Donald Trump, amid all the hype and slights against his rivals, has homed in on a handful of substantive issues that he regularly highlights in his stump speech, beyond his signature plan to deport nearly 12 million illegal immigrants.
He decries the loss of U.S. jobs to international competitors, the Iran nuclear deal and the costs of providing security for European and Asian allies. These issues resonate with the Republican Party’s base—and likely a swath of independents and Democrats—and are topics other candidates also are addressing.
Yet while Mr. Trump is identifying concerns, his prescriptions for addressing them sometimes ignore the roles of other branches of the government, the limits of presidential authority and existing global commitments by the U.S.
“I think his role in the race in general has been as a vehicle for a mood rather than as a vehicle for a certain set of policy descriptions,” said James Pethokoukis, a columnist and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who writes about policy and politics.
Mr. Trump wears his lack of policy specifics as a badge of honor, saying he wants to maintain some negotiating room to get the best possible deal for the U.S. His campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment, but he spoke to The Wall Street Journal this month and explained his strategy.
“You know, the problem with the plan is point 1, point 2, then you have to change point 3—I’m talking in real life. It doesn’t work that way. You have to be flexible,” he said about laying out governing promises in advance. “It’s all in the negotiation, and the people understand that but the political people don’t.”
Political candidates of all stripes tend to oversell during an election, and Mr. Trump is certainly not the first candidate to oversimplify the ease in which he would bank wins if he became president. Yet campaign experts say that the celebrity businessman’s deliberately loose language exposes him to criticism.
“Sooner or later, the facts always catch up with you and the facts are starting to catch up to Donald Trump,” said Brian Walsh, a consultant and a veteran of Republican political campaigns.
Mr. Trump remains the front-runner among Republicans, but his support has slipped since the second GOP debate last week. A CNN/ORC poll released Sunday found 24% of likely Republican primary voters backed him—down from 32% in a CNN poll earlier this month.
The poll of registered GOP voters or independents who lean Republican found Carly Fiorina jumping to second place with 15% support—up from 3% earlier this month. Ben Carson was third at 14%.
In the case of jobs being moved overseas, exact numbers are hard to come by. A 2012 Wall Street Journal analysis found that 35 big U.S.-based multinationals had added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the prior two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.
At a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire last week, Mr. Trump singled out Nabisco and Ford Motor Co. “Nabisco is closing their plant, a big plant in Chicago, and they’re moving it to Mexico,” he said. “Ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in Mexico.”
In previous remarks, Mr. Trump said that would end if he were president because he “wouldn’t approve” the Ford plant—even though the president has no authority over the move. Mr. Trump also said last month that “every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax.”
Such a fee likely would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico and could spark a complaint at the World Trade Organization, which probably would allow Mexico to retaliate against U.S. exports. New tariffs or taxes also would need a sign off from Congress, where Republicans this year have worked with business groups and the Obama administration to lower trade barriers and expand trade.
It’s “not clear to me what authority would allow him to do” what he is proposing, said Stephen Kho, an attorney specializing in trade issues with the law firm Akin Gump.
David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, called the proposal to put an import tariff on Ford products the “type of proposal that will hurt most Americans and hurt the economy.” The pro-free-trade group has been highly critical of Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, saying they would “thrill” Democrats and liberals.
Mr. Trump has also complained about such U.S. allies as Germany, South Korea and Japan hosting U.S. troops without paying for the security the troops provide, suggesting he might demand payment in the future. “We protect Germany for no money, OK. We protect South Korea for no money,” he said last month at rallies in Iowa and Alabama.
Graham Allison, a foreign policy expert at Harvard, said that while the details weren’t quite right, Mr. Trump was correct on a larger point: that wealthy European and Asian allies have become accustomed to the U. S. augmenting their defense systems.
“Trump has a nose for a grain of truth but is unfortunately not well-informed about many of the topics that he deals with,” said Mr. Allison, noting that Mr. Trump then undercuts what could be important points. “About foreign bases or the question of who should pay for the defense of Europe, he has said something sensible.”
Yet Germany and other countries often do pay for at least some of the costs of the U.S. military presence. South Korea, for example, struck a five-year agreement last year to pay more than $800 million for the U.S. military presence. Japan spent $2 billion in 2012 on efforts supporting U.S. troops in that country, while Germany pays several million in cost-sharing, though the Pentagon said the exact amount was difficult to calculate.
In addition, Mr. Trump overlooks the benefits the U.S. gleans by having a military presence stretched across the globe. The Pentagon is using a base in Turkey for strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, while American soldiers wounded during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were often flown to the medical center in Landstuhl, Germany.
On the Iran deal, on which President Barack Obama prevailed in Congress, Mr. Trump suggested recently a doubling or tripling of sanctions on Iran to force Tehran to return to the negotiating table. “They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making on nuclear. We should double up and triple up the sanctions and have them come to us,” he said.
Yet building international sanctions against Iran was nearly a decadelong process involving the United Nations, Congress and the European Union. The president has authority only over the domestic sanctions—other sanctions have been imposed by international institutions.
Gary Huffbauer, an international trade and sanctions expert at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that adjusting some of the domestic sanctions may have technically been within the power of a president under the current authorities granted to him by Congress. Yet doing so would spark a diplomatic break and a potential trade war with countries such as Japan, South Korea, China and India who all capped, but didn’t entirely stop, their imports of Iranian oil.
Donald Trump, amid all the hype and slights against his rivals, has homed in on a handful of substantive issues that he regularly highlights in his stump speech, beyond his signature plan to deport nearly 12 million illegal immigrants.He decries the loss of U.S. jobs to international competitors, the Iran nuclear deal and the costs of providing security for European and Asian allies. These issues resonate with the Republican Party’s base—and likely a swath of independents and Democrats—and are topics other candidates also are addressing.Yet while Mr. Trump is identifying concerns, his prescriptions for addressing them sometimes ignore the roles of other branches of the government, the limits of presidential authority and existing global commitments by the U.S.“I think his role in the race in general has been as a vehicle for a mood rather than as a vehicle for a certain set of policy descriptions,” said James Pethokoukis, a columnist and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who writes about policy and politics.Mr. Trump wears his lack of policy specifics as a badge of honor, saying he wants to maintain some negotiating room to get the best possible deal for the U.S. His campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment, but he spoke to The Wall Street Journal this month and explained his strategy.“You know, the problem with the plan is point 1, point 2, then you have to change point 3—I’m talking in real life. It doesn’t work that way. You have to be flexible,” he said about laying out governing promises in advance. “It’s all in the negotiation, and the people understand that but the political people don’t.”Political candidates of all stripes tend to oversell during an election, and Mr. Trump is certainly not the first candidate to oversimplify the ease in which he would bank wins if he became president. Yet campaign experts say that the celebrity businessman’s deliberately loose language exposes him to criticism.“Sooner or later, the facts always catch up with you and the facts are starting to catch up to Donald Trump,” said Brian Walsh, a consultant and a veteran of Republican political campaigns.Mr. Trump remains the front-runner among Republicans, but his support has slipped since the second GOP debate last week. A CNN/ORC poll released Sunday found 24% of likely Republican primary voters backed him—down from 32% in a CNN poll earlier this month. The poll of registered GOP voters or independents who lean Republican found Carly Fiorina jumping to second place with 15% support—up from 3% earlier this month. Ben Carson was third at 14%.In the case of jobs being moved overseas, exact numbers are hard to come by. A 2012 Wall Street Journal analysis found that 35 big U.S.-based multinationals had added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the prior two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas.At a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire last week, Mr. Trump singled out Nabisco and Ford Motor Co. “Nabisco is closing their plant, a big plant in Chicago, and they’re moving it to Mexico,” he said. “Ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in Mexico.”In previous remarks, Mr. Trump said that would end if he were president because he “wouldn’t approve” the Ford plant—even though the president has no authority over the move. Mr. Trump also said last month that “every car, every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35% tax.”Such a fee likely would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico and could spark a complaint at the World Trade Organization, which probably would allow Mexico to retaliate against U.S. exports. New tariffs or taxes also would need a sign off from Congress, where Republicans this year have worked with business groups and the Obama administration to lower trade barriers and expand trade.It’s “not clear to me what authority would allow him to do” what he is proposing, said Stephen Kho, an attorney specializing in trade issues with the law firm Akin Gump.David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, called the proposal to put an import tariff on Ford products the “type of proposal that will hurt most Americans and hurt the economy.” The pro-free-trade group has been highly critical of Mr. Trump’s trade proposals, saying they would “thrill” Democrats and liberals. Mr. Trump has also complained about such U.S. allies as Germany, South Korea and Japan hosting U.S. troops without paying for the security the troops provide, suggesting he might demand payment in the future. “We protect Germany for no money, OK. We protect South Korea for no money,” he said last month at rallies in Iowa and Alabama.Graham Allison, a foreign policy expert at Harvard, said that while the details weren’t quite right, Mr. Trump was correct on a larger point: that wealthy European and Asian allies have become accustomed to the U. S. augmenting their defense systems.“Trump has a nose for a grain of truth but is unfortunately not well-informed about many of the topics that he deals with,” said Mr. Allison, noting that Mr. Trump then undercuts what could be important points. “About foreign bases or the question of who should pay for the defense of Europe, he has said something sensible.”Yet Germany and other countries often do pay for at least some of the costs of the U.S. military presence. South Korea, for example, struck a five-year agreement last year to pay more than $800 million for the U.S. military presence. Japan spent $2 billion in 2012 on efforts supporting U.S. troops in that country, while Germany pays several million in cost-sharing, though the Pentagon said the exact amount was difficult to calculate.In addition, Mr. Trump overlooks the benefits the U.S. gleans by having a military presence stretched across the globe. The Pentagon is using a base in Turkey for strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, while American soldiers wounded during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were often flown to the medical center in Landstuhl, Germany. On the Iran deal, on which President Barack Obama prevailed in Congress, Mr. Trump suggested recently a doubling or tripling of sanctions on Iran to force Tehran to return to the negotiating table. “They are laughing at the stupidity of the deal we’re making on nuclear. We should double up and triple up the sanctions and have them come to us,” he said.Yet building international sanctions against Iran was nearly a decadelong process involving the United Nations, Congress and the European Union. The president has authority only over the domestic sanctions—other sanctions have been imposed by international institutions.Gary Huffbauer, an international trade and sanctions expert at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that adjusting some of the domestic sanctions may have technically been within the power of a president under the current authorities granted to him by Congress. Yet doing so would spark a diplomatic break and a potential trade war with countries such as Japan, South Korea, China and India who all capped, but didn’t entirely stop, their imports of Iranian oil.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..