ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Trump succeeds when he gets out of the way

| Wednesday, Jan. 3, 2018, 9:00 p.m.
President Donald Trump, surrounded by members of Congress and supporters, speaks during an event on the South Lawn of the White House to acknowledge the final passage of tax-overhaul legislation by Congress.
President Donald Trump, surrounded by members of Congress and supporters, speaks during an event on the South Lawn of the White House to acknowledge the final passage of tax-overhaul legislation by Congress.

Contrary to what many predicted, President Trump's end-of-year accomplishment list isn't that skimpy.

That's an analytical observation. For many, particularly liberals and Democrats, Trump's first year hasn't been merely bad. It's a great evil, a grievous wound to the American body politic.

But even that is a kind of partisan tribute to what's been accomplished on his watch: a record number of judicial appointments; the defeat of ISIS; repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate; tax reform; and major rollbacks of various regulations, from arctic drilling to net neutrality.

It hasn't exactly been smooth sailing. Trump is the most unpopular first-year president in American history, for reasons far beyond mere bad press.

Still, among conservatives, the tally of “wins” has sparked some intramural debates. The most prominent one is how Trump skeptics and avowed Never Trumpers should respond to those wins. For some writers, the only legitimate response is either to ignore these successes or denigrate them. Others, including myself, argue instead that one needn't deny the merits of a policy victory simply because the president might get credit for it.

This debate skips over the larger question of whether these victories happened because of Trump or despite him.

On one level, the president always gets the credit — or blame — for anything that happens on his watch. But Trump poses a challenge to such superficial scorekeeping. No president in American history has rejected Harry Truman's “The buck stops here” motto as vehemently or consistently as this one. He never accepts responsibility for mistakes. When American troops die, he blames “the generals.” When legislation fails, the “establishment” is at fault.

Trump boosters agree. But what evidence is there that Trump has actually learned the art of presidential management?

Aside from the mandatory flattery required of Republican elected officials, there's remarkably little testimony that Trump has involved himself in the process of governing. Tax reform was carried across the finish line by the GOP congressional leadership. Net neutrality was repealed by independent Republicans at the Federal Communications Commission.

Foreign policy is a more mixed bag. If Trump deserves credit for the defeat of ISIS, it's because he let “the generals” do their thing.

On the other hand, credit (or blame) for pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris accord on climate change certainly goes to him.

In general, it seems to me that Trump's success (such as it is) is less attributable to sudden mastery of the issues than to staying out of the way of Republican policymakers, activists and bureaucrats.

In 2016, some conservatives argued that Republicans should vote as if we live in a parliamentary democracy, electing a party, not a person. That argument had its flaws, not least that voters tend not to compartmentalize that way — which is why the GOP faces a potential bloodbath in the 2018 midterms.

But there's merit to it as well. To listen to Trump's cheerleaders, the biggest obstacle to conservative victories is the party establishment, when in reality it looks more like it's running the show.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me