Trump Almost Never Mentions the Constitution, Liberty or Freedom

"I searched the transcripts of 50 of Trump’s campaign speeches. He (almost) never mentions the Constitution, Liberty or Freedom"

-

A pure, Trump-style populism is inherently in tension with constitutional conservatism. The Constitution is a device for frustrating popular enthusiasms, as are federalism, checks and balances, and the rule of law. It’s why impassioned factions usually have very little patience for these things, and why they are so central to checking government and protecting individual rights. ("Just because Obama disregards the Constitution doesn’t mean conservatives should", Rich Lowry, Dec 23, 2015)

On Deferring to Majorities

I was asked, "would you really feel more comfortable with Hillary selecting the next 2 or 3 justices?"

Maybe.  I am considering.

For the last 100 years there has been a dominant question Judges base judgement on. A question that many are unaware is even asked.

Is this legislation the will of the people. If it is, then by default it is good by in large. We should generally defer to the majority of the legislative branch. Those who oppose this deference are called judicial activists.

In the last 120 year or so our government has gotten further from being a republic and closer to being a direct democracy. Propositions, recalls and referendums are a part of the Arizona constitution. It was approved in 1912. The earlier states do not have such provisions in them.

I believe that there must be a balance between democratic and republican tendencies in our systems. The people can rule like a Mob just as easily as an elected official can over reach in their power.

Separation of powers includes separating the people from exercising too much power. When they do, it is the minorities in race, religion, nationality etc that suffer.

I do not trust Trump much to nominate judges that focus more on individual liberty over deferring to majorities.

John Roberts deferred to the majority of Congress and the President when he upheld Obamacare. We need more judges to balance the power more towards our God given liberties.

In short I see judge nominations as Russian roulette. With Hillary there may be 6 chambers filled. With Trump, maybe 3, maybe 5?

The damage Trump may do is to build walls of tariffs and further aggravate our economy. Then the people may conclude that capitalism does not work when in reality, tariffs are the opposite from a market economy.

So I am considering.

Fifth Faction of the GOP

The first guest on the Hugh Hewitt show today described the the first four, established factions of the Republican party.

1 - Fiscal Conservative
2 - Social Conservative
3 - Somewhat Conservative
4 - Moderate

He then went on to describe the fifth faction of the GOP. It really is not a new faction, Pat Buchanan may be an example of what a Trump voter might like. Here are is my take on the issues and temperament important to a Trump voter.

America first. They are sick of giving away money to foreign countries. That may take the form of direct aid, defending others without getting duly compensated for it. Or it may be the trade deficit we have with many countries. They have no aversion to adding tariffs or threatening to do so as a way to ensure that Americans get to keep and grow good jobs.

Another issue in this same vein is the energy against illegal immigration. They want to reduce competition from illegal foreigners. They are highly concerned that our homeland is protected from any potential enemy. They want the government to honor the agreements made to those who are serving and have served in the military.

In short, these are populists.

In addition to these issues, they don't care what Trump says that might be construed as sexist, racist or any other kind of -ist. They are sick of smooth talking politicians that speak out of one side of their mouth. They care less about social manners and more that a powerful person take charge and actually change what needs to be changed.

The point of the Hugh Hewitt guest made next is pushed me to write. He said that the first four factions are unlikely to win the Presidency without the fifth faction, the populists. He said that in we are willing to unify under the issues we are willing to unify, and put aside lesser issues, we can win.

I am still very wary of this idea. I am considering the possibility that I crawl over broken glass to vote for Trump in the fall. That I put aside the foul taste Trump gives me with his womanizing, his lack of care to insult anyone against him and a host of other issues.

If we lived in a country with many parties, each of us might feel much better voting for our individual factions. It would then be up to the elected officials to work out the compromise needed to run the republic.

In this country, the way it has worked has been with 2 major parties. The faction have had to come together in the primaries before facing of with each other.

--

I am considering the possibility that an alliance of the 5 factions of the GOP may be a net gain.

If we can trust Trump to be Presidential in temperament. To not unduly fan the flames of negotiation here and abroad.

If we can trust Trump to reduce and/or get compensated for our military contribution to the security of much of the world.

If we can trust Trump to nominate judges that are strict Constitutionalists. Ones that focus on individual rights as much or more than just rubber stamping majorities.

If we can trust Trump to grow our economy such that we can get on the path to outgrowing our debt.

--
Update 2015-05-11
Comment by Jeffrey Thayne

Five comments.
(1) Trump does indeed represent the 5th faction you describe. But from where I stand, he represents *only* that faction. He doesn't seem to be a social conservative, or a fiscal conservative (he's demonstrated that his efforts to appear so are merely a facade). And he's certainly not a "moderate" in rhetoric and strategy. 

(2) In fact, it may even damage the cause of fiscal and social conservatives to have our coalition led by a representative of the 5th faction. The worst thing possible for fiscal and social conservatives is to have our values associated with the bellicose and nationalist rhetoric of Trump. 

(3) The "ifs" you describe are the key. We can't trust him to do these things. At all. Not in the slightest.  

(4) I find the values of the 5th faction abhorrent. I don't think they are good for our nation. I don't want them as a significant part of a party I affiliate with. 

(5) I don't see electing a Republican president as our highest priority. Particularly when doing so won't actually preserve or advance social and fiscal conservative causes.

-

Ronald Reagan referred to the three legs of conservatism.
1) Religious conservatives,
2) National security conservatives
3) Economic/libertarian conservatives

I only see Trump supporting National Security. He says he support Economic/libertarian ones. The policies he suggests will not support it. Trade barriers and no spending limits.

Be a Man. Get Married.

Trump is Associated Falsely with Free Market Capitalism

From my friend John Miles

Trump is associated (falsely) with free market capitalism and conservative fiscal and economic values whether we like it or not. He's neither a free market capitalist nor a fiscal conservative and has taken both (sometimes three sides) of virtually every issue. For me to vote for the lesser of two evils, there has to be a lesser evil, and I don't see taking Trump's word for anything (I don't have a clue which Trump would show up on any particular day anyway).  

We're also due for a recession in coming years. A Trump presidency would only accelerate it with his protectionist trade policies--the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and the following retaliation by other countries clearly exacerbated the Great Depression. It's one of the few things economists of all stripes agree with--that free trade benefits both partners in the process (just as ALL trade does--it doesn't take place unless there is mutual benefit). I'd prefer any recession be blamed on those who actually cause them: those responsible for high regulatory, trade-restricting government regimes.  

And I absolutely do think Trump would be disastrous for down-ballot losses in Congress if he energizes the Left and turns the public away from what they perceive as the conservative brand, because it IS actually the brand the vast majority of true conservatives run under (even libertarians, for that matter, who are interested in any chance at getting into office). The only question is who will own it. If Trump respresents the ownership of the Republican brand, I'm not interested. I'll gladly let him destroy whatever credibility is left in it representing actual conservative principles all by himself. 

While I haven't made up my mind yet, I'd strongly lean to a third party candidate with a chance to win at least a substantial portion of the vote and, perhaps, carry a different torch into the future. (That's not libertarianism for me at this point--it comes too close to libertine-ism in my view, which would just encourage and accelerate the moral decline I see occurring in the nation. And the only rationally consistent form of libertarianism that I see is the absolutely unworkable anarcho-capitalist kind, a certain recipe for disaster in the civil and economic arenas. Regardless, the only thing that gets advanced when libertarians and liberals get together tends to be legislation that undermines the very fabric that keeps the nation together, including traditional marriage and families. Conservative-libertarian economic policies never make it to the table.)  

The ONLY reason I'd even consider Trump is if I was certain of his Supreme Court nominees, but I have no reason to believe this particular tiger can change his say-what-gets-you-votes-and-stokes-your-ego-and-then-do-and-say-what-you-want stripes. Don't think I'd want my grandkids thinking amoral, gutter, personal-slur, tell-whatever-lie-works-in-the-moment politics, and ego-stroking narcissism is what passes for normal or acceptable either. Our political leaders absolutely do set important examples of what is "acceptable" for society. At some point, I do have to take responsibility for whom I'm willing to put in office to educate the coming generation. Political position isn't the only consideration. Personal morality is also important. Boorish as a platform isn't a political, no less a principled, position I can vote for.  

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
― Alexander Pope   

I unaffiliated from the Republican party when Bush & Republican congresses were well on their way to doubling the national debt. I have no qualms giving the American people the government they insist upon when the choice of "electable" candidates pretty much passes the black hole moral event horizon regardless of which lever is pulled in the voting booth.

-
Update 2016-05-10

I was asked, "would you really feel more comfortable with Hillary selecting the next 2 or 3 justices?"

Maybe.  I am considering.

For the last 100 years there has been a dominant question Judges base judgement on. A question that many are unaware is even asked.

Is this legislation the will of the people. If it is, then by default it is good by in large. We should generally defer to the majority of the legislative branch. Those who oppose this deference are called judicial activists.

In the last 120 year or so our government has gotten further from being a republic and closer to being a direct democracy. Propositions, recalls and referendums are a part of the Arizona constitution. It was approved in 1912. The earlier states do not have such provisions in them.

I believe that there must be a balance between democratic and republican tendencies in our systems. The people can rule like a Mob just as easily as an elected official can over reach in their power.

Separation of powers includes separating the people from exercising too much power. When they do, it is the minorities in race, religion, nationality etc that suffer.

I do not trust Trump much to nominate judges that focus more on individual liberty over deferring to majorities.

John Roberts deferred to the majority of Congress and the President when he upheld Obamacare. We need more judges to balance the power more towards our God given liberties.

In short I see judge nominations as Russian roulette. With Hillary there may be 6 chambers filled. With Trump, maybe 3, maybe 5?

The damage Trump may do is to build walls of tariffs and further aggravate our economy. Then the people may conclude that capitalism does not work when in reality, tariffs are the opposite from a market economy.

So I am considering.