Hyperventilating over Trump

The largely liberal press and the usual talking heads have, predictably, been hyperventilating over Trump’s actions over the first few days of his administration. I suppose that was to be expected, considering how they have behaved all through the election.  But, ignoring Trump’s more inflammatory tweets, how outrageous have his actions to date really been?

He wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, which liberals seem to think is outrageous even though the Obama administration already built some 700 miles of that very same wall. It may be a dumb idea, it may be ineffective (though no one has proposed a more effective approach), but why is it outrageous now when it wasn’t during the Obama administration?

He wants to deport illegal immigrants, which liberals seem to think is outrageous even though the Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants (about 2.4 million of them) than all preceding presidents put together. Why is it outrageous to deport people who enter the country illegally when so many others are waiting patiently, sometimes for years, to enter legally?  Why is it outrageous now when it wasn’t during the Obama administration?

He wants our allies (Japan, Korea, Europe, NATO) to bear more of the share of their own defense. Only 5 of the 28 NATO countries are meeting their treaty obligations to put at least 2% of their GDP toward defense.  The rest don’t bother because they know the US will do it for them. This has been a worry in Washington for years, but no president to date has been willing to step up to the plate and deal with it  Why is it so outrageous now to demand that our allies at least meet their NATO treaty obligations?

He promises to appoint a strict constructionist to the vacant Supreme Court seat last held by Anthony Scalia, a strict constructionist, which is producing the predictable outrage in the press. Why? When Obama replaced liberal justices with liberal justices (Souter replaced by Sotomayor and Stevens replaced by Kagan) it wasn’t outrageous, and those appointments got bipartisan support.  Why are liberals so outraged by the idea of replacing a conservative with another conservative?

He wants to keep jobs in the US instead of outsourcing them to other countries, and has been jawboning corporations to do that. Since he is the president of the US, not of those other countries, why is it so outrageous for him to look out for his own voters?  It may well be an ineffective method to maintain jobs, since automation, not outsourcing, is the real threat, but it doesn’t seem to me outrageous for him to want to keep jobs in the US, especially since that was the main issue that won him the election.

He has said he is for America first, which earned him scathing criticism from the more transnational liberal elite. Why? Do liberals think all other countries aren’t looking out first and foremost for their own national interests? What is the purpose of a national government if it isn’t to look out for the safety and welfare of the people it governs?

He promises to cut regulations. Is that really outrageous? As of 2015 there were more than 81,000 pages of federal regulations in the Federal Register.  Just the regulations added during the Obama administration are costing companies, by the estimate of the agencies themselves, more than $108 BILLION per year to comply.  Now he may or may not succeed in cutting regulations – bureaucracies are remarkably good at protecting their turf – but is it so outrageous for him to try?

He promises to reduce the size of the federal government and to reduce the budgets and staffing of some federal agencies, which seems to be outraging liberals. Why? Both Republicans and Democrats have been promising on the campaign trail to reduce the size of government for decades, though neither has actually done it when in power, so why when Trump says it is it now outrageous?  And just how do liberals think this would be accomplished without cutting the budgets and staffing of federal agencies?

He has killed the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, which has liberals outraged. Why? Hillary had said she too didn’t support it. Would liberals have been outraged if she had been elected and killed it?  Would they have been outraged if, after promising to kill it on the campaign trail (to counter Bernie Sander’s position), she then reneged and didn’t kill it? Or are they just outraged because it is Trump?

He has used executive orders to dismantle many of President Obama’s initiatives, which seems to be outraging liberals. Why? Obama enacted those initiatives in the first place using executive orders (since he couldn’t get them through Congress) and liberals thought he was daring and resourceful. Why, when Trump uses executive orders do liberals think it is outrageous?

Ignoring Trump's intemperate tweets, his actions in the first few days of his administration don't seem that outrageous to me. They are of course mostly conservative actions which liberals don't like (naturally), but they certainly don't seem outrageous.

All in all, I am amazed at the breathtaking hypocrisy of the liberal press and the liberal spokespeople.  As I have said before, I actually support many – perhaps even most - of the liberal positions, but those positions are being very poorly represented by the current crop of journalists and Democratic leaders.