This is part 33 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.
33. How do conservatives square 8 yrs of calling Obama a “tyrant” while supporting an actual tyrant?
Obama was not a tyrant, but I understand why many people considered him one; he did tend to rule by executive order. Actually, he abused them. If he couldn’t get something done through Congress, the way he was supposed to, he got it done through the bureaucracies (EPA regulations), executive orders, or abuse of governmental powers (Tea Party targeting by IRS). He did have a reputation for being a bit dictatorial.
Trump has not exhibited anything different that Obama. He’s simply using the same executive order process, but he’s undoing the damage done by his predecessor. He’s also working to get the bureaucracies, such as the EPA, back under control. Congress is supposed to make law, not bureaucracies. And he’s also working to get politics out of certain governmental organizations.
I don’t see tyrant when I see Trump. Not any more than I saw tyrant in Obama.
This is part 24 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.
24. finally it seems like conservatives have a hard time mixing smaller government with a desire for that gov. to be competent
I’m not sure exactly what this question is implying, so I’m taking John Hawkin’s lead on the topic.
Conservatives believe that government will never be as efficient or as competent as free market enterprise. Why? There’s no competition, so there’s no need to be. Not only that, the more complex the system, the easier it is for people to take advantage of.
Another reason, and the main reason, that government should not be involved in anything it’s not supposed to be involved in, is because of Constitutionality. There is a very short list, provided by the Constitution, that the government is supposed to be involved in; everything else is supposed to be provided by the States.
”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – The 10th Amendment
By using that simple line of reasoning, anything the government is involved in that is not specifically allowed by the Constitution, needs to be shut down, and as programs shut down, the government will become less complex, leading naturally to a more competent government. That’s how you make the government smaller __and__ more competent. It really isn’t that hard.
This is part 5 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.
5. Doesn’t the president alarm you? What do you think about mass resignations & attempts to silence agencies?
President Trump does not alarm me. He certainly isn’t a polished politician, but that’s one of the reasons I like him. I also like the fact that he’s doing the things he said he was going to do while on the campaign trail.
I like the mass resignations, especially when considering the fact that the ones resigning are most likely liberals that hold views in opposition to the President and views in opposition to me and common sense. Let’s face it. The government is too big anyway. I support the hiring freeze as well. Draining the swamp from top to bottom is a good thing, and if they leave of their own free will, the better.
I also don’t have a problem with the attempt to silence agencies. The government should be on the same page, and despite politicians being political, the agencies should not. It doesn’t matter if an agency is tweeting facts, if it’s being done to incite opposition to the government, or to undermine the President, they need to be silenced. The only exception to this, is if something illegal being done, in which case, there’s a path for whistle blowers.
Government should not be in the business of ‘nudging’ it’s citizens. We The People are supposed to be ‘nudging’ the government.