- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Trump’s Retreat From Populism

My latest column at The Week [1], meanwhile, is about the inevitability of Trump’s betrayal of his populist promises:

The Trump administration is in full retreat from its array of right-wing populist promises.

Instead of scrapping NAFTA, they are merely looking for minor adjustments. Instead of showing China who’s boss, they have retreated on Taiwan, and are promising a far more favorable stance on trade [2] in exchange for whatever help China might offer on North Korea — while telegraphing that they know help is bound to be limited. Most dramatically, Trump reversed the overwhelming thrust of his campaign with respect to foreign policy, ordering an attack on Syria and welcoming Montenegro into NATO, saying that the Atlantic alliance is “no longer obsolete.” [3] Even if advisor Steve Bannon doesn’t lose his job, evidence of his influence is at this point distinctly thin.

But why is Trump beating this retreat? It’s not because his new course is more popular. The effort to repeal ObamaCare failed spectacularly in large part because the proposed replacement was obviously inferior, and was wildly unpopular with virtually the entire public. But there is no popular movement clamoring for intervention in Syria, or for the defense of Montenegro. And while the politics of trade are exceedingly complex, with big losers inevitable even if there are also big winners, a committed administration could surely build a case and a constituency for a new trade paradigm. Instead, Trump is rapidly bargaining away his entire agenda.

Why is he doing this?

The simplest explanation is that it’s a matter of presidential character, or lack thereof. While Trump campaigned as a right-wing populist, he isn’t actually a conviction politician, but a vain, lazy celebrity. Faced with any difficult problem, he chooses the easiest way out, which in politics will mean appeasing whoever presents the most current threat. For those of us who pointed out Trump’s overwhelming character flaws during the campaign, there is the temptation to say we told you so, and leave it at that.

But we oughtn’t to leave it there. For while Washington’s national power does give us more latitude to make material policy adjustments than most states, within Washington the exercise of power is not so unconstrained as populists assume.

Presidents don’t make foreign policy alone, for example. They rely on the military and on the career diplomatic corps — as well as on policy advisors from the world of think tanks, academia, and the like. All of these people have career advancement to consider, which inevitably shapes their analyses of any given foreign policy problem. It takes considerable sophistication to override those considerations, and in the absence of a clear alternative policy direction, even that sophistication will likely prove inadequate.

Presidents also don’t make foreign policy in a global vacuum; other actors on the international stage are fully capable of making their own moves on the chess board in response to — or in anticipation of — our own. Rivals like China and Russia, as well as allies and clients like Japan and Saudi Arabia, will naturally try to manipulate us into situations where they are at an advantage — and they frequently start with an information advantage at a minimum to begin with.

And all of the above have access to the administration’s political opposition and the increasingly partisan press to further their particular agendas.

None of that means that policy can’t be changed. It means it can’t be changed easily, simply by changing leadership at the top. When President Obama sought a nuclear deal with Iran, he faced opposition from all quarters. Allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia were bitterly opposed. Much of the military brass was skeptical, as were a host of foreign policy professionals both outside the government and within his own administration. The deal did finally get done, after years of painstaking work, but it was a close thing, and the ugly compromises along the way that made it possible included supporting Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.

An even larger reorientation of American foreign and trade policy in an “America First” direction would surely require even greater patience, skill, and determination. These are not character traits generally associated with President Trump. But they are also not the character traits generally associated with populist movements.

Trump’s rapid retreat to the path of least resistance does reflect his own callowness, insecurity, and sloth. But it may also reflect the objective correlation of forces. His strongest supporters don’t really have anywhere else to turn, because their political movement consisted largely of supporting him. So how will they hold him to account for any betrayal?

Read the whole thing there [1].

35 Comments (Open | Close)

35 Comments To "Trump’s Retreat From Populism"

#1 Comment By OhhJim On April 14, 2017 @ 4:38 pm

“His strongest supporters don’t really have anywhere else to turn, because their political movement consisted largely of supporting him. So how will they hold him to account for any betrayal?”

They won’t hold him to account. I’ve talked to some, and they don’t care what he does. For them, it was all about winning the election. It was all about giving a finger in the eye to the elitist establishment. They do not care what he does or doesn’t do in office; everything he does is good because he does it. Everything he does is because he is “for the little guy”.

#2 Comment By David Walkabout On April 14, 2017 @ 4:48 pm

Go over to Zero Hedge and find out — the short answer to the question of how they are taking it, not well or lying down.

#3 Comment By Balconesfault On April 14, 2017 @ 4:52 pm

SNL nailed it with a hypothetical Trump speech to rural supporters …

“It’s like you found a finger in your chili, but you still eat the chili because you told everyone how much you love chili…”

[4]

#4 Comment By EliteCommInc. On April 14, 2017 @ 4:59 pm

“Trump’s rapid retreat to the path of least resistance does reflect his own callowness, insecurity, and sloth. But it may also reflect the objective correlation of forces. His strongest supporters don’t really have anywhere else to turn, because their political movement consisted largely of supporting him.”

Uhhhh, that’s incorrect, maybe I should speak for myself. But this would be accurate if those supporters followed regardless of his direction because they trust or admire, or believe in him.

But for those of us who supported him because of where he stood he departure from the goals he claimed to espouse, his shift, stray whether because of cowardice, dis-ingenuousness, or mere puppetry,

will not change where stand and if that means he and I stand in opposition — so be it.

I count myself on integrity of my position on issues, not the approval of Mr Trump.

I have known the instruments of torture and am moved but little. And there will be millions more, who won’ budge either despite their disappointment.

There are people who actually have a set of beliefs and practices and operate accordingly. We cannot speak for those who are unable or don’t for whatever reason. As poverty stricken as it may take me — I will to be opposed to him or advocacy that I think are damaging, unproductive, or unethical.

#5 Comment By Making Jobs for Foreigners Again On April 14, 2017 @ 5:19 pm

“So how will they hold him to account for any betrayal? “

Challenge establishment GOP incumbents in 2018 and replace them with America First / TP candidates.

As you point out, the Establishment has had great success rolling Trump, but he can be rolled from the right too, as the Freedom Caucus amply proved during the Obamacare fiasco. I suspect that Republicans up for election next year can smell the growing anger even if Trump can’t and will start really getting in Trump’s face.

Also, re “The Trump administration is in full retreat from its array of right-wing populist promises”, you example only foreign policy betrayals.

This misses a massive betrayal on the domestic front, when Trump issued 85,000 H1-B visas to foreign workers around the same time he decided to attack Assad.

If there’s one thing Trump seemed deeply committed to it was American jobs. In that context the H1-B betrayal is a big deal and will cost him even more than the foreign policy reversals we’ve seen thus far.

#6 Comment By Lee On April 14, 2017 @ 5:40 pm

Yes indeed, the elements that helped propel Trump forward have no interest in him or what he does.

They already were and will continue to be preparing for post-Americana.

#7 Comment By collin On April 14, 2017 @ 5:54 pm

Several reasons/theories:

1) Being a business owner he does believe in the trickle down theory. (You do hear in his speeches.)
2) ON every single issue, you modify the quote “Who knew healthcare was so complicated” and change healthcare to any issue. There WAS NO PLANS for populism and he just our leaders were stupid.
3) Running a large real estate business is a lot different than government. I am guessing real estate has a lot of silo businesses while every issue Trump works turns out to hurt somebody. Just think how much he campaigned against NAFTA without noting Iowa & Kansas grain farmers would lose a lot of business without Mexico.

#8 Comment By William Dalton On April 14, 2017 @ 6:03 pm

If Trump’s supporters really do want a full sea change in U.S. foreign policy, not to mention tax and spending policy and monetary policy, and they are willing to insist upon it, they will turn where they should have done in the first place – to Senator Rand Paul. No one has ever accused him of not being committed to principle (except, of course, those ideologues who mistake a principle for an idol), nor having the courage to buck the system. The next revolution in the Republican Party may come sooner than later. But you are right, as Jim Webb and Andrew Bacevich advised us at last November’s TAC Foreign Policy Conference, for Trump, or anyone, to make the promised changes in foreign policy upon which he campaigned will require the advance creation of a corps of foreign service professionals committed to, at the least, the foreign policy realism of the Republican Party before George W. Bush.

#9 Comment By Swearing In On April 14, 2017 @ 6:28 pm

Most of those I know who voted for Trump don’t give a damn about him. We voted for him hoping he was going to do what he said he was going to do. I thought he understood that. If he doesn’t, screw him – we’ll get somebody else.

#10 Comment By Ben Stone On April 14, 2017 @ 6:35 pm

Populism isn’t something you actually DO, it’s a method used to achieve a seat of power. There’s nothing substantive behind it to actually drive an administration.

#11 Comment By hamburgertoday On April 14, 2017 @ 6:39 pm

Wow. Not even 100 days in office and NeverTrumpers are throwing in the towel for everyone who voted for President Trump. I am *so* glad that NeverTrumpers on on the side of Trump voters now. They’re such a big help. On a more serious note, the more realistic among Trump voters realized that the Office of the President is not the same as the Crown and recognized that ‘The Establishment’ was going to fight tooth and talon over every change. That President Trump is confronted with obstacles to MAGA agenda comes as not surprise, nor is the necessity of making tactical shifts or retreats. Perhaps some Trump voters expectations were as high as the campaign rhetoric, but many, like myself, recognized that *not every single promise* was likely to be fulfilled in *every detail*.

#12 Comment By Noah172 On April 14, 2017 @ 7:21 pm

If Trump’s supporters really do want a full sea change in U.S. foreign policy, not to mention tax and spending policy and monetary policy, and they are willing to insist upon it, they will turn where they should have done in the first place – to Senator Rand Paul

As someone who admires Paul’s noble reaction to Trump’s Syria attack (and broader project to influence Trump’s foreign policy), I have to disagree. The Paul who ran for President, and who prepared to do so his first four years in the Senate, is not the Paul we see today — the latter realizing that he probably will never be President, and thus having more freedom to speak his mind without regard to how it might play in a future nomination contest (contrast to Rubio, Cruz). The Paul of 2011-January 2016 started off promising, but backpedaled his foreign policy distinctiveness in the pre-voting “invisible” primary, attempting to curry favor with neocon press, Rupert Murdoch and even, eventually, Sheldon Adelson. Paul also tried to impress the hostile MSM by expressing support for liberal immigration policy (though he was smart enough to oppose Rubio’s turkey of an amnesty bill) and siding with the Ferguson “protestors” (rioters) in a bid to appear “interesting” and woo hip-hop minority youth (who just love flat-tax, cut-welfare libertarians, dontchyaknow).

Thing is, to be President, you have to get elected. Paul lacked Trump’s personal wealth, ability to generate massive free media coverage, and passionate, lucrative small donor base (all the more impressive for Trump in that its donations were largely in the campaign’s final four months), so we can only speculate what compromises Paul would have had to make to get to the White House. On top of that, were Paul in Trump’s place now, Paul would face Trump’s problem in lacking a deep cadre of like-minded, experienced, and competent people (since the like-minded would be inexperienced and the experienced would disagree with Paul’s views) ready to staff his administration, and thus even Paul would have turned to some conventional thinkers for his FP/natsec team.

#13 Comment By Adam On April 14, 2017 @ 9:06 pm

This pretty much guarantees that Trump will be a one-term president. There is no way he’ll win Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin again by doing this. I’m sure he thinks he can trade economic populism for warmongering and shows of strength overseas. He is wrong, and the GOP will be devastated in 2020. I don’t see how they ever win the presidency again after this kind of betrayal. I personally will never vote republican again. They’ve shown that they are corrupt and will never change no matter who I vote for. I’m done with them. From now on, it’ll be write-ins or third party.

#14 Comment By Adam On April 14, 2017 @ 9:25 pm

“If Trump’s supporters really do want a full sea change in U.S. foreign policy, not to mention tax and spending policy and monetary policy, and they are willing to insist upon it, they will turn where they should have done in the first place – to Senator Rand Paul.”

No, they won’t.

1. Paul ran a horrible campaign last time. He looked desperate to curry favor with the establishment, which made him look weak and Trump, by comparison, look strong. I’m not sure he has the political instincts.

2. Paul has several unpopular, wonkish libertarian economic beliefs. White, working-class people in places like Michigan won’t be voting for anyone espousing that stuff. He’ll have to drop some of that if he wants to win. Otherwise, the voters will see no difference between him and the establishment and the party will bury him like all the outsiders before. Trump won on the strength of his domestic economic populism combined with an antipathy towards an upper-class elite whom no one likes. A moderate foreign policy was icing on the cake and probably put him over the top in November, but if he had only embraced the latter and not the former, he would have lost.

For Paul to win the nomination, he would have to express skepticism of free trade, offer to renegotiate NAFTA, oppose future unwise trade agreements publicly, abandon corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich, and do something unorthodox – like proclaim that he wants to protect consumers and promote free expression and lower prices by breaking up unpopular monopolies like Comcast, Youtube, and Facebook, etc. And he’ll have to do all of that well in advance of the nomination cycle to appear genuine now that republicans have been lied to so many time. That, combined with his other views on foreign policy, could get the job done. Don’t count on him doing that, though.

Through Trump, Republican voters have proved that they don’t really believe in any of the 1980s GOP economic talking points anymore: small government, reducing social spending, tax cuts, free trade, corporatism, etc. If Rand runs on that, he’ll get destroyed once again.

#15 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On April 14, 2017 @ 9:26 pm

While Trump campaigned as a right-wing populist, he isn’t actually a conviction politician, but a vain, lazy celebrity. Faced with any difficult problem, he chooses the easiest way out, which in politics will mean appeasing whoever presents the most current threat. – yep, and yet he was elected. The American people are a living breathing example of the gypsy curse; may you get exactly what you ask for. And what we asked for was a narcissistic game show host – aka – “vain lazy celebrity…”. I hate to subject TAC readers to re-runs already, but this is what we get when we elect a game show host to be POTUS.

#16 Comment By Kurt Gayle On April 14, 2017 @ 10:17 pm

The day after the US attack on the Syrian airbase, Noah, you issued the sweeping generalization that the bombing showed that President Trump had “completely reversed his entire ostensible foreign policy.”

I wrote back that no matter how unjustified and worrisome the Syrian airfield attack was, it did not justify your sweeping and premature conclusion.

Today you repeat your blanket accusation of a week ago: You say that Trump has “reversed the overwhelming thrust of his campaign with respect to foreign policy.” But today you throw in with the one-time bombing of the Syrian airfield a few of President Trump’s recent comments about such topics as NAFTA, China, North Korea, and NATO.

Notwithstanding that the issues you raise are important and justified, I would again urge you to consider that it is still much too early to jump to the conclusion that President Trump has “reversed the overwhelming thrust of his campaign with respect to foreign policy.”

Please consider this: Anti-Trump Politico columnist Jack Shafer (cited today in TAC’s “Of Note”) concedes that “Trump has remained stalwart on several of his signature issues…abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime.”

Is it possible that – given time – President Trump will overcome his recent foreign policy missteps and show that he remains as stalwart on foreign policy and trade has he been with respect to abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime?

#17 Comment By Kurt Gayle On April 14, 2017 @ 10:20 pm

The day after the US attack on the Syrian airbase, Noah, you issued the sweeping generalization that the bombing showed that President Trump had “completely reversed his entire ostensible foreign policy.”

I wrote back that no matter how unjustified and worrisome the Syrian airfield attack was, it did not justify your sweeping and premature conclusion.

Today you repeat your blanket accusation of a week ago: You say that Trump has “reversed the overwhelming thrust of his campaign with respect to foreign policy.” But today you throw in with the one-time bombing of the Syrian airfield a few of President Trump’s recent comments about such topics as NAFTA, China, North Korea, and NATO.

Notwithstanding that the issues you raise are important and justified, I would again urge you to consider that it is still much too early to jump to the conclusion that President Trump has “reversed the overwhelming thrust of his campaign with respect to foreign policy.”

Please consider this: Anti-Trump Politico columnist Jack Shafer (cited today in TAC’s “Of Note”) concedes that “Trump has remained stalwart on several of his signature issues…abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime.”

Is it possible that – given time – President Trump will overcome his recent foreign policy missteps and show that he remains as stalwart on foreign policy and trade as he has been with respect to abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime?

#18 Comment By Richard On April 14, 2017 @ 11:13 pm

Most people that I know are so disillusioned with Trump, they will never vote again in an election again as elections are meaningless. So the establishment got their agenda, but we will see the long term outcome. A lot of people are coming to the point that the federal government is illegitimate and does not represent them. I hope this translates into not paying taxes, not serving in the military, forming your own local governments and state secession movements.

#19 Comment By Kris On April 15, 2017 @ 1:50 am

For people complaining about Trump “issuing 85000 H1B visas to foreigners”: No one gave anything to anyone yet; these are just applications at this stage, and theoretically they may all get rejected. The applications are now in the hands of the USCIS bureaucracy, which will evaluate them against current guidelines, and then select 85000 eligible ones (by lottery, if needed.) And the Trump administration has already laid very stringent guidelines, so many of these (which would have been selected by default in previous years) will likely be rejected.

So please try to understand how the process works before going out on a crusade. As for “jobs going to foreigners”, unless you know for a fact that you can do one of those jobs and are currently unemployed, you have no right to complain about employers getting the workers they need from wherever they can.

#20 Comment By CharleyCarp On April 15, 2017 @ 8:19 am

The thing about a coalition of 60+ million people is that lots of them have completely different motivations and interests.

Folks who wanted to re-normalize conduct from the 1950s that modern folks would consider racist are going to get what they wanted. For now.

Folks who thought either tax or trade policy would bring back high wage manufacturing employment to the Upper Midwest — rather than, at best, benefit non-union mostly automated manufacturing in the South — were always going to end up bitterly disappointed.

#21 Comment By Barry On April 15, 2017 @ 8:49 am

Adam: “For Paul to win the nomination, he would have to express skepticism of free trade, offer to renegotiate NAFTA, oppose future unwise trade agreements publicly, abandon corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich, and do something unorthodox – like proclaim that he wants to protect consumers and promote free expression and lower prices by breaking up unpopular monopolies like Comcast, Youtube, and Facebook, etc. And he’ll have to do all of that well in advance of the nomination cycle to appear genuine now that republicans have been lied to so many time. That, combined with his other views on foreign policy, could get the job done. Don’t count on him doing that, though.”

I don’t recall Trump abandoning tax cuts for the rich and declaring that he’d breakup Comcast, etc.

#22 Comment By KevinS On April 15, 2017 @ 10:15 am

“It was all about giving a finger in the eye to the elitist establishment. They do not care what he does or doesn’t do in office.”

And that was the great con because his policies will benefit the very (economic) elite his supporters thought he would stick it to. But then anyone who ever thought that a man who flies around in his own Boeing 727 was going to stick it to the elites was sort of delusional from the start.

#23 Comment By Complaints On April 15, 2017 @ 1:52 pm

“unless you know for a fact that you can do one of those jobs and are currently unemployed, you have no right to complain about employers getting the workers they need from wherever they can”

I am unemployed and know for a fact that I can do one of those jobs, because I used to have one of them. It’s now being done by a cheaper foreigner. There are many, many other Americans who can say the same.

Having said that, who the hell are you to dictate who does or doesn’t have a right to complain about these work visas? Do my wife and kids have no right to complain? Do my friends and neighbors have no right to complain? Do the people and companies I owe money to have no right complain?

#24 Comment By collin On April 15, 2017 @ 2:57 pm

For Paul to win the nomination, he would have to express skepticism of free trade, offer to renegotiate NAFTA, oppose future unwise trade agreements publicly, abandon corporate tax cuts and tax cuts for the rich, and do something unorthodox – like proclaim that he wants to protect consumers and promote free expression and lower prices by breaking up unpopular monopolies like Comcast, Youtube, and Facebook, etc.

Ha, Ha, Ha…Rand Paul LOVES COMCAST and any large corporation outside the state of California. He is been a loud voice for ending net neutrally so Comcast can charge internet for their usage.

And if Rand Paul is HUGE free trade supporter, flat tax (which huge tax cuts for the rich), and would probably support Ryan’s plan to modify Medicare and Social Security along some very wonkish Gold Standard & anti-Fed stuff. He would not have as successful in convert WWC Rust Belt voters as Trump.

#25 Comment By Kurt Gayle On April 15, 2017 @ 4:29 pm

Two thumbs WAY UP for Complaints (1:52 p.m.)!

#26 Comment By Mike Schilling On April 15, 2017 @ 4:41 pm

he isn’t actually a conviction politician,

He will be, but the indictment comes first.

#27 Comment By Dale On April 16, 2017 @ 2:10 pm

“Why is he doing this?”

Instead of writing that long article, the author could have just repeated the answer that was provided by the script given to Alec Baldwin in response to the query about what is on Trump’s mind:

“buildings and boobs”

#28 Comment By SeanD On April 17, 2017 @ 12:59 am

Noah, your conclusion is premature (though not necessarily wrong). I did not vote for Trump (in November, not the primaries) under the illusion that he has fixed principles and courage of his convictions. The point was that we knew we would get a globalist and culture-Left administration with Clinton, while we have a shot to fight for something different from Trump. No mistake, that fight is not just with Democrats, or just them and #NeverTrump Republicans, but within the Trump Administration. That fight is ongoing, but hardly lost: [5]

#29 Comment By Kevin On April 17, 2017 @ 10:26 am

“Challenge establishment GOP incumbents in 2018 and replace them with America First / TP candidates.

You do realize that outside the immigration issues and hating libtards, the TP and America First agenda is totally irreconcilable, right? Unless one recognizes that the whole point of TP was anger that the libtards got to elect their president even though they are not real Americans..

#30 Comment By Kevin On April 17, 2017 @ 10:36 am

“Is it possible that – given time – President Trump will overcome his recent foreign policy missteps and show that he remains as stalwart on foreign policy and trade has he been with respect to abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime?

In other words, Trump is being “stalwart” on issues the GOP elite insists upon the party line (abortion, environmental regulation) or is willing to live with a harder line (while they would probably prefer an immigration reform and less “war on drugs” in the abstract, no republican on this side of Jeb# on immigration and Rand on drugs, saw that as deal breaker). On issues where his rhetoric went against the grain of GOP elite opinion, he is towing the line.

#31 Comment By Stacie Powers On April 17, 2017 @ 6:47 pm

I know being a leader requires a lot of compromises but falling way off from where you claimed you’d stand is… disappointing. Many felt Trump would bring the change Obama promised with his campaign. This among other reasons is why I proudly call myself a proservative!

[6]

#32 Comment By Kent On April 18, 2017 @ 7:13 am

YouTube is an unpopular monopoly?!

#33 Comment By chappy On April 18, 2017 @ 6:05 pm

I guess it really does concern me. It was easy to see that he is a ‘nuancer’ of words – or is very nuanced in what he states. There always seemed to be at least an infinitesimal amount of wiggle room in many things he said, but, given the state of the country, and the sincerity with which he came across in some of his rhetoric, one believed that he was sincere and would stay the course. He didn’t come across as a politically correct Caspar Milquetoast like we have seen too many of in twenty years. Also, who would have really thought that he would have almost inappropriately elevated his own children into positions of high access. Whether he could or not is a different question from whether it was appropriate or not. In many ways I feel abused and manipulated as a citizen. But I am unsure, because if my worst fears are confirmed I have been a total dupe of my own hopes and was unable or unwilling to perceive any duplicity or manipulation. I just pray this doesn’t morph into the same old D.C. garbage – but it is beginning to look as if it may. Why the wars and rumors of war?

#34 Comment By Fred Costello On April 18, 2017 @ 8:37 pm

Mr. Trump is in a tough spot. He’s basically stuck between a rock (populism) and a hard place (NWO, Israel, Neocons, Democrats and the MSM). Intense pressure from the likes of Kushner, the CIA, and the MSM forced his hand with the strike on Syria. Once he figured this out, he announced that we would not pursue regime change against the London-educated Ophthalmologist with the hot western wife who is far less oppressive than his Muslim Brotherhood replacements would be.

Yes, he made a mistake. But he has since realized that mistake, and corrected it.

Trump is still the best hope to counter globalism. He does his best to put America First, and needs to continue to drain the swamp–not easy when part of that swamp is your son-in-law.

#35 Comment By EliteCommInc On April 19, 2017 @ 2:06 am

“But I am unsure, because if my worst fears are confirmed I have been a total dupe of my own hopes and was unable or unwilling to perceive any duplicity or manipulation.’

You are not responsible if the cannot is unable to stand to his/her acknowledged positions. That is totally on him and not your loyalty.

There will be a lot of opponents of the nomination of Mr. trump as well as his candidacy for president who will be all gloating that his supporters were duped. What fools, dunderheads and whatnot.

The mistake would simply this he was not strong enough to play against those he defeated for the position. Its early yet.