The desperation of the left in trying to find something, anything, to pin on PDT has reached a new level of intensity with the release of Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury. Based on the tried and true process, now being perfected across the media, of all the news I can make up that fits the narrative, we have even among the least credible statements ever made, that PDT didn’t really want to win the White House at all. Since the book is policy free from what I have read so far, nothing in it is likely to affect Trump’s electability. It will be the same empty heads on the left who think Obama was just peachy versus those who would like to see the American Republic continue on into the future. This is PDT’s response in the story about the book from The Oz.
“I authorised Zero access to White House (actually turned him down many times) for author of phony book! I never spoke to him for book. Full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don’t exist,” Mr Trump tweeted on Thursday.
But Wolff countered: “I absolutely spoke to the President. Whether he realised it was an interview or not. I don’t know, but it certainly was not off the record.”
“Lies, misrepresentations and sources that don’t exist.” Sounds like everything else you find out about PDT in the media. There is such a hunger for anything that attempts to damage The President among the left that if anyone can be thought of as deranged it is his enemies. For a different view, you might try this: The Great Experiment by Victor Davis Hanson. First there were eight years of a far-left “progressive” agenda to be followed by four or even eight years of conservative governance. That is the experiment.
Whatever Donald J. Trump’s political past and vociferous present, his first year of governance is most certainly as hard conservative as Barack Obama’s eight years were hard progressive. We are watching a rare experiment in political governance play out, as we go, in back-to-back fashion, from one pole to its opposite.
Among Obama’s signature foreign policies were “lead from behind” in Libya; quietude during the Iranian anti-theocratic protests; strategic patience with North Korea; the multifaceted and often clandestine efforts to swing the Iran deal; the Russian “reset”; realignment away from Israel, Egypt, and the Gulf monarchies; and rapprochement with Cuba, Venezuela, and the South American Communist and socialist states. . . .
[Domestically] identity politics, progressive policing of ideas on campus, an end to campus free expression that only empowered hate speech, the politicization and expansion of the deep state, along with open borders and new laxities governing citizenship and voting would usher in new, kinder and gentler race, ethnicity, and gender agendas. A single EPA director, one high IRS commissioner, or a federal-appeals-court justice would now exercise far more political power than any congressional committee. The “law” — in the sense of customary non-surveillance of American citizens, disinterested attorneys general, or a nonpartisan bureaucracy — was redefined as whatever would best serve social justice and equality.
On the economic side, more regulations, larger government, more entitlements, higher taxes, zero interest rates, and doubling the national debt were designed to redistribute income and “spread the wealth.” The idea that the stock market could get much higher, that GDP could ever hit 3 percent or above, or that industry and manufacturing would return to the U.S. was caricatured as the ossified pipe dreams of discredited supply-siders.
And in contrast we now have and can look forward to more of this:
Free-market economics, deterrent foreign policies, and conservative cultural reform that are championed in the abstract in think tanks, on radio and television by conservative pundits, and in magazines and journals by conservative intellectuals are currently being put to work concretely in the real world, a rare occurrence. Or they’re being implemented as least as much as possible with a president and a Congress of the same party behind them and within a set tenure.
All sounds good to me. What I can’t work out is why it doesn’t all sound good to them.