I'm not arguing with the title per se; it's true enough that George Will, I, and other pro-liberty Trump critics aren't happy with the idea of Trump becoming President. The problem is with his absurd analysis, particularly with George Will's critique (especially of the recent Carrier deal to "save" jobs), which he regards as personal and petty:
What is troubling, however, is that much of Will's negative analysis is driven by personal animus...Will despises Trump, feels that he is an intellectual inferior and even left the Republican Party because of Trump's nomination.The real story is that O'Reilly is an unprincipled populist/nationalist like Trump, and he is a hypocrite, resorting to a personal smear of George Will--not only do I myself share Will's critique, but I also left the GOP precisely because of Trump. Almost everything O'Reilly criticizes Will for would apply to me, except for the fact that neither O'Reilly nor George Will know me and I'm not a member of the national media. We both hold a PhD: Will's doctorate is in political science from Princeton, and he has taught at Michigan State and Harvard. I have been a long-time admirer of George Will; I consider him the finest columnist in America, he's one of the few I follow on Twitter, and I've had a link to his columns on my blogroll for years. I don't think Fox News has used him effectively since he moved from ABC; I used to watch ABC This Week just to listen to Will respond on a panel dominated by Big Government progressives. He is highly articulate and frequently prefaces his comments with a meticulous, detailed background to his point of view.
Is it "personal"? Well, let me start by saying that I consider Trump an ill-tempered, unqualified, incompetent, unprincipled, economically illiterate jerk, and the election has changed nothing. Is that "personal"? Yes and no. I do think he is a deeply flawed person, but this isn't based on an arbitrary basis like "I just don't like the guy, and I don't know why". A lot of my dislike has to do with a long laundry list of things he's said and done in the public eye, including, but not restricted to, his unprovoked insults aimed at Megyn Kelly, John McCain, Ben Carson, Mexicans, etc. I also disliked his obnoxious nicknames for his opponents, e.g., "Crooked" Hillary, "Lyin'" Ted Cruz, "Little" Marco Rubio, and it goes on. It's not personal in the sense I'm not important enough to him for him to personally insult me, but when O'Reilly starts to question people about having negative feelings about Trump as a person, he is being highly hypocritical: Trump is easily the least favorably perceived politician in decades, based on numerous comparative polls, and his uncivil behavior is part of the story.
But my and Will's opinions have more to do with principle and are detailed and specific; it's not that we don't like him and are hitting back at everything he's said or done, rationalizing our dislike. For example, I and others have attacked Hoover's decisions, like the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariff. I also like Barack Obama as a person, but his policies have harmed the nation and the US economy. I did think he was a little too full of himself, and politically he prioritized the wrong policies; from a political standpoint, he has been a failure, losing control of Congress and his successor just losing the general election to Trump. I've agreed with some of his decisions, e.g., his pursuit of TPP, reopening the door to Cuba. In a similar way, I'll agree with Trump if and when he acts consistently with a pro-liberty perspective. In terms of his upcoming cabinet, I'm fine with his selections for secretaries of DoD, Labor and Education. Others puzzle me; there's something to be said for bringing in a talented executive not tied to the status quo, but I am skeptical of how, for example, an oil company executive is suitable to be Secretary of State.
I do want to express particular annoyance with one of O'Reilly's verbal shots--that George Will comes across as a condescending obnoxious know-it-all. (I myself have heard it from others, including one or 2 family members). I haven't heard Will come across as such at all; If you've ever seen Will on duck soup, he is unflappable, doesn't talk over other people and is patient. I think when people like O'Reilly cross paths with a brilliant person who has a differing opinion than theirs, they respond with an undeserved personal shot.
O'Reilly is not happy with Will's commentary on the Trump Carrier deal:
GEORGE WILL: “The problem is when you have in the Carrier case, political power used to bring pressure upon a privately held corporation that has fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value and drive them off with political pressure from making economic decisions about economic assets, you are, in effect, at the end of the day, getting the federal government involved in capital allocation. There is a name for that, it's called socialism.”O'Reilly responds: Putting the annoying "at the end of the day" cliché aside, every hour of the day Will's analysis is ridiculous. Carrier Corporation has an obligation to maximize profits, but if it does that by hurting the country in which it is operating, then the man in charge of that country -- the president -- has an obligation to challenge that.
O'Reilly is putting forward a logically inconsistent argument which presupposes a nationalist, populist perspective. I have slammed O'Reilly's populism before, e.g., the ludicrous belief in the oil speculator conspiracy (but only when oil prices increase), the blurring of the line between federal, state and private sector responsibilities.
Now Will is overstating his point, which logically extended culminates in socialism. Trump isn't necessarily trying to assert comprehensive control over American businesses--just the ones, for example, which involve international operations. Trump, rather, is an economic fascist, much like FDR.
But O'Reilly asserts that Carrier is "hurting" the country by reallocating part of its production to Mexico as if jobs were nationally-owned widgets. This is nonsense; in a dynamic economy, jobs are lost all the time--not just the 800-1100 jobs Trump "saved" at Carrier. But new and better jobs are also created: not because of a government's prescient decision but for intrinsic market reasons. What is Trump going to do? Declare war on industrial robots for making production more efficient, cheaper? With the hubris of "saving" unsustainable dangerous or tedious jobs?
The way of economic success is to expand markets, driving the value for an expanded consumer base by making goods or services compelling values. Not by robbing the many (consumers of Carrier products) for the benefit of the few--showering parasitic employers and workers with special interest tax breaks. (There's also the troubling point of a President-elect using Carrier parent United Technologies federal (defense) contracts as a bargaining chip.) Is there any doubt that Trump and O'Reilly would agree with the following:
We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education…. We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents…. The government must undertake the improvement of public health — by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor — by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of “The Common Good Before the Individual Good.”Do you recognize this passage? It's from the 1920 Nazi Party platform. And let's point out that the hypocritical progressives who try to make fascism the exclusive domain of right-wing nut jobs would also find much merit in Hitler's economic policies.
Under Will's absurd analysis, any corporation hurting American workers should be left alone. Hey, it's their business, let 'em do what they want. Does that make sense to anyone?Hell, yes! At least economically-literate people. The idea that the government monopoly, which operates by pointing guns at its citizens, "knows" better than those who compete for voluntary transactions with consumers is sheer hubris. This quote comes from an interview with the great Walter Block:
There is even a general "rule of two" promulgated by Steve Hanke, E.S. Savas, and others: it costs the public sector roughly twice as much to do anything as the private.Back to O'Reilly:
President Trump's obligation -- and it should have been President Obama's, as well, but it wasn't -- is to try to protect American jobs. So Trump had a conversation with Carrier and basically said if you hurt your workers by moving to Mexico, expect that we will use legal tariffs to hold you accountable.In fact, Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose punitive tariffs. That's a fact under NAFTA and a consequence of equality under the law, the general rule of law. Mexico would have the right to challenge such decisions under WTO and if Trump tried to withdraw from the WTO, American exporters would pay a huge price. The savings to a consumer can translate to purchases or investments, all which contribute to an expanded, competitive market for worker opportunities and increased compensation.
No, the Presidency is not about interfering in the private economy. O'Reilly seems to value an even stronger imperial authoritarian President who can arbitrarily attack any company he doesn't like. which is intrinsically corrupt and anti-Constitutional. Once again, jobs aren't widgets. The US government doesn't own them. Labor is a resource for goods and services; the best way that a President can support a growing economy is by getting out of the way, by reducing regime uncertainty, to lowering government's expensive tax and regulatory burden on business, not by engaging in extortion and thuggery.
Again, that's what Trump should be doing, that's what Obama did not do, and that's a big reason why wages for American workers are stagnant -- too many jobs have been moved overseas.Dead wrong. Manufacturing jobs account for a small, decreasing percentage of the overall labor force, and much of that is due to improvements in production technology, including robotics. Let's not forget that government policy not only caused the Great Recession but exacerbated recovery. Government increased the cost of labor by expanding mandatory benefits (recall both wages and benefits are components of compensation, and benefit mandates, e.g., via disastrous ObamaCare). Up to 2 years of unemployment compensation also kept the cost of labor artificially high, and when benefits expired, there was an increased labor market, holding back wages (old-fashioned supply and demand).
As for demanding that Will drop "the personal stuff", I suggest that if O'Reilly really should promote a more prosperous America, he needs to embrace a pro-liberty, Constitutional perspective, which promotes the more general interests of consumers and drop his affection for pretentious blowhard know-nothing tyrants.
