Take Trump Seriously, but Not Literally
On Saturday I was disappointed to see that John Gruber of The Daring Fireball had a crass post that tried to paint Peter Thiel as a moron. It was both in poor taste and incorrect. John took exception with Peter’s assertion during the election that you shouldn’t take Donald Trump literally. I have no problem calling out Peter Thiel when he’s wrong, but on Donald Trump he was right on the money.
Peter Thiel is absolutely right that you have to take Donald Trump seriously but not literally. You have to take him seriously because Donald doesn’t say something without intending to back it up with action. However, you can’t take him literally because he’s generally trying to communicate his thoughts off the cuff, but they may not be his final policies. Career politicians have generally learned to keep their mouths shut until they are ready to communicate policy. But Donald Trump is no career politician.
Case in point. During Donald Trump’s campaign, he said he’d like to enact a Muslim ban. However, last week’s executive order was not a Muslim ban. It wasn’t even a ban. It was a temporary pause in vetting to allow for new policies to be crafted and rolled out.
There are two main points to Donald Trump’s executive order:
If this was intended to be a Muslim ban, then it was poorly thought out. It doesn’t include the most populous Islamic states of Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. So calling this a “Muslim Ban” belies either stupidity or deception.
Why these seven nations? First, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan were specifically called out in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. And who was president in 2015? And in February of 2016 Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were added to the list. Again, this was all under Barack Obama. These nations were singled out because their vetting apparatus was in poor shape or non-existent. Syria, in particular, is so bad that Syrian passports are commonly found for sale on the street throughout the Middle East. Hence, the indefinite ban for Syria versus 90 days.
I’ve also heard some liberal propagandists try to make hay out of the fact that this order doesn’t cover the nations from where the 9-11 hijackers came. Some in the same breath as calling this a “Muslim ban”. But leaving these nations off of the executive order makes sense. The Obama administration wasn’t trying to get revenge on Muslims. The Visa Act of 2015 was all about trying to identify those nations who were not making a good faith attempt at weeding out potential terrorists.
Regarding the limit of 50,000 total annual refugees, this is the national average if you go back to the year 2000. Even during Obama’s presidency, he barely admitted more than 50,000 refugees in 2011 and 2012 and was around 70,000 for 2013 and 2014. It was Obama’s dramatic increase in refugee acceptance in 2016 that was a departure from the norm, not Donald Trump’s contraction. Donald is simply going to back to the historical average, and there’s nothing unprecedented about it.
There has also been some discussion regarding Donald Trump’s executive order, because it will only consider receiving Christians from these seven nations. The insinuation is that this must be some kind of religious bigotry. Trump’s accusers would be ignorant of federal asylum and refugee assistance law. The United States has a long-standing policy of accepting religious minorities when they are persecuted by the majority religion. So that means in countries that are predominantly Muslim, Christians would very well qualify as religious minorities, where Muslims do not. Again, this policy existed long before Trump.
But not taking Trump literally also applies to the southern border. During the campaign, Donald Trump famously said that “there are ways” to get all the illegal aliens back to Mexico. He also said that he’d build a wall across the whole southern border. However, last week when he signed his executive order pertaining to building the wall, he decided not to go after the Dreamers. He also acknowledged that there are parts of the border where a wall may not make sense. Again, if you took Donald Trump literally, you’d think that he was both going to deport the Dreamers and build a wall that covered every foot of the border. Not going to happen.
I don’t know if this was calculated or just pure luck, but this is all working to Trump’s advantage with two key groups. First, Donald Trump won the presidency because blue-collar Democrats crossed party lines and voted for him in the Rust Belt. Second, Trump never had strong support among true die-hard conservatives who believed he would say anything to get elected. But he gained more Democrats than he lost Republicans, so it all worked out in the end.
All the protests on TV are solidifying his support among the former blue-collar Democrats who are anti-immigration. If you’re a blue-collar factory worker, the last thing you think this country needs is more low skilled labor. What Donald Trump has done is just a drop in the bucket, but the media blitz exaggerates the impact and makes it look huge. Further, it’s only temporary. Trump is getting more credit than he deserves.
Additionally, all the die-hard conservative Republicans are getting drawn to Donald by his willingness to tackle the border wall and do the politically incorrect immigration stuff. Immigration issues perfectly illustrate how the liberal mindset is out of step with reality. Europe has struggled with terrorist attacks and crimes against women that are perpetrated by Muslim refugees, and yet the liberals want to hold hands and sing “Kum Ba Yah.” Even in the US as recently as September, it was a refugee from Somalia who went on a stabbing spree on Ohio State’s campus. Despite the protests, this is one issue where Republicans will win with the silent majority every time.
If the media had been quiet, a lot of this may have gone unnoticed by those who don’t pay much attention to current events. But now, Donald is getting maximum exposure. Trump is doing what he always does, exploiting free media to his advantage. On issues that appeal to blue-collar Democrats and conservative Republicans, Donald wants a big media uproar. It doesn’t matter if New York or Seattle liberals are outside picketing. He never had their votes to begin with. But their protests force the free media to put a spotlight on issues that are popular with Trump’s shaky constituencies.
I assumed when Donald Trump was elected, he’d be a one-term president. I figured he’d eventually alienate his blue-collar Democrat constituency and never win over the conservative Republicans. But only a couple of weeks in, he’s doing the opposite. Galvanizing the pro-Trump Democrats and winning over the Republicans.
Trump’s executive order was all about making sure that we do a proper job vetting people who are trying to immigrate from countries that don’t have a good vetting apparatus. How could anyone possibly be against that? If Trump said he wanted a temporary ban on all imported lettuce because 5% of the imports from Mexico were making people sick the Democrats would probably say Trump was racist and trying to starve Americans. But as they say in politics, if your opponent is determined to hang himself, just hand him the rope.
If you were to pose the average American the question, “Should we properly vet immigrants from Muslim nations to ensure that we don’t admit terrorists” the answer would be an overwhelming “yes”.
*** Note: Perhaps I should have mentioned that I come from a family of immigrants. My father is a naturalized US citizen originally from Mexico. Most of my childhood was spent watching my father fight with the US legal system to get Visa’s for his mother and brothers and sisters. IT TOOK ALMOST TEN YEARS. So don’t e-mail me about this puny 90-day pause and how I have no idea what it means to wait. Never once did I ever hear my father complain. It was because he was amazed that this generous American people would take him in and had no responsibility to take others from a foreign land. If it happened, it was a bonus, but if it didn't he always said he had no right to demand what didn't belong to his family.
Case in point. During Donald Trump’s campaign, he said he’d like to enact a Muslim ban. However, last week’s executive order was not a Muslim ban. It wasn’t even a ban. It was a temporary pause in vetting to allow for new policies to be crafted and rolled out.
There are two main points to Donald Trump’s executive order:
- A temporary halt of 90 days on all travelers from seven specific countries to allow for new vetting processes to be created and rolled out and a 120-day temporary halt to all refugees and asylum seekers
- Limiting annual refugee acceptance to 50,000 refugees per year
If this was intended to be a Muslim ban, then it was poorly thought out. It doesn’t include the most populous Islamic states of Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. So calling this a “Muslim Ban” belies either stupidity or deception.
Why these seven nations? First, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Sudan were specifically called out in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. And who was president in 2015? And in February of 2016 Libya, Somalia, and Yemen were added to the list. Again, this was all under Barack Obama. These nations were singled out because their vetting apparatus was in poor shape or non-existent. Syria, in particular, is so bad that Syrian passports are commonly found for sale on the street throughout the Middle East. Hence, the indefinite ban for Syria versus 90 days.
I’ve also heard some liberal propagandists try to make hay out of the fact that this order doesn’t cover the nations from where the 9-11 hijackers came. Some in the same breath as calling this a “Muslim ban”. But leaving these nations off of the executive order makes sense. The Obama administration wasn’t trying to get revenge on Muslims. The Visa Act of 2015 was all about trying to identify those nations who were not making a good faith attempt at weeding out potential terrorists.
Regarding the limit of 50,000 total annual refugees, this is the national average if you go back to the year 2000. Even during Obama’s presidency, he barely admitted more than 50,000 refugees in 2011 and 2012 and was around 70,000 for 2013 and 2014. It was Obama’s dramatic increase in refugee acceptance in 2016 that was a departure from the norm, not Donald Trump’s contraction. Donald is simply going to back to the historical average, and there’s nothing unprecedented about it.
There has also been some discussion regarding Donald Trump’s executive order, because it will only consider receiving Christians from these seven nations. The insinuation is that this must be some kind of religious bigotry. Trump’s accusers would be ignorant of federal asylum and refugee assistance law. The United States has a long-standing policy of accepting religious minorities when they are persecuted by the majority religion. So that means in countries that are predominantly Muslim, Christians would very well qualify as religious minorities, where Muslims do not. Again, this policy existed long before Trump.
But not taking Trump literally also applies to the southern border. During the campaign, Donald Trump famously said that “there are ways” to get all the illegal aliens back to Mexico. He also said that he’d build a wall across the whole southern border. However, last week when he signed his executive order pertaining to building the wall, he decided not to go after the Dreamers. He also acknowledged that there are parts of the border where a wall may not make sense. Again, if you took Donald Trump literally, you’d think that he was both going to deport the Dreamers and build a wall that covered every foot of the border. Not going to happen.
I don’t know if this was calculated or just pure luck, but this is all working to Trump’s advantage with two key groups. First, Donald Trump won the presidency because blue-collar Democrats crossed party lines and voted for him in the Rust Belt. Second, Trump never had strong support among true die-hard conservatives who believed he would say anything to get elected. But he gained more Democrats than he lost Republicans, so it all worked out in the end.
All the protests on TV are solidifying his support among the former blue-collar Democrats who are anti-immigration. If you’re a blue-collar factory worker, the last thing you think this country needs is more low skilled labor. What Donald Trump has done is just a drop in the bucket, but the media blitz exaggerates the impact and makes it look huge. Further, it’s only temporary. Trump is getting more credit than he deserves.
Additionally, all the die-hard conservative Republicans are getting drawn to Donald by his willingness to tackle the border wall and do the politically incorrect immigration stuff. Immigration issues perfectly illustrate how the liberal mindset is out of step with reality. Europe has struggled with terrorist attacks and crimes against women that are perpetrated by Muslim refugees, and yet the liberals want to hold hands and sing “Kum Ba Yah.” Even in the US as recently as September, it was a refugee from Somalia who went on a stabbing spree on Ohio State’s campus. Despite the protests, this is one issue where Republicans will win with the silent majority every time.
If the media had been quiet, a lot of this may have gone unnoticed by those who don’t pay much attention to current events. But now, Donald is getting maximum exposure. Trump is doing what he always does, exploiting free media to his advantage. On issues that appeal to blue-collar Democrats and conservative Republicans, Donald wants a big media uproar. It doesn’t matter if New York or Seattle liberals are outside picketing. He never had their votes to begin with. But their protests force the free media to put a spotlight on issues that are popular with Trump’s shaky constituencies.
I assumed when Donald Trump was elected, he’d be a one-term president. I figured he’d eventually alienate his blue-collar Democrat constituency and never win over the conservative Republicans. But only a couple of weeks in, he’s doing the opposite. Galvanizing the pro-Trump Democrats and winning over the Republicans.
Trump’s executive order was all about making sure that we do a proper job vetting people who are trying to immigrate from countries that don’t have a good vetting apparatus. How could anyone possibly be against that? If Trump said he wanted a temporary ban on all imported lettuce because 5% of the imports from Mexico were making people sick the Democrats would probably say Trump was racist and trying to starve Americans. But as they say in politics, if your opponent is determined to hang himself, just hand him the rope.
If you were to pose the average American the question, “Should we properly vet immigrants from Muslim nations to ensure that we don’t admit terrorists” the answer would be an overwhelming “yes”.
*** Note: Perhaps I should have mentioned that I come from a family of immigrants. My father is a naturalized US citizen originally from Mexico. Most of my childhood was spent watching my father fight with the US legal system to get Visa’s for his mother and brothers and sisters. IT TOOK ALMOST TEN YEARS. So don’t e-mail me about this puny 90-day pause and how I have no idea what it means to wait. Never once did I ever hear my father complain. It was because he was amazed that this generous American people would take him in and had no responsibility to take others from a foreign land. If it happened, it was a bonus, but if it didn't he always said he had no right to demand what didn't belong to his family.
RSS Feed