Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Trump is a narcissistic egotist, a grifter, and a liar. He is dangerous. He's not smart, but he's a political savant. And I sometimes have to agree with him. Ouch!

Created by OpenArt AI.

Donald Trump is many things. Malignant narcissist, shallow thinker, bombastic, liar, authoritarian, dangerous. A clown. But a clown with a flamethrower is still dangerous.

So make no mistake, I fear where Trump is taking America and our 250-year experiment in self-rule. But this is the Pancake. So I’m here to say that with everything that Trump and his sycophants are throwing against the wall, there might be a few policies that could be a good thing. It’s the broken clock phenomenon: even it is right twice a day.

This is just my list. I’ve been a Democrat since I could first register to vote, though I’m probably more conservative—that is, in the now archaic Mitt Romney version of conservative—than most of my friends and relatives. I don’t think the MAGA movement represents the conservatism that the Republican Party has promoted from the late 19th century until being captured by Trump 10 years ago. More on this later.

Policy vs. execution

I also want to emphasize that while I may agree with a few policies, the Trump Administration’s execution of almost everything it does is extreme, often counterproductive, and often more for performance than for substance. With this substantial reservation, herein for your consideration and comment, are my areas of policy agreement, with annotation to follow.

The list

• The border.

For the life of me, I can’t understand what Joe Biden and company thought they were doing for their first three years. Yes, Trump, in his first term, was cruel, down to separating families for a time. So perhaps Biden wanted to show he was more compassionate. Fine. For a time, he was able to rely on COVID-related health restrictions to limit the flow from the South. However, that disappeared and nothing workable replaced it, opening the floodgates. Improvements were made last year, but it was too late to undo the images of tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants at a time huddling along the border towns. And then there was the rather politically astute plan of DeSantis and Abbott to ship them by plane and bus to the blue states. It was cruel, but it was effective in bringing the issue to the attention of the blue cities.

The execution of the tough border policy by Trump, via Homan and Noem, is vastly performative. Even those undocumented and charged with felonies deserve due process before being shipped to South Sudan or wherever. But far worse is rounding up our neighbors who have been working productively for years or decades, paying taxes and contributing to Social Security. However, they would never be eligible to collect it. ICE knows where they live. At the very least, they could be notified of the intention to be deported, given time to settle their affairs—no need to break car windows or have masked agents pull them from their workplace. Enough said.

DEI

As I wrote last July (DEI: Flawed and Maybe Ineffective), “Separately, in lowercase, they suggest innocuous principles that are likely widely accepted.” However, “DEI has even become its own industry.” U.S. entities were spending about $8 billion annually on DEI payroll and activities. For example, the University of Michigan had at least 241 paid employees focused on DEI, and payroll costs exceeded $30 million annually. There is a surplus of anecdotal reporting that DEI too often is concerned with including and protecting some favored groups more than others.

In the case of a heterosexual woman employed by Ohio who sued the state, claiming she was passed over for a promotion so that the state could promote a gay man, this past June, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, found in favor of the woman, thus lowering the barrier for reverse discrimination lawsuits.

John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University and a New York Times columnist, also reluctantly agrees that Trump’s policy on DEI has some merit:

In combating DEI, Donald Trump is doing the right thing. In that sentence I just wrote, I almost choked writing the six final words. But it is what I believe. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and it is high time America engaged in an honest conversation about this business called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Here again, Trump has to make the point in extremes. Cutting research grants to any proposal that made even a perfunctory nod to some DEI aspect is juvenile, as was scrubbing all government websites of any hint of D, E, or I. It’s the execution, once more, that is overwrought. Again, McWhorter:

However, the actual substance of Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” reveals—big surprise—a smash of the knout, a coarse, unreflective bleat in the guise of statecraft. Getting DEI right while retaining the moral sophistication our nation is capable of will require actions much more specific—intelligent, even.

• NATO

In 2006, President George W. Bush was the first to urge NATO members to up their military preparedness by devoting at least two percent of their GDP to defense spending. At the time, the U.S. budgeted 3.6 percent, while Portugal, for example, allocated 1.5% and Germany only 1.2%. Although the U.S. had assumed the role of protector of Western Europe from the Soviet Union while Europe rebuilt after World War II, by 2006 there was bipartisan unanimity that it was time for those nations to stop freeloading on the U.S.’s umbrella.

After Russia took over Crimea and a slice of Western Ukraine in 2014, President Obama secured a renewed pledge of the two percent GDP goal. Still, by the time Trump‘s second term began, Portugal and others had barely budged, though Germany had increased to 1.9 percent. So Trump was being consistent with U.S. policy to cajole NATO members to carry more of the defensive burden. Typical Trump, however, he upped the goal line to 5 percent, which even the U.S. was well below. Call it a negotiating tactic—the art of the deal.

However, to gain leverage, Trump occasionally cast doubt on whether the U.S. would come to the defense of allies who were not meeting their spending commitments, implicitly referencing Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This raises concerns about the reliability of the U.S. commitment to NATO's core principle, which could give Russia greater comfort should it choose to encroach on Poland or one of the Baltic countries.

He has also suggested potential trade penalties on countries that he believed were not contributing enough to defense. This seems an inappropriate use of economic penalties against nations that are our friends. Why would we want to hurt their economy and impose further costs on Americans?¹

• Transgender athletes

When I asked this question of what has Trump done that you agree with of 10 or 12 friends last week—all, I’m quite sure, more politically liberal—the only one that several signed on to was his Executive Order “Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports.” One referred to his Congressman, Seth Molton, who explained, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

• Ukraine/Russia?

This, apparently, depends on which day you catch him. Supporting Ukraine against an aggressive Russia should be a no-brainer for anyone who holds America first. With our treasure and Ukrainian lives fighting for their country, it should be an easy decision. But Trump is always about himself. He seemed to turn against Russia only when he felt Putin disrespected him by continuing to kill Ukrainian civilians, resisting Trump’s goal of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Regardless of his intent, for a moment, emphasis on moment, I supported his policy. But then, he completely caved to Putin in Alaska last Friday. So maybe this comes off the list.

• Israel/Gaza

Although in recent weeks Trump has issued nods to the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, he has not exerted any substantive pressure on the Israeli government to accept a ceasefire short of a Hamas capitulation. Pancake readers know that I am more hawkish than most of you are. So I find Trump’s willingness to continue military and overall moral support of Israel is a positive. This isn’t the time to relitigate all the failings of the Netanyahu regime or the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. It is a war against a terrorist organization. The question of the day is whether there are areas I agree with Trump's policy. This is one where, with some reservations that the U.S. could do more to push for aid for Gazans, I am in general congruence with Trump. God help me!

Is Trump a “Conservative?”

The short answer is, absolutely not.

Political conservatism traces its roots to Edmund Burke (1729–1797), widely regarded as its philosophical founder. Burke critiqued the French Revolution in his influential work, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). He argued for the preservation of traditional society, incremental change, social hierarchy, and the accumulated wisdom of institutions and customs.

The Republican Party started solidifying its modern conservative identity following the New Deal era, opposing the expansion of government programs and advocating for fiscal restraint. Ronald Reagan’s presidency marked the consolidation of contemporary Republican ideology: aggressive tax cuts, deregulation, strong national defense, skepticism of government welfare, and initial support for free trade. “Law and order” was a piece of its brand.

Trump is not a “conservative” against most of these criteria.

For heaven’s sake, the man at a minimum riled up the crowd on January 6, 2021, who attacked the Capitol. Individuals physically assaulted police officers. Yet all 1600 that had been convicted, had pleaded guilty, or were under indictment were pardoned on Trump’s first day back in the White House. Is this a paragon of “law and order?” We know the answer.

Maura Gillespie, an adviser to former House Speaker John Boehner and a GOP consultant, referring to Trump’s take-over of the the District of Columbia’s police force along with adding National Guard and multiple federal agents to local crime duty, asserted that “What Donald Trump is doing is not a conservative policy. As a true conservative…you believe in a smaller, more accountable, government. How does the federal takeover of a city” square with that? Conservatives see this as “a big overreach.”

This and other key Trump policies represent departures from the Reagan-era conservative consensus:

Trade and Economics. Conservatives championed free trade and global economic integration, viewing trade as mutually beneficial. Trump has embraced protectionism, imposing tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, and frequently criticizes trade deals like NAFTA that Reagan-era Republicans supported. While Reagan cut income taxes and reduced regulations, Trump's approach to trade represented a more nationalist, zero-sum economic philosophy. While cutting some regulations, he’s not bothered with using increased regulation as a weapon, for example, signaling potential tariffs on pharmaceuticals and employing tactics like a "fair banking" executive order to address alleged "debanking" practices based on political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities in the financial services sector. And, of course, tariffs are a de facto regressive tax increase

Foreign Policy and Alliances. Conservatives were deeply committed to NATO and alliance-building as cornerstones of American strength against the Soviet Union. Trump criticized NATO allies in his first term, questioning the value of traditional alliances, and showed skepticism toward multilateral institutions that Reagan and his successors, of both parties, helped strengthen. Reagan's "peace through strength" included robust support for allies, while Trump, who talks a big game on strength, emphasizes "America First" policies that undermine the alliances that have provided us with a force multiplier.

Immigration. While Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which provided amnesty for millions of undocumented immigrants, Trump, as we see every day, has taken a much harder line on immigration. Reagan generally viewed immigration more favorably and saw America as a beacon for those seeking opportunity, whereas Trump goes far beyond border security, imposing immigration restrictions that can be seen as both racist and Xenophobic.

Government Institutions. Reagan worked within established institutional norms and maintained traditional diplomatic protocols. Trump ignores institutional norms, guts federal agencies, and bypasses traditional governmental processes. Just the opposite of small government, Trump wants to control culture and morality as well as the traditional lanes of government.

Tone and Rhetoric. Reagan's optimistic, inclusive rhetoric about America as a "shining city on a hill" contrasts with Trump's combative style, which focuses on personal grievances and grudges.

Trump is not a “conservative” against these criteria.

My purpose here is not to elevate Regean, with whom I had my political differences, but to contrast his version of conservatism with the playbook of the Trump era. Therefore, it's inaccurate to refer to Trump’s supporters as being conservative or even ultra-conservative. Trump is closer to what we have labeled populists, though even that doesn’t quite get there. Trump’s political philosophy is maybe “personalism,” whatever is good for his ego. He is a President without a compass, a pseudoleader by whim.

You know the adage about giving an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of keyboards and time, and eventually they would recreate all the great books. Here, even an amoral, transactional grifter who throws everything against the wall will find something that sticks for someone. I’ll take the crumbs until something, anything, better comes along.

1. This, od course, applies to tariffs in general. Any benefit to our re-shoring of manufac turingthat may doirectly beneift a very small portion of employment is likely to be far outweighed by the cost to everyone.