A couple of questions on ad hoc policy
Okay, I get it, Trump is basking in his glory from scoring an early win on his promise to keep US jobs at home. He has talked Carrier into staying in Indiana rather than running off to Mexico for profit - which has earned him applause by locals. And some raised eyebrows from both libertarians and the business itself. The issue with such individual ad hoc "solutions" is simple: it could incentivize other companies to blackmail the government into giving concessions (tax cuts for individual companies) by threatening to leave the country.
It's also a problem for the libertarian wing among the GOP base, which is a considerable force in right-wing politics. They hate statism, and Trump's potential interventions on the market, if they happen along the same pattern like with Carrier, could cost him a lot of support among his base. Which spells trouble, as far as support from Congress is concerned. We don't want another lame-duck president, do we?
Another issue is foreign policy. Signs of the same ad-hoc sort of behavior can be spotted in the way Trump has hastily contacted Taiwan, angering China. And he has promised to visit Pakistan, another delicate issue. He's treading like an elephant inside a glass shop - he doesn't seek or heed advice on foreign policy (he has previously said outright that he knows more about ISIS than the Pentagon generals), and all in all, his actions have so far suggested of quite a big deal of unpredictability in his future manner of conducting foreign policy. And the world doesn't need an unpredictable America, does it?
He may well start heeding advice, as soon as he surrounds himself with advisors and appoints a Secretary of State, but something tells me the inherent pattern that we're seeing now in his behavior will persist.
So my two questions are actually one question, but split between domestic policy (the "saving jobs" precedent) and foreign policy (the "I'll talk to whoever I please" precedent). Would these hurt America in the long run, rather than help it? I mean, he may've saved a few hundred jobs in Indiana, but if this sort of intervention sends the wrong signals to business (that the market is now unpredictable, and the government could intervene and favor one business at the expense of others, based on arbitrary criteria like "I saw this report on the news the other day and decided to do something") - then how's that going to make America great again? Same applies to overlooking established diplomatic procedure and risking to create the wrong impression in powerful foreign countries about America's intentions regarding issues of great international importance.
It's also a problem for the libertarian wing among the GOP base, which is a considerable force in right-wing politics. They hate statism, and Trump's potential interventions on the market, if they happen along the same pattern like with Carrier, could cost him a lot of support among his base. Which spells trouble, as far as support from Congress is concerned. We don't want another lame-duck president, do we?
Another issue is foreign policy. Signs of the same ad-hoc sort of behavior can be spotted in the way Trump has hastily contacted Taiwan, angering China. And he has promised to visit Pakistan, another delicate issue. He's treading like an elephant inside a glass shop - he doesn't seek or heed advice on foreign policy (he has previously said outright that he knows more about ISIS than the Pentagon generals), and all in all, his actions have so far suggested of quite a big deal of unpredictability in his future manner of conducting foreign policy. And the world doesn't need an unpredictable America, does it?
He may well start heeding advice, as soon as he surrounds himself with advisors and appoints a Secretary of State, but something tells me the inherent pattern that we're seeing now in his behavior will persist.
So my two questions are actually one question, but split between domestic policy (the "saving jobs" precedent) and foreign policy (the "I'll talk to whoever I please" precedent). Would these hurt America in the long run, rather than help it? I mean, he may've saved a few hundred jobs in Indiana, but if this sort of intervention sends the wrong signals to business (that the market is now unpredictable, and the government could intervene and favor one business at the expense of others, based on arbitrary criteria like "I saw this report on the news the other day and decided to do something") - then how's that going to make America great again? Same applies to overlooking established diplomatic procedure and risking to create the wrong impression in powerful foreign countries about America's intentions regarding issues of great international importance.