In Detroit last night, Donald Trump confidently reiterated his support for taking out the families of terrorists, even when reminded this would be illegal. Today, he has reconsidered. He will now respect the law.
CNN Politics, March 4, 2016 Trump Reverses Position
During Thursday night’s debate on Fox News, Trump reaffirmed his willingness to target the families of terrorists and supported the use of waterboarding, implying a willingness to use torture. “We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding,” he said.
And former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, speaking of Trump, told HBO this week that “if he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.” “You are required not to follow an unlawful order. That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict,” Hayden said.
Trump had initially dismissed this line of criticism and during the debate told the moderators that the military would indeed carry out his orders. “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me,” Trump said.
But, it did no go well overnight Thursday for Trump.
“Republican front-runner Donald Trump moved to staunch scathing criticism of his national security views on Friday, executing an abrupt about-face by declaring that he would not order the U.S. military to violate international laws to fight terrorism.
After advocating the killing of terrorists’ families and the benefits of waterboarding, Trump reversed course after condemnation from former cabinet members, lawmakers and intelligence and military officials, some of whom denounced him as “utterly unfitted to the office” of president.”
Trump issued a new statement Friday
Trump said that he understands “that the United States is bound by laws and treaties” and that he would “not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”
He added, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
Later in the day, he sent his spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, to pour oil on the troubled waters. Katrina Pierson said the candidate had been misunderstood.
“He realized they took him literally, that’s why he put out the statement,” she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “What he’s saying is that he wants to go after them with the full force of everything we have.”
Katrina, there is videotape. This happened only 24 hours ago. Fifteen million people saw it live. He was not misunderstood. He was just wrong. We need some more of the No Spin Zone applied here.
Many years ago, as a high school senior I took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) in October in order to apply for college. Towards the end of the test, one section called for a written essay. After all these years, I still remember the question vividly.
The instructions read: “The trouble with being open-minded is that your brains might fall out. Comment on this statement.” Each test taker was given the familiar blank wide-lined blue exam booklet to write in. You had fifty minutes to complete that section.
I was stunned under the severe time pressure of the test.* Was this some kind of bad joke? How could I organize and write a sensible essay about such a subject?
Last night in the debate, Trump repeated several times that it was absolutely necessary to be flexible, in order to conduct a serious negotiation or run a business. He would be flexible, even on bedrock issue positions, including immigration, to get the job done.
His debate partners, Marco and Ted, quickly jumped on him. The audience joined in and raucously heckled Trump for his stance. Red meat fever was ascendant.
Fox News GOP Debate Transcript (Annotated), March 3, 2016
If the members of the audience last night had been faced with a metaphorical verbal SAT essay question like that from 1966, they might have said that the question was stupid. Of course your brains couldn’t fall out. Besides, being open-minded really means you don’t know what you think about tough issues.
The problem with a literal interpretation of such a text is that it leads only to confusion. Many of the ardent conservatives who support Trump are furious and frustrated almost beyond reckoning with their elected Republican officials who have failed to implement bright-line campaign promises they have made for 10 years or more.
But they will be even more disappointed with what would happen to Trump’s simple, absolute promises, trust me.
It would be better for all of us if candidates routinely led off their stump speeches with a simple introduction. “This is what I believe with all my heart and mind. I will do everything I can to persuade a majority of others to agree with me to make them come true. No one can promise that we will always win, or that our deeply held beliefs on political and social issues will prevail. But I will never stop trying. That you can count on.”
That position is closer to the truth of political struggle in the United States, but it would not get you elected dog catcher in the current charged climate.
Trump is laying down the same old pivot and change direction routine to win the nomination one way, and then begin to face the other half of the electorate in the general election. He has been the best in show so far for the 2016 Republican nomination, but he is losing way as he begins to alter direction for serious business, as he must if he is to win the fall election.
He has raised the rhetorical stakes on the value of absolute promises, and many supporters believe he is telling them the literal truth, instead of posing an initial negotiating position. They hunger for the authoritative answer to calm their insecurities and fear.
The galvanizing sound-bite of promising to eliminate not just every terrorist, but their families root and branch, just came a cropper against the superior might of U.S. law, and the sworn duty of our military forces. Trump matched Ted Cruz’ terrorist position and raised him one. His debate bet was not a credible negotiating position; it faced an absolute bar, a wall already built that Trump can’t un-construct.
Even Trump the Deal Maker doesn’t have that much pre-presidential magic fairy dust. He had to recant within 24 hours after his boldest affirmation.
This terrorist scuffle is not a Trump flip-flop, it is just a belly flop. His loyal supporters should be prepared for more shocks to come. And they need to watch their literalism. The Constitution is more than the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, as hallowed as that is. The content of campaign political rhetoric is not sacred text.
* I did well enough on the SAT test to be admitted to college. I can’t recall now exactly what I said in my essay 50 years ago, and I don’t know if it helped my chances or not.