It's almost arbitrary to limit oneself to a select few incidents, but I'll start with these, some of which I may have previously tweeted over:
- Trump's threatening to defund public schools that don't physically open in the crisis
- Trump's withdrawal from the WHO
- Trump's ICE going after residential foreign students whose universities are open this fall in virtual vs. in-person mode
- Trump threatening to veto defense appropriations over a military base renaming provision
Now, granted, other libertarians may quibble with these. For example, don't I want the federal government to end its involvement with the public school monopoly? And didn't the WHO itself undermine its own credibility with its mishandling the crisis? (See embedded video below.) Why should the American taxpayer subsidize the corrupt UN offshoot? Don't I agree we have a bloated defense budget with dubious international missions over and beyond self-defense mandates? Doesn't the end justify the means?
No. It has more to do with Trump's seizing authority which is not enumerated constitutionally or through statute. It's one thing to negotiate with Congress with the power of the purse. It has more to do with Trump's own election year politics than the national interest--just like Trump's self-serving intervention on the release of Ukraine military aid.
Well, in the case of vetoing defense appropriations, that's certainly constitutional, and the Senate can negotiate the issue with the House, noting the veto threat and the likely difficulties in overriding a veto. The problem is that this is an incidental, nominal issue to be putting our national defense funding at risk. The salient dispute is over a small number of military installations named after Confederate generals/leaders, mostly in the 1920's through 1940's, not by local segregated communities but by the Army, in an era of national reconciliation, based on character, not ideology.[I have dealt in past posts with absurd charges of "treason" in past post and the ludicrous propaganda charge that the war was about slavery. Basically this was an unprovoked invasion of the South, and Lincoln in his first inaugural made it clear the war was about the South paying tariffs, not over slavery, which he would guarantee in the Constitution. Even abolitionist Lysander Spooner condemned Lincoln's invasion! I'm not in denial that slave-holding Southerners had a vested interest in the evil institution, but it was a dying one. For most Confederates, the war was defending their homeland and independence, the same sort of thing as the American Revolution was about at a time slavery was still in place in most colonies.
I've made it clear that vandalism of things like statues--and I don't care if we're talking about Confederates, Union soldiers, abolitionists, Columbus, etc.--if it's not your own property, it's a crime.
As I've tweeted, I'm ambivalent over renaming the 10 military installations in question. There are costs, of course, in renaming things, and I seriously doubt most people are even aware who a military base is named after. I don't particularly care to accommodate politically correct thuggery. I don't doubt much of the support for renaming comes from partisan Dems eager to throw the old Confederate officers under the bus. So I do get why Trump is resenting these politics, although as a Lincoln worshiper, he's being inconsistent.
However, the Army claims now that it's a morale issue for soldiers of color. So if the House makes a collective judgment from a majority of Americans, I can accept that. I do not know why Trump is taking this stand. It violates the general life principle of "don't sweat the small stuff". I do have one exception: I don't want these bastards renaming a fort for the war criminal Sherman.
The threat to cut off federal funding of schools really amounts to about 8% of local school money, generally funded through the states. I never liked the idea of accepting federal money with strings attached or remote bureaucrats micromanaging local schools. I think Trump sees local schooling being remote as something holding back a robust economy before the election, and he knows his reelection may well depend on COVID-19 and economy recovery leading to the election. But I'm very concerned about possible exacerbation of the virus without health safeguards. The fate of our children should not be sacrificed for Trump's reelection.
As for WHO funding, I think basically Trump is trying to divert attention from his own mismanagement of the COVID-19, and the WHO is a convenient scapegoat, whose sympathetic treatment of major funder China makes it yet another target for Trump's China-bashing. Pulling out of the WHO and funding is the wrong thing to do in the middle of a pandemic. It's another thing to do a post-audit after the crisis and suggest reforms.
Finally, going after foreign students attending local universities on student visas is just unconscionable. I'm not going to review my general open immigration advocacy, which has opposed every single xenophobic Trump policy, but it's not just unfair for them to target a small population of people who would likely welcome an opportunity to contribute to the American economy after graduation. It puts American universities in a less competitive position.
No. It has more to do with Trump's seizing authority which is not enumerated constitutionally or through statute. It's one thing to negotiate with Congress with the power of the purse. It has more to do with Trump's own election year politics than the national interest--just like Trump's self-serving intervention on the release of Ukraine military aid.
Well, in the case of vetoing defense appropriations, that's certainly constitutional, and the Senate can negotiate the issue with the House, noting the veto threat and the likely difficulties in overriding a veto. The problem is that this is an incidental, nominal issue to be putting our national defense funding at risk. The salient dispute is over a small number of military installations named after Confederate generals/leaders, mostly in the 1920's through 1940's, not by local segregated communities but by the Army, in an era of national reconciliation, based on character, not ideology.[I have dealt in past posts with absurd charges of "treason" in past post and the ludicrous propaganda charge that the war was about slavery. Basically this was an unprovoked invasion of the South, and Lincoln in his first inaugural made it clear the war was about the South paying tariffs, not over slavery, which he would guarantee in the Constitution. Even abolitionist Lysander Spooner condemned Lincoln's invasion! I'm not in denial that slave-holding Southerners had a vested interest in the evil institution, but it was a dying one. For most Confederates, the war was defending their homeland and independence, the same sort of thing as the American Revolution was about at a time slavery was still in place in most colonies.
I've made it clear that vandalism of things like statues--and I don't care if we're talking about Confederates, Union soldiers, abolitionists, Columbus, etc.--if it's not your own property, it's a crime.
As I've tweeted, I'm ambivalent over renaming the 10 military installations in question. There are costs, of course, in renaming things, and I seriously doubt most people are even aware who a military base is named after. I don't particularly care to accommodate politically correct thuggery. I don't doubt much of the support for renaming comes from partisan Dems eager to throw the old Confederate officers under the bus. So I do get why Trump is resenting these politics, although as a Lincoln worshiper, he's being inconsistent.
However, the Army claims now that it's a morale issue for soldiers of color. So if the House makes a collective judgment from a majority of Americans, I can accept that. I do not know why Trump is taking this stand. It violates the general life principle of "don't sweat the small stuff". I do have one exception: I don't want these bastards renaming a fort for the war criminal Sherman.
The threat to cut off federal funding of schools really amounts to about 8% of local school money, generally funded through the states. I never liked the idea of accepting federal money with strings attached or remote bureaucrats micromanaging local schools. I think Trump sees local schooling being remote as something holding back a robust economy before the election, and he knows his reelection may well depend on COVID-19 and economy recovery leading to the election. But I'm very concerned about possible exacerbation of the virus without health safeguards. The fate of our children should not be sacrificed for Trump's reelection.
As for WHO funding, I think basically Trump is trying to divert attention from his own mismanagement of the COVID-19, and the WHO is a convenient scapegoat, whose sympathetic treatment of major funder China makes it yet another target for Trump's China-bashing. Pulling out of the WHO and funding is the wrong thing to do in the middle of a pandemic. It's another thing to do a post-audit after the crisis and suggest reforms.
Finally, going after foreign students attending local universities on student visas is just unconscionable. I'm not going to review my general open immigration advocacy, which has opposed every single xenophobic Trump policy, but it's not just unfair for them to target a small population of people who would likely welcome an opportunity to contribute to the American economy after graduation. It puts American universities in a less competitive position.
