WaPo Explains Why Trump’s Agenda Isn’t Working In 10 Words

"All this has some truth to it. But here’s another overarching reason for Trump’s travails"...

No one ever accused Heisenberg of trying to obscure political biases.

In fact, it’s the opposite. More than a few (dozen) readers have written in over the past three months expressing consternation that they have to endure political commentary in order to benefit from our financial analysis.

Two things about that: 1) the entire raison d’être of HR is to highlight the interplay between politics and markets, so not talking about politics would be anathema to us, and 2) we didn’t send out a memo that said “free with your click: the privilege of dictating the author(s) political views.

So you know, you’re not entitled to read great financial reporting devoid of our political biases. Sorry.

Now, who’s mad? Show of hands (and hate mail, which we’ll probably print).

With that disclaimer out of the way, consider the following rather amusing excerpt from a WaPo editorial which explains precisely why the Trump agenda isn’t working. It’s beautiful in its simplicity. Or, put differently, Occam’s razor applies here…

Via WaPo

Why is Trump flailing? Because Americans hate his agenda, and it’s based on lies.

Everyone in Washington is trying to figure out why President Trump’s agenda has stalled on multiple fronts and why his approval numbers are swirling down the toilet. CNN’s Chris Cillizza suggests Trump’s penchant for disruption and chaos actually works against him. Others point to Trump’s failure to forge relationships on Capitol Hill.

Still others say the problem is congressional Republicans. Trump’s social media director has called for a primary against a House conservative who opposed Trump’s health plan, which may have violated a law designed to keep government officials from swaying elections. Some GOP groups are reportedly mulling ads targeting GOP lawmakers who don’t vote with Trump. Thus, the problem is their disloyalty.

All this has some truth to it. But here’s another overarching reason for Trump’s travails: As his campaign promises are getting translated into concrete policy specifics, Americans are recoiling from the results. What’s more, this process is unmasking the disconcerting levels of dishonesty, bad faith, and lack of concern for detail and procedure that are rotting away at the core of his agenda and approach to governing, all of which is plainly working against him.


5 comments on “WaPo Explains Why Trump’s Agenda Isn’t Working In 10 Words

  1. With respect to your statement “Two things about that: 1) the entire raison d’être of HR is to highlight the interplay between politics and markets, so not talking about politics would be anathema to us, and 2) we didn’t send out a memo that said “free with your click: the privilege of dictating the author(s) political views.”” I don’t think it is that you should not talk about the interplay between politics and the markets or that you are not entitled to your silly little opinion. I believe what many may object to is the same thing they see in the ‘traditional network news’ and the ‘print media of record’ type outlets.

    That is to say, I believe you and much of said media have fallen into what some (Krauthammer, for example) are describing as Trump derangement syndrome, and suffer (without any self awareness, whatsoever) of confirmation bias. As a result the only tendency is to focus on facts that reinforce the dim view of Trump and his administration and discount (or more likely ignore and not report at all) facts which tend to counter the hated view which might support or vindicate Trump or any view or opinion expressed or supported by him.

    One problem with this is that it casts doubt on the product of your analysis of the interplay between politics and the markets. I suppose some of your critics may simply think that your analysis would benefit from a more dispassionate view or articulation of politics (vice what in my opinion tends to border on the hysterical).

    While I tended to support Trump over Clinton–largely due to Clinton’s clearly demonstrated negative attributes and poor record–I do not defend in any way some of the outlandish statements of the president and agree with those who suggest he would be well served to diminish his use of Twitter.

    I guess the ‘over-the-top” Trump hatred has now become part of the “Heisenberg” shtick … carry on. I guess some of us will just have to continue to sort through the “interplay” and take away what we can glean from it–sort of the way we’ve been viewing or reading the mainstream media for years …



  2. Anonymous

    TB – so you decided Clinton with a notable history of government service and knowledge was less qualified than your other option Trump, who has zero service history and a slew of bankrupt businesses, unpaid employees, at least a dozen brave women (probably many more who are not as brave) who have charged him with sexual assault (including one former wife), thousands of lawsuits, despicable treatment of anyone who does not agree with him or refuses him, a filthy mouth, a complete coward, a flagrant liar, years of connections with known mobsters, illegal personal use of his own foundation funds (paid fines for such!), refusal to disclose income tax, more than a decade of unpaid taxes while complaining of government’s failure to maintain infrastructure and not spending enough on military and much more (all of which is funded via income taxes), juvenile behavior, racist comments, unable to speak coherently on any subject, and so much more! ALL of which was visible and reported prior to his election!

    Sir, if Trump is your choice from the options we were to select from, there is no opinion you would have that anyone should respect.

    • Okay, Anonymous, like ‘Heisenberg’ you are coloring certain ‘cherry-picked’ facts in the worst possible light and viewing others through ‘rose-colored lenses’–in the best possible light … so the feeling is pretty much mutual.

      I acknowledged that I am not an apologist for the president.

      If you view Clinton’s history of government service as ‘notable’ then you probably also believe Bowe Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.”

      -HRC served one term in the US Senate, some might say carpet-bagging in NY and exploiting her ‘government service’ as First Lady.
      -The biggest thing she can point to in her four years as Secretary of State is the number of miles she traveled! Couldn’t be bothered to provide security to Chris Stevens in Benghazi, and then gave some cockamamie story about a youtube video.
      -Zero service? As compared to HRC’s story about how she went to a Marine recruiter to join, but was rebuffed?
      -Don’t even bring up personal foundations–Trump’s is child’s play compared to the world-class slush fund the Clintons created.
      -Further, I believe that HRC and quite a number of currently serving senators and congressmen (also then-senators Obama and Biden) voted in favor of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

      As prolific as your list of Trump disqualifiers, she has at least as long or longer a record of sleazy and likely criminal activity (cattle futures? Whitewater?). As I recall, the media outrage over Russia is a rather novel thing; the MSM fawned over HRC’s role in the “Russia Reset” (or whatever that translated to). And, of course, could find no possible nefarious meaning when in 2012 her boss suggested to former Russian Pres. Dmitry Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more flexibility after the election.

      I don’t dispute much of what you had to say, although I think you wildly overstated the case in a couple of instances: I saw a small number of women accuse him of misconduct (but, have not seen it reported that he has been charged with assault), more than a decade of unpaid taxes (based on what? NOLs can be utilized until they expire or offset a like amount of income). I don’t find him particularly articulate, but it takes a certain slant to interpret some of his (perhaps overstated) remarks as racist.

      I disfavor the president’s stated policy of tariffs to ‘level the playing field’ and am somewhat concerned with the prospect of diminution of foreign trade. However, I am supportive of many of his positions to strengthen the US economy. I believe that HRC would have represented another 4 years of Obama policies that have disregarded damaging effects to the economy in favor of social policy.

      I believe I’ve heard some say he’s like a guy born on third base, who thinks he hit a triple. That might not seem far off the mark, But, as for your comment? Cool story bro’ …

      • Curt Tyner

        In other words bro’, “I am lost in my own delusion”, it’s all cool bro’.

  3. Anonymous

    Hey TB, first let me assure you I ain’t your ‘bro. You wrote your essay about Clinton as a retort to my one comment of her “notable history of government service and knowledge”. Plus most of your negative comments of Clinton are not even based on fact or truth. I am not going to spend any time here with you defending her or trying to teach you the facts – do your homework and maybe you should find more reliable sources.

    Speaking of cherry-picking, you seem to be good at that – I did not infer there were currently any ‘charges’ against Trump by the law; I said at least a dozen women have charged him with sexual assault, meaning they have alleged – I believe Gloria Allred has a couple of cases she is working on right now. However one ex-wife did actually legally file charges against him for rape. Your off-hand comment of a “small number of women have accused him of misconduct” is ridiculous and insulting to all women. His nasty conversation on the bus that was recorded and we have all heard repeatedly is an admission of his perversion and disgusting behavior.

    And yes, he has not paid taxes for a decade is a fact. He abused the system. This “alleged” billionaire smirks about it, thinks he is smart when he is really just a common cheat. And for you to agree and defend him makes you just as disgusting.

    Your demeaning comments to lessen his behavior towards women as “misconduct” makes you as immoral as him. There are many real men in this world who don’t think like you and would be ashamed for you to represent them.

    You comments about Clinton are not based on fact. You promote this billionaire for not paying taxes but yet you support his positions to strengthen the US economy? You speak of women in offensive language. And your opinion is completely worthless.

Speak On It

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar