Thoughts on the race

I am only a casual observer of the 2016 race for president. I am a law school graduate with a degree in public policy. I have been conditioned to demand from candidates written, detailed plans on policy, but this year I find that policy position papers are nonsense.

Like most, I rolled my eyes when Donald Trump announced he was running for president. Now I am a “yuge” supporter. How could this transformation happen? It’s pretty simple to me: Donald Trump represents a break from the past thirty years of globalization and entanglement with foreign power.

Here are a few things I think set Trump apart from the pack of politicians from which we have had to choose the past three decades:

Tariffs and Free Trade

Trump is not anti-free trade, as some have attempted to define him. Trump is anti-dumping.

Dumping is a predatory pricing policy, whereby a manufacturer in a country with low labor and production costs (China) exports a good to a country with high labor and production costs (The United States).

For example, Chinese imports have a lower retail price than domestic goods generally. Most Chinese imports are priced so low that domestic goods cannot be produced at the price Chinese goods are sold. Considering the average wage in China was $4,755 per year in 2014, one can see American-made goods are at an inherent price disadvantage when compared to Chinese goods.

There is only one way to control dumping: import tariffs. Unfortunately, the dogma of the Republican Party the last three decades has preached against import tariffs at all costs. This has been the policy of the government, as tariff receipts have consistently made up only about one percent of tax receipts in the last half century.

The Republican Party has been anti-tariff in the last few decades, and the benefits of free trade have been extolled vociferously. Interestingly enough, many Republicans who have been anti-tariff have also been in favor of the FairTax and other consumption taxes.

A tariff is a consumption tax that applies to imported goods and services; a moderate re-institution of tariffs could encourage domestic production and increase tax revenue at the same time. With a moderate tariff, a bad actor that dumps cheap goods in the United States will still be able to do so, but the dumped goods would have a tax associated with their purchase.

Increasing tariffs will allow for a cut in income tax. Federal taxation should be applied to production and consumption in relatively equivalent levels. Doing so discourages neither, whereas reliance on an income tax discourages domestic production.

Migration

Whether you love it or hate it, Donald Trump has a point when he says that criminal aliens are migrating here illegally. The rest of the truth is that criminal aliens are a small minority of the total that are migrating here illegally.

First, there are no reliable statistics to demonstrate how many illegal immigrants are criminal aliens. This is because by entering illegally, these immigrants eschew the process of admission to the United States, and do not allow federal agencies to record information about them or their purpose in the United States.

Second, immigration to the United States has always been a controlled process. Whether immigration was controlled at Castle Garden or Ellis Island, immigration was always under control. Ellis Island was a necessary processing station whenever immigration flowed from Europe. Because the immigrant wave was seaborne, there was no need for a “big, beautiful wall”; however, Ellis Island served as the “big, beautiful door” to process the newcomers to America. To suggest now that building a wall on the southern border is anything abnormal is to ignore the history of migration to this country.

The major problem with immigration is not that there is too much or too little; the problem is that it is no longer a controlled process. I believe that the process should be revamped entirely, and I believe Donald Trump is the one who can make that possible.

Immigration is vital to preserving and continuing the legacy of the United States. This country was not founded as a refuge for immigrants, but it became one accidentally when the world found out about the American Dream. The reason that people flow to our land is because of what freedom promises: reward for hard work, charity to all, and a stable government.

Pragmatism, Not Dogma

It is pretty clear that Donald Trump is a blank slate. He has only a cursory understanding of how our government works, he does not have a grasp on the technical aspects of forming policy, and he is not an expert on the power of the presidency. Perfect.

The major drag on Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2016 Republican primary was that he did not have “core principles” — for example, he struggled on the question of abortion. It makes sense for a person who has spent his life as a builder to have such a deficiency. As an executive in a business, it is your job to execute — to “make it happen.” The ideas people are your advisors, medium-level people, and others who contribute to completing an objective.

When Donald Trump says he wants to Make America Great Again, I think he means it. His life has been spent moving skyscrapers from paper to concrete. If Donald Trump had adhered to arbitrary restrictions whenever completing his objectives in the past, he might not have been as productive.

This election presents to the people an opportunity to have an executive without any preconceived ideological opposition to creative ideas that can solve some of our biggest problems. It is my opinion that Donald Trump will not reject a proposal outright because Democrats like it, or because an idea is viewed as “progressive,” or because it makes lobbyists mad. I think the thing that triggers Donald Trump’s approval is the simple, observable “gut instinct”: Does it work? Creative policy wonks like I have a prime opportunity to present to the President ideas that could never have gained approval in a Republican administration (or a Democratic administration) — grand compromises that give every stakeholder three-quarters of what he or she wanted initially, that solve problems.