largely even out.

Climate Change

The differences here could not be more stark.  Trump’s denial of climate science would have met with nothing but scorn from Roosevelt, but Biden’s elevation of the Paris Accord to totemic status despite its wholly voluntary nature would also have met with his disapproval (see my post “Theodore Roosevelt and Climate Change”). This earns Trump a -.5 while Biden receives a +.5.

Environmental Regulation

The Trump Administration embarked on a campaign to spur economic growth by rolling back environmental regulation, especially regarding climate change.  In the process, they threw out a lot of long-standing rules that provided important protections. For example, there was no need to relax auto emissions standards that were not affecting car sales but reduced our gasoline consumption. The withdrawal of rules limiting toxic air emissions from major industrial polluters will expose hundreds to mercury and other known hazardous air pollutants. These unnecessary rule changes mean the Administration deserve a -.5

Biden would restore both the necessary rules, but pursue its climate agenda through more rule-makings similar to those of the high-handed and elitist Obama EPA.  This would likely be a net drag on the economy and so earns Biden  a- .5 as well.

Parks and Public Lands

Here in Montana and the West, we have a love-hate relationship with our parks and public lands. We love the spectacle and the solitude of the wilderness but resent the arbitrary limits on agriculture and other uses imposed from Washington.  For example, the Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed the federal government to temporarily designate thousands of acres off limits to even some recreational use for decades.  The Trump Administration decided it was time to finalize those designations and begin to release some of the land for other uses.  This caused a huge controversy and became an issue in the campaign. Biden has established a goal of designating 30% of US land as wilderness, which would potentially end this review.

Trump has generally been a friend of the parks system, vetoing an attempt by his Interior Secretary to raise the entrance fees to national parks to $70. He also signed the Great American Outdoors Act, which dedicated $2 billion per year to rebuilding park infrastructure (see this post for more). However, he also has reduced the size of some new national monuments previously established by President Obama.

Both Trump and Biden earn +.5 scores on this issue.

Conclusion

Conservation was dear to Theodore Roosevelt’s heart precisely because he loved America and the beauty of its land.  A true American nationalist would seek to protect that beauty for both the present and future. Trump’s denial of climate change hurts his standing on the subject, while Biden’s commitments to the Muir wing of the environmental movement suggests a potential radicalism on environmental regulation and public lands that would stifle development.  Instead, the next administration should adopt the practice of Roosevelt’s farmer and seek to responsibly reconcile the many competing uses.

Coronavirus, Domestic Policy, Government

The Dangers of Executive Overreach

Bob Claude |
Theodore Roosevelt at his desk with papers

As this helpful article from the Smithsonian Magazine illustrates, the debate over the use of presidential executive orders to end-run Congress originated with Theodore Roosevelt.  In his conservationist zeal to protect unique land and monuments, TR pushed the limits of the Antiquities and Reclamation Acts. While we are all blessed by the resulting preservation of sights like the Grand Canyon, his expansive view of presidential power also resulted in abuses like FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans and President Truman’s attempt to seize the steel mills to prevent a strike. President Trump’s recent orders to provide partial relief for workers hit by the COVID-19 pandemic shows the limitations of the practice and its danger to our constitutional democracy.

This story from CNN sets forth the problems with these orders and why congressional action was required. The new $400 per month unemployment benefit may never materialize since it was not authorized to be distributed through the current unemployment insurance system. The payroll tax cut is really a deferral and so worker could be on the hook for a huge catch-up payment next year. Finally, the eviction protections simply consist of a study by the Secretary of Health and Human Services of ways to provide such protection.

When the last coronavirus relief effort stalled in March, I criticized both the President and Congress over their failure to reach agreement under the headline “Leaders Don’t Dither. They Decide”.  This relief bill should be more targeted toward the unemployed and essential workers on the front lines of combating the disease and supporting American society in dealing with it. However. dangling partial relief for them by a questionable legal method is not real leadership.  Leadership in our system of separation of powers often involves compromise. TR’s sympathy for those workers would probably drive him to swallow his pride to provide a “square deal” for them in time for destitute and heroic workers to receive the meaningful help they need.