Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Consider the consequences of a Trump resignation

Published

on

Let’s be realistic: Trump will never be impeached. That’s not to say he doesn’t deserve it — there could be an argument worth discussing — but a Republican Congress will never do it, and the GOP will be hard-pressed to give up its majority in 2018.

The Constitution permits impeachment proceedings on the grounds of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” but as I’ve previously written, the term “misdemeanors” refers not only to legal infraction but, as Michael Stokes Paulsen describes, to “the broader sense of misconduct or misbehavior — literally of not demeaning oneself properly (‘misdemeaning’) in the exercise of an official capacity or position.” Or, as Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 65, “the misconduct of public men, or…the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Trump’s opponents could easily present an argument that the president has abused or violated the public trust at least once.

In other words, Trump could be impeached, but he won’t be.

The only other options, then, are that 1) Trump completes his first term, 2) Trump is assassinated, or 3) Trump resigns. Trump won’t be assassinated — I’m sure many a lunatic has attempted to murder every president in modern history, but Secret Service is too competent to allow that to happen, I think. On the other hand, Trump may very well finish his term, but I don’t know if the country can handle this kind of strain for three and a half more years.

All that said, we at least have to consider the possibility that Trump resigns. There’s plenty to be said about the potential causes: frustration with low approval, discouragement about not getting anything done, conclusion that it’s the moral thing to do for the country’s sake (that’s never going to happen), or discovery that the presidency isn’t as much fun as he’d anticipated. The list goes on. But I’m not as concerned with exploring what would cause Trump to resign; plenty have done so already. Instead, I want to consider the consequences should his resignation occur.

These consequences will occur in the form of three C’s: Cabinet, Congress, and Culture.

Cabinet:

If Donald Trump resigned today, Mike Pence would become the 46th president of the United States. I’ll save my predictions for how the country would react to this transition for the cultural discussion, but I think it’s safe to say that a Pence presidency would be far more stable and secure than the current Trump regime.

Among other things, we could expect a reduction in the quantity of tweets coupled with an increase in quality. In all likelihood, Pence would carefully craft prepared statements before addressing the public on major events, and he would stick to his notes. Trump’s ad-libbing has gotten him into trouble in the past, but he can’t seem to quit. Furthermore, rather than just announce policy ideas to the Twitter-verse without any follow-up or forewarning, Pence would implement changes through the proper channels with the approval of corresponding cabinet officials. The travel ban, Comey firing, and transgender military ban all suffered from Trump’s dismal implementation.

I believe Pence would put an end to the White House leaks. Trump’s cabinet is still riddled with Obama-era staffers whom Trump will never fire because he agrees with them on policy. Trump has always been a big government guy; his only problem with Obamacare, for instance, is the name “Obama.” He openly supports single-payer and countless liberal platform points. Pence doesn’t. He would oust the Obama holdovers and establish a uniform cabinet.

As for Pence’s potential vice president, it wouldn’t be a popularity contest for reasons I’ll explain under Culture, so you could expect to see a somewhat principled conservative like Pence as first mate. I doubt we’d see Cruz, Lee, or Sasse abandon their valuable Senate influence, but you never know. Honestly, I don’t think it would really matter. I foresee that should Trump resign, Pence would set up a strong cabinet and a mature presidency. Think what you will about whether he’d be a successful president — we should at least be able to acknowledge that his persona would be far more presidential than the man-child in chief.

Congress:

What happens to Congress, specifically in regards to the 2018 election, depends greatly on the timing of this hypothetical resignation. If Trump follows the Nixon route and steps down three months before the ballots begin, we could see a Democratic upset à la 1974, in which Democrats picked up 48 formerly Republican seats in the House, extending their majority from 242 -192 to 291-144. But if Trump resigns tomorrow, such a turnaround would be unlikely, as there would be enough time for Pence to establish himself as president before voters instinctively lashed out against the establishment. There’s still a chance he could be unpopular, but the vote would be about Pence and Congress itself, not anger at Trump.

Back to impeachment briefly: if Democrats had a majority, impeachment might be plausible. But since the only way they’d obtain a majority is through Trump’s poorly timed resignation, that’s a moot point.

Pence would pursue conservative policy (as he did as governor of Indiana) and most likely put more pressure on Congress to pass more/better legislation. And if they didn’t listen, he could reasonably claim that he had done what he could and shift the public’s blame to Congress.

Culture:

The previous two points have been largely positive; I think Pence would make a comparatively tremendous president after Trump — almost any conservative would. But this is where things get dicey: I know we’re already in a volatile situation, but I’m not sure if Trump’s resignation would make matters better or worse.

According to a recent poll, 24% of Americans claim that absolutely nothing imaginable could cause them to disapprove of Trump’s presidency. So if Trump resigns, no matter who succeeds him, at least a quarter of the country will be unhappy.

On the flip side, 28% said in the same poll that Trump couldn’t do absolutely anything imaginable to make them approve of his actions, “other than resign.” So would that 28% be happy about a Trump resignation? Maybe for a few days. But they wouldn’t like Pence any more than they like Trump, and Trump actually agrees with the Left on a number of policies. Pence doesn’t. If the Left can despise the first presidential candidate in history to openly support same-sex marriage, imagine how much rage they would direct at the man who won’t eat dinner alone with a woman who’s not his wife.

By that same token, it wouldn’t matter to the Left whom Pence chose as VP; they would hate them anyway, unless it were a Democrat or a RINO, which simply isn’t going to happen. And Trump stumpers wouldn’t be satisfied by any VP pick either, since they’d be too upset by the loss of Trump. As it stands, if Trump stays in office, 28% of the country is guaranteed to be unhappy. If he resigns, 52% will be.

But let’s be honest: the solution to our cultural polarization has little to do with the president, whomever it is. Trump has legitimized the Alt-Right just as Obama validated Black Lives Matter. But I don’t care how we got here; we’re here now. People are angry, riots are happening, and the president alone can’t put an end to the inevitable clash, neither Trump nor Pence.

That said, the chaos will be inestimably worse if Democrats are in control, pledging to rescind our basic freedoms and demonizing the very institutions which protect us. If Trump resigns next year, momentum could dramatically swing in the Left’s favor. If Trump resigns within the year, we could almost certainly recover from the initial blowback in time to preserve a congressional majority. We might even be better off.

Mr. President, if you can get your act together and ride out this term, creating actual solutions and improving the political climate, that would be wonderful. But if you can’t, and if you’re planning to resign, please, Mr. President, do it soon.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Z. Little

    August 19, 2017 at 8:45 am

    We have a long history of truly dumb Presidents so what’s to remove or impeach over? Being stupid doesn’t disqualify one from government service for if it did, we wouldn’t have a government. If we learn two things in life it should be: never shop while hungry or vote when your mad.

  2. Shirley

    August 19, 2017 at 8:55 am

    Interesting ideas. The one thing I’ve noticed that the author hasn’t mentioned is the despicable action of people like Obama, Hillary, Soros, Schumer, who actively and with money are fighting Trump on everything. They take anything the President does and make it controversial. I believe they will continue doing that to Pence and with the media regurgitating the talking points of the left day in and day out, he has no chance either. At what point does all this opposition become treason? I am not a “Trump supporter”. I am a constitutional conservative trying to give the President a chance to govern without constantly criticizing him. He was dually elected by the people.

  3. Rick

    August 19, 2017 at 9:56 am

    All presidents are dually elected. This one, like the one before him, are total morons lacking moral charachter and the slightest concern for the future of anyone but themselves and their brand. Trump’s biggest obstacle is Trump. Don’t blame liberals for Trump. Hypocritical repubs are to blame, which includes evangelicals. You sold out and deserve what you have. When will we learn. Dems are whack in terms of ideas and Repubs are dishonest hypocrites. Thank you Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., and those who blindly follow.

  4. arasaid

    August 20, 2017 at 5:46 am

    Yes, there will always be division, but a good leader can influence and explain WHY his policies would be good for the country. Many people settle down once they hear good reasoning and not just platitudes. Pence is very capable of being a good leader, if he chose to do that rather than the “politician talk” he sometimes uses.

  5. Donald Mack Flippin

    August 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Mister Angel, you misspoke while writing your article. I will absolutely guarantee that the Democrats WILL NOT extend their majority next year, sir. That cannot happen because the Democrats are not presently in a majority, in neither chamber of Congress.

  6. Richie Angel

    August 20, 2017 at 8:44 pm

    Mr. Flippin, don’t misunderstand — I stated that the GOP would be “hard-pressed to give up its majority in 2018,” and my comment of Democrats extending their majority referred to the 1974 election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Published

on

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Last week, I jumped in on a heated Twitter debate between a conservative writer and a pro-life policy wonk. Though they both wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions in America, they were fighting over whether it was practical or even fair to charge women who get abortions with a felony. Obviously this debate was set within a hypothetical world in which abortions were already illegal, but it’s worthwhile to plan steps that need to be taken if Roe v Wade were overturned, or if some other laws at the state or national level made abortion-on-demand illegal.

Both sides made pretty epic arguments supporting their side, but both missed the bigger picture. Abortion is, at the very least, a two-front war. There are a few smaller fronts where the war can be waged, but the two primary battlefields are political/legal and cultural. Most pro-lifers fight the political battle. They may invoke faith-based arguments or post videos from the womb to pull at the heartstrings, but when they do so within the framework of the law, they’re still making a political argument.

The pro-abortion side is focusing on the cultural side of the debate… and they’re winning. It’s not because they have the better argument. It’s because the pro-lifers are neglecting this front, and the few that are actually addressing it are doing so with a generally poor strategy. Most are relying on judges and legislation as the way to stop abortions. Meanwhile, they’re losing ground on the cultural front.

How is the left so adept at fighting the culture war? Because they’re framing their arguments within a bigger picture. Their focus on the collective rights of people groups has made their willing sheep abandon what they once knew in their hearts, that killing preborn babies is fundamentally wrong.

The left’s message is that if you believe in equal rights, then you MUST believe in women’s rights. Not too long ago they called it “reproductive rights” but they abandoned that when they realized they could position abortion within the greater women’s rights narrative and get away with it. We’ve seen some pushback by prominent pro-life women, but it’s not enough. To win the cultural war against the womb will require utilizing a variation of the same tactics used by the left.

There are three fundamental truths that pro-lifers must understand if we’re going to win the culture war as it pertains to abortion.

  1. Statistics are counterproductive. I cringe every time I see or hear someone spouting out statistics like there are 125,000 abortions worldwide every day or that over 50,000,000 Americans have been murdered through abortion since it was made legal. It’s not that the statistics are wrong. It’s that they only have an impact on those who already oppose abortion. Those who support abortion do so knowing that many abortions happen and they don’t really care because to them, these weren’t people. Whether they think of them as fetuses or potential humans or parasites or whatever, they’re not going to be swayed by arguments that abortions are rampant.
  2. Science is on our side. Every week, there are new stories highlighting certain attributes of preborn babies that need to be communicated to the masses. They feel pain. They dream. They’re often viable at a much earlier stage of development than previously believed. There’s still a large portion of the population that believes a baby’s heart starts beating when they leave the womb. So much effort is made to use the science on the political side, we often forget that it works from a cultural perspective as well, perhaps more so. We need to educate the people so they understand that preborn babies aren’t just potential humans. They’re humans.
  3. Framing is everything. Just as the left has framed abortion as part of women’s rights, so too must pro-lifers frame the right to exist as a human right. This may seem like a political argument instead of a cultural one, and it is, but when we do so from the perspective of right versus wrong, we can allow the argument to transcend into the part of consciousness that touches on cultural ethics. But framing doesn’t just end with making it a human right to live. We have to frame abortion itself with other topics that people may find despicable. Here are three examples of talking points that frame the abortion debate in a culturally favorable way for pro-lifers that have the potential to reach those who are either pro-abortion or indifferent.
    1. Planned Parenthood was born from the tenets of racism and population control and continues those missions today.
    2. Pushing for gun control to save lives while endorsing abortion-on-demand is a contradiction.
    3. The elite promote abortion knowing it is far more rampant among the poor and minorities. This is no accident. It’s by design.

The war on the womb cannot be won through political means. It cannot be won through cultural shifts. It can only be won when both fronts are addressed simultaneously. Pro-abortionists are doing it. It’s time pro-lifers learn a lesson from the enemy.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Doctors baffled as inoperable brain tumor in 11-year-old Roxli Doss miraculously disappears

Published

on

Doctors baffled as inoperable brain tumor in 11-year-old Roxli Doss miraculously disappears

It was the worst news Scott and Gena Doss could have received. Their 11-year-old daughter, Roxli, was suffering from diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, or DIPG, a very aggressive brain tumor. To be sure, her parents sought multiple opinions to see if the worst-case scenario perhaps wasn’t what they thought it was.

Everyone agreed. It was bad.

“At Dell Children’s, Texas Children’s, at Dana-Farber, at John Hopkins, and MD Anderson, all agreed it was DIPG,” said Scott.

The prognosis was grim, but then something miraculous happened.

Texas girl’s inoperable brain tumor miraculously vanishes

https://nypost.com/2018/12/18/11-year-old-girls-inoperable-brain-tumor-miraculously-vanishes/Roxli underwent weeks of radiation as her Buda community rallied by holding a benefit for her in August, when all her parents could do was pray for a miracle.

“And we got it,” an overjoyed Gena said.

“Praise God, we did,” Scott added.

“When I first saw Roxli’s MRI scan, it was actually unbelievable,” Harrod said. “The tumor is undetectable on the MRI scan, which is really unusual.”

Doctors have no idea why the tumor vanished.

My Take

Those of us who share faith in God and His plan are rarely surprised to hear stories like this one. Medical science can only go so far before a higher power must be called on to intervene. We hope and pray the Doss family’s story can inspire others.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

Published

on

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

It genuinely disgusts me that, despite how much we’ve progressed as a society, especially in regards to our treatment of minorities and women, men still earn more than women do. It makes me ashamed of my country. How can we still refer to the United States as the “Land of Opportunity” when women are only paid $0.80 for every $1.00 that men are paid despite working just as hard in the same positions? Hell, even that depressing number doesn’t accurately express how large the gender pay gap is, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

In the report, titled Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, published in November 2018, the organization revealed that women earn a mere 49% of what men do. What’s worse is that it won’t be until 2059 that men and women have 100% equal pay, assuming the gap continues to narrow as slowly as it currently is. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it’s well past time Congress made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

At least, that’s what I would say if I was a leftist moron who still pays attention to the easily debunked “women earn less than men because of sexism” argument that’s been regurgitated countless times over the years.

The reality is that Congress made it illegal for employers to pay people differently based on their sex decades ago. It was called the “Equal Pay Act” and it was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy all the way back in June 1963. Ever since then, employers have been able to pay employees differently based on their merit, their seniority, their work output, or really whatever factors the employer desires… except sex.

A man and a woman in identical positions with identical output are legally required to be paid the same amount, and employers that fail to do so run the risk of some hefty legal ramifications. But if that’s the case, then why do the numbers presented by the IWPR show that there’s such a massive gender pay gap? Is the Equal Pay Act ineffective? Did the IWPR mess up its numbers? Is there some patriarchal plot to keep women from making money?

No, no, and no. The real answer is incredibly simple, and it’s one I’m sure most of us were able to figure out on our own the first time we heard the “women earn ($0.75, $0.79, $0.80) for every $1.00 that men earn” statistic that’s been getting thrown around for years. Basically, men are paid more than women on average because they seek out more lucrative jobs on average and work longer hours on average. If you take the combined earnings of all the women in the United States in a given year, divide that number by how many women worked at any point in that year, and then do the same for men, you’ll see that the earnings-per-working-woman are quite a bit lower than the earnings-per-working-man, so clearly there is a gender pay gap. However, despite what leftists like the people at the IWPR want you to believe, this gap has nothing to do with sexism.

This was demonstrated in a report, also published in November 2018, by two PhD Candidates in Economics at Harvard University. In the report, titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators, the two students examined the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in order to figure out why such a heavily unionized agency in such a notoriously progressive city (Boston) still paid its female employees $0.89 for every $1.00 it paid its male employees. The answer was, once again, incredibly simple. Women were less likely than men to work overtime hours while also being more likely to take unpaid time off. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Men tended to prefer making more money to having more free time, while women tended to prefer having more free time to making more money. While an argument could be made that more employers should account for the different preferences of men and women, something the report actually advises on how to do, there’s no basis for the argument that the gender pay gap is a result of sexism.

It should be noted that the Harvard report examined just one industry in one metropolitan area, which means the findings aren’t applicable everywhere, but the gist of them is. Yes, there is a gender pay gap. That’s an objective fact. However, it has nothing to do with sexism. The causes of the gap vary from industry to industry and place to place, but they almost always have to do with the inherent differences between men and women. I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether or not this is an issue, and if it is, whether it’s up to employers, society, or women themselves to solve it, but to even have that conversation requires us to abandon the idea that sexism is the cause. There are certainly some instances where it is the cause, but the vast majority of the time, it’s not.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report