Time to Chill - Nothing is as Black and White as You Suppose: Note to a Friend Regarding the Trump Impeachment

I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?

I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime. 

Regarding you’re particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech.

Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.

Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?

I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty which limits a president’s Article II powers.

Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his phone calls with Zelensky? 

I’m assuming your concern here is based on your belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company and Hunter Biden was on its board.

Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to bring up his concerns about the former vice president? 

I don’t think you have the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.

Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)? 

I double checked. I couldn’t find anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t think this question gets you anywhere.

Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?

Again, you seem to assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.

Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him? 

My understanding is that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing nefarious about this element of the story.

Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop? 

Sondland’s testimony was not a clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo? 

As I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his part.

Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an investigation into the Bidens? 

I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At best, this looks like a second-hand report.

Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid? 

This question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had nothing to do with the whistleblower.

Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine? 

As I understand it, Yovanovitch was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president.

Why does Trump still refuse to release documents? 

Trump’s actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of executive privilege.

Why does Trump still keep people from testifying? 

Again, there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the president’s prerogatives.  For better or worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the balance of power between the Congress and the president.

Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s explicit quid pro quo demand. 

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Trump Triumph: Attacks Socialism at State of the Union Speech

After listening to Trump's State of the Union speech this evening, I'm feeling grateful that we are a long way from the days when the Republican politicians minimized the threat of socialism, a threat that is still growing in the dark hearts of so many powerful Democrat leaders.

I thought is was a smooth, easy to follow, well-written speech. It was meant to build his support beyond his base, demonstrate that he had nothing in common with the worst elements of his base, all while remaining faithful to his base, the white blue collar workers who put him over the top in the electoral college vote in November 2016.

The immediate reaction to the speech seems to be overwhelmingly favorable. A quick poll by CNN found that 76% of their respondents approved of the speech.

What exactly did I like about the speech? I liked his reminder that illegal immigration hurts the working class and advantages the wealthy educated elites.

"No issue better illustrates the divide between America’s working-class and America’s political class than illegal immigration," said Trump. "Wealthy politicians and donors push for open borders, while living their lives behind walls and gates and guards."

These elites enjoy the benefits of illegal immigration including downward pressure on wages while suffering virtually none of the negative consequences of illegal immigration including increased crime, violence, drug use, and competition for scarce jobs. Trump nailed down in a clear and vivid manner that the native born poor are not benefited by illegal immigration. They are harmed by it. Sometimes killed by it.

I was surprised by how little spontaneity and humor was in the speech. At a certain point, the president must also be the entertainer-in-chief. There was little to show of this charming side of Trump aside from his brief comment to Democrat female legislators applauding women in the workforce that he had an even better applause line coming.

The one element of humor for me was that House Speaker Pelosi made a big fashion mistake by wearing a piece of jewelry which looked like a ball gag.

The very best moments of the speech, for me, were is clear denunciation of the Democrats who think nothing of promoting clearly evil policies including socialism and infanticide. From the reaction on the House floor, it was obvious to me that too many Democrats fail to realize they are on the wrong side of history on both topics.

Trump reached out to minorities, Jews, women, and traditional Democrats through his choice of guests and calling out how his policies have benefited virtually all of the key Democrat party elements. He not so subtly reminded us that he was in favor of stopping the Nazis, liberating concentration camps, and protecting Jews of today from antisemitism. He held tight to his base through all of this by stressing his willingness to stop illegal immigration, harmful trade deals, and feminist inspired post-birth abortions.

I was thankful for his attack on socialism which he slide in after his talk about socialist Venezuela. "America was founded on liberty and Independence and not government coercion, domination, and control," Trump said. "We are born free and we will stay free." As he pointed out we will renew our resolve that "America will never be a socialist country."

These were reassuring words from the man who has the insight and the skills needed to save us from being a socialist nation.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

What Do Conservatives Even Stand for Anymore?

This somewhat snarky question arose to my attention on Quora. The questioner wrote: "There was a time when conservatives stood for traditional values, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and strong national defense. Yet, many conservatives continue to stand by Trump who napalm those values regularly. Is their sole unifying value in 2017 the shared hatred of liberals?"

Frankly, I just don’t buy the premise of the question, specifically the suggestion that Trump has “napalmed” conservative values. Look at the evidence:

• He picked Mike Pence as his vice-president.
• He has submitted a budget that cuts back dramatically on domestic spending.
• He is making efforts to reduce the regulations that have been strangling the economy and reducing income to the federal government.
• He seems to be pretty aggressive in both funding and respecting the military.

Republicans are at their strongest level of political power since the 1920s and Trump has managed to win over the white working class in a manner that will make it difficult for Democrats to win again at the national level for at least a generation.

I think the unifying factor here is defending the interests of the white working class. As long as Democrats vilify the white working class, I do not think they will have much opportunity to win significant power at either the state or federal level.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Which President is Most Like Trump? I Vote Jefferson

As someone who once taught courses at Williams College on the presidency, I suppose I should The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House.

chime in. One of the simplest models on predicting presidential performance comes from James David Barber's book,

He evaluates presidents along two variables: Are they active or passive, and are they - for lack of better words - happy or sad. In this model, Trump falls into what Barber sees as the most useful quadrant, active-positive. This places Trump among previous active-positive presidents like Thomas Jefferson and F. D. Roosevelt. In many ways, it might be useful to explore the parallels between Trump and Jefferson to see what might happen - good or bad - under an "America First" president.

Here's a useful link regarding Barber's model, http://academic.regis.edu/jriley/414%20presidential_character.htm

As I initially explored the idea of a Jefferson and Trump comparison, I was intrigued to see that I was not among the first to take this connection seriously. For example, Rhys Jones wrote an interesting article on this topic in History Today, just prior to the election, called "Donald Trump and the Election of 1800." He makes is clear that Trump has tapped into a theme of anti-globalization that would have been attractive to many of our Founding Fathers, including Jefferson. Comparing the two, he writes:

Both consider the US to be a world unto itself. In 1803, Jefferson purchased the vast Louisiana territories from Napoleon at the fire sale price of two cents per acre. The resulting westward expansion enabled him to re-orientate America away from its eastern seaboard, away from Atlantic trade, and towards the promise of a simpler future, in which traditionalism and localism would take precedent over global commerce. Jefferson often referred to America as an ‘Empire of Liberty’, a continent that would mind its own business, safely cocooned from the complicated politics and warfare of Napoleonic Europe. These same instincts for isolationism fixate Trump and his base. In his disregard for NATO and adherence to economic protectionism, Trump imagines that America can – literally – wall itself off from the outside world.

 Likewise, Jones sees Jefferson's powerful anti-elitism as another key similarity with the out-spoken and often outrageous Trump:

And while Jefferson was not a rabble-rouser like Trump, he certainly indulged the politics of populism. During a series of agrarian revolts in Massachusetts in 1787, which threatened to violently overturn local government, Jefferson applauded the rioters. ‘A little rebellion now and then is a good thing’, he wrote. The revolt was stimulated by economic hardship among the rural population who demanded financial relief and the printing of paper money – sentiments that earned Jefferson’s sympathy.

All in all, Jefferson advocated states' rights over the federal government. Like Trump, he focused on cutting the size of the federal government and reduced its spending (even on the military). He paid $15 million for the Louisiana Purchase, and neatly doubling the nation's size while he was in office. Like Jefferson, Trump as the opportunity to grow our nation's wealth and status: "Big League." Thanks to Barber's insight, there is a good chance that Trump has what it takes to win this fight too.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

Ten to One Against the Odds: Cashing in on Trump's Magnificient Victory

I really do not have the money to bet. I do not have any interest in it either. Whatever makes compulsive gamblers want to try their luck against a casino seems to have no hold at all on my otherwise fragile neural-system. Nevertheless, I was pressured into a bet on the presidential election.

After Trump locked up the nomination in July, one of my friends at the gym bet me $100.00 that Trump would lose the election. I do not bet, as a rule, so I turned him down: "I don't have that kind of money."

"I'll bet $100.00 to your $10.00 that he will lose," he replied. I was tired from 20 minutes on the elliptical. I shook his hand and took the bet. I could handle paying him $10.00 if Trump bombed out in November.

At any rate, I showed up at the gym this afternoon and my friend discretely handed me the $100.00 bill posted above. I tried to give him his money back. He refused. "Were you surprised?" I asked. "Oh, yes," he exclaimed.

I suppose I learned a little bit about my own political calculus. This summer, I would have accepted a ten to one odds against bet on Trump. I would have and I did. Based on everything I know about polling and presidential elections, I knew in my heart that Trump's chance of winning was well above 10%.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.

No Spirit Cooking for Me: Trump Looks Good on Election Day

It looks like things are looking very bright for Trump tonight. To me, the election turns on the extent to which Trump has brought about an electoral realignment around a nationalist/populist agenda of protectionism, anti-illegal immigration and strict regulation of immigrants from countries dominated by Islamic extremists. The key, as always, involves the movement of the white working class.

I have always fought for the white working class, even back in the days when I was a young Marxist socialist, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/an_alexis_de_tocqueville_for_our_time.html Coming from a poor family, I was a Democrat deep into my twenties. I think I was among the first to bail on the Democrat party, however, once I figured out its hostility to young white men like me back in the mid-1980s.

Affirmative action was one of the first big hints that Democrats did not care whether I lived or died. Since then, I think it is safe to say that hostility to young whites has increased astronomically since then, even at places like Williams College.

Early signs seem to indicate that there is a surge of white working class voters, a lower than normal turnout for African-Americans and reasonable hope that the Hispanic voters who are turning out are not lock-step in line with Hillary. I do not think, for example, that Hispanic voters will be too pleased to realize that the Clinton crowd is into the whole spirit cooking nonsense.

Trump is ahead in the best poll in the business, IBD/TIPP, which shows Trump ahead by 2 points. See, http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Their model is weighted by the extra enthusiasm of Trump voters and low enthusiasm for Hillary among Democrats. I’m certainly feeling quite confident this afternoon. As I predicted earlier, the high level of undecided voters in this election would soon come to an end and those undecided voters would most likely break against the incumbent, i.e. Hillary Clinton.

As for the electoral college, Hillary’s advantage there is actually quite slender and should easily be breached by a higher popular vote for Trump.

I guess I’m cautiously bullish on Trump there too. I’m giving him FL, NC and OH. I just don’t think Republicans can ever win in PA. I would love to see him win in MI, but I don’t think he has the votes. I feel like NV is lost. I put him over by giving him NH. I’m expecting 265 electoral votes for Hillary and 272 for Trump. Here’s what my map looks like:

See, http://www.270towin.com/maps/QmWNb

One of the most amazing bright spots for Trump today is that The Democracy Institute, the only public poll to correctly predict Brexit, published a poll on Monday showing Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by five points.

According to their press release, in the survey conducted Nov. 3 to Nov. 6 with 1,390 likely voters, Trump leads Clinton 50 percent to 45 percent. The results have a 2.5 percent margin of error.

See, http://www.breitbart.com/live/2016-election-day-live-updates/correct-public-brexit-poll-predicts-trump-victory/

The bottom line for me is that the size of the victory, for either Trump or Hillary, matters a lot in terms of setting a mandate for the next president. A big victory for Trump would show a significant electoral realignment. The same would be true for Hillary.

I wish I could be more confident about Trump’s chances, but I’m totally flummoxed by polling right now. The polls showed Romney winning and I totally believed them at the time, as did the Romney campaign. Now, I have less confidence in polling. I’m afraid people don’t even answer their cell phone or landline any more unless they recognize the phone number. Maybe there are going to be better, more reliable ways to predict voting behavior in the future?

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.