September 7, 2017

More Trump Revolution

I'm in a good mood today. Two Trump Revolution posts. You're welcome.

I'll even tweak a favorite of mine. Reason magazine sends an email highlighting some stories they're certain I'd enjoy:

Hey Libertarians for Trump, How Much More #Winning Can You Take?
The president is doing everything he can do to alienate libertarians who believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of government.
by Nick Gillespie and Todd Krainin

Okay, typical Reason scathing of any elected Republican, much less President Donald J. Trump. But, what's this other one?
Betsy DeVos: The Era of Weaponized Title IX in Campus Rape Cases Is Over
Through intimidation and coercion, the failed system has clearly pushed schools to overreach.
by Robby Soave

Who made Betsy DeVos Secretary of Education? Was that Ron Paul?

The DeVos piece is worth a red in full.

No one could accuse DeVos of pulling punches. Her speech accuses her predecessors of "weaponizing" federal regulations and turning them against students.

"The era of 'rule by letter' is over," her speech says, referencing the Obama-era Education Department's infamous "Dear Colleague" letter, which fundamentally changed the way schools handle sexual misconduct issues.

Trump Revolution Posted by John Kranz at September 7, 2017 6:20 PM

Serious question: Which of Donald Trump's primary opponents would also have appointed DeVos?

One for sure who would not have is Jeb! Bush. What professional politician would appoint a disruptor to his or her cabinet?

That's an excellent adjective for POTUS 45 too, by the way - "disruptor." After nearly a century of barely-checked Progressivism, America's 2-party polity is in desperate need of some disruption.

Posted by: johngalt at September 8, 2017 6:59 PM

Zero. And I think I have admitted that. Same for Ajit Pai at FCC and Scott Gottlieb at the FDA. A Jeb Bush / George Bush / Mitt Romney would not tolerate the backlash, and I admit that's being a key advantage -- removing the "media veto" of a controversial candidate is a huge plus.

But the other side of the coin (or sword) is "to whom does he pay attention when he is indeed wrong?"

Posted by: jk at September 10, 2017 12:11 PM

Having endured eight years of President Obama, I'm not really that concerned about what damage Trump might do. Now, Hillary, on the other hand...

Posted by: johngalt at September 11, 2017 3:22 PM

Well, I did start this post to be nice. But that was yesterday and two comments ago.

I'll die on this hill: Really? The last guy was bad and the President's opponent was bad. Therefore, I am going to let him do whatever the hell he wants! Seriously, man, this is grossly worrisome to me and you are far from the only offender.

The folks at Reason can be a little tiresome because they recognize no pragmatism or marginal improvement, but the basic idea to be a little suspicious of EVERY politician seems well warranted by recent history.

Posted by: jk at September 11, 2017 4:24 PM

I'm not "going to let him do whatever the hell he wants" although the idea of me personally stopping any president from doing anything seems more than a little Quixotic. What I meant was, President Obama didn't completely destroy America in eight years, with virtually no counterbalance from the Fifth Estate. President Trump can't go to the bathroom without mass media pushback.

The risk they run, however, is the same as the boy who cried wolf. When President Trump "is indeed wrong" how will the voting public know it is any different than, say, media criticism of the first lady's footwear?

Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2017 5:28 PM | What do you think? [5]