Explaining Trump and Why Impeachment is not Wise

2016 Presidential Election

Ever since the last election, Democrats have tried to find a reason to “dump Trump.”  The womanizing scandal, the Putin affair, the Mueller debacle, and now the Ukrainian intrigue. This is all in the face of a President who does not follow the rules: he tweets, he swears and is crude, he goes through aides like a mother changes diapers.  But America does not quite understand the Democratic game plan the way the Democratic leadership sees it now as the prior position of Nancy Pelosi demonstrated.  The people of the heartland are “Trumpists” through and through.  It is the left coast and the northeast coast, along with Illinois and Minnesota, that was anti-Trump in the last election, as you can see on the map. The heartland does not see why going after a politician and his son, who was getting $50,000 a month payment from Ukraine, are not fair game for corruption suspicion. Just that amount of money raises eyebrows. Even if that individual is a competitor, it does not exempt him from public scrutiny. Texans and other plain-spoken Americans do not think that being a political competitor is sufficient reason to ignore potential corruption regardless of who brings it up.  Investigating potential crime does not equate to bringing charges of corruption, which if proven true, would make a difference to the stature, perception, and power of the United States of America, something not to be ignored! Pressuring foreign powers into US politics is another issue entirely, not without prior precedent by both Democrats and Republicans. However, does it reach the level of jeopardizing this country’s economy, with almost no chance of achieving a victory at trial?

Trump is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a fighter for America and the common man, a champion for American goods, American labor, American intellectual property rights, and against countries that take advantage of the American business community, manipulate the global financial structure for their benefit, and want unfair financial aid and military dependence from the US to protect them.  This is something that other presidents, both Democrats, and Republicans, have ignored.  The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been at historic lows of 3.5% something for which the president is often given at least partial credit.  The African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates have superseded the lowest levels since records have been kept starting in 1972. 

If anything, the Democratic efforts for impeachment have been seen as harming the economy. The stock market, although up and down despite the China tariff threats, had reached record heights until the impeachment threat had deflated those heights, and is not supported by the majority of the country if we are to believe the polls.  

The Baby Boomers who are entering the golden years worry about their retirement nest egg.  Without question going through an impeachment trial would impact those retirement savings negatively.  This in the face of a Republican senate, the responsible body for prosecuting a president.  It is not likely the Republican senate would convict a Republican president if it came to trial.  It makes the entire impeachment effort appear to be a Quixotic show trial to influence the 2020 election, which may succeed but it also has an excellent chance of backfiring.  If the economy tanks because of insecurity related to uncertainty, the instigators of impeachment would get a large part of the blame, which would reflect negatively on the Democratic slate of candidates for president.

Trump would not be the first crude leader. America has had examples of crude leaders who have been excused precisely because of their perception of being fighters for the country.  General Ulysses S. Grant was a notorious drunk, and there were demands for his removal, yet Lincoln would not take him out of the command position in the Civil War.  Lincoln’s response to Grant’s detractors was “I want to know what brand of whiskey Grant consumes so that I can give a barrel of it to each of my generals!”    In 1869 Grant became the 18th president of the United States.  Similarly, General George Patten was a bad boy: rough, crude, eccentric, impolite, notoriously profane, and politically not correct. He made a point of being crude and always injected four-letter words into his speeches. He called it “elegant swearing”, but he won battles, including the decisive battle of World War II, the Battle of the Bulge. Near the end of the war, there was a strong movement to get him elected president against Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  Unfortunately, Patten died in a car accident, where there is good evidence that it was really an assassination perpetrated by the Russians who did not want him as president under any circumstance, as Patten was no friend of the Soviets. They apparently may have been messing with our elections for some time!

I hope that the more politically savvy segments of the leadership will resist pandering to the far left and recognize that they are playing with fire with explosive potential, and will steer the helm of the nation back into safer waters with less risk for the economy! And let the next election decide the merits.