Most of us on the right like the idea of a businessman running the country. After all, CEOs at large companies do a lot of the same things that political leaders do: They run big and complicated, but basically stable, enterprises; they make hard decisions in a careful and rational way; they make sure budgets balance; they deal with unexpected situations. They also have to keep a large population happy: When plastics manufacturer Ron Johnson — now a Wisconsin senator — visited NR World Headquarters some months ago, he talked to our staff about how important it was to sit down with employees and hear their concerns.
Not all businessmen operate in a way that lends itself to politics, however. Many of them take huge, brash, irresponsible risks. Some finance their projects with sketchy investments, a process more akin to gambling than governing. We need such men in our economy — where would we be if countless entrepreneurs hadn’t staked their financial security on seemingly crazy ideas that worked? — but we don’t want such a man running the country.
Donald Trump is just that kind of businessman. Whatever genius he displayed in rising to wealth and fame, he has been involved in four corporate bankruptcies since — in 1991, 1992, 2004, and 2009 — canceling $1.3 billion in debt the last time alone. This is not an option for our federal government. He financed the Taj Mahal mostly with junk bonds — again not much of an option for balancing a government budget.
And that’s not to mention another favored technique of Trump and many others in the business world: Rather than compete in a free market, they get in bed with the state. Trump became “partners” with the City of New York to build a hotel in the 1970s — a deal that involved a 40-year property-tax abatement that saved him “tens of millions of dollars.” (Libertarians: If you think that selectively letting people out of their taxes is somehow different than a government subsidy, please spare me.) More recently, he’s had the government take other people’s real estate and give it to him. How exactly would this experience help Trump as president? It’s much harder for a politician to balance a budget than it is for a business to use its lobbying power to get favors from politicians, and the last time around, Trump’s big idea on the budget front was simply to confiscate wealth from rich people.
Of course, bankruptcy and the presidency do share some history: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Thomas Jefferson, William McKinley. But today, the government is bigger than it’s ever been, and the single largest challenge facing us is the debt. Why hire someone with a history of budget woes to solve that problem?
Well said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't think of a single businessman who I'd like to see running the country. Which is not to say that there are no businessman I respect, but (and I know this will come as a shock to the libertarians) a country is NOT in fact a really big corporation. It's a completely different animal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLord help me...if 2012 should become a contest between Obama and this vulgar cretin, I think I might (like an unfortunate Dickens character) die of spontaneous combustion. Ditto if Trump makes it a three-way race, thus allowing Obama to coast into another term.
There should be some penalty for doing this kind of damage to the republic. And I don't really think that I should be the one who has to pay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe establishment politicians owe over $14 trillion in debt and have anywhere from $80 trillion to $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, depending on your accounting method.
And the establishment attack on Donald Trump is that he is irresponsible and issued too much debt?
Really? Really?? [best Seth Myers imitation]
How about a debate on how to turn around our $350 billion in annual trade deficit to China? Or nearly the same in imported oil? What to do about the southern border?
The last thing I'm worried about Donald Trump doing is getting into office and increasing the debt leverage of the US government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike Sarah Palin, Trump doesn't really belong in the President box. There is another and more appropriate role for people like that who are willing to say what a regular candidate can't, and to whom people will lend an ear with less prejudice than "oh, well, it's just a Republican saying what Republicans say." But the role doesn't really have a name yet. Celebrity agitator? Punditician? Spokes-popularizer? Whatever you want to call it, it's vitally necessary that someone help deconstruct the myths that keep the public's minds closed to what they need to hear if they are going to support the kind of change we need. Such unusual political personalities have a chance to reframe the arguments and set up new concepts for the real candidates to work with. Right now, they do it as quasi-candidates because that's the only way the media will give them time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, after America decided to put a child who believes in redistribution in the White House who' re we to say we shouldn't give a brash businessman a chance?
*Who knew that NRO's silly comment screening would confuse the contraction of "who are" with the word that best describes a promiscuous woman????
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith all due respect Robert,
We have currently hired one with zero experience running anything whatsoever - other than his mouth, which operates nonstop.
We honestly couldn't do much worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrump's personal net worth is estimated at $2.8 billion.
Most businesses fail. Some of his have. Others have not.
You don't get $2.8 billion in net worth by being a bad businessman.
Obama has bankrupted our country. So have many of the Republicans who are running from President.
Why don't we put things in perspective?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrankly, I'm a bit shocked by the defenders of Trump. Sure, he is better than Obama. But then, so is this Cuban sandwich I'm eating. I don't want it running the country.
Trump strikes me as incredibly disingenuous. We conservatives can do better. We should do better. I recommend looking at Arnold in CA if you want to know how Trump would turn out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI thought this post was going in a slightly different direction: pointing out that while voters seem to like the idea of a businessman in top government positions, the 2010 elections showed they like small businessmen, more than big businessmen. In 2010, candidates with backgrounds in small biz (relatively speaking, Ron Johnson and others) did quite well, while big biz folks (Whitman, McMahon, Fiorina) got beat. This should be a warning to big biz folks looking to make runs in 2012 - Trump, Bloomberg, even Romney. With the Wall Street mess of 08 still fresh on people's minds, I don't see these candidates doing very well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs for Trump, he's nothing less than a gold-plated gift to the Democrat party - he's everything they try to convince swing voters the Republicans are: shallow, ignorant, loud-mouthed, completely lacking in substance, old, rich, white, a birther, etc. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'm close to thinking that Trump is doing this just to help Democrats.
There's no way his record holds up to conservative examination, so the sooner we all abandon this goofy detour, the better off we'll be.
Leaving aside the question of whether a businessman is a good fit in the White House, I think one thing rarely talked about is how extraordinarily suspect Trump's credentials are even within the business world.
Robert references some possible "genius" in rising to wealth and fame, but it was Donald's father Fred who made a fortune from nothing in real estate, and Donald never worked anywhere but for his dad.
It's true that he's done better with the business than some legacy kids (James Dolan comes to mind) but taking a massive real estate company and leading it into four bankruptcies is hardly the stuff boardroom legends are made of...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDidn't Harry Truman spend years making good on the debts left over when his haberdashery failed?
I'd be interested to see how many of Trump's creditors in those four bankruptcies will endorse him for President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Overt, I'm not defending Trump, but find the argument about placing the country in the hands of a brash businessman to be pretty underwhelming. Last I checked, the guy before the current one also had impeccable business skills and came from good political pedigree. His mess was the precursor to the current messmaker.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>Frankly, I'm a bit shocked by the defenders of Trump...
I was sitting here thinking exactly the same, although this is not the first place where I have heard otherwise apparently sentient people talking as if Donald Trump as President of the United States was not something for the comic books. (Horror comics.)
Most of us have a pent-up wish to hear someone from out side kick some rear. But let's not be stupid. This a very big, very serious job, notwithstanding some of the people who had held it. The thing is, the ship of state is listing now, in a variety of ways. At times, when it was cruising strong, it could manage for a term or two without competent leadership. Not now.
Before you speak up for Trump be sure that you have heard more than him confronting Whoppie Goldberg. The first part of his interview with Hannity (aired Thursday night) was just stunning. The man repeatedly, completely contradicts himself. He is a very fast-talking, bullying, guy who will say anything that pops into his brain. The world is a scary place, guys and gals. Let's be a little serious. This guy is just a financially clever hot-dog. He has never had a serious thought about world affairs, as far as I can tell. Did you hear him proposing that we steal Libya's oil? This may be funny when you are having a couple of beers with your buds. But from an actual candidate for POTUS? And is he a consrvative? Heck no. Not whatsoever. He is a moneymaking jerk. I am okay with the moneymaking part, but we don't need another jerk in the White House right now. Nor do we need to keep the one we've got because of a vanity campaign by Donald Trump.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInstead of an egomaniac businessman, how about someone who is a bit more humble, someone who has also been successful and saved a company from bankruptcy, is for securing the borders, is for a strong national defense, is for simplifying the tax code, who speaks with passion and wit (and without a teleprompter), and who takes the race issue off the table completely?
Herman Cain 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCurrently we have a guy running things who referred to working in the private sector as being "behind enemy lines". The whole batch of them in the White House have no idea how the economy or private sector work. Their control of the economy for the past two years has consisted of basically blindly and randomly poking it with a stick. I want someone who understands what makes this country tick commercially.
I think the current obsession with Trump is due not to the fact that he's a businessman, but due to the fact he's willing to stand up and say what needs to be said without worrying about offending BHO and the Libs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGOP establishment people who think the way to address Trump is to heap a pile of nasty personal insults on him are being foolish.
The GOP establishment seems to believe that Republican grassroots are interested in Trump only because of his shiny hair.
People are listening to him because (1) he is raising issues that people want addressed and (2) he is not cowering before Obama and MSM.
The way to deal with Trump is to meet him head-on on the issues. Trump is very vulnerable on lots of issues of concern to GOP voters. His inconsistency in his political positions. Where does he stand on Obamacare, and what has he said in the past on nationalized healthcare -- he's nearly as bad as Romney on that. His past positions on taxes.
But people would also like to see the GOP candidates debate Trump on the issues he raises - the trade problem, middle-class jobs moving to other countries, the reliance on imported oil, spending a huge amount of American taxes to free one of the richest countries in the world, the border, etc.
When someone like Rove chooses to deal with Trump by way of personal insult, he is not winning an argument with the grassroots -- he is alienating them.
The birther issue is all about my second point -- cowering before Obama and the MSM. The President of the United States can stiff-arm anyone daring to question his proof of eligibility in dozens of cases all over the country using the narrowest of legal technicalities, and it is considered impolite to even mention the issue, lest the MSM become upset. I don't know if he is eligible or not, but he owes the American people much more transparency than he has given.
The establishment GOP is like someone getting repeatedly stomped in the face by a jackboot and saying "excuse me sir, but you have some dirt on your boot!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWHO SAID that "the grass roots wants to see other candidates debate Trump on the issues"?
I guess such people fall into the proverbial group known as "they". "They say ..."
I no more want to see Trump at any debate than I want Bob Dole to show up. "Bob Dole says ..."
"I'll release my financial records when Obama releases his birth certificate." In other words, CHump is no more willing to be transparent than the man on whom he pontificates.
"He can't be worse than Obama". So what? What a HIGH BAR to which so many here aspire! I always thought low expectations were the purview of the left. I guess I was wrong!
As for closing our "trade deficit" with China:
Too bad we have to re-educate OUR OWN before winning an issue, huh?
I have bad news for Americans. Our trade deficit with any nation (including Canada) is based on one solid fact which no politician can or should desire to change:
We have more consumers, with more disposable income and higher standards of living, than any other nation on Earth. Despite China's 1 billion population, most of those have little money, and cannot afford the items we'd export to them. At least, they have no where near 300 million consumers with as much disposable income as the average American, and there is NO WAY, given its demographics, that it will any time soon.
Good luck trying to "force the issue" of their consumers demanding to buy from us nearly as much as we buy from them.
So, we have a trade deficit with China because we have FAR more demand for what they manufacture than they have for our goods or services, even with no barriers for our exports. The average Chinese citizen has no where approaching $25-30,000 in median income.
This reminds me of the memes parlayed by the American car unions, that if only the Japanese government would allow our cars in! Well, they never bothered to talk to the Japanese consumer, who could not fit an American car on their narrow roads, even if they liked how the cars look (which they despise and would never be caught dead driving).
So, trade barriers are the mere water sloshing over the tip of the iceberg.
And as far as moving jobs overseas:
HOW SAD IT IS THAT SUPPOSED CONSERVATIVES NEED TO BE REMINDED THAT YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CORPORATE TAX STRUCTURE HAS CREATED THAT PATTERN!
Typical left-wing thought pattern: the government creates a problem; the government gnashes its teeth over the problem; the government proposes more of what caused the problem in the first place.
But in the case of int'l trade, the typical equation gets thrown out of balance by a slew of "conservatives" clamoring, "AMEN! Tax corporations through the nose! SURE! That'll make 'em stay state-side!"
Mmm-Hmmm!
We have the most punitive corporate tax structure on Earth. And instead of arguing to end the triple and quadruple taxation of corporate profits (individual taxes from ALL employees, including execs and management; dividends/capital gains; sales taxes; entity income taxes), we have some among our own side who want to stick it to the "evil corporation" even more.
Who ever would have thought that a piece of paper which represents a common human undertaking to provide goods and services to people who demand them would end up being portrayed as a bogieman with a life of its own?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I no more want to see Trump at any debate than I want Bob Dole to show up."
Okay, folks, keep it up with the vile personal insults aimed at Trump. GOP candidates, don't take Trump seriously on the issues he raises, but just try to personally marginalize him.
That is the SUREST way to ensure Trump makes a Perot-style independent bid, splits the vote and hands the election to Obama.
The way to get a united GOP behind one candidate and forestall an independent campaign by Trump is to invite him into the debates, discuss the issues openly in front of GOP voters and demonstrate that another candidate is better on the issues.
Refusing to address the issues he raises and resorting only to personal attacks will only build his support among those who wants the issues he raises debated.
How said is it that "conservatives" need to be reminded that the best way to appeal to GOP voters is to debate the issues openly and honestly instead of adopting the typical left-wing politics of personal destruction?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWillH:
GAME OVER! You stopped reading my post IMMEDIATELY after the sentence you quote. It's a long post, to be sure, but you stopped reading immediately, huh?
Then you go on to spill nonsense that I didn't respond to him "on the issues". Well, you would NOT KNOW, because YOU BARELY read my post.
The alternative is that discussions of international trade are not discernible to your eyes.
I confronted Trump's arguments directly on trade with China and International Economics generally.
Do. Your. Self. A. Favor: Read a little more carefully. Or, I recommend ketchup for toe cheese!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse