“He’s a jackass, but he’s great for the economy.”

If, on the basis of some variation on that statement, you’re among the 46% of Utah voters prepared to support Donald Trump over Joe Biden, then this op-ed is for you. Specifically, my goal is to dissuade you from settling on that case for giving Trump a second term.

Your justification expands into something like this: You would prefer or even insist on greater civility and maturity from a president, but Trump’s contributions to the economy are valuable enough to neutralize his behavior as a reason to renounce him. In other words, you’re a pragmatist and, in the end, substance outweighs style.

Two of our state’s pragmatists jointly articulated this line of defense for supporting Trump at this year’s Silicon Slopes Tech Summit. Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox acknowledged that Trump’s “style of politics is not the Utah Republican style of politics,” while former Gov. Jon Huntsman praised Trump for creating “an economic dynamo for this country.”

My challenge, therefore, is to make the case that (a) Trump’s jackass-ness is more serious than you’re implying and (b) his economic greatness is less credible than you’re implying.

The seriousness of Trump’s nonexistent discipline begins with the premise that his office is extremely powerful, which entails extreme power to harm. There are enforceable checks and balances in certain areas (e.g., fiscal policy), but the president can operate largely unconstrained in other critical ones (e.g., foreign affairs).

That degree of governance risk puts the highest premium on the character and competence of the person we entrust with it. Trump’s obvious failure to meet that standard is arguably sufficient to disqualify him from office, barring some extraordinary reason to override it, which leads us to his alleged economic greatness.

Trump opened his State of the Union address in February with the following claim: “Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback.” Had Trump not “reversed the failed economic policies of the Obama administration,” he insisted, “the world would not now be witnessing this great economic success.” This narrative (consistent with “…but he’s great for the economy”) seems to be widely taken for granted, which is surprising, because it’s, well, bull.

Trump entered office (“launched the great American comeback”) on January 20, 2017. So, the past three years (2017-2019) represent one part of the evidence supporting “this great economic success” for which his policies are responsible. The other part of the evidence would, naturally, be the three years preceding 2017 (2014-2016), during which Obama’s failed economic policies were in force. Comparing economic performance between those two periods would, of course, quantitatively demonstrate the economic comeback Trump has orchestrated.

As it turns out, U.S. economic performance didn’t really change course from Obama to (pre-COVID-19) Trump. Real GDP grew by 2.5% over 2014-2016, then grew by 2.6% over 2017-2019. The economy added 220,000 jobs per month on average over 2014-2016 (causing the unemployment rate to drop by 2.2 percentage points over the period); over 2017-2019, the monthly average was 191,000 (through which unemployment fell by 1.1 percentage points).

The consistency in economic performance between those two periods, despite transitioning to a new president from a different party, makes sense. As Natalie Gochnour recently highlighted, Obama (during 2014-2016) and Trump (during 2017-2019) were participating in the same expansionary stage of the economic cycle. As Trump knows (see his criticisms of and supplications to the Federal Reserve Chair), the economic cycle is largely a function of prevailing credit conditions, which are, in turn, largely a function of monetary policy.

Article continues below

The fact that Trump didn’t actually change the arc of the economic cycle doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried, which is at least a minor tragedy, given the fiscal and environmental costs of what he’s done (again, pre-COVID). That first period (2014-2016) of economic performance was achieved concurrent with our fiscal deficit falling by 14% (from 3.6% to 2.9% of GDP). The second period (2017-2019) was achieved while the deficit rose by 68% (from 2.9% to 4.7% of GDP). And, in the name of economic performance, 58 environmental regulations (focused on, e.g., air and water pollution; toxic substances and safety) were rolled back during 2017-2019.

In summary, reversing Obama’s failed economic policies meant risking the sustainability of our budget and our environment, without enhancing our economic return. This is not what economic greatness looks like. This is, without qualification, what a jackass looks like.

Brad Barth