George Will is An Affront to Conservatism

In the previous post, I mentioned how Conservative Inc.

Now, I want to focus one particular miscreant of Conservative Inc.: Agnostic turned fool (or rather, atheist) George Will.

Now, about the point that William F. Buckley and his conservative gang have been part of the problem, not the solution, I would like to share with you an article written by George F. Will, himself another part of the do-nothing Conservative Inc. cabal.

In this column, Will showed how he and William F. Buckely were never really committed to fighting back -- only in being respectable, and how their disdain for Trump exposes their true egotism, while ignoring the needs of the whole country (FYI, this article was written during the height of the 2016 campaign, August 2015 :

Donald Trump Is an Affront to Anyone Devoted to William F. Buckley’s Legacy

By GEORGE WILL

In every town large enough to have two traffic lights there is a bar at the back of which sits the local Donald Trump, nursing his fifth beer and innumerable delusions. Because the actual Donald Trump is wealthy, he can turn himself into an unprecedentedly and incorrigibly vulgar presidential candidate. It is his right to use his riches as he pleases. His squalid performance and its coarsening of civic life are costs of freedom that an open society must be prepared to pay.

Right away, we see the coarse and diffident arrogance of this Beltway elitist. He looks down on small towns, and he looks down on the individuals who live in these towns as empty people who have wasted their lives and contribute nothing but their solitary delusions of grandeur. This very arrogance is what turned off many Republican voters to Romney, and perhaps also hurt John McCain and Bob Dole in their respective bids for President, too.

When, however, Trump decided that his next acquisition would be not another casino but the Republican presidential nomination, he tactically and quickly underwent many conversions of convenience (concerning abortion, health care, funding Democrats, etc.). His makeover demonstrates that he is a counterfeit Republican and no conservative.

Three years later, these conversions were about more than mere convenience. He has initiated and completed a number of conservative policies for the greater good of the country which many other conservatives had talked about but never accomplished.

He is an affront to anyone devoted to the project William F. Buckley began six decades ago with the founding in 1955 of National Review — making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable. Buckley’s legacy is being betrayed by invertebrate conservatives now saying that although Trump “goes too far,” he has “tapped into something,” and therefore . . .

Making conservatism intellectually respectable and politically palatable meant ... losing often, and losing gracefully the Left. That way, the major newspapers and television stations would continue to invite conservative pundits like George Will, Bill Kristol, and Jonah Goldberg onto their programs, although them to pontifate their points and sell their books--but at the same time ensure that none of them were making a difference to shape the culture for the better.

Therefore what? This stance — if a semi-grovel can be dignified as a stance — is a recipe for deserved disaster. Remember, Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond “tapped into” things.

This riff is a slimey character smear. President Trump is not a racist. President Trump's economic and political populism has actually restored constutional foundations in this country, too.

In 1948, Wallace, FDR’s former vice president, ran as a third-party candidate opposing Harry Truman’s re-election. His campaign became a vehicle for, among others, Communists and fellow travelers opposed to Truman’s anti-Soviet foreign policy. Truman persevered, leaders of organized labor cleansed their movement of Soviet sympathizers, and Truman was re-elected.

He won also in spite of South Carolina’s Democratic governor Thurmond siphoning off Democratic votes (and 39 electoral votes) as a Dixiecrat protesting civil-rights commitments in the Democratic party’s platform. Truman won because he kept his party and himself from seeming incoherent and boneless.

No. Truman won because the Republican candidate that year, Thomas Dewey, was a weak nominee who took no strong positions or proclaimed any committed advocacy for doing what was best for the country. He did not give a strong platform or presence to distinguishing himself from Harry Truman at all. 

Conservatives who flinch from forthrightly marginalizing Trump mistakenly fear alienating a substantial Republican cohort. But the assumption that today’s Trumpites are Republicans is unsubstantiated and implausible. Many are no doubt lightly attached to the political process, preferring entertainment to affiliation. They relish in their candidate’s vituperation and share his aversion to facts. From what GOP faction might Trumpites come? The establishment? Social conservatives? Unlikely.

More elitist arrogance. On the contrary, many Republican voters were deeply enmeshed in the political process, and they saw one establishment candidate after another refuse to follow through on policies, platforms, or promises for the greater good of the country. Republicans were continuing to push different forms of amnesty. Working-class Americans saw their jobs being shut down and shipped overseas. The public safety issues eroding middle American gnawed on many Americans, and the basic dignity and quality of life which Americans had worked hard for was slipping away from them, while government-allied crony capitalists continued to get richer, and the rest of us paid for it. They wanted a bold change to this status quo, and they elected Donald Trump.

I do submit, however, to the truth that the new cohort of Trump voters does not fall neatly within the Republican framework. Disaffected Democrats and populist independents lined up behind Donald Trump, as well. There is a massive political realignment taking place, and conservatives can benefit if they pay attention and reach out to core constituencies across the country on the trade and illegal immigration issues.

A party has a duty to exclude interlopers, including cynical opportunists deranged by egotism.

And grifters, which include all the so-called "gay conservatives". and bookish types like George Will!

They certainly are not tea partyers, those earnest, issue-oriented, book-club organizing activists who are passionate about policy. Trump’s aversion to reality was displayed during the Cleveland debate when Chris Wallace asked him for “evidence” to support his claim that Mexico’s government is sending rapists and drug dealers to America. Trump, as usual, offered apoplexy as an argument.

George Will has demonstrated a greater aversion to reality. He doesn't seem to understand that conservatives in particular and citizens in general are fed up with the caving in. They want to see results, not just talking points and verbal jousting matches on live television.

A political party has a right to (in language Trump likes) secure its borders. Indeed, a party has a duty to exclude interlopers, including cynical opportunists deranged by egotism. This is why closed primaries, although not obligatory, are defensible: Let party members make the choices that define the party and dispense its most precious possession, a presidential nomination. So, the Republican National Committee should immediately stipulate that subsequent Republican debates will be open to any and all — but only — candidates who pledge to support the party’s nominee.

President Trump did the right thing when he had indicated that he would not necessarily support the GOP nominee (if it wasn't he). Keep in mind that four years later, sellout RINOs like John Kasich have openly opposed President Trump and are contemplating whether to speak at the Democratic National Committee Convention in August.

This year’s Republican field is the most impressive since 1980, and perhaps the most talent-rich since the party first had a presidential nominee, in 1856. But 16 candidates are experiencing diminishment by association with the 17th.

And guess what? The 17th became President, because the political realignment that so many of the Republican base were craving finally came to fruition. This realignment bothers beltway elites like George Will. He wants to sit at the cool kids' table and make lots of rich kids' money. All of this takes place while the country descends into abject chaos and culture war cacophony.

Soon the campaign will turn to granular politics, the on-the-ground retail work required by the 1.4 percent of the nation’s population that lives in Iowa and New Hampshire. Try to imagine Trump in an Iowa living room, with a macaroon in one hand and cup of hot chocolate balanced on a knee, observing Midwestern civilities while talking about something other than himself.

That imagining was not necessary, and would turn out to be irrelevant, since Trump did not campaign in Iowa to begin with. As many pundits have shared, and as Trump probably figured out, it did not make a difference whether he won Iowa's caucuses or not. Those election contests help to clear the field rather than isolate the strongest candidate for the nomination. President Trump was the only candidate who would not only defeat sixteen other candidates, but beat down the Hillary Clinton-DNC juggernaut which was propped up on nothing but lies, deceit, theft, and murder. Only Trump had the guts and gumption to get it done.

Television, which has made Trump (he is one of three candidates, with Mike Huckabee and John Kasich, who have had television shows), will unmake him, turning his shtick into a transcontinental bore. But not before many voters will have noticed weird vibrations pulsing from the GOP.

On the contrary, Trump has continued to manipulate and take down the media like no other. He has exposed their rank hypocrisy so well. Conservative Inc. finks like George Will want to keep close ties and happy connections with the corporate media because it's their bread and butter. They want to keep writing articles, giving speeches, selling books, etc. Of course, all of that money-making has come at a price for the rest of the country.

So, conservatives today should deal with Trump with the firmness Buckley dealt with the John Birch Society in 1962. The society was an extension of a loony businessman who said Dwight Eisenhower was “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” In a 5,000-word National Review “excoriation” (Buckley’s word), he excommunicated the society from the conservative movement.

This is the most damaging indictment yet that I can find against George Will. The John Birch Society is in no wise a racist organization, or is it some "looney extension" of conspiracy theories. The organization emerged out of frustration with the fact that Republicans did not dismantle and destroy the New Deal Socialism of FDR and the Democratic Party. The fact that so many Republicans were swept into office in the early 1950s was a clear testimony to the fact that Americans wanted normalcy and a return to constitutionalism, not globalism or communism.

And yet, the communistic underpinnings of the New Deal were not removed during the Eisenhower Administration. In fact, they grew worse under the Johnson Administration--much worse. And where was George Will in the midst of that discussion, by the way?

Buckley received an approving letter from a subscriber who said, “You have once again given a voice to the conscience of conservatism.” The letter was signed, “Ronald Reagan, Pacific Palisades, Cal.”

Not sure why Ronald Reagan would share such a sentiment. Then again, President Trump has said, written, done many liberal things throughout his life, but has turned out to be an effective conservative juggernaut in the White House (Aside from the spending, of course).

With the article above dissected and dispensed with, I would share that indeed Georg Will is the affront to true conservatism, not Donald Trump.

George Will wrote a lot, talked a lot, pontificated even more, and has had nothing to show for all these efforts. Conservative Inc. talking heads like Will have not conserved anything. In fact, now is the time to push back hard not just on the Left but the Conservative establishment, which has been content to get nothing done but make money and make a profile for themselves while the country falls apart.

With all the rioting going on in the streets, with the increased kow-towing to the Left on one cultural issue after another from Conservative Inc., it is no surprise that more people are getting tired of the chattering classes and want to see real change, real leadership from their ... leaders!

George Will is an affront to conservatism, and President Trump has exposed the conservative chatterati like George Will and Jonah Goldberg for who they really are: a bunch of do-nothing talking heads who never wanted to do better for this country. And with the decline of print media, their influence is on the inevitable wane, and all for the better.

The Decline of WaPo: "Conservative" Journalist Celebrates Eric Garcetti, Sanctuary Cities

If there was no reason to despise WaPo "conservative" columnist George Will, there is now. His unfounded hatred of Donald Trump has only grown worse, and now he celebrates Democratic aspirants to challenge Trump in 2020.

His current favorite? Eric Garcetti, the son of displaced LA County District Attorney Gil Garcetti.

Really.

Here's his fawning flop of an article:

Los Angeles’s mayor deserves a presidential hearing (No, He doesn't!)

It was dicey being Jewish in a Russia that was tolerant of pogroms, and then came the threat of conscription into the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, so one of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s great-grandfathers headed west to America. 

George Will is part of the open-borders lobby in the left-wing press. I don't recall him having such a demented determination to undermine the national sovereignty of this country in years past. I think this conservative intelligentsia establishmentarian can't handle the fact that someone he doesn't like is doing more for conservatism than he ever could have done.

Another Garcetti great-grandfather married a Mexican woman who, fleeing revolutionary ferment there, headed north to America. Which is why Garcetti, a fourth-generation resident of one of the world’s most polyglot cities, is as American as a kosher burrito, a delicacy available at Mexikosher on Pico Boulevard.

UGH. Really, George?! Multiculturalism or multi-ethnocentrism?

Trim, natty — colorful socks are, alas, fashionable — and with the polish of one born to public attention (his father, Gil Garcetti , was Los Angeles’s district attorney who prosecuted O.J. Simpson), Garcetti, like dozens of Democrats who have noticed recent presidential history, is asking: Why not me?

Notice that Will won't mention that Republican Steve Cooley blew "Silly Gil" out of the water in 2000. Part of it I imagine stemmed from his massive failures to prosecute high profile crimes like OJ.

Good question. Although presidents Andrew Johnson , Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge had been mayors of Greeneville, Tenn., Buffalo and Northampton, Mass., respectively, no mayor has gone directly from a city hall to the White House. But the 44th president came from eight years in the nation’s most docile and least admirable state legislature (Barack Obama effectively began running for president as soon as he escaped to Washington from Springfield, Ill.). The 45th came from six bankruptcies and an excruciating television show. 

Feel the love. George Will probably wishes Barack Obama were back in the White House instead of Donald Trump. I am really disgusted with this columnist. What is he thinking? 

So, it is not eccentric to think that a two-term mayor of one of the world’s most complicated cities might be as qualified to be president as was, say, the governor of one of the 23 states (Arkansas) with a population smaller than this city’s . And less challenging: Los Angeles’s schools teach children whose parents speak Tagalog and 91 other languages other than English.

How is this a good thing? Or is it even anything?!

Recent history does not suggest that America has such a surplus of presidential talent that it can afford to spurn an audition by a mayor who governs where more than 40 percent of waterborne imports enter the country — through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Where more than 50 percent of residents are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where immigrants from more than 30 nations form those nations’ largest overseas communities.

Immigrants, immigrants, immigrants: what about American citizens? I have to ask this question because it's become more difficult and suspect to wonder if writers and reporters are talking about men and women in this country legally ... or illegally.

"Immigrant" should only refer to people who came into this country the right way, legally, through the front door after proper vetting, paying all the fees, passing all the tests, and playing by the rules.

Garcetti’s immersion in immigration realities gives him standing to warn his party, which is addicted to identity politics, that “people do want a national identity.” We are “not an ethnic nation but a civic nation,” and Democrats must speak to “identity” rather than “identities.” 

When did Garcetti say any of the above? Let's be frank: the only reason he is taking a more middle ground on the immigration and sovereignty issues is that he wants to compete and reach out to the remaining reaches of Middle America which some Democrats might be able to win.

Also, he brings practicality to the ideological argument about so-called sanctuary cities: When a Korean immigrant, who became a citizen and later a Los Angeles police officer, was shot — not fatally — witnesses and others in the neighborhood, many of them likely illegal immigrants, came forward with information that enabled the police to capture her assailant within hours. Such police-community cooperation is, Garcetti says, jeopardized when local police are viewed as closely allied with federal immigration enforcement.

It makes some sense for Will to tag the phrase "so called" after sanctuary cities. They are not sanctuaries in any sense. In fact, they invite more drugs, corruption, human trafficking, sexual assault and abuse, and ultimately murder.

Just ask Kate Steinle.

Notice that Will writes "Many of them likely illegal immigrants." There is no assurance that their status was questionable or in question. What a shameless attempt to defend an indefensible urban policy positions. This passage was the most stunning and the most offensive and obtuse in the entire article.

Sanctuary cities are not practical and unwise. They are counterproductive, inviting more illegal aliens and their lawless presence and activities to our cities and our country. The routine argument from Establishment Republicans and accomodationist RINOs is that since the illegal aliens are already here, we might as well make the most of their presence in our country.

That is a terrible response, enabling criminal behavior and putting American citizens in danger while eroding our national sovereignty and fiscal stability.

Garcetti, 47, is a generation younger than some progressives’ pinups (Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and former vice president Joe Biden). And, living far from Washington, he is positioned to deplore the Beltway, within which his party has been concentrating power for a century. 

That is a nonsensical argument. Los Angeles has become very much a federalized city, in that the overreach of government, plus the massive collusion with public sector unions and private sector cronies has made the city all the more attached to Washington DC at the hip (and the teat). Let's cut through the crap here. Los Angeles wants to be very much a federal region, a federal area on par with the federal capital.

Garcetti is another big government statist, and there is no panache about this guy which suggests that he could be any kind of progressive darling. He is the male version of Hillary Clinton (not that Hillary Clinton is any less of a man, anyway).

He suggests a rule for those who are perpetually enraged about the president: “You only get five minutes a day to yell at your TV.”

The truth is that every foray he makes into the public square involves castigating President Trump. Of course, he begs for federal dollars as often as possible. One has to wonder how much longer he can kick down the President in public, but kiss up to him in private.

 Democrats, he says, sometimes are “the smarty-pants party” that does not “speak plain English.” He seems, however, to be tiptoeing on eggshells when trying to avoid offending his party’s easily offended keepers of litmus tests. When, last September, an interviewer asked him whether gun manufacturers should be liable for the misuse of their products, he said, “I think you have to be open to that.” Such mush (Should we be “open to” distillers’ liability for drunken driving?) does not move nominating electorates.

If Will finds him unmoving and unimpressive, why write an article glorying over him? Eric Garcetti won re-election by a wide margin because so few people voted (how many residents in Los Angeles are illegal aliens? Of course, legal status has never prevented illegal aliens from voting in the City of (Fallen) Angels before.

New York’s mayor from 1933 to 1945, Fiorello La Guardia, a Republican in a Democratic city, famously said, “There is no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage.”

All of that has changed now that Democrats are more committed to communism and cronyism than country. The politicization of the justice system has worsened, too, especially where Democrats have won supposedly non-partisan offices.

And mayors have what Garcetti considers “the luxury of doing.” But Los Angeles mayors are not powerful — the schools are run by others — and he must get along with the mayors of 87 other cities in Los Angeles County. This is, however, training for the presidency, which is less powerful than those who seek it think it is, until, in office, they must deal with Washington’s rival power centers.

Will should talk about the backstage Deep State takedown which the Beltway bureaucracies are waging against President Trump. He won't, however, because he would love to see Trump dumped, even though he was elected by the lawful process outlined in the Electoral College.

In 2020, California’s presidential primary, which usually has been a June irrelevancy, will occur in March. This might also benefit Kamala D. Harris (D), the state’s freshman U.S. senator. Anyway, Garcetti deserves a hearing. America could do worse. It usually does and, in 33 months, it probably will.

Shame on George Will. That's what I must write first.

Second, shame on him for defending outlaw sanctuary cities. Notice that he didn't write about the horrific murder of Tierra Stansberry and four other Americans in the Westlake Section of Los Angeles. Their killed? A 22-year old illegal alien from Honduras, Johnny Josue Sanchez, who had set fire to an abandoned warehouse.

One of the homeless, Deadre Mitchell, rushed into the building to save the four other lives, native Iowans trying to reconnect after two of them had fled the country. Sanctuary cities hurt American lives, and they protect no one but the corrupt, undocumented politicians covering for themselves and their future careers.

We just cannot allow "conservative" arguments like the ones proffered by George Will to go unchallenged. No wonder he's not making the lecture and TV circuits the way he used to. Does he work for MSNBC now, too?

Final Reflections on Billy Graham, America's Pastor

Billy Graham, America's Pastor, passed away three weeks ago. He received unprecedented civilian honors, and he deserved it. A man who had nearly reached a century for his time on this earth, Graham worked with Presidents on both sides of aisle, as well as men and women of grand and low estate. His efforts to combat racism and segregation are duly noted and honored.

It was frustrating and sad that the media selected a few clips from private conversations he had shared with President Richard Nixon, including some unjust snipes at Jewish people. Those were private remarks which no doubt Graham never supported or enabled in his public life, and even when they went public nearly 20 years ago, Graham dutifully apologized and moved on to greater opportunities and victories in witnessing. America's Pastor was not afraid to stand out for Christ Jesus, and he was not afraid to admit that he made mistakes. In his connections and conversations with political figures, he had to learn that they sought to use him rather than learn from him. Nixon was the hardest lesson he learned. Nixon was power-hungry and used Graham's popularity for his own venal ambitions.
In spite of these small setbacks, Billy Graham recognized that he was a human being, once a sinner now a saint saved by grace. Many pastors fall from grace because they rest in their own power rather than trusting in the Lord for all things. How else could a man have launched crusades across the globe for decades? Such strength and commitment is supernatural.

Graham's legacy continues to amaze through his son Franklin, a powerhouse of faith and fervor. His passion for this country and its Judeo-Christian ethic is beyond astounding. Franklin Graham had a troubled past, too, but broke through a life of drug addiction of loss to become a powerful preacher and witness for Jesus. Thank God that He uses people who aren't perfect, but rather seeks to work through those who have been perfected in their conscience towards God (Hebrews 10:14).

Three week past Graham's passing, there were diverse opinions about his passage from death to life to death again. The Washington Post "conservative" columnist George Will's diatribe against the pastor was not surprising, but certainly disappointing. Will used to describe himself as agnostic, since he didn't have the intellectual fortitude to be an atheist. Now he has jumped fully into folly and acknowledges that there is no God to acknowledge.

The Scriptures have a ready response for such heady nonsense:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalm 14:1)

It's very difficult to take a limited government conservative seriously who does not honor The Deity or any form of Providence. What is left in a world without God but a war of all against all, and the stronger always win over the weaker? The rise of government control over individual liberty and sovereignty is inevitable where no God is acknowledged. Look at former and current communist states for proof.

What else about Will's anti-Graham polemic was wrong? He disdained that Graham was not a prophet because they take "adversarial stances toward their times, as did the 20th century’s two greatest religious leaders, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Pope John Paul II. Graham did not. Partly for that reason, his country showered him with honors."

I could not disagree more. There is nothing more officious to any leader, to any government than to hear that there is a great Leader who whose shoulder rests the government of this universe (Isaiah 9:6). Millions of people around the world were desperate to hear Good News. No one should be shocked. Graham also had his detractors. I saw them personally when I attended his last crusade in Pasadena 2004.

For me, however, the biggest problem I have with Billy Graham is that he did not portray a Savior who saves us every day. We never learned about the High Priesthood of Christ Jesus, who ministers on our behalf after the power of an endless life (Hebrews 7:16). Many Christians struggle through this life because they know about Jesus as the Savior who takes us from spiritual death into life. But what about the day-to-day life that I live on this earth still?

The other formulation, perhaps one he used to make the most sense to his audiences, was flawed. Graham would routinely exhort listeners: "Give your life to Christ." That invitation is not Biblically accurate. When Adam and Eve sinned, they died. Jesus did not come to give Himself as an option for living better.

Jesus spoke very clearly on this matter:

"I have come that you might have life, and that more abundantly." (John 10:10)

Man needs forgiveness of sins--and of sin, but He also needs life, a recognition that apart from Jesus, none of us can accomplish anything (John 15:5). This is one of the most neglected revelations in Christendom today, along with the full promises accorded to us in the New Covenant as well as Christ's High Priesthood.

Granted, Billy Graham was an Evangelist, as much as other members of the Body of Christ are also called to be apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Ephesians 4:11). Still, evangelism will be more effective the more that adherents recognize that man has a two-fold problem: He is dead in trespasses. The "Dead" part must be brought to light so that all men can enjoy Jesus' everlasting life (John 3:16) and the glory of reigning in His life even here on earth (Romans 5:17).

With that, I will close by saying that there was no greater communicator for the faith than Billy Graham, and let us hope that more people will rise up to share the Good News of Jesus Christ before His Coming.

Rethinking Conservative Talking Points

Here are a few points of view that I had held for a long time without challenging their merits.

Since President Trump's election and inauguration, there are some ideas which I am challenging with clear evidence in our country and economy.

George Will once asserted, "Populism is not conservatism."

I used to accept this statement at face value. Will had asserted this statement on an ABC 7 "This Week" panel during Election 2008.

Will argued that the anti-elitism sentiment ultimately generates a larger government agenda.

Now I realize that populism which opposes the corrupt, anti-American, pro-globalist agenda is good.

And it in fact wants a reduction of the government into our lives. I cannot believe that I never challenged that precept from George Will. Populism is all about restoring power back to the people. Two Amendments in the Bill of Rights talk about restoring those rights.

Trump's pro-American nationalism, his pro-worker populism has enacted an incredible conservative agenda on many levels. The real sticking point for people like Will and the rest of the cloistered political elites is illegal immigration. They don't understand the costs or the consequences of this destructive problem. They don't live with illegal aliens ravaging their neighborhoods. They don't understand the pain and frustration of losing jobs and quality of life to ongoing foreign invaders.

The distant arrogance of these talking head conservatives is stifling.

John Stossel: "Trade deficits don't matter."

The argument about trade deficits, which means that a country is importing more goods than exporting, had concluded for me with John Stossel's analogy of a grocery store.

"I engage in a trade deficit every time I go shopping at the grocery store. If the store had to buy something from me in order for me to purchase something from them, they would go out of business."

I look back on this analogy, and I realize now how naive it is. A country is not a grocery store. Countries are not just markets or economies.

A free market is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a free society. The United States is a free yet also sovereign nation. There are other nations near and far which oppose our free way of life. Why would we want to trade with them?

Reason.com: "Tariffs are bad."

I would allow for tariffs on a general scale if the income tax were repealed. A tariff is a tax which consumers would have to pay for, but that cost would be offset by no longer paying an income tax.

Tariffs are good for national security reasons. Why should the People's Republic of China dump cheap goods into our country, and they in turn use the money they are making to undermine us further?

These are some talking points I have learned to review and challenge now that President Trump is back in office. Note, however, that tariffs as a rule create higher costs and disproportionately affect different parts of the country. A full-on trade war with other countries furthered the economic recession that led to the Great Depression in the early 1930s.

Tariffs, if any are imposed, must be strategic.