Trump’s approach to healthcare may be the best example of the new conservative approach. In the past, the parties have had to decide whether to side … - Charlie Kirk

As Politico put it, describing their own 2014 review of Trump’s predecessor, “The Obama administration has hired more than 70 previously registered lobbyists . . . and watched many officials circle through that revolving door, as Obama’s lobbying policy was weakened by major loopholes and a loss of focus over time. What’s more, the current laws around lobbying, which the administration measures were built on, simply ignore many instances observers would regard as lobbying — and the White House never pressed for changes to those laws.” Now look at the panic once an outsider — who did not regard the culture of Washington with cautious respect — came along. You’d think Trump was a horde of invading Vandals from the way the media, politicians, and D.C. interest groups reacted to his election.

Once those two parties get comfortable, resigned to the fact that neither is ever going to completely destroy the other, they can get down to furthering shared interests — “horse trading for votes,” as the saying goes. You give my district something big at the taxpayers’ expense in the next appropriations bill, which my district will thank me for, and I’ll give your district something expensive that they’ll thank you for.

Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa put it well in the New York Times when he wrote, “Over the past few months alone, the Defense Department has had to explain why it’s been paying $14,000 for individual 3-D-printed toilet seat lids and purchasing cups for $1,280 each. These are just the latest examples on a long list of unacceptable purchases made by the department, including $436 for hammers in the 1980s, and $117 soap dish covers and $999 pliers in the 1990s.