Way back in January of 2017, I predicted for a French TV audience that Donald Trump would be a big spender like George Bush instead of a small-government conservative like Ronald Reagan.
Sadly, I was right.
I crunched the numbers earlier this year and showed that Trump has been a big spender, no matter how the data is sliced.
Perhaps most shocking, he’s even allowed domestic spending to increase faster than it did under Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.
That’s a terrible track record, especially compared to Reagan’s impressive performance (by the way, these calculations were made before all the coronavirus-related spending, so updated numbers would make Trump look even worse by comparison).
Anyhow, I’m looking at this issue today because of a recent story in the Washington Post.
The Reagan Foundation just told the Trump people to stop using the Gipper’s likeness in their fundraising appeals.
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, which runs the 40th president’s library near Los Angeles, has demanded that President Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC) quit raising campaign money by using Ronald Reagan’s name and likeness. …What came to the foundation’s attention —
and compelled officials there to complain — was a fundraising email that went out July 19… The solicitation offered, for a donation of $45 or more, a “limited edition” commemorative set featuring two gold-colored coins, one with an image of Reagan and one with an image of Trump. …Proceeds from the coin sales went to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising operation that benefits both the Trump campaign and the RNC. …In the 1990s, both Reagan and his wife Nancy signed legal documents that granted the foundation sole rights to their names, likenesses and images. …the RNC accepted the foundation’s demand regarding the fundraising emails.
It’s unclear why the Reagan Foundation made the request.
For what it’s worth, I hope officials were motivated at least in part by disappointment with Trump’s anti-conservative record on government spending (and also on trade).
Simply stated, Trump is no Reagan.
While I’m a big fan of the Gipper, I don’t pretend he had a perfect track record. But I think it’s correct to say that his goal was to advance liberty by shrinking government, even if there were occasional detours.
For instance, Holman Jenkins noted in his Wall Street Journal column that Reagan always had the right long-run goals even when he made short-run comprises on trade that were unfortunate.
Reagan slapped import quotas on cars, motorcycles, forklifts, memory chips, color TVs, machine tools, textiles, steel, Canadian lumber and mushrooms. There was no market meltdown. Donald Trump hit foreign steel and aluminum, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average
fell more than 600 points… The real difference is that Reagan’s protectionist devices were negotiated. They were acts of cartel creation… This was unattractive but it wasn’t a disaster, and Reagan’s protectionism quickly fell away when a global upswing began. …Mr. Trump wants a spectacle with himself at the center. …His confused and misguided ideas about trade are one of his few long and deeply held policy commitments.
And if you need more evidence, look at what Reagan said about trade here, here, and here.
Can you imagine Trump giving such remarks? Or even understanding the underlying principles?
There are also important differences in the populism of Trump and Reagan, as explained by Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute.
…there are different kinds of conservative populism. Until recently, right-wing populism manifested itself in the various forms of the tea party, which emphasized limited government and fiscal restraint. That populism…is very different from Trump’s version.
…Reagan’s themes and rhetoric were decidedly un-Trumpian. The conservative populist who delivered “A Time for Choosing” used broadly inclusive language, focusing his ire at a centralized government that reduced a nation of aspiring individuals to “the masses.” …Reagan’s populist rhetoric was informed by a moderate, big-hearted temperament, a faith in American exceptionalism… He warned of concentrated power that corrodes self-government.
I’ll close with the observation that Trump has enacted some good policies, especially with regard to taxes and red tape.
The bottom line is that I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for Trump or to vote against Trump.
Instead, I simply want people to be consistent and principled advocates of economic liberty instead of blind partisans.
As explained in my Ninth Theorem of Government.
In other words, I don’t care if you’re an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. Just don’t let that support lead you to somehow rationalize that wasteful spending and protectionism are somehow good ideas.
And I don’t care if you’re an enthusiastic never-Trumper. Just don’t let that hostility lead you to somehow decide that tax cuts and deregulation are bad ideas.
P.S. In my speeches over the past few years, I’ve run into many people who tell me that Trump must be good because the media hates him the same way they hated Reagan. It’s certainly true that the establishment press has visceral disdain for both of them. I’ll simply point out that media hostility is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining whether a Republican believes in smaller government.
[…] Trumpkins – populists or national conservatives who don’t care about the size of government […]
[…] Trumpkins – populists or national conservatives who don’t care about the size of government […]
[…] Trumpkins – populists or national conservatives who don’t care about the size of government […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Will the GOP be a small-government Reagan party or a big-government Trump party? […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see that […]
[…] two cents for today is that the current fight between Trumpism and establishment Republicanism is merely stylistic. If you crunch the numbers, you’ll see […]
[…] P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Will the GOP be a small-government Reagan party or a big-government Trump party? […]
[…] P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Will the GOP be a small-government Reagan party or a big-government Trump party? […]
[…] P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Will the GOP be a small-government Reagan party or a big-government Trump party? […]
[…] P.S. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future. Will the GOP be a small-government Reagan party or a big-government Trump party? […]
[…] bottom line is that Trump was no Ronald Reagan. On economic issues, he wasn’t even a Bill […]
[…] help illustrate the different strains of leftism (just as, on the other side of the spectrum, Trumpism is not the same as Reaganism is not the same […]
[…] to help illustrate the different strains of leftism (just as, on the other side of the spectrum, Trumpism is not the same as Reaganism is not the same as […]
[…] P.S. I wish Politicifact had identified me as a libertarian. I’m only willing to be called a conservative if that means Reaganism, but I worry it now means Trumpism. […]
[…] P.S. I wish Politicifact had identified me as a libertarian. I’m only willing to be called a conservative if that means Reaganism, but I worry it now means Trumpism. […]
[…] are plenty of Reagan-style conservatives who definitely are not part of the establishment, yet don’t fit in with Trump’s big-government populism. It will be very interesting to see which anti-establishment […]
[…] are plenty of Reagan-style conservatives who definitely are not part of the establishment, yet don’t fit in with Trump’s big-government populism. It will be very interesting to see which anti-establishment […]
[…] Trump has his share of flaws and he wasn’t the type of Republican I like, but that doesn’t prevent me from acknowledging that he was good on some important issues. He […]
[…] readers know I want the GOP to be the Party of Reaganrather than the Party of […]
[…] I prefer Reagan over Trump, that presumably puts me in the “Restoration” […]
[…] readers know I want the GOP to be the Party of Reaganrather than the Party of […]
[…] readers know I want the GOP to be the Party of Reaganrather than the Party of […]
[…] readers know I want the GOP to be the Party of Reagan rather than the Party of […]
[…] back in early 2017, I warned in an interview that Trump would be a big spender (sadly, I was right). But I wasn’t being reflexively […]
[…] the track record of the 21st century (Bush II, Obama, and Trump) has not been overly favorable for believers in economic […]
In response to William:
I actually debunk the article that you cite within my previous post. The main crux of the article is that Bush set the 2009 fiscal budget, but that is untrue! There are several points that the article either ignores or makes light of:
1)The Democratic Congress and the Republican President reached a spending compromise on September 30, 2008 with HR 2638. That continued spending at FY 2008 levels until March 6, 2009. The remaining 7 months for FY 2009 was spent according to HR 1105, signed by President Obama.
2) The Obama stimulus cost over $800 billion. The difference between the $1.4 trillion 2009 deficit and the 2008 $450 billion deficit is mostly accounted for in the stimulus package.
3) The article COMPLETELY ignores the TARP funding, which was authorized by Bush, but paid back under Obama
Any fair and unbiased person would easily se that putting all of the 2009 spending on Bush is simply unfair. It would make far more sense to use 2008 numbers for Bushes end and Obama’s beginning spot.
In response to @sdu754, I also used to think it was unfair to blame the 2009 fiscal deficit on Bush, but this column from back in 2009 is very persuasive. My left wing CPA friend and my right wing actuary friend both agree Dan got it right. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-fy2009-deficit/
I would like to know how you calculate your numbers, especially for Obama. What is the base year? My guess would be that you count 2009 as a Bush year, which isn’t actually genuine for a few reasons:
1) Bush was only President for 20 days in 2009, Obama was president for the rest of the year
2) The Democrats only allowed Bush to pass a 6 month budget for the fiscal year starting in October of 2008, Obama passed the rest
3) TARP funding was outlaid under Bush, but payed back under Obama, basically shifting between $750 billion to $1 trillion in debt from Obama to Bush
4) Obama passed the $1 trillion dollar stimulus in 2009 adding once again to the “Bush increase”. The “stimulus” also gave Obama a high “starting point” for measuring spending increases as well.
I doubt that any of these figures account for the fact that non-discretionary spending is on autopilot. Most of the spending increases under Bush the elder were due to non-discretionary spending increases and the S&L bailout, much of which was later paid back.
It should be noted that Trump has tried to cut spending, but the special interest groups have fought hard to keep their funding. A good example is public broadcasting. There is literally no good reason for the government to subsidize television radio stations, but when Trump proposed cutting the program, the cries were quite loud. The special interest were successful in saving the program by convincing people that it was essential.
“While I’m a big fan of the Gipper, I don’t pretend he had a perfect track record. But I think it’s correct to say that his goal was to advance liberty by shrinking government, even if there were occasional detours.
For instance, Holman Jenkins noted in his Wall Street Journal column that Reagan always had the right long-run goals even when he made short-run comprises on trade that were unfortunate.”
Do you even read your own words? Trump’s goal IS to “advance liberty by shrinking government.” Has he ever said otherwise? What do you call all the actions he has taken via Executive Orders. Should he ignore the courts and simply rule by EO like BO did? “detours” like a completely fake impeachment, Chinese aggressiveness, insane opposition by the Democrats and their Zombie constituencies? Trump has been consistent in his long-run goals, which are as right as Reagan’s, for 50 years. Just find some of his interviews from the past. I believe someone did a montage of Trump then and now. I haven’t been able to find it but I’ll try.
“Can you imagine Trump giving such remarks? Or even understanding the underlying principles?”
Have you even listened to a Trump speech? Trump understands the “underlying principles” better than you ever will, he’s the frickin’ President so he not only has 50 years of international business experience but he now has a massive intelligence service providing him with even more information.
“The bottom line is that I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for Trump or to vote against Trump.”
You most certainly ARE trying to convince people of something and based on this article it is to vote AGAINST Trump.
“As explained in my Ninth Theorem of Government.
In other words, I don’t care if you’re an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. Just don’t let that support lead you to somehow rationalize that wasteful spending and protectionism are somehow good ideas.”
And who exactly among the rational, conservative, and America loving are rationalizing that “wasteful spending and protectionism” are “somehow good ideas”? We rail against wasteful spending which is driven by the Democrats with the support of RINOs but are powerless to stop it without doing even more harm to America. And “protectionism” is a GREAT thing when you have a Chinese attack on America. How the f’in else are we supposed to protect America from foreign attack? This isn’t some mamby pamby trade war, this is an all-out assault on America. Should we hide in our basement like Biden when we aren’t taking bribes, or try to pay them off like Barack Hussein Obama?
The liberals hated Nixon and they hated Reagan and they hate all Republicans with a passion, but never ever in the history of liberalism have they hated anyone anywhere close to how much they hate Trump. Their hate for him is off the charts. They are going to need much bigger charts to track their immense hatred.
If Trump is no Ronald Reagan, and he isn’t, it’s important to remember that Ronald Reagan was no Calvin Coolidge. We should also remember that Thomas Jefferson was himself no Thomas Jefferson after he became President. I’m not making excuses for anyone, I’m just pointing out that we the people get what we vote for, in spades, good and hard, until it kills us, because that is God’s will that we reap what we sow.
And I think if JFK were around today, his policy preferences would preclude him from being a Democrat. This is how much Democrats have changed. Republicans have changed, too, but Democrats have changed more. All have moved further away from classical liberalism, aka liberty.
More important: Donald Trump is no Hillary Clinton. But like Ronald Reagan he has to battle his own part almost as much as the Democrat party in order to get anything done.
You are more on point with the first part. Do a search for Trump before 2015. A much different perspective. He has not changed his policy suggestions, he just knows he has to compromise to move the nation toward freedom.
Blue-dog Democrats?
I’ve suggested many times that Trump is a Kennedy Democrat. I’ve tried to put together a comparison but the Trump hate is so immense there is too much anti-Trump crap to sift through to find facts.
C’mon, you can’t be that dumb. Oh, wait, you think your readers are dumb too. The vast majority of government spending is NON-duscretionary. Go back and give us those numbers. And remember, Trump is NOT a dictator no matter how much you believe he is. If he were, there would be no Leftists rioting in the streets, America would be healthy and open for business and you and your ilk would be in jail. Just like they do in your favorite country, China, to those that the dictator doesn’t like.
The media and many leftists hate Trump only partly for his policies. The real reason they hate him is because he is obstinately NOT politically correct. And because they cannot accept that he won the 2016 election.
Trump is no great prize. He just looks better than his competition. His policy preferences are similar to pro-labor Democrats of the 1970s and 1980s (as the WSJ put it). But today’s Democrats are left of Europe! Trump is the best of a bad lot, as the saying goes.
Your postscript is compelling. I’ve always figured that Trump is good because reporters hate him. But that can’t mean much. After all, they hated Romney in 2012 and he’s definitely no conservative.