ChrisWeigant.com

Bully For Trump

[ Posted Monday, December 12th, 2016 – 18:00 UTC ]

Will Donald Trump be the second-best "bully" president we've had? I realize that that question can be read two ways, but I'm using "bully" in the older political sense of the word rather than in the "already ripped into 289 people on Twitter" sense. So while a strong case could be made for Trump-as-bully, what I'm referring to instead is the Teddy Roosevelt "Bully for you!" sense of the word. And, more importantly, the "bully pulpit." Because, much as Democrats might hate to admit it, Trump may be the most adroit user of the bully pulpit to change American politics in a very long time.

I've been thinking about this while wondering what the clash between Trump and the rest of Washington is going to look like. Trump has already set himself on a collision course with his own party over several major issues (not gutting Social Security, to name just one), at least if you believe anything he said while campaigning (which is still a very open question, to say the least). But it's not too hard to envisage a showdown of wills between Trump and, say, Paul Ryan. Ryan, of course, isn't the only one Trump might get into confrontation with -- on an almost daily basis, Trump is annoying large segments of the federal government (the C.I.A. is only the latest group Trump has seriously annoyed or terrified). So the clash could come from lots of places, but it's easiest to use Ryan as an example, since any necessary legislation is going to involve some dealmaking between the House Republicans and the White House.

Ryan is pretty optimistic about how much power he's going to wield starting next year. He knows that what passes the House is now going to matter, because there won't be a Democratic president to veto bills anymore. So Ryan can be excused for thinking he'll largely be in charge of driving the legislative agenda. Ryan's dream federal budget could actually become reality in large and significant ways, and he figures Trump will just rubber-stamp anything they pass.

But what if he doesn't? What if Trump wants to be the one in charge of setting legislative priorities (and drawing legislative red lines, as well)? Take gutting Social Security as an example (this is just one example, there could be lots of others). Ryan's House Republicans have wanted to (as they put it) "reform entitlements" for a long time now. There are three ways they could do this, but one of them doesn't count. The one that doesn't count would be to eliminate the cap on earnings for Social Security, which would mean that for the first time it would be a completely flat tax -- a minimum wage worker would be paying the same flat rate as a billionaire on his wages. But that's not going to happen, because this equates to "raising taxes" for Republicans, since the current scheme means those making more than about $120,000 a year pay a much lower tax rate than those making less than that. This is unfair and regressive, but that's the way it's always worked.

So, this leaves two other possibilities for Republicans to consider: reducing future Social Security payments and raising the retirement age. Both could happen in a Ryan budget. Trump, however, said over and over again on the campaign that he wasn't going to do this. He set himself up as the champion of the little guy, the common worker, and all of that. So what would happen if he decided to hold firm to this campaign promise, dig in his heels, and stubbornly resist? What would happen if Trump told Ryan: "Yeah, we're not going to do that -- try again, or I'll veto it"?

This is the clash I'm thinking about -- one where Trump stakes out a position absolutely against something that has long been a Republican think-tank dream. Will Trump get browbeaten by Republicans behind the scenes to start parroting the conservative talking points? Would that work? Or maybe they could subtly veer his thinking by appearing on all of Trump's favorite cable news shows and soothingly praise Trump while explaining why he's got to change his mind. That might also work.

Then again, it might not. If Trump really does dig in his heels, he has already proven how stubborn he can be about not changing his mind. Instead, picture how Trump might react to his fellow Republicans disagreeing with his agenda in public. Because Trump might be the best bully pulpit president since at least Franklin D. Roosevelt (if not Teddy Roosevelt).

Think about it. Trump loves Twitter, and his millions of followers not only love him back but also believe everything he tells them. Trump is an expert at rhetorically stating how his position is an absolute winner, and anyone who disagrees with him is a fool or worse. If Trump began routinely responding to Republicans calling for Trump to change his mind the way he always attacks detractors on Twitter, could Paul Ryan survive such an onslaught? Previously, when Trump attacked sitting politicians on Twitter, the reaction wasn't as pronounced, but as president Trump would be telling his army of followers who they should launch primary challenges against in the next election. Trump's bully pulpit could prove to be more fearsome than even the Tea Party was to Republicans, in other words.

Trump's bully pulpit wouldn't be limited to Twitter, either. It's not hard to imagine Trump deciding to pick up the phone and call in to some of those cable news shows, who would (doubtlessly) be happy to put him on the air for an instant rebuttal. He already proved during the campaign that he didn't need to appear in person for the media to instantly put his phone call on the air as an interview. As president, this would tend to be automatic -- because what news show producer is going to turn down a live presidential appearance? Whatever Trump says is sure to be news, so Trump would have an open door to make his own position known to the public.

Every president since Teddy Roosevelt has tried to use the bully pulpit. Some were more effective at it than others. F.D.R. had his "fireside chats" on radio. Ronald Reagan was adept at (as he put it) "going over the heads of the media to talk directly to the people." Bill Clinton never lost his ability to communicate with regular folks in language everyone could understand. Barack Obama was actually pretty disappointing on this measure, since after he took office he largely abandoned the online juggernaut which helped get him elected. It turned into a fundraising operation more than anything that inspired people to support his agenda, sadly.

But Trump is not likely to make the mistake Obama did. Trump loves Twitter, after all. And he loves basking in the adulation of the crowd. Imagine if Trump and Ryan got into a tug-of-war over legislation, and Trump decided to hold a rally in Ryan's home district -- thus sending a clear message that Trump was more popular with the people. Trump loves rallies, after all, so he could easily hold one to proclaim: "I am fighting hard to stop those in Washington from screwing you out of your Social Security!" Would Ryan cave when faced with this prospect?

Perhaps none of this will happen. Perhaps they'll physically take away Trump's ability to send out un-vetted Tweets. Perhaps he'll be so constrained by his aides that he won't fly off the handle when a legislative battle is brewing. Perhaps he won't hold rallies to threaten fellow Republicans. Perhaps Republican bigwigs will be able to twist his arm and force him to renounce his campaign pledges behind the scenes.

Then again, perhaps not. Perhaps instead Donald Trump will revolutionize the bully pulpit and use his core base of supporters to rally around his positions. Perhaps Trump will become the gold standard of using social media as the new bully pulpit for the 21st century. Perhaps all presidents in the future will attempt to follow Trump's lead on taking their message directly to the people and bypassing both the media and the Washington establishment.

The presidential bully pulpit is a political tool, and like any political tool is ethically neutral. It can be used equally effectively for good or bad, in other words. The president can fire up the public to stop slashing Social Security benefits, but can also use the same tool to rev up war fever. It can be used to pass (or halt) legislation that will hurt people as well as bills that will help. It's impossible at the present time to even guess how Donald Trump will use this megaphone. Will he pick battles with his own party? Or will he use it to pressure Democrats in the Senate (who may be up for re-election soon in states Trump won)? Probably a bit of both. Which ones you cheer for depends on your own political views.

But no matter what he uses the tool for, Donald Trump may indeed prove to be a pioneer at communicating with his base through social media (and even the mainstream media), especially when faced with opposition to his plans. As his political opponents may find out, beginning early next year Trump may completely redefine the bully pulpit and change the way all future presidents communicate with the public.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

31 Comments on “Bully For Trump”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Trump is on the verge of acquiescing to Russian interests and ceding economic leadership to China.

    Bully for Trump.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does anyone really believe that Trump will divest himself from his businesses before or after Jan 20th?

    Can a leopard change its spots?

    Trump is and always will be a bully and that is how he will govern, assuming he takes the presidential oath of office ...

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think Trump wants to be a populist - a straight talking man of the people and for the people - and now he doesn't have Hillary as the epitome of "the elites" to attack, he'll look for another target to vilify to show he is that man on the people's side.

    Paul Ryan fits the bill. Running mate of elitist par excellence Mitt Romney. Bit of a nerdy smart ass. On record as wanting to touch the third rails of Social Security and Medicare. I think you spotted the right target CW.

    Trump is shrewd and knows that he will get a lot of bipartisan support if he is seen as the defender of pensions and healthcare from the evil clutches of Ryan and the elites who have huge pensions and first class healthcare for life guaranteed and paid for by the rest of us.

    This could be the road he takes to a second term - always fighting against the elites for the common man. There are plenty of people that believe this is what he is already doing (you know my take, conman and crook, but I promised Michale to give Trump a chance so I will).

    The problem with the picture above is the cast of characters Trump has chosen to surround himself with. Can you imagine if Trump had brought Bernie into the cabinet as Labor Secretary, for example, instead of Puzder. Or Robert Reich. Even the attempt (I'm sure Bernie and Reich would have refused) would have been revolutionary. There are too many billionaires (and some relatively poverty stricken multi-millionaires) on the inside, and even the Generals don't water them down enough.

    The other problem is that Trump is playing the Russia card wrongly. He needs to get out in front of this before it becomes "Trump defends Russia and Putin". If some really damning hard evidence comes out, and it isn't ridiculous that there might be a "leak" from the CIA, NSA, etc. Trump will be forced to either admit he was wrong (not his strong suit) or be tarnished with one of the most difficult labels to escape - a label I'll avoid from using in mere speculation.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A second term ... are you freaking kidding me!!!???

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where is Michale, by the way?

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    A second term ... are you freaking kidding me!!!???

    I thought Bush 2 could not possibly win a second term after the Iraq fiasco with no weapons of mass destruction. I thought Brexit was so stupid nobody would shoot themselves in the foot that badly and I thought Leicester City had no chance of winning the EPL (5000-1 odds against them at the start of the season).

    I though Trump was almost certain to lose (although towards the end I gave him a 1/3 chance because I thought Nate Silver was shouting out some realities that nobody wanted to hear).

    So yes, I'm not ruling out a second term.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Great. :(

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, the Exxon Mobile chief is Kerry's replacement.

    Finally, someone who Putin can deal with.

  9. [9] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    Just caught up with Colbert - the Joe Biden episode.

    I'm really going to miss him.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why?

  11. [11] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Hmmmm....Wonder where Michale is.

    This seems like a custom piece for 4 or 5 of his multi-post lectures....

    Rather unlike him for this time of year.

  12. [12] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why?

    Because when he is funny, he is really funny. Not many politicians are, or are brave enough to be.

    When he talks from the heart, he is sincere. Not many politicians are, and when they try they seem phony.

    I think we are going to be seeing a lot less of him after January 20th.

  13. [13] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    I suspect that Trump is well aware that his followers are easily duped, so I wouldn't put too much stock in any of his campaign promises.

    He could easily package his sales pitch to gut SS as "saving Social Security" and the lemmings will follow him off the cliff.

    His main foil will continue to be the media.
    He doesn't need Ryan to play the bad guy role.

    My prediction about potential friendly fire targets would be one or more of his appointees.
    Trump has chosen a whole bunch of people who think very highly of themselves but who don't play well with others, and most of them didn't earn their positions through wisdom, hard work or merit. I think Trump is currently oblivious to that reality.

    One of them is likely to cross Trump before too long or he will just need a disposable scapegoat for something that goes wrong.

    A

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    While we're talking about Trump divesting himself of all of the hundreds (thousands?) of conflicts of interest inherent in his international business dealings, how about we organize a 'Divest from Trump' effort aimed at businesses who have their own conflicts of interest, such as NBC.

    Trump's decision to continue as producer of "the Apprentice" is a conflict of interest not only for the Pres-elect, but also a gaping conflict of interest for the network, raising all sorts of questions for their news division, which includes the (supposedly) liberal-leaning MSNBC.

  15. [15] 
    neilm wrote:

    Add in Tillerson's strong loyalty to Exxon and the picture becomes even more skewed.

    I know of no reason to doubt that Tillerson will put America before Exxon, but other countries might not be so confident. Will a more friendly approach to Russia be seen by the Middle East as a threat to their oil interests? What if Russia squeezes Europe again by threatening their energy supplies?

    For the very reason that Tillerson is an important player in basically the only major industry Russia has would raise questions - and I want to repeat I'm not questioning the man, I'm questioning the intersection of his oil background and Russia's dependence on oil to their country.

    It was quite a swing from Romney, who targeted Russia as a danger in 2012, to Tillerson who is winning best friend awards from Putin. This isn't a partisan thing, as can be seen be the people who are raising questions in the senate.

  16. [16] 
    dsws wrote:

    Will Trump get browbeaten by Republicans behind the scenes to start parroting the conservative talking points? Would that work?

    Before I read CW's answer, here's my take:

    No, partly because no.

    They won't do it, partly because it wouldn't work. But even more because they don't want it. What good would it do them to have him parrot their talking points? They just want to pass whatever bills they feel like, so they can show those bills to the people who grease the revolving door. (And he can't stop them, even if he wanted to.) He just wants to sign the bills and take the credit. (And they can't stop him, even if they wanted to).

    In a few months, Social Security will have been gutted, and at least 60% of the electorate will agree with Trump that it's a wonderful thing, and that only Trump could have saved Social Security from decades of Democratic mismanagement.

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    In fact, most of the electorate will think Trump increased their Social Security benefits, even though the opposite will be the case.

  18. [18] 
    dsws wrote:

    So what would happen if he [Trump] decided to hold firm to this [or any] campaign promise

    http://media.gettyimages.com/videos/road-sign-pointing-to-hell-along-snowy-country-road-chelsea-michigan-video-id86091566?s=640x640

  19. [19] 
    dsws wrote:

    In case the link doesn't work, I'm saying it'll be a cold day before that happens.

  20. [20] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Their twisted reasoning works thusly, Neil: Putin hates Obama, Putin likes Trump, apparently alot. Therefore, Trump likes Putin. Republicans want to win. Trump wins, therefore Republicans now like Putin. Putin likes Tillerson, Trump likes Tillerson, therefore the GOP will back Tillerson as well.

    It's so simple, and so inane, it makes one want to cry.

    I never thought I'd feel as warmly towards John McCain and Lindsay Graham as I do now, but they seem to be the only folks on their side of the aisle with a healthy amount of skepticism about all this.

  21. [21] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In fact, most of the electorate will think Trump increased their Social Security benefits, even though the opposite will be the case.

    I'm sure the media will step up and inform the public of the facts.

    Oh, wait....right. Never mind.

  22. [22] 
    dsws wrote:

    That's not to say I don't think there will be tension between Trump and congressional Republicans. There will, but it will all be kayfabe.

    In four years, Trump will be re-elected. The day after he dies, he'll be put on the currency. If they wait that long. Egghead historians will say his presidency was awful for the country, but no one will listen (aside from other egghead historians).

  23. [23] 
    neilm wrote:

    In fact, most of the electorate will think Trump increased their Social Security benefits, even though the opposite will be the case.

    Wow, you have less confidence in the general public than I do. How will Trump et al reduce SS checks without anybody noticing?

    Are you suggesting that the COLA increases will be limited or manipulated - I've noticed that people don't take inflation into account at the moment because it is only about 2%. I try to explain that 2.1% over 10 years is almost 25% - so $2.50/G gas today is the same as $2.00/G in 2006.

    It is even worse with house prices - my friends were happy that their home prices were back to 2006 levels until I told them they needed to add about 25%.

    I'm not always the most popular person at the table when my math OCD kicks in.

  24. [24] 
    neilm wrote:

    Republicans want to win. Trump wins, therefore Republicans now like Putin.

    This is where the really scary part is for me. Are people putting party ahead of country?

    I'm not ready to paint the whole of the Republican leadership with that brush yet, as I'd have to do pretty much the same for the Democratic leadership to avoid being completely naive.

    I think the Republican leadership want Trump safe in the White House, then they can ramp up their investigations into Russia. They have to know that if there is some clear cut and explosive evidence that comes to light showing Russia aimed to hack and leak to help Trump, they might be seen as part of the conspiracy.

    If you think that isn't likely, look at the goons Russia sent to Turkey to execute former Chechen fighters - they left behind a trail of clues including a USB drive with pictures. They asked to get a rental car without GPS, but they didn't notice it had a unit and was switch on the whole time allowing the Turkish police to reconstruct all their movements and then look up pertinent security cameras, etc.

    Don't think that the trail left behind by hackers is as hidden from the NSA etc as it would be from the FBI or other agencies that don't constantly monitor net traffic.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Are people putting party ahead of country? I'm not ready to paint the whole of the Republican leadership with that brush yet, as I'd have to do pretty much the same for the Democratic leadership to avoid being completely naive.

    Isn't it crystal clear that the Republican leadership have put party ahead of country throughout the Obama presidency, from the get-go?

    I mean, I will NEVER forget their dangerous and destructive behavior during the early days of the Obama/Biden/Geithner administration during the height and aftermath of the financial crisis.

    I will always wonder how much better things might have been if the Republican leadership had put country first during this period and beyond.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil[12],

    Very nicely put. :)

  27. [27] 
    dsws wrote:

    How will Trump et al reduce SS checks without anybody noticing?

    People will notice, but they won't blame Trump. "Only Trump can save Social Security from decades of Democratic mismanagement." If the checks are decreased drastically amid lots of noise about how it's Obama's fault, and then increased slightly amid lots of noise about how Republicans did it, most of the public will believe it.

    Are you suggesting that the COLA increases will be limited or manipulated

    I wasn't being specific, but I was assuming something worse than that. It might let current retirees continue getting their checks, but phase it out for people who retire later.

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    OR......

    Or Trump might be the best President this country's seen since Bill Clinton... :D

    302

  29. [29] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    24

    Naïve would be not noticing that the interests who will do well under Trump did very well under Obama, and would have done just as well under Hillary.

    The reality is that it isn't party before country... it's the wealthy before party or country in our rigged duopoly.

    Democrats have been in denial about it for eight years.

    Obama was perfectly willing to cut Social Security.
    Nobody on Wall Street was prosecuted for the biggest financial fraud in history that the naïve call a "crisis".
    America became a net exporter of fossil fuels.
    Inequality grew.

    Republicans are already in denial about what will be with Trump.

    Repubs outraged by Obama will cheer when Trump does the same thing.
    Dems are now suddenly outraged by what they've been cheering under Obama.

    A

  30. [30] 
    dsws wrote:

    Obama was perfectly willing to cut Social Security.

    It should be noted that "cut" in this context means having the nominal amounts of Social Security payments increase with inflation, instead of with a slightly-obsolete measure that tends to slightly overstate the amount of inflation. This can somewhat reasonably be called a cut, because the payments would be less under the proposed law than under current law that includes the old measure of inflation.

    Such a change wouldn't be called a "cut" if we were talking about NASA or the NIH (and wouldn't be contemplated in the first place if we were talking about the military). But it's called a "cut" in this context, and nothing I say will change that.

    And Democrats near-unanimously screamed bloody murder, although (as should be evident from how I describe the proposed "cut") this Democrat was an exception.

    If that were the kind of "cut" that were under consideration now, I wouldn't be worried about it now either. What's likely now is drown-it-in-a-bathtub cuts.

    Nobody on Wall Street was prosecuted for the biggest financial fraud in history that the naïve call a "crisis"

    The fraud in question did cause a crisis. And very many Democrats were displeased that no one was prosecuted.

    However, the worst of the fraud wasn't illegal.

  31. [31] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [3] -

    OK, I just read the first few paragraphs, and I have to say I'm impressed. Paul Ryan as Trump's foil could work out in all sorts of ways, most of them good.

    OK, I'll finish your comment now, just wanted to report up front you've put a bee in my bonnet... I mean, I was kind of hoping for such a thing in an offhand way, but you've put some meat on the bones, that's for sure... if only....

    :-)

    Damn -- OK, now you're scaring me with that "second term" comment...

    LizM [4] -

    Yeah! What she said!!!

    :-)

    LizM [5] -

    He answers this later in the week, and then we all congratulate him...

    :-)

    neilm [6] -

    OK, now I'm even more scared. You're making too much sense.

    [Since we're doing a throwback to the 80's (I never thought Reagan would get a second term, myself...), thought I'd throw in a Talking Heads reference...]

    My guess is the following line is going to be rediscovered by a WHOLE bunch of people, next year: "Our president's crazy, did you hear what he said?"

    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/talkingheads/makingflippyfloppy.html

    neilm [12] -

    I think you have hit the nail right on the head. Couldn't have put it better myself. I'll miss Joe Biden for the same reasons:

    Because when he is funny, he is really funny. Not many politicians are, or are brave enough to be.

    When he talks from the heart, he is sincere. Not many politicians are, and when they try they seem phony.

    Again, you nailed it.

    altohone [13] -

    I think he's setting up "The Apprentice -- Cabinet Edition," personally. I think this is a show that could continue for his entire term. He'll play them off against each other, and keep all of them guessing what he really thinks about them. And, you're right, he'll fire any of them he thinks aren't sufficiently supportive.

    Gonna be a wild ride, folks. Buckle up...

    Interlude

    Just saw Bob Dyan actually croon for Tony Bennett (my wife's watching the birthday bash in the other room).

    OK, let's just check in on where we are on the "countdown to the apocalypse" clock... Chicago Cubs win the World Series... check... Donald Trump wins the presidency... check... and, this just in, Bob Dylan croons an entire song -- after being too busy to pick up his freakin' Nobel Prize -- and, the most astonishing thing -- you could understand every word!!!

    I mean, really, this year's certainly been one for the record books, folks...

    End intermission

    Balthasar [14] -

    Hey, look on the birght side. BriWi isn't doing the nightly news, and David Gregory's gone as Meet The Press host. Things could be worse at NBC, that's for sure...

    Heh.

    neilm [15] -

    This isn't a partisan thing, as can be seen be the people who are raising questions in the senate.

    Have you ever seen such whiplash among Repubilcan senators? "Russia bad" to "Russia friend" happened at breakneck speed!

    Heh.

    Except for McCain and Lindsey Graham, of course...

    dsws [16] -

    OK, now that's really scary -- especially your final paragraph.

    [17] -

    OK, now you're just trying to give me nightmares...

    :-(

    [18] -

    OK, that was pretty funny, gotta admit...

    Balthasar [20] -

    I'm keeping my eye on the other GOP senators that expressed doubts about Trump... didn't Flake come out against him? And that guy in (?) Nebraska who said he'd rather take his kids to a dumpster fire than see Trump nominated? There's more than just McCain and Graham out there, and here's hoping they find their public voice soon...

    neilm [23] -

    I think political spin can indeed trump (no pun intended) math, at times. Sad to say, but it's true....

    dsws [27] -

    yep. Unfortunately...

    michale [28] -

    That's an interesting "since..."

    How do you rate Bubba's time in office? Don't know that I've ever had occasion to ask you that question before...

    And one followup question: were you an active member of the military during Bill's term?

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    altohone [29] -

    Sad to say, I can't really argue with many of the points you make...

    dsws [30] -

    Good points, but a "cut" (whether in taxes or in benefits) is only a "cut" when the politicians convince everybody that it is a cut.

    That's a pretty universal truth in DC -- the term "cuts" is ALWAYS a political term...

    OK, that's it for now, folks!

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.