{"id":8597,"date":"2019-08-02T23:49:49","date_gmt":"2019-08-02T23:49:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=8597"},"modified":"2025-01-21T13:05:29","modified_gmt":"2025-01-21T13:05:29","slug":"on-why-it-might-be-better-gasp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=8597","title":{"rendered":"On \u201cwhy it might be better\u2026\u201d (Gasp!)"},"content":{"rendered":"

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

I’m no\u00a0\u201cTrump-humper<\/a>,” but it seems to me that America might actually be better off if Donald Trump did get<\/em> <\/strong>re-elected in 2020.\u00a0 My main concern?\u00a0 He’d still be eligible to run in 2024, and in the intervening four years – with a Democrat as president – he might just wreak more<\/em><\/strong> havoc to American democracy than he could as president.<\/p>\n

Think of it.\u00a0 Trump sitting on the sidelines, humiliated, much as he was when Obama joked, “Donald Trump is here . . . still!<\/em><\/strong>”\u00a0 (Google<\/a><\/em> “obama trump is here still youtube.”) \u00a0<\/i>And think of him still<\/em><\/strong> managing to get his face on the “front page,” each and every day, possibly drumming up enough support – or gumming up the works<\/a><\/span><\/u> enough – to get himself re-elected in 2028.\u00a0 (Like Grover Cleveland<\/a> did in 1884 and 1892 –\u00a0with four years in between of Benjamin Harrison<\/a> – thus becoming the 22d and<\/strong> 24th president.)<\/em><\/p>\n

So wouldn’t it be better to get it over with?\u00a0 To get rid of Trump once and for all, in 2024?\u00a0 Then too, if he did<\/em><\/strong> get re-elected in 2020, he would immediately become a “lame duck.”<\/p>\n

Strictly speaking a “lame duck” is an official “whose successor has already been, or in the near-term will be, elected.”\u00a0 But it can also<\/em><\/strong> refer to a U.S. president who’s been elected to his (or her) second term.\u00a0 See Lame duck (politics) – Wikipedia<\/a>, saying the status can be due to “a term limit<\/a> which keeps the official from running for that particular office again.”<\/p>\n

The official is often seen as having less influence with other politicians due to their limited time left in office.\u00a0 Conversely, a lame duck is free to make decisions that exercise their standard powers with little fear of consequence<\/strong>…\u00a0 Even at the local level, politicians that do not seek reelection to office lose their credibility and influence to fellow councilmen.\u00a0 Projects uncompleted may fall to the wayside as their influence is greatly diminished.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See also 22d Amendment to the U.S. Constitution<\/a>, and Lame Duck: Definition, President, Amendment, Sessions<\/a>.\u00a0 The latter noted that any U.S. president winning a second term “automatically<\/strong><\/em> becomes a lame duck<\/a>.”\u00a0 Then too, because the amendment keeps a president from serving a third term, “He doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected.”<\/p>\n

For another take see Putin won reelection yesterday.\u00a0 Now he\u2019s<\/strong><\/em> a \u2018lame duck<\/a>.’\u00a0 The March 2018 Washington Post article featured\u00a0a “quick take on the implications” of the election, with writer Joshua Tucker<\/a> reaching out “to my colleagues at PONARS-Eurasia<\/a>.”\u00a0 One writer said the “key thing that happened Sunday is that Putin formally became a lame duck in a political system dependent on one man.”\u00a0 (Which sounds eerily familiar.*) \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Another point, from Henry Hale<\/a>, professor at George Washington University:<\/p>\n

\n

While the big result for Putin seems to reflect continuity and stability, Russia now enters a period of unsettling uncertainty.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the big issue:\u00a0 Putin cannot run again without changing the constitution.\u00a0 Positioning for a possible succession struggle is already on the minds of Russia\u2019s political class.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As to that last sentence, “locally” it could be amended to read:\u00a0 “Positioning for a possible succession struggle is already on the minds of America’s conservative<\/em><\/strong> class.”\u00a0 (In the same way, if Trump got re-elected in 2020 he couldn’t run again in 2024 “without changing the constitution.”)<\/em><\/p>\n

As for Tucker’s own “two cents… \u00a0Even though the next election is six years away, Putin\u2019s ability to control events in Russia will begin to dissipate as soon as it becomes clear he really is not running for reelection in 2024.”\u00a0 In Trump’s case – <\/i>should he win re-election – <\/i>his ability to control events in America will dissipate, because<\/em> <\/strong>of the 22d Amendment.<\/p>\n

See also the Belated 4th of July meditation<\/a>, which spoke at length about the 22d Amendment<\/a> and its effect on “The Donald<\/a>.”\u00a0 The point?\u00a0 Whether by “popular” vote in 2020 or operation of law in 2024, Trump will<\/em> <\/strong>end up leaving the White House.\u00a0 What happens then?\u00a0 (Aside from the cheering, the dancing in\u00a0 the streets, the fireworks and parades.)\u00a0<\/em> For one thing it would begin a new nightmare \u2013 for Donald Trump.\u00a0 (No more “in the news every &^%$ day!”)<\/em><\/p>\n

But there’s another possible result:\u00a0 \u201clame-duck presidents are more concerned with their legacy. They can focus on policies that are\u00a0less popular, but more far-reaching.\u201d\u00a0 Which could<\/em> <\/strong>mean that Trump would no longer have to worry about catering to his wacko base.<\/p>\n

One example from history:\u00a0 \u201cPresident Ronald Reagan<\/a>\u00a0signed an arms control treaty<\/a> with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev,\u201d and famously asked him to \u201ctear down this wall\u201d in a speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987.\u00a0 \u201cThat was despite his opposition to arms control during his presidency.\u201d\u00a0 In Trump\u2019s case \u2013 and maybe both more concerned with his legacy and less concerned about catering to his base \u2013 he might<\/em> <\/strong>become the man I had such (possible)<\/em> hopes for.<\/p>\n

In 2016’s OTHER \u201cTeflon Don<\/a>,” I compared Trump to P.T. Barnum<\/a>.\u00a0 But – surprise of surprises – Barnum turned out a humane, effective and ethical<\/em><\/strong> politician:<\/p>\n

Barnum served two terms in the Connecticut<\/a> legislature in 1865 as a Republican<\/a>. \u00a0[On slavery]\u00a0and African-American suffrage, Barnum spoke before the legislature and said, \u201cA human soul, \u2018that God has created and Christ died for<\/strong>,\u2019 is not to be trifled with.\u00a0 It may tenant the body of a Chinaman, a Turk, an Arab or a Hottentot \u2013 it is still an immortal spirit.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which no doubt surprised a number of his supporters.\u00a0 And from there he got elected Mayor of Bridgeport, CT<\/a>\u00a0in 1875, and \u201cworked to improve the water supply, bring gas lighting<\/a> to streets, and enforce liquor and prostitution laws.”\u00a0 And<\/em><\/strong> he was instrumental in starting Bridgeport Hospital<\/a> in 1878, becoming its first president. \u00a0 Thus Barnum – credited with saying there\u2019s a sucker born every minute<\/a> – “evolved from a man of common stereotypes . . . to a leader for emancipation by the Civil War.\u201d\u00a0 And maybe – just maybe – Trump could also “evolve.”<\/p>\n

So who knows?\u00a0 If:\u00a0 1) Trump did get re-elected in 2020, and 2) no longer had to worry about throwing raw meat at his wacko base, and 3) started seriously thinking about his legacy (or developed a conscience, or started appreciating that he’s “closer to the end than to the beginning”)<\/em>, he might actually evolve – as Barnum did – into a “humane, effective and ethical<\/em><\/strong> politician.”<\/p>\n

Stranger things have happened.\u00a0 (Though I’m not holding my breath…)<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

\"Jumbo<\/p>\n

Will Donald Trump’s\u00a0Greatest Show on Earth<\/a><\/em>\u00a0continue past 2020?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

The original post had an upper image courtesy of Unintended Consequences\u00a0– Image Results<\/a>. I included the caption, “I couldn’t bring myself to headline with, ‘Why it might be better if Trump got re-elected<\/strong>…'” (I thought there might be unintended if not unforeseen consequences from such a re-election, like that he might turn into a “humane, effective and ethical<\/strong> politician.”\u00a0<\/em>See also Unintended consequences – Wikipedia<\/a>. Also called “<\/em>unanticipated consequences\u00a0or\u00a0unforeseen consequences,” they’re defined as outcomes “not the ones foreseen and intended by a purposeful action.”\u00a0 They are\u00a0<\/em>grouped into three types:\u00a0 1) An u<\/em>nexpected benefit (“luck<\/a>,\u00a0serendipity<\/a>\u00a0or a\u00a0windfall<\/a>“), or an 2) u<\/em>nexpected drawback or “unexpected detriment” in addition<\/strong> to the desired effect, or 3) a “<\/em>Perverse result.”\u00a0 That’ third one is a “perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse). This is sometimes referred to as ‘backfire.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0I\u2019m no\u00a0\u201cTrump-humper<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0 The term is a short version of <\/em>\u201cTrump-humping evangelical<\/a>.”\u00a0 That in turn is a term mentioned in a post in my companion blog, \u201cTrump-humping\u201d \u2013 and Christians arguing with each other<\/a>.\u00a0 It’s based on a reader comment to an article in The Resurgent<\/a><\/span><\/u><\/em> website entitled, After\u00a0NPR\u2019s\u00a0Embarrassment\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0Clear:\u00a0 We\u00a0Need\u00a0More Christians in Media<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

(A note:\u00a0 The “Resurgent” is a\u00a0conservative website started in 2016 by Erick Erickson<\/a>, a conservative evangelical blogger<\/a> and radio host famous for making controversial statements.\u00a0 In one case he took issue with Trump’s saying 2015 debate-moderator Megyn Kelly<\/a> had \u201cblood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever\u201d while questioning him.\u00a0 “The next day, Erickson disinvited Trump from a RedState gathering held in Atlanta, calling Trump’s remark ‘a bridge too far’ and that even ‘blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross’ certain lines, including decency.”\u00a0 But in 2019 Erickson endorsed Trump for re-election in 2020.\u00a0 For other, more controversial remarks see the Wikipedia<\/a> article on Erickson.)<\/em><\/p>\n

So anyway, the comment said,\u00a0 “We need more serious Christians \u2013 not Trump-humping evangelicals<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 in media.”\u00a0 Which led to this response, by Patriotmom<\/em>:\u00a0 “The serious Christians I know would not call someone a \u2018Trump-humping evangelical.’\u201d\u00a0 Which I said was probably true.\u00a0 Also, the article actually didn’t<\/strong> say we need more Christians in media; that was the headline writer.\u00a0 The article writer actually said “What is needed more than anything in the world of mass media today is a substantial influx of new reporters, journalists, and anchors who can speak intelligently<\/strong> about Christianity.”\u00a0 Which is something entirely different. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0 “Lame duck is free to . . . exercise their standard powers.”\u00a0 I recognized the incorrect grammar; “lame duck” is singular and “their powers” is plural.\u00a0 The writer apparently chose not to “gum up the works<\/a>” by saying “he or she,” or risk offense by using one or the other sex-distinctions.\u00a0 Likewise I chose not to gum up the works by writing “sic” in brackets, with “sic” loosely translated as “that’s the way the dumbass wrote it!”\u00a0 Also in the same paragraph, the proper grammar would be “politicians who,” not “politicians that<\/strong> do not seek…”\u00a0 (Just so you know I’m<\/strong> not the dumbass…)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Vladimir Putin<\/a>\u00a0image is courtesy of\u00a0<\/em>Wikipedia<\/a>.\u00a0 The caption:\u00a0 “Putin in\u00a0KGB<\/a>,\u00a0c.<\/abbr>\u00a01980.”\u00a0 From 1954 on the KGB was the “<\/em>main\u00a0security agency<\/a>\u00a0for the\u00a0Soviet Union<\/a>.”\u00a0 It was preceded by agencies like “Cheka<\/a>,\u00a0NKGB<\/a>,\u00a0NKVD<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0MGB<\/a>\u00a0. . .\u00a0acting as\u00a0internal security<\/a>,\u00a0intelligence<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0secret police<\/a>.”\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Its functions included foreign intelligence, counter-intelligence, and “combating nationalism, dissent, and anti-Soviet activities.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>In 1991, after the\u00a0dissolution of the Soviet Union<\/a>, the KGB was split into the\u00a0Federal Security Service<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Foreign Intelligence Service<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Russian Federation<\/a>.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Re:\u00a0 “Eerily familiar.”\u00a0 An interesting note from the Putin won reelection yesterday<\/a> article: “Putinism in Russia (coupled with Trump\u2019s assault on checks and balances in the U.S. and cutbacks in U.S. foreign assistance\u00a0to democratic causes in foreign countries) is likely to eclipse the already dim prospects of democratization in the ex-Soviet states.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Also re:\u00a0 “The Donald.”\u00a0 See 409 Hilarious Nicknames for Donald Trump \u2014 Find Nicknames<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Reagan image is courtesy of\u00a0Reagan Doctrine – Wikipedia<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The lower image is courtesy of the\u00a0Jumbo<\/a>\u00a0link within\u00a0P. T. Barnum \u2013 Wikipedia<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * I’m no\u00a0\u201cTrump-humper,” but it seems to me that America might actually be better off if Donald Trump did get re-elected in 2020.\u00a0 My main concern?\u00a0 He’d still be eligible to run in 2024, and in the intervening four years – with a Democrat as president – he might […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8597"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8597"}],"version-history":[{"count":43,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8597\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21843,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8597\/revisions\/21843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}