Republicans accuse the president

The indictment of the Republican Senator in Congress: Signs of the rebellion or complaint of a loser? President Trump: Populist or traditionalist? Orwell as an interpreter of our time? Nine months of Trump's presidency: what are the chances of success?

We discuss these and other issues with a professor of economics from the University of Houston, a commentator on Forbes magazine Paul Gregori , professor of jurisprudence from George Mason University Ilya Somin and Professor of Haveford College, Vladimir Kontorovich .

On Tuesday, October 24, two American Republican senators made public accusations against President Donald Trump. It was an unprecedented event. It is no secret to anyone that many leading lawmakers, single -party President Trump, are extremely cool about the president, it is also known that in many cases these feelings are mutual. However, so far none of the current legislators, with the exception of John McCain and Bob Corker, have allowed himself a sharp public criticism of the president.

On Tuesday, within the walls of the Senate meetings from the lips of the legislator-republican Jeff Flake, the indictment in essence and form was a speech

On Tuesday, in the walls of the Senate meetings from the lips of the legislator-republican Jeff Flake, the indictment in essence and form was sounded. “Reckless, offensive and unworthy behavior, excuse and justified by the words, what I only say, remains reckless, offensive and unworthy behavior,” Senator Flake said. “And when this behavior demonstrates the top of our government, it turns into more - into a threat of democracy. This behavior is not a manifestation of power, since strength is the reflection of our values. This behavior. evidence of spiritual decomposition and weakness ... I refuse to be an accomplice of this. " The Democrats made a brief applause of the Republican Flake right in the meeting room. On the same day, Senator Corker, the head of the Senate Foreign Polish Committee, said that President Trump is behaving like a capricious child, undermining his own government and "humiliates the country."

President Donald Trump and Senator Bob Corker (Photomontazh)

American commentators immediately noted that both senators decided to perform with loud public criticism of President Trump only after they announced the imminent departure from big politics. Both Flake and Corker do not intend to exhibit their candidates in the next elections to Congress next year. The approaching resignation freed them from the bonds of party discipline and obligations.

Closed by the Democratic Party, the information funds welcomed the intra -party rebellion of two senators.

The Usa Today newspaper complains that only those who leave the Senate show determination: “They know about the danger of confrontation with the vengeful president. But the Republicans in Congress should look further than the next elections. In history, the memory of how they behaved during the presidency of Trump: were they humble, whether they were more likely, or they elevated their voice to defending their voice in defense in defense in defense. We would prefer American values and American institutions, so that thoughtful senators, such as Corker and Flake, remain in the political arena, but at least they say what should be said. ”

“In an amazing answer to the president, two Republican senators accuse him of undermining American values,” writes Los Angeles Times . “In the year, marked by amazing events, it was one of the most amazing days,” said Washington Post, “whether it will become a turning point, remains unclear.”

The voice of a conservative establishment - the Wall Street Journal , by the way, is not so friendly in relation to President Trump, leaves historical generalizations, she perceives the step of two senators in a different context. In her opinion, a public attack on the president is far from the main plot. The most important thing is the struggle for the future of the Republican Party. Whether she will be able to find or educate candidates who can adequately respond with activists who operate the populist mood of the electorate, those candidates who, as the newspaper writes, will be able to "fasten the populist and traditional wings of the Republican Party and then win in the November elections."

One way or another, the emotional speech of Senator Jeff Flake caused opposite assessments and emotions among supporters and opponents of President Trump. Opponents of the president see in it confirmation of their own fears from the mouth of a respected conservative legislator, the president’s supporters say that Flake surrendered to emotions and missed the main thing: the Republicans began to carry out a conservative political program. And everything else is unpleasant little things.

About how to relate to the words of President Trump and what is behind them, we are talking with supporters and critics of Donald Trump.

- Professor Gregory, obviously that the demarche of two republican senators caused a sensation. Loud public accusations were thrown into the president. What is this: signs of rebellion on a ship, a storm in a glass of water or something else?

“I do not think that the questions raised by two senators are extremely important at the moment,” says Paul Gregori . - The main question is who the majority will be in the Senate as a result of the 2018 election. In the case of Senator Flake, his loud public criticism of Donald Trump, apparently, is the result that he has no chance of winning the primary election, he leaves Congress next year and he gives free rein to emotions. Senator Corker also announced that he would not exhibit his candidacy in the elections next year. So we have two senators who are politically nothing to lose. In the past, they were opponents of Donald Trump, now they have turned themselves into heroes for Republicans-Mount Trump, but with regard to the chances of the Republican Party to win the elections, I do not think that their resignation will prevent the Republicans from maintaining control of the Senate.

-But still, for many, the main thing is that even the republican senators, dear senators, warn about the dangers of Donald Trump's presidency for the American political system and even society. Senator Flake calls the president’s behavior, I quote, "reckless, outrageous, flagrant."

Trump, the rarest of the presidents, is trying to fulfill the promises given to voters

- The assessment of Trump’s presidency largely depends on the political views of those who make these statements. As I see, Donald Trump often resorts to hyperboles and exaggeration, the manner that he acquired, acting as the developer, advertising his products. For example, he can say "hundreds of millions" when the conversation is about tens of millions. I do not think that such exaggerations threaten our democracy. In my opinion, Trump's loud criticism is caused primarily by the fact that he really opposes the fact that he and I call the establishment. In this case, you are almost doomed to loneliness. There will be only a few who will openly support you. Even Jimmy Carter, a former democrat president, admitted that none of the presidents was an object of such negative attention of the press as Trump in his memory. In such a situation, you have two options. Either keep silent what George Bush Jr. did, or fight off, which Trump does. It is believed that this behavior is unworthy of the US president, but in my opinion, this is an justified position. If you do not protect yourself, no one will protect you. It must be understood that Trump, the rarest of the presidents, is trying to fulfill the promises given to voters, and the vast majority of its electorate is deeply disappointed with this very establishment, whose politics led to the current situation. Trump's platform reflects the requirements of his electorate. Those who say that Trump's presidency poses a threat to democracy, I would answer that what we see now is the current democracy. People are unhappy with the status quo, they are unhappy that a large business and lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, and Donald Trump acts contrary to the desires of the establishment. He is partly a revolutionary and in this role causes hatred and becomes an object of attacks.

- The term "revolutionary", the professor, as you know, is not a very good connotation.

- I use it in a broad sense. Trump simply acts differently, not traditionally. Believe me, he is not going to lead people to the barricades.

- What can be said about Trump's economic program? Critics blame him for being opposed to free markets and a healing country of immigration. Supporters of the President say that he had already done a lot for the liberation of the economy from the regulations and inspired optimism to the markets, it is enough to look at almost daily records on the New York Stock Exchange.

- Judging by my communication with colleagues from the Giverov Institute at Stanford University, where many major world economists work and which symbolizes the same republican establishment, they, by and large, welcomed Trump's economic ideas. They did not like the manner of submission, rudeness during the debate, but in general, proposed by Trump is the economic program of the republican establishment, with the exception of his attitude to free trade agreements. But this is complex matter. Economists love about the principle of free trade as an ideal, but if you look at these same agreements, you will see that there are a lot of reservations that exclude from the range of their actions a variety of sectors of the economy that protect various group interests. However, generalizing, we can say that if there are discrepancies between Trump and traditional Republicans, then these are issues of free trade and immigration, says Paul Gregori.

- Professor Somin, how do you explain the performance of two senators? The White House, for example, puts them in the role of political losers, from whom the electorate turned away and now they are making themselves fighters for truth and democracy. Those who arranged a standing to the Senator Flake in the Senate see them in the role of heroes, albeit involuntarily.

“Firstly, the Republicans have strong disagreements in politics, especially in relation to trade, emigration, foreign policy and so on that Trump sharply adheres to isolationist and protectionist line,” says Ilya Somin . - Some more traditional Republicans fundamentally deny this. Secondly, in these statements of Flake and Corker there is a significant element that surpasses even specific political disagreements that is associated with the violation of the fundamental norms of liberal democracy. For example, Trump openly called for the censorship of his political opponents several times. He recently said that it is necessary to take licenses from television channels that are very criticized by him. Several times he approved the violence of his supporters against the demonstrators who opposed him during the campaign. He covered racial and other ethnic, religious forms of discrimination - this is also a violation of the fundamental norm of liberal democracy. I think that, probably, it was to these events that Flake tried to attract attention.

- Professor, your formulations, I must say, sound simply as an accusation punishable by impeachment.

If I were a member of the Congress, I would vote for the impeachment of Trump

- It depends on whether to start the impeachment of the criminal offense or just a violation of constitutional norms to start the impeachment procedure. If a criminal offense is needed for this, then you can dispute whether impeachment is currently justified or not. If you can impeachment for violation of constitutional norms, some impeach specialists believe that this is exactly what, then the impeachment would really have been justified. If I were a member of the Congress, I would vote for the impeachment of Trump.

- In that case, as the supporters of Trump tell you, you are ready to judge the president for words. After all, if you forget about his posts on Twitter and causing an increased emotional reaction, it turns out that the president acts within the framework of constitutional norms and even did a lot, according to many Republicans, useful, for example, dismantling the economy regulation that impedes growth.

Protests at airports after suspension of admission to the United States of citizens of several countries with a predominant Muslim population on January 30, 2017

- I believe that Trump and in fact caused a lot of evil already, especially when he came to power. For example, he introduced a policy of discrimination on a religious principle. To begin with, he canceled a very important free trade agreement in the Pacific region - this greatly damaged the American economy and relations with our allies. In addition, he greatly damaged relations with many other allies in Asia and Europe. He pursued a very negative and discriminatory policy of immigration, which damaged many thousands of innocent people. In Congress, he so poorly headed the Republican Party that they could not abolish Obama’s medical reform, despite the fact that they promised to do this for many years. The expansion of tax reform, it is difficult to say what will happen to this, they also have serious problems there, Trump also leads the party very poorly. From the point of view of the abolition of regulations, yes, there is some progress in this. But the largest regulatory initiatives, the most harmful, Trump can only be canceled with the help of Congress. Since he turns out to be a very poor party leader, it is unlikely that he can do it. The largest regulations that were adopted under Obama is what is called Bill Dodd and Frank, who restrains the financial industry, despite the fact that the Republicans have been saying that they will cancel them, at the moment they do not talk about it anymore. And finally, the Republicans for many years indicate that it is necessary to reduce government spending. Trump fundamentally refuses this. He wants to increase military expenses, despite the fact that the United States is already spending more on defense than the following five or six countries in the world, combined.

- If I understand you correctly, are you ready to hang the failed president on Donald Trump?

- I believe that at the moment he is a dangerous president and failed president. Of course, he still has three years in the White House, if there is no impeachment. There is always the opportunity that it will fundamentally change its course. But the longer it will continue this course, the less likely fundamental changes are. The vast majority of presidents, they have the largest achievements very often at the very beginning of their term, Trump to a large extent missed this period.

- Professor, critics of Donald Trump from the very beginning of his campaign warned that he was an authoritarian person, was ready to trample the laws, human rights. In general, the eyes of fear were great. All these fears of Trump's opponents were empty.

- I must admit that the system balanced Trump to a greater extent than I expected. Nevertheless, there is some threat. If the behavior and ideology of Trump becomes a new norm, this can greatly damage democracy, maybe not immediately, but for several years. Firstly, if he continues such behavior as, say, calls for the censorship of his opponents, sooner or later he, or one of his heirs, will try to follow this path. Secondly, if he continues to support the ideology of nationalism, racial and religious discrimination, and so on, will set people against each other in racial, religious and other lines, this can be greatly harmful, if not democracy, then important liberal values. Therefore, I believe that although in the near future the threat can be relatively small, in a longer term, if Trump achieves political success, if, as they say, his behavior, his ideology will be considered normal, serious problems may arise. I believe that there are some negative trends on the left side of the political spectrum too. If the Republicans continue towards Trumpism, it is very possible that the Democrats will continue towards Bernie Sanders, which is also a rather dangerous trend in terms of liberal and democratic values.

- Do not believe, professor, in the sanity of the American people.

If the people thought sensibly, he would not have chosen Trump, Sanders would also not have achieved great popularity

- I wrote a whole book about political ignorance. If the people thought sensibly, they would not have chosen Trump, Sanders would also not have achieved popularity. On the other hand, I believe, by virtue of American democracy, that Congress, Courts and various civil society institutions can to a certain extent protect us against the harmful tendencies of the President and other officials. Но эти ресурсы ограниченны. Если будут достаточно негативные тенденции, они могут перевалить через эти ограды.

– Вы, как профессионал юриспруденции, как объясняете эту устойчивость, жизнеспособность этой системы ограничения президентов? Ведь многие консерваторы, например, опасались, что левый либерал Обама после прихода к власти нанесет гигантский вред американской системе, осуществляя свои перемены. Сегодня эти страхи забыты и Трамп перечеркивает многие указы, подписанные Обамой, в том числе и в социальной сфере.

– В некоторой степени долгие традиции независимости судов и к тому же длительная традиция, что в основном хотя бы государственные чиновники следуют решениям судов, даже если они с ними не согласны. К тому же разъединение власти, что даже когда в Белом доме опасный человек или не очень компетентный человек, есть другие центры власти – Конгресс, суды, правительства штатов, другие центры власти могут в некоторой степени противостоять президенту. Наконец, есть позитивная сторона некомпетентности самого Трампа. То, что Трамп не очень компетентный, – это ему мешает осуществить некоторые из своих более авторитарных амбиций. Если бы у Трампа был такой же политический талант, как, скажем, у Владимира Путина, этот риск был бы выше.

– Профессор Конторович, сенатор Флейк среди прочего посетовал на то, что ему, традиционному республиканцу, стоящему на классических консервативных позициях, нет места в Республиканской партии, ставшей жертвой популизма. Кое-где сейчас даже проскальзывают заголовки о возможности раскола партии, отделения умеренного крыла. Такое возможно, как вы считаете?

– Давно сказано, и мне придется повторить: на самом деле за Трампа проголосовало 90 процентов республиканцев, так что в партии раскола нет, – говорит Владимир Конторович . – Существует противостояние между многими избранными представителями, журналистами, между элитой и рядовыми республиканцами. Для рядовых республиканцев с Трампом все в порядке. Элита не любит рядовых своей партии – так получилось, не годятся ей эти республиканцы.

– То есть вы, в отличие от профессора Сомина, говоря по-американски, не покупаете аргумент противников Трампа, критиков Трампа, которые утверждают, что то, что делает Трамп, подыгрывает, как говорят его критики, темным чувствам электората, это действительно опасно для американской демократии, опасно для американской системы?

Трамп – это личность нестандартная, он импровизирует, он не ждет, пока его адвокаты высчитают то, что ему нужно сказать

– Дело вот в чем. Оруэлл сказал лет 70–75 лет назад, что есть слова, которые не нужно употреблять в английском языке, одно из них – это слово "фашист". Фашизмом называют все, что тебе не нравится – тот фашист. Бесполезное слово, сказал Оруэлл. В Америке таким словом уже стало слово "расист". Мне не нравится – значит расист. Это обвинение из того же ряда. Тут надо спрашивать поконкретнее, чем, где он заигрывает. Трамп – это личность нестандартная, он импровизирует, он не ждет, пока его адвокаты высчитают то, что ему нужно сказать. Он сознательно, по-видимому, нарушает каноны того, что можно говорить, чего нельзя говорить, которые на американской общественной арене стали очень узкими, шутить нельзя, за шутки наказывают. Говорит много необдуманных вещей, неаккуратных вещей. Претензий к его личности масса. Где он заигрывает с темными инстинктами? I do not see.

– Я подозреваю, что афроамериканцы укажут вам на защиту президентом, скажем, монументов, символизирующих в их глазах расизм.

– Снятие памятников идет не от афроамериканцев – это белое левое дело. Про это тоже написал великий Оруэлл. Книжку "1984" американцы учат в школе. Плохо учат, к сожалению. Оруэлл говорит о том, как важно для управления страной старые памятники снимать, потому что, тот, кто владеет прошлым, владеет настоящим. Эти памятники стояли 150 лет, никому они не мешали. У афроамериканцев есть много серьезных проблем, это к их проблемам не относится. Это вся затея, чтобы еще одну вещь нельзя было говорить, чтобы еще одну вещь нельзя было делать, была придумана группой активистов. Это сужение поля дозволенной речи, дозволенных проявлений.

– Профессор, но ведь к лидеру страны, особенно такой страны, как США, все-таки предъявляются повышенные требования. А вы измеряете его слова, можно сказать, в очень щадящей шкале ценностей. Дескать, не будем обращать внимания на оскорбительные высказывания.

Все демократические политики открыто ведут расовую агитацию

– Он говорит очень неаккуратные вещи, которые можно интерпретировать по-разному. Вопрос состоит в следующем: левые политики говорят неаккуратные вещи? Обама говорил своим сторонникам: на ножевую драку нужно приходить с пистолетом? Все демократические политики открыто ведут расовую агитацию. Радостные высказывания о том, что скоро белые станут меньшинством в этой стране, их никто не замечает. В устах многих левых демократических политиков "белый мужчина" стало ругательством, этого тоже никто не замечает, на это не отвечает никто. Это не считается расизмом. Я бы тоже не считал это расизмом. Опять же, слово "расизм" потеряло смысл, оно так широко используется. Демократические процедуры Трамп не подрывает. Где он отдал приказ сделать что-то противозаконное или недемократическое? Он вполне связан теми предохранителями, которые встроены в американскую систему. Его поведение бесит всех, и его врагов, и его сторонников и злит это. То, как он себя ведет, – это, конечно, рана. Но давайте по сути говорить, а не о том, как он открывает рот и говорит что попало. По вопросам обороны у него есть расхождения с стандартными республиканцами? Нет, никуда он партию не угнал. По вопросам налоговым есть? No. По вопросам здравоохранения есть? No. Непонятно, где там Республиканская партия находится по вопросам здравоохранения, в общем, он где-то в тех же краях.

– Если уж пошел разговор, то в том, что касается отношения, скажем, к эмиграции, он очень далек от республиканцев. Бизнес обеспокоен тем, что Трамп закроет Америку для самых талантливых и самых работящих. А защитники эмигрантов вообще обвиняют его в жестокосердии.

Строительство пограничной стены на границе США и Мексики в районе города Сан-Диего

– Я считаю позицию открытых границ утопической. В каждом веке какие-то гибельные идеи охватывают некоторые слои интеллигентов. В прошлом веке была такая идея, что нужно заводы, фабрики и фермы отобрать у владельцев и всем этим центрально управлять. Огромное количество людей образованных разделяли ее, не коммунисты и не социалисты. Там, где это попробовали, там результаты до сих пор сказываются, к сожалению. В этом веке новая идея охватывает некоторые слои интеллигенции в некоторых странах: не должно быть границ, границы – это плохо, границы – это расизм. Это такая же дебильная идея. Не может быть организаций, которые не контролируют, кто является, кто не является их членом. На самом деле главное – это реальная политика. Реальная политика, а не слова и не стиль определяют будущее страны. Если его реальная политика лучше, чем альтернатива, то я буду терпеть его дурацкие высказывания.

– То есть вы готовы дать ему то, что американцы говорят benefit of the doubt , то есть вы сомнения трактуете в его пользу?

– Какие сомнения? У меня нет сомнений в том, что американскому конституционному порядку ничего не грозит, что это треп.

– Профессор Конторович, сейчас, через 9 с небольшим месяцев с начала президентства Трампа, каким выглядит его продолжение, будет это президентство успешным? Возьметесь сделать предсказание?

Если не произойдет глубокого спада и серьезной войны, то президентство Трампа будет лучше, чем альтернатива, которую мы могли иметь

– Каким будет его президентство – это в руках Господа Бога. Если будет рецессия, которая от любого другого президента не зависит, то президентство будет окрашено черным цветом. Если начнется, не дай бог, война серьезная, оно будет окрашено черным цветом. Если этих двух вещей не произойдет, глубокого спада и серьезной войны, то его президентство будет лучше, чем альтернатива, которую мы могли иметь.