Trade, tariffs, walls and balls

WaPo is reporting “cracks” appearing between the GOP conservative wing and Trump.  Issue?  Trade and spending.

Will Donald Trump coopt conservatives on Capitol Hill, or will he be coopted? This tug of war will be one of the most important storylines of 2017, and after a week of caving to the new president, there were glimmers yesterday that at least some principled conservatives in Congress will assert themselves after all.

The differences appeared on two issues that are definitional to modern conservatism: spending and trade.

Trump is unabashedly not conservative on these matters. He’s a nationalistic populist who believes in big government, as long as it’s doing what he wants (think eminent domain) and he’s the one who controls the spigot (e.g. a trillion-dollar “infrastructure” package designed to reward his cronies).

The president even told Fox News’s Sean Hannity last night that balancing the budget is no longer one of his priorities. “A balanced budget is fine, but sometimes you have to fuel the well in order to really get the economy going,” Trump said.

I think this analysis is both obvious and right.  He isn’t a conservative, never claimed to be one and isn’t going to act like one.  I don’t get the idea that this is a “developing” problem.  It’s always been one.  Trump has been promising “infrastructure” spending from day 1.  That’s a spending item and we all know how that went under Barack Obama.  What Trump is going to argue is after the 1.9% growth in the economy in the last quarter, this sort of spending is needed.  What the conservatives are going to run into is the fact that this sort of spending is one of the reasons his voter base voted for him (btw, here’s the priority list Trump has published of his top “initial” 50 infrastructure projects).

What Trump wants to do with trade is no secret either.  He likes tariffs. Of course, consumers pay the cost of tariffs, not companies and not countries. So “cracks” appearing?  They’ve always been there.  The question is, what is the so-called conservative wing (you know, the guys who helped amass this 20 trillion in debt?) going to do about it?

As I said early on, no matter who gets elected in November, we’re going to end up with a NY liberal in the WH.  Trump appears to have “evolved” (hey if Obama can get away with that farcical bit, so can Trump) on some issues, at heart he still believes in much of the more moderate liberal ideals.  Remember, during his first week in office, he made it a point to invite labor union leaders in for a chat.

By the way, I’m trying to think of a new acronym for “Conservative when it suits their political aims”.  All submissions welcome.

Speaking of the wall, and just as a historical note when they start their usual insults of racism and xenophobia, here’s a little factoid. Make sure to note it well:

In addition to then Sens. Obama, Biden and Clinton, 64 House Democrats and 23 Senate Democrats voted for the wall in 2006. Many of them are still in Congress, including newly-established Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. —DailyCaller

The wall was approved years ago and the money allocated.  Whether or not you agree with it or think it will work, watch how the politics evolve.  The last President and VP thought it was a whale of a good idea when they were in the Senate.  So did this year’s Democratic presidential nominee and the minority leader in the Senate.  Of course they’re all likely to have had a case of political amnesia when ask their opinion now, but those are the facts and the alternate facts of the matter.

I love this quote.  I think, for the most part, it pretty well sums up the current antics of the left and their more and more extreme yet failing attempts at “virtue signaling”:

Online, many liberal commentators and internet personalities have built fame and careers purely through trading in the currency of virtue. As more seek to mimic this, they rely upon the value of this precious currency, even as it is constantly devalued by its own abundance. So the rituals escalate in absurdity. Suddenly denouncing Trump is not enough, he must be “literally Hitler.” Soon denouncing all of society as literally Hitler is not enough; one has to turn inward and denounce oneself with the same ferocity. Others climbing the greasy pole of liberal virtue to careers in academia or ideological listicle-writing must seek to outpace and dethrone those taking up their spot in the limited room available at the top.

Kevin Williams also slings out what I would point to as a “reality” quote concerning last weekends “Women’s March” specifically and the state of the left in general.  It’s point on:

This isn’t Nazi Germany, none of you ladies and gentlemen in the pink hats is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the history books will not tell of acts of courage at the Battle of Soy Latte. You want a different political outcome? Go make it happen. This is politics, and politics can be ugly and stupid — but it beats the alternative.

Indeed. Because:

Comments from Joan Shaw Turrentine, one of the clearest thinkers I know:

“I have been a “Feminist” for more than 50 years. I strongly believe in equal pay for equal work; equal OPPORTUNITY for people of all genders, races, and nationalities; and respect for all people without regard for gender or race. While there will always be individuals who are basically unfair people, our society is largely free of SYSTEMIC prejudices. Regrettably, the former feminist movement has devolved into just another arm of the political ideology of the left. This year’s march had nothing to do with women’s rights. It had to do with abortion, gender fluidity, fear and hatred of “the other side” of their pet issues, and simple anger at not getting the election results they wanted. While insisting that gender is simply a state of mind, they paraded around in contradictory costumes identifying themselves as the physical organs that are proof of being female. Isn’t that a direct refutation of their mantra that it isn’t body parts that determine gender? My heart also aches for the young, immature women who are being lured into this movement in their innocence and ignorance of real issues. I am concerned that so many women think that the “feminist” movement requires them to emulate the least-desirable and least-attractive MASCULINE stereotypes — vulgarity, “nastiness”, crude language, constant emphasis on sex, and threats of physical intimidation.”

Time to call this nonsense what it is.

~McQ