A Defense for Choosing Trump Over Clinton

I have been perplexed about the support Donald Trump has been receiving from true intellectuals, but one of my readers has volunteered to offer his defense of his choice of Trump over Clinton.  The writer is a political conservative (my characterization) who lives in Portland, Oregon.  He is a proud member of Mensa, which indicates he has a superior IQ (above 140).  Here is his assessment of the relative candidacies of Trump and Clinton:

“Assume for a moment that both candidates are equally disgusting people, if for different reasons.

“Clinton will be in legislative gridlock, as Team-R controls one or both houses of Congress.  Trump will experience similar gridlock, as most of Team-R thinks he is full of it. However there are some areas where Team-R fantasies and Trump bloviations overlap. A precious few of these will become law. As a fan of small-government, lightest-possible-regulation, I’m pretty comfortable with where these matters will ultimately land with a Trump administration.

“Nothing much will change on the abortion issue, not even the rhetoric, nor will anything much change to gun regulation under either candidate.  Under Trump and a Team-R Congress there might be some trimming of what doesn’t work in gun regulation (mostly cosmetic crap). There might even be better funding for what does work (no-gun registries).

“Under Clinton there is a better the chance of more funding for mental health research and policy. That’s less likely under Trump, but I’m willing to be pleasantly surprised.

“TAX RATES: (With a Team-R Congress): If Clinton is sworn in, there is zero chance that high income tax rates will go up as she promises.  If Trump is sworn in, the chances that tax rates will fall as the number of exemptions go down (from the current 80,000+ pages) is ~ 20%. Chances of the total tax code overhaul we all crave are 0% with Clinton and about 5% with Trump.

“FOREIGN POLICY: Clinton misjudges cause/effect in foreign policy and has not been seen to learn from her mistakes. Trump bloviates a fair bit, a pucker factor, but is in fact a very good negotiator at high levels.  He has also demonstrated delegating the hard research that lets the final decider make good decisions. In predicting the future I call this EVEN to a very small, perhaps <5% advantage Trump.

“REGULATION / ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY:  The Obama and G.W. Bush administrations published a comparable number of new regulations; however, most reports give the Obama administration’s rules about a $20Bn bigger drag on the economy. Not a big thing in good times, pretty ugly during recession. Most were released before 2015 when the recession began to soften. I doubt that Clinton has learned much from this. I expect her administration would continue if not accelerate administrative rules a la Obama.

“A Trump administration can be expected to reduce regulations rather than expand them. A few will need to be rolled over/renewed. Probability of net reduction in regulation: >25%.

“I prefer free markets with very light (but not zero) regulation. Trump has spent his working life accomplishing things despite federal, state, city and local regulations. Clinton has spent her working life creating greater and greater barriers to accomplishing things. Partisans will say these regulations enhance worker and public safety; naysayers will note how conveniently they empower entrenched interests who happen to be major political contributors. That crucial difference—imagining laws and rules and then enacting them, versus fighting those rules and nevertheless accomplishing something—is significant.

“A Clinton administration will keep or expand Department of Energy blockage of new oil-pipeline, refining and drilling.  A Trump administration will remove as much as they can. A Trump administration will therefore see a global drop in oil prices with companion economic growth most places with a lot of pain in the oil patch (absent further supply problems in Russia/OPEC). Energy sector disasters will continue to occur with shrinking frequency; but will always be blamed on a failure of regulation (deregulation) so that won’t change.

“The union-led drive for a higher minimum wage will gain with Clinton and stall with Trump. Raising the minimum wage is in my view HIGHLY counter-productive. When the economy crashed in 2008, the 2009-on Obama administration failed to get us back to a typical post-recession 3% annual economic growth even today. Monetary policy, banking policy and the uncertainty of what the ultimate impact of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank would be after regulators added their 4,000+ pages each stalled everything. Lost jobs did not return. New jobs didn’t happen. Professional advancement and upward mobility was functionally zero for an entire generation. If we federalize a higher minimum wage, we’ll get fewer jobs – a lot fewer jobs.  Historically speaking, the minimum wage in the USA was seen as a starter wage, a place to build a personal work history and job skills.  With no place to grow into, it is small wonder people who look to government for solutions want to see minimum wages raised. Far better to grow the general economy, even if it is a bit inflationary.

“Clinton says she will raise tax rates on high-incomes and this will create jobs. Utter, complete, balderdash. She cannot raise tax rates with even one house of Congress in Team-R control. If she could actually swing it, she would simply chase more wealth offshore creating functionally zero jobs. Any money raised (always below expectations) will disappear into the General Fund.

“Government does not own the means of production.  Government cannot create value. It cannot create jobs, except in regulation, research and infrastructure. The latter two CAN lead others to the creation of value but only if they are applied correctly. Bridges to nowhere (a Team-R boondoggle) do not. Remember all those great shovel-ready jobs? Anyone? Anyone?

“BTW: If we simply indexed gas taxes for inflation since they were last adjusted to $0.184, and kept it in a Gore-type lockbox, that could increase funding for roads and bridges by 250%.  Neither candidate has mentioned it.

“Ultimately our beautiful system of checks and balances will mostly protect us from either candidate. That is unless we blow ourselves up, or some adversary does us that honor.  Here I think both candidates represent considerable risk, and I don’t see a particular advantage for either.  Recall the “bright red line” Obama drew in Syria and then ignored its crossing and how we got to the situation there today?  When I ask myself how Trump or Clinton would handle that situation, “different” is an easy reply; “better” not so much. Clinton might be “a nasty woman” – she has a widely reported temper – but she’s OUR nasty woman; which I read as a good thing. Trump might be highly unpredictable – also a good thing – so call that even. Clinton seems a slave to her leftist-belief-systems which I partly blame for some of her f–k-ups (Syria, Libya, Egypt, the Reboot …).

“George W. Bush was charmed by Putin so I can’t fault Clinton for being nice to him. A con-artist must first and foremost be charming after all. In a game of chicken between Clinton and Putin, I don’t know who I would bet on. Trump is more complex if egocentric and mercurial.  We see how he has used that to advantage in his business, but his all-in strategy in Atlantic City shows that he can ignore numbers with the best of ‘em. Since that mistake has not been repeated, we can infer that he learned something. With international superpower relations, because that’s not his wheelhouse he is a big unknown. OTOH, in a game of chicken between Trump and Putin, I give Trump a (very) small advantage.

“The November election is between the worst and the second worst of what the major parties could offer.  It would be a great opportunity for a 3^rd party candidate, if both 3^rd party candidates weren’t stoners with stoner wardrobe, makeup and hair consultants.  And stoner policy advisors.

“Where Trump has an edge, and it is a substantial edge, is JOBS. Clinton has only ever built paper-pushing jobs, never ever something with say, a door handle. She has no real clue of how taxation, regulation and litigation inhibit economic activity and thus JOBS. Trump has that clue because he’s been there.  Assuming Trump and Clinton love America equally (work with me here), Trump will create more middle class jobs ($45k+) by at least 1,000% and more likely 10,000%, if for no other reason than growing the potential market for his golf courses and condos.”

And so, on balance, in what appears to be a relatively close call, he comes down for Trump.  My problems with his calculus start with the claim that the two candidates are “equally disgusting.”  “Disgusting” isn’t a strong enough word to describe Trump’s mockery of our democratic system, as evidenced throughout his campaign and emphasized so perfectly in his refusal to pledge that he will acknowledge the validity of the election when all is said and done.

As for their credentials and experience, it’s really no contest.  Trump is wholly unqualified (even considering whatever business experience he really has as an asset) for the job, while Clinton presents the most impressive résumé of any candidate since the first Bush.

As for the rest, substitute for Trump anyone claiming to be a conservative as opposed to a liberal and you’d probably get the same analysis. 

In the end, his support for Trump may best be explained by his apparent identification with Team-R, which puts him in the same large group of Trump supporters who wish they had a different choice.