Making America blue again? Donald Trump and taxing the rich.

Donald Trump says he isn't for raising taxes on the rich, despite reports. But the question is reviving debate over whether he sees politics through blue-tinted glasses.

Jim Urquhart/Reuters
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (in red hat, facing away from camera) greets supporters after a campaign rally in Lynden, Wash., on Saturday.

Would President Donald Trump raise taxes on the rich or not? 

That’s a bit of an open question at the moment due to stuff Mr. Trump said on news shows over the weekend. And tax hikes of any nature, of course, are anathema to the Republican Party. At least, they’ve been counter to GOP ideology for decades in the PT (Pre-Trump) era.

Here’s the background: On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked Trump whether the presumptive nominee’s tax plan is set in stone. During the primary season, Trump proposed massive across-the-board tax cuts.

In essence, Trump said “no.” He talked about his tax-plan priorities for negotiations, saying that the middle class needs to be protected, business needs to be protected, but the wealthy don’t.

“The rich [are] probably going to end up paying more,” Trump said.

Lots of people – OK, lots of Washington people – took this to mean he’d go along with taxes on the top 1 percent that are higher than they are now. “Trump Might Hike Taxes on Rich” headlines followed.

Monday, Trump is saying that is not what he meant. He insists the comment referred to the fact that he realizes big policies in Washington are negotiated between the parties and the White House and the legislative branch, and that he’d accept a tax rate for the rich higher than the one he’d proposed – but still lower than current policy.

“With this very low tax that I put in, the biggest of anybody, I may have to raise it a little bit from that point,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo Monday on Fox Business Network. “So, the media of course picks it up that Trump wants a tax increase. It’s just unbelievable.”

Hmm. OK, the original wording didn’t really seem that way, but it’s entirely possible Trump’s answer on “Meet the Press” was just imprecise. If that’s that case, he’s talking about his negotiation priorities as president, right? We’ve never written a book on the art of deals, but laying out what you’d take and what you wouldn’t in advance doesn’t seem like a great negotiation technique to us.

In politics you always hear top officials say something along the lines of “I’m not going to negotiate with myself” when they’re asked questions about what they do and don’t want from big deals. (A variation on this is the classic, “I don’t answer hypothetical questions.”) That didn’t happen in this case.

Perhaps more important for Trump, lots of conservatives are angry about the way he answered this question, however it’s interpreted. That’s because they’re suspicious of the presumptive nominee’s motives. Is he a closet liberal? He defends big entitlement programs, doesn’t talk much about gay marriage or other social issues, is against “bathroom laws” aimed at transgender people, and has a proudly non-interventionist America First foreign policy.

“On the GOP, Trump is A-OK with making America Blue Again, or at least making the GOP more like the Democrats,” writes Steve Berman at the right-leaning The Resurgent.

That’s going to be a problem for Trump going forward. All his statements are going to be examined, not just for how they differ from Democrats, but how they differ from Republican positions of the recent past. That will make it difficult to unify the party – if that’s his goal. So far, he’s indicating that his intra-party opponents need to make peace with him, not the other way round.

“I’m going to do what I have to do, I have millions of people that voted for me,” Trump said on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.