Trump's Definition of a "Conservative"

   On January 24, 2016 the front-runner in the Republican race for President was asked during an interview on CBS's Face the Nation what his definition of a "conservative" was--a relevant question given that candidates like Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio have, in recent interviews, referred to the Republican Party as "the conservative party".  Trump's definition rambled a bit but when analyzed closely he named the following characteristics:

A person who:

• doesn't want to "take overly risk" (verbatim quote)
• when it comes to the government, who "wants to conserve" (verbatim quote--I'm serious!)
• wants to "balance the budget"
• is militaristic

  Trump didn't actually say "militaristic" was a characteristic but that's where he went in answering the question.  In fact he stated the following explicitly: 

  "I'm a very militaristic person. I'm very much into the military and we'll build our military bigger, better, stronger than ever before...and that's actually the cheapest thing to do." 

  That was Ronald Reagan's view, too, and earlier in the interview Trump invoked Reagan when asked to respond to accusations that he wasn't a "consistent conservative." Trump pointed out that Reagan--every man's model of conservatism--started out very liberal and become more conservative over the years, just like him. 

  During the Reagan Administration, the defense budget rose from $180 billion in 1981 to $279 billion in 1986. As a result, the nation's budget deficit increased from $79 billion to $185 billion in the same time period (and later got as high as $290 billion) and the national debt TRIPLED.  (FYI, conservatives are very anti-debt.) Not what anyone would call a balanced budget by any definition. But, in fairness, Reagan also had to deal with Democratic Party majorities in Congress. Eventually even he had to raise taxes.
 
  Setting aside defense spending and "militarism" for a moment, it's worth looking at the other characteristics of a conservative Trump mentioned in the interview:

   "Not taking overly risk" -- this is sufficiently vague as to be rendered useless, but he may have been referring to going to war in Iraq as being an example of "overly risky" given Trump's repeated statements reminding us all that he had warned back in 2002-2003 (when he was still more "liberal?) that it would turn out badly.

   Wanting to "conserve" -- with regard to government.  Again, sufficiently vague as to be rendered moot.

   Wanting to "balance the budget" -- a wonderful aspiration. The only U.S. budgets that were balanced in modern times were during the Clinton Administration.  But it must also be pointed out that it is the House of Representatives not the President that submits budgets to the Congress for approval and for the President to either sign or veto. Also, the Clinton Administration enjoyed a tremendous advantage in the form of the Internet boom, which saw hyper-inflated valuations of companies, many of which produced little more than bytes of information on a screen. That bubble eventually burst along with the accompanying housing bubble. So, a conservative President can want balanced budgets until she or he is blue in the face, but the only way to get one is through the House of Representatives.

   Given Trump's statements about conservatism one has to wonder how happy a man like him, who thrives on power and attention, would fare should he actually be successfully elected President. If he governed faithfully in accord with his stated conservative philosophy, what would there be for him to do all day, besides engage in a tremendous (to use one of his favorite words) build-up of the military (which he can't do alone because it's Congress's job to create and pass a budget), while simultaneously balancing that budget (which even Reagan couldn't do). Then what? "Conserve" and not take "overly risk?"
 
   I may be wrong, but conserving and not taking a risk doesn't seem glitzy enough for Trump's persona. I'm likely to take his advice and not take overly risk on a Trump presidency. I still don't know what I'd be getting for that...other than more battleships that we might not risk using.