How is it that millions of thoughtful conservatives who once championed limited government, free markets, and constitutional norms now enthusiastically support a president whose actions often run counter to these principles? It is a puzzle that deserves serious exploration. Indeed, the question grows more pressing by the day, with Trump’s sweeping new tariffs having triggered one of the largest market sell-offs in American history, wiping out trillions in value.
Some business leaders and major Republican donors are finally breaking ranks with Trump. Elon Musk — once Trump’s most prominent supporter — has publicly denounced the President’s trade policy and called Trump’s adviser Peter Navarro “truly a moron.” Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman warned that “the consequences for our country and the millions of citizens who have supported the president… are going to be severely negative.” Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone bluntly called the tariffs “bulls—” and said, “right now, what everybody’s terrified of is a trade war.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reportedly looking for an exit after the market carnage damaged his credibility — before Trump blinked on his tariff war last week.
Republican senators are speaking out, too. Rand Paul declared, “Tariffs are taxes, and Americans are paying the price,” while sponsoring legislation to require congressional approval for new tariffs. Senator Thom Tillis worried aloud whether retirees will “feel good” when they see their damaged 401(k) personal pension accounts. Even Senator Ted Cruz, typically a Trump ally, warned that if tariffs persist, it could become “a bloodbath for the Republican Party.”
Yet remarkably, polling shows Trump’s approval among self-identified Republicans remains around 90 percent. For anyone watching from outside the Trump camp, this presents a baffling spectacle. How can so many informed, principled voters continue supporting a president whose actions directly contradict their professed values — even as business leaders and elected officials are finally starting to acknowledge the damage?
The paradox extends beyond trade. Trump has declared multiple emergencies to bypass Congress, attempted to nullify birthright citizenship despite the 14th Amendment’s clear language, and ordered independent regulatory agencies to submit to White House control. Most alarming, he declared on social media that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” — essentially claiming that a leader stands above legal restraints when acting in what he deems the national interest.
For many observers, including classical liberals like me, these actions constitute a serious challenge to constitutional governance and limited government. Yet Americans who once championed these very principles seem to view Trump’s actions very differently. What might explain this divergence in perception?
The answer may lie not in policy preferences but in moral psychology and tribal identity. Social psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt’s research offers crucial insights. In his book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Haidt identifies six moral foundations that shape political intuitions: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals tend to emphasise the first three, while conservatives value all six more evenly, placing strong emphasis on loyalty to group, respect for authority, and maintenance of traditional boundaries.
Trump may have masterfully tapped into these moral intuitions. His rhetoric constantly invokes loyalty (to America, to tradition), authority (strength and toughness), and sanctity (protecting traditional values from corruption). For many conservatives, these moral appeals may register more powerfully than abstract concerns about constitutional norms or economic orthodoxy.
Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky’s research on tribalism suggests another dimension. Humans are “hard-wired for us/them dichotomies,” Sapolsky notes. Our brains distinguish friend from foe within milliseconds. When tribal identity is activated — as it constantly is in today’s polarised environment — our moral standards may shift dramatically. We might become more forgiving of transgressions by our side and more hostile toward perceived enemies.
Trump frames politics as an existential battle between virtuous “real Americans” and threatening outsiders. This tribal framing may activate primal group psychology. If politics is perceived as a war for cultural survival, policy consistency perhaps becomes secondary to having a fighter on your side.
Trump supporters may not see themselves as abandoning principles. Rather, they may have reordered their priorities in response to perceived existential threats. When traditional values appear under assault from progressive institutions, constitutional niceties might seem like luxury concerns. In a house fire, one does not stop to check if the evacuation violates the building code.
This may explain why appeals to constitutional principle often fall flat. When I argue that Trump’s executive orders exceed his authority, many conservatives respond not by disputing the legal analysis but by pointing to progressive overreach: “Where was your concern when Obama did X?” or “The left started this by weaponising government against us.”
Another factor might be cognitive dissonance — the psychological discomfort that arises when actions contradict beliefs. Once someone has publicly committed to Trump, reversing course becomes difficult. It threatens one’s social identity and self-image. Instead, supporters may engage in elaborate rationalisations: “The media exaggerates everything” or “He’s playing four-dimensional chess.” These explanations may seem far-fetched to outsiders, but they could serve a vital psychological function for insiders.
Trump’s strongest supporters also inhabit a separate information ecosystem. They may consume media that portrays Trump not as erratic or norm-breaking but as a brilliant strategist beset by corrupt enemies. When fact and narrative conflict, many might choose the more psychologically comfortable narrative — one that validates their tribal identity and moral intuitions.
This tribal media environment doesn’t just shape what supporters believe — it amplifies their sense of threat. And when fear becomes pervasive, it can change what people are willing to accept from their leaders.
Trump’s constant stoking of fear — describing American “carnage,” invasions at the border, socialism on the march — might trigger what psychologists call the “authoritarian dynamic,” wherein people become more willing to accept authoritarian measures to reduce perceived threats.
Many Trump supporters may genuinely believe America faces disaster without his leadership. From that perspective, his executive overreach might seem not like constitutional vandalism but necessary action against existential danger — something like Abraham Lincoln’s extraordinary wartime measures.
The phenomenon of unwavering loyalty to a populist leader transcends American borders. Similar dynamics may have fuelled support for Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. In each case, supporters stick with their champion despite policies that contradict traditional conservative principles. In each case, tribal loyalty appears to trump policy consistency.
In Brazil, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed government buildings in January 2023 rather than accept his electoral defeat. The imagery mirrored America’s January 6 riot — crowds draped in national flags claiming to “take back” the country for “the people.” In both cases, a large portion of voters appeared willing to upend democratic processes rather than see their champion yield power.
All this points to a profound irony. Many conservatives who rightly criticise identity politics on the left may have embraced a form of identity politics on the right — one centred on being “real Americans” defending their way of life against progressive assault. They do not use the language of identity politics, of course, but the psychological structure could be similar: a focus on group solidarity in the face of a perceived existential threat.
Steven Pinker captures this dynamic well, describing populism as a “pushback of elements of human nature — tribalism, authoritarianism, demonisation, zero-sum thinking — against the Enlightenment institutions that were designed to circumvent them.” These institutions — constitutional checks and balances, rule of law, protection of individual rights — were created precisely because the framers understood how tribal politics can threaten liberty.
To be fair, progressive overreach has created fertile ground for Trumpian politics. When mainstream institutions embrace identity politics that explicitly demonises traditional values, they should not be surprised when traditionalists embrace a champion who fights back with equal vehemence. When elite universities openly discriminate against Asian and white applicants in the name of “equity,” they may create precisely the tribal dynamics that fuel populism.
Years of hyperbolic rhetoric — portraying mainstream conservatives like George W. Bush as "fascists" or "war criminals" — have also devalued these terms. When every Republican president is cast as an existential threat, the language of crisis loses its meaning. Like the boy who cried wolf, when a leader with genuinely authoritarian tendencies appears, previous exaggerations make it harder for warnings to be taken seriously.
These dynamics may help explain why many conservatives dismiss criticism of Trump's policy inconsistencies and norm-breaking. Having been attacked regardless of what policies they support, many on the right now prioritise tribal loyalty over policy coherence. When every Republican is denounced as extreme regardless of their actual positions, policy consistency loses its appeal.
The tariff debacle offers a telling case study. When Trump imposed sweeping new duties on imports, he directly contradicted the free-market principles many of his supporters claim to cherish. Traditional economic theory holds that tariffs are essentially taxes paid by domestic consumers and businesses. They distort markets, raise prices, invite retaliation, and ultimately harm economic growth.
Yet many Republicans who once championed free trade now defend protectionism — not based on economic theory but perhaps on tribal loyalty. “He’s standing up to China” or “Finally someone who puts America first” are common refrains, reflecting what may be a shift from policy analysis to identity statement. Supporting the tariffs might signal group membership, regardless of their adverse economic impact.
Even as markets plunge and economic pain spreads, most Trump supporters appear to be maintaining their loyalty. This is not necessarily because they fail to see the damage but because they may interpret it through a tribal lens: “Short-term pain for long-term gain” or “Wall Street needed a reality check.” Facts that contradict the tribal narrative might get reinterpreted or dismissed.
Of course, not all Trump supporters fit this psychological profile. Some are traditional conservatives who genuinely believe his policies, despite the noise, best advance their values. Others are single-issue voters focused on abortion, judges, or deregulation. Still others are reluctant supporters who dislike Trump’s style but fear progressive alternatives more.
Yet for a substantial portion, Trump support may be primarily driven by tribal identity and moral intuitions rather than cool policy assessment.
Is there hope for breaking through? Perhaps, but it requires understanding the depth of the tribal divide. Appeals to principle alone will likely fall flat if they do not acknowledge the legitimate fears and moral concerns that drive Trump support. The recent tariff backlash does suggest reality can occasionally pierce the bubble. When policies directly harm supporters’ material interests in visible ways, some reconsideration may occur.
For classical liberals and constitutional conservatives, the challenge is formidable. We must defend the principles and institutions that protect liberty without dismissing the legitimate grievances that fuel populism.
At the same time, we must gently but firmly remind our friends on the right that constitutional government exists precisely to prevent the tribal cycle of power and retribution. The temptation to fight fire with fire is understandable but ultimately self-defeating. If conservatives embrace rule by decree when it suits their priorities, they have no principled ground on which to stand when progressives do the same.
The conservative and classical liberal traditions offer richer, more enduring wisdom than their current populist expression suggests. From Edmund Burke’s prudent respect for institutions to Friedrich Hayek’s insights on the limits of central planning, classical liberalism at its best provides a vision of society that balances liberty and order without resorting to strongman politics.
What the right needs now is not blind loyalty to a man but renewed commitment to principles — the rule of law rather than the rule of the mob or the strongman, free markets rather than crony capitalism, and constitutional processes rather than executive whims. It needs the humility to recognise that no leader, however charismatic, should stand above the institutions designed to check human ambition.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
Some business leaders and major Republican donors are finally breaking ranks with Trump. Elon Musk — once Trump’s most prominent supporter — has publicly denounced the President’s trade policy and called Trump’s adviser Peter Navarro “truly a moron.” Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman warned that “the consequences for our country and the millions of citizens who have supported the president… are going to be severely negative.” Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone bluntly called the tariffs “bulls—” and said, “right now, what everybody’s terrified of is a trade war.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was reportedly looking for an exit after the market carnage damaged his credibility — before Trump blinked on his tariff war last week.
Republican senators are speaking out, too. Rand Paul declared, “Tariffs are taxes, and Americans are paying the price,” while sponsoring legislation to require congressional approval for new tariffs. Senator Thom Tillis worried aloud whether retirees will “feel good” when they see their damaged 401(k) personal pension accounts. Even Senator Ted Cruz, typically a Trump ally, warned that if tariffs persist, it could become “a bloodbath for the Republican Party.”
Yet remarkably, polling shows Trump’s approval among self-identified Republicans remains around 90 percent. For anyone watching from outside the Trump camp, this presents a baffling spectacle. How can so many informed, principled voters continue supporting a president whose actions directly contradict their professed values — even as business leaders and elected officials are finally starting to acknowledge the damage?
The paradox extends beyond trade. Trump has declared multiple emergencies to bypass Congress, attempted to nullify birthright citizenship despite the 14th Amendment’s clear language, and ordered independent regulatory agencies to submit to White House control. Most alarming, he declared on social media that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” — essentially claiming that a leader stands above legal restraints when acting in what he deems the national interest.
For many observers, including classical liberals like me, these actions constitute a serious challenge to constitutional governance and limited government. Yet Americans who once championed these very principles seem to view Trump’s actions very differently. What might explain this divergence in perception?
The answer may lie not in policy preferences but in moral psychology and tribal identity. Social psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt’s research offers crucial insights. In his book “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Haidt identifies six moral foundations that shape political intuitions: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals tend to emphasise the first three, while conservatives value all six more evenly, placing strong emphasis on loyalty to group, respect for authority, and maintenance of traditional boundaries.
Trump may have masterfully tapped into these moral intuitions. His rhetoric constantly invokes loyalty (to America, to tradition), authority (strength and toughness), and sanctity (protecting traditional values from corruption). For many conservatives, these moral appeals may register more powerfully than abstract concerns about constitutional norms or economic orthodoxy.
Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky’s research on tribalism suggests another dimension. Humans are “hard-wired for us/them dichotomies,” Sapolsky notes. Our brains distinguish friend from foe within milliseconds. When tribal identity is activated — as it constantly is in today’s polarised environment — our moral standards may shift dramatically. We might become more forgiving of transgressions by our side and more hostile toward perceived enemies.
Trump frames politics as an existential battle between virtuous “real Americans” and threatening outsiders. This tribal framing may activate primal group psychology. If politics is perceived as a war for cultural survival, policy consistency perhaps becomes secondary to having a fighter on your side.
Trump supporters may not see themselves as abandoning principles. Rather, they may have reordered their priorities in response to perceived existential threats. When traditional values appear under assault from progressive institutions, constitutional niceties might seem like luxury concerns. In a house fire, one does not stop to check if the evacuation violates the building code.
This may explain why appeals to constitutional principle often fall flat. When I argue that Trump’s executive orders exceed his authority, many conservatives respond not by disputing the legal analysis but by pointing to progressive overreach: “Where was your concern when Obama did X?” or “The left started this by weaponising government against us.”
Another factor might be cognitive dissonance — the psychological discomfort that arises when actions contradict beliefs. Once someone has publicly committed to Trump, reversing course becomes difficult. It threatens one’s social identity and self-image. Instead, supporters may engage in elaborate rationalisations: “The media exaggerates everything” or “He’s playing four-dimensional chess.” These explanations may seem far-fetched to outsiders, but they could serve a vital psychological function for insiders.
Trump’s strongest supporters also inhabit a separate information ecosystem. They may consume media that portrays Trump not as erratic or norm-breaking but as a brilliant strategist beset by corrupt enemies. When fact and narrative conflict, many might choose the more psychologically comfortable narrative — one that validates their tribal identity and moral intuitions.
This tribal media environment doesn’t just shape what supporters believe — it amplifies their sense of threat. And when fear becomes pervasive, it can change what people are willing to accept from their leaders.
Trump’s constant stoking of fear — describing American “carnage,” invasions at the border, socialism on the march — might trigger what psychologists call the “authoritarian dynamic,” wherein people become more willing to accept authoritarian measures to reduce perceived threats.
Many Trump supporters may genuinely believe America faces disaster without his leadership. From that perspective, his executive overreach might seem not like constitutional vandalism but necessary action against existential danger — something like Abraham Lincoln’s extraordinary wartime measures.
The phenomenon of unwavering loyalty to a populist leader transcends American borders. Similar dynamics may have fuelled support for Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. In each case, supporters stick with their champion despite policies that contradict traditional conservative principles. In each case, tribal loyalty appears to trump policy consistency.
In Brazil, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed government buildings in January 2023 rather than accept his electoral defeat. The imagery mirrored America’s January 6 riot — crowds draped in national flags claiming to “take back” the country for “the people.” In both cases, a large portion of voters appeared willing to upend democratic processes rather than see their champion yield power.
All this points to a profound irony. Many conservatives who rightly criticise identity politics on the left may have embraced a form of identity politics on the right — one centred on being “real Americans” defending their way of life against progressive assault. They do not use the language of identity politics, of course, but the psychological structure could be similar: a focus on group solidarity in the face of a perceived existential threat.
Steven Pinker captures this dynamic well, describing populism as a “pushback of elements of human nature — tribalism, authoritarianism, demonisation, zero-sum thinking — against the Enlightenment institutions that were designed to circumvent them.” These institutions — constitutional checks and balances, rule of law, protection of individual rights — were created precisely because the framers understood how tribal politics can threaten liberty.
To be fair, progressive overreach has created fertile ground for Trumpian politics. When mainstream institutions embrace identity politics that explicitly demonises traditional values, they should not be surprised when traditionalists embrace a champion who fights back with equal vehemence. When elite universities openly discriminate against Asian and white applicants in the name of “equity,” they may create precisely the tribal dynamics that fuel populism.
Years of hyperbolic rhetoric — portraying mainstream conservatives like George W. Bush as "fascists" or "war criminals" — have also devalued these terms. When every Republican president is cast as an existential threat, the language of crisis loses its meaning. Like the boy who cried wolf, when a leader with genuinely authoritarian tendencies appears, previous exaggerations make it harder for warnings to be taken seriously.
These dynamics may help explain why many conservatives dismiss criticism of Trump's policy inconsistencies and norm-breaking. Having been attacked regardless of what policies they support, many on the right now prioritise tribal loyalty over policy coherence. When every Republican is denounced as extreme regardless of their actual positions, policy consistency loses its appeal.
The tariff debacle offers a telling case study. When Trump imposed sweeping new duties on imports, he directly contradicted the free-market principles many of his supporters claim to cherish. Traditional economic theory holds that tariffs are essentially taxes paid by domestic consumers and businesses. They distort markets, raise prices, invite retaliation, and ultimately harm economic growth.
Yet many Republicans who once championed free trade now defend protectionism — not based on economic theory but perhaps on tribal loyalty. “He’s standing up to China” or “Finally someone who puts America first” are common refrains, reflecting what may be a shift from policy analysis to identity statement. Supporting the tariffs might signal group membership, regardless of their adverse economic impact.
Even as markets plunge and economic pain spreads, most Trump supporters appear to be maintaining their loyalty. This is not necessarily because they fail to see the damage but because they may interpret it through a tribal lens: “Short-term pain for long-term gain” or “Wall Street needed a reality check.” Facts that contradict the tribal narrative might get reinterpreted or dismissed.
Of course, not all Trump supporters fit this psychological profile. Some are traditional conservatives who genuinely believe his policies, despite the noise, best advance their values. Others are single-issue voters focused on abortion, judges, or deregulation. Still others are reluctant supporters who dislike Trump’s style but fear progressive alternatives more.
Yet for a substantial portion, Trump support may be primarily driven by tribal identity and moral intuitions rather than cool policy assessment.
Is there hope for breaking through? Perhaps, but it requires understanding the depth of the tribal divide. Appeals to principle alone will likely fall flat if they do not acknowledge the legitimate fears and moral concerns that drive Trump support. The recent tariff backlash does suggest reality can occasionally pierce the bubble. When policies directly harm supporters’ material interests in visible ways, some reconsideration may occur.
For classical liberals and constitutional conservatives, the challenge is formidable. We must defend the principles and institutions that protect liberty without dismissing the legitimate grievances that fuel populism.
At the same time, we must gently but firmly remind our friends on the right that constitutional government exists precisely to prevent the tribal cycle of power and retribution. The temptation to fight fire with fire is understandable but ultimately self-defeating. If conservatives embrace rule by decree when it suits their priorities, they have no principled ground on which to stand when progressives do the same.
The conservative and classical liberal traditions offer richer, more enduring wisdom than their current populist expression suggests. From Edmund Burke’s prudent respect for institutions to Friedrich Hayek’s insights on the limits of central planning, classical liberalism at its best provides a vision of society that balances liberty and order without resorting to strongman politics.
What the right needs now is not blind loyalty to a man but renewed commitment to principles — the rule of law rather than the rule of the mob or the strongman, free markets rather than crony capitalism, and constitutional processes rather than executive whims. It needs the humility to recognise that no leader, however charismatic, should stand above the institutions designed to check human ambition.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
15 comments:
There appears no cure for TDS.
I recall reading an article by Nail Ferguson before the last US Election and he talked of the massive structural problems in the US and whoever won would be forced to pull levers with unpleasant consequences.
You don't understand conservatives. Conservatives aren't just interested in the economy. Conservatives don't want men in women's changing rooms or sport. They can be gay and have gay friends but don't want the flamboyant, frequent absurdity of LGQBT overriding all other values, they don't want anti-semitism, they don't want to be ruled by the WHO or WEF. They agree with Trump regarding dangerous criminals, illegally in the country, who are causing havoc, being deported. They appreciate the value of democracy, meaning whoever is voted in has their opportunity to govern. Let's face it, we had to tolerate Ardern because she was voted in. You cite a couple of well-known Trump opponents but I read articles by hundreds of other prominent people who support him. Trump is doing what he said he would do. It is the Democrats ,who now resemble our Green Party, who are using the buzzwords like "havoc." The MSM love it.
>"Haidt identifies six moral foundations that shape political intuitions: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Liberals tend to emphasise the first three, while conservatives value all six more evenly, placing strong emphasis on loyalty to group, respect for authority, and maintenance of traditional boundaries."
The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' mean very different things to different people. There is a a marked difference between British English and American English with regard to these monikers.
When the USSR fell apart in 1991, I noticed that BBC reporters were referring to the communists as 'conservatives'. This is quite correct as 'conservative' means wanting to retain a given way of doing things or return to an established way of doing things after it has been usurped. So what about Russians who wanted a return to pre-1917 governance including a monarchy? They were referred to as 'traditionalists'.
"Loyalty to group, respect for authority, and maintenance of traditional boundaries" strikes me as 'traditionalist' rather than 'conservative' as it smacks of 'God, King and Country', and a lot of 'conservatives' nowadays are non-religious and rather wary of nationalism. Janine is pretty right in her approach to 'conservatism' by highlighting specific stances conservatives adopt towards topical social and political issues - these change over time so the definition of 'conservativism' has to be fluid and context-dependent.
Like the writer of this piece, I identify myself as a Classical Liberal, a product of the 18th century Enlightenment. That makes me rather 'conservative' by today's standards. It certainly distinguishes me from the Politically Correct lobby which is what Americans call 'liberals'. Never!
If you are perplexed as to why "...people who once nodded along ... began treating me as if I'd joined the radical left", then be perplexed no more - you've solved your own puzzle. I don't recall hearing you berate Biden for his lack of commitment "to the rule of law, institutional checks and balances, and policymaking that respects facts". Nor did you appear to acknowledge that Biden and the Democrat "governance style pose(d) a threat to constitutional democracy, freedom and prosperity". Maybe you have joined the dark side.
Far better we all do as we're told.
Pesky damn people.
I think Americans attach more political importance to issues of morality (as perceived) and culture wars than most other democracies do. Republicans have weaponised abortion for decades, and now LGBTQI issues loom large. There is mileage coming out in defence of 'real women' - although Trump personally only cares about women as things to shag, or worse, and had he got a woman pregnant in a way that might embarrass him politically, he'd have made her have an abortion. Here it's the rhetoric that matters, not the actual behaviour.
A lot of wise words from Partridge. Unfortunately, his conclusion that principles should come before populism will remain a pipedream given the race to the intellectual bottom encouraged by what passes for normal American political discourse. For all the psychological analysis on offer, Trump's base remain political neanderthals and will have to learn the error of their ways the hard way. Pity they're allowed to trash the rest of the world while they self-destruct.
I would posit to The Jones Boy that it is, in fact, 'the Left's' energy policies that are 'trashing the world.'
You’re either a psychic horse whisperer or more stupid than l have given you credit for Jones Boy to be predicting the outcome of these current negotiations before the main participants have even arrived in Washington.
None of us have any idea what is going to happen but it is unwise to be betting the house on your own large dollop of TDS.
That type of irrational behaviour hasn’t ended well for people who have proved they can’t handle the truth .
Better to listen to people like US Senator John Kennedy who humbly admits to be struggling with events that could go either way but is confident in Trump’s ability to get some very good results for us all from current talks.
Surely it is encouraging to see the large number of countries (including the big players like China and the EU) queueing up to have trade talks at the Whitehouse.
You can’t make this up even if your obsession demands you believe it isn’t happening. Go have a cold shower.
There goes Mr Bibby once again. One-eyed to a fault. I suspect all those good results he's desperately looking are about as achievable as Farange and Johnson's promises about Brexit. The difference is Brexit only trashed the UK economy; Trump is trashing the world. And that's not my opinion. I tend to accept the well-reported opinions of the experts who know what they are talking about. Not convicted felons whose public utterances are demonstrably lies. And as for all those countries allegedly lining up for trade talks, why don't you use the words used by the liar-in-chief? He says they are lining up to "kiss my arse". He doesn't want a trade deal. He wants tribute. But most of us recognise the Emperor has no clothes.
Nothing one-eyed about it.
You obviously haven’t been watching what is being begrudgingly reported by the MSM - not the sort of reliable source one can normally rely on but the last few days has seen an outbreak of truth telling - well, almost but l’ll take it.
I’m happy to wait and see whether your Nostradamus predictions come to pass. The one person people should not bet against is the current US President.
It’s worth remembering that he was overwhelmingly elected on the basis of doing what he says he will do - at least what is humanly possible while obviously taking into account, the broken promises of those he needs to help make it happen. There are limits!
How many of your favourites achieved that.
Having again read Roger’s piece to see whether l had missed anything - l found that he has inadvertently identified the real reason why people hate Trump.
It is not, as most of my critics would suggest - that he abuses the office he holds in carrying out the job he was elected to do.
No, the common refrain is that he threatens democracy with his governing style but what they really mean is that he threatens their elitist existence which has got us into this mess. He exposes their corruption and incompetence and as Corporal Jones of Dad’s Army says “they don’t like it up ‘em!”
So, that more than anything else is why he was elected for a second term - the overwhelming majority of people just want him to finish the job and are not concerned who he offends in the process. He has a mandate and my guess is that he will respect the authority he has been given.
All the wailing and gnashing of teeth will mean nothing to him, so good luck trying to reset a world economy based on fairness and trust.
It is long overdue.
Nostrodamus was a beacon of clarity and light Mister Bibby, at least when compared to Trump, whose inarticulate rants are supposed to represent considered policy statements. But given Trump's existing track record of failure, I don't need to be a Nostrodamus to predict that nothing good will come from his second term. A million Americans dead from COVID on his last watch, yet Mr Bibby thinks Trump deserves another go. Trump inherited an economy that was literally the envy of the world. The stock market was booming, employment was at record high levels, and inflation was back in its box. He has single-handedly ruined that legacy in his first 100 days. Not only has he destroyed confidence in the US economy and with it the US dollar's reputation as a safe haven for investors, he has destroyed America's right to be regarded as the leader of the free world. For an encore he is now busy dismantling American democracy. And as for the comment that Trump was "overwhelmingly elected", given that more Americans didn't vote for Trump than did vote for him, Mr Bibby is well off the mark. And if Mr Bibby can't get his arithmetic right, why should we trust his judgement on anything else regarding Trump?
Like so many of my critics, your claims would sound somewhat more convincing if you signed your response with your real name.
My comments are based on factual evidence rather than cowardly soothsayers who have a very jaundiced view of recent history and lack the courage of their own convictions.
I have opened myself up to critical challenges to my honest opinions and am happy to debate real people.
Anything else is a waste of time so that’s it from me. Happy Easter.
Post a Comment