by Grania
As someone who hails from the land of Not-America, I was vaguely baffled when I heard that Trump was running for President of the USA. I had heard of him before, of course, as he had cropped up from time to time in Time Magazine in the 80s and 90s, and in one of the indistinguishable Home Alone movies. I couldn’t imagine what had moved him to get into politics, as his most notable features seemed to be dubious skills at managing hotels, casinos and marriages to blonde women. I also reckoned that the media, particularly the liberal media, were going to boost his campaign constantly with their indefatigable coverage of everything he did or said that they could find to be scathing or outraged about.
I certainly wouldn’t claim that their outrage is without merit, but I am still unable to accurately point at what he actually does stand for. It seems to me that he will say anything that he thinks his audience wants to hear. Moreover, he doesn’t care about the consequences of anything he says; he has after all lived a life where consequences happen to other people. What his actual policies or actions would be were he to actually succeed in being elected is anybody’s guess. He’s certainly not nearly as conservative as he likes to play, which is the point of yesterday’s Doonesbury strip by Trudeau.
Original here: http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2016/2/21
If Trump has done anything this election cycle, it is expose the underbelly of the state of politics: money is everything. As worrying as it is that as a result certain corporations pretty much own certain politicians; it is also terrifying that money can catapult someone who appears to be accountable to no-one this close to the finish-line .
Hat-tip: Steve K.
If it wasn’t so horrible for the country, and the world as a whole, it would be comical. I should be enjoying the destruction of the Republican Party but I’m not.
One would think Trump becoming the candidate would be the nail in the coffin for the Republican Party. I’m not entirely convinced America is smart enough to guarantee that, otherwise this would be thoroughly enjoyable.
Yeah, look who we’ve elected in the past from the GOP … (or not elected as in the case of Bush II, 2000)
sub
“If Trump has done anything this election cycle, it is expose the underbelly of the state of politics: money is everything.”
The very opposite, I think.
Look at Jeb Bush’s exit before Super Tuesday and his pitiful showing overall, despite his war chest of $150 million (according to some). Bush outspent Trump by a lot and the fact that money alone isn’t dictating this race is the pewter lining in this cloud.
That’s the point I was making. I inferred that Grania was saying the opposite, but maybe I misinterpreted her statement.
No, I’m simply saying that without money, and bags of it, Trump would not have even entered the race, let alone flourished so long. The same can be said for all the others. Massive amounts of money is what is driving politics instead of good policies.
~Grania
Trump is flourishing because he has a message that a large proportion of our population agrees with. Yes, if he didn’t have money, they wouldn’t be hearing it, but I don’t think that equates to money driving the race. Money is a necessary, but not sufficient cause of flourishing.
Yes. When I read the last paragraph I thought “she’s got this backwards.” What Trump is showing, is that ideology is not as important as everyone thought. For years Democrats have been baffled about why poor white people would keep voting for the party of the wealthy, against their own economic self-interest (see the book “What’s the matter with Kansas? as an example). Now Trump is finally showing that these voters are angry that keep getting screwed over by the Republicans. They are not letting Trump’s history of being somewhat progressive stop them from supporting him. He said that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things and he praised a part of Obamacare right before the SC primary, and he still won! That is insane. His voters, it seems, actually don’t disagree with too much of the Democrats domestic policy platform – they just want to make it more racist. Whatever happens, it will be interesting. This may be the end of the two party system. Hopefully the republican party will split itself into a moderate party and a crazy Christian party.
As I recounted from my holidays, I asked my staunchly anti-Democratic pro-GOP relatives if they liked Medicare (they were on it). Yes. I asked what they thought about Medicare for all. “Might not be a bad idea…”, long pause,”… so long as they deserve it”. Who deserves it, I asked? “Anyone who contributes.” It was an eye opening exchange for me because nothing could be more against the GOP dogma than the absolute unvarnished evil of single payer health care. Yet here were my 20+ year GOP straight-line voting relatives throwing this central bit of GOP ideology under the bus.
I’m still not sure what is going on. I wonder if they have had a change of heart, or if this has always been their feeling. I had always avoided talking about politics in the past so I have no idea. Of course, my first reaction was to wonder if “anyone who contributes/deserves” was just a code word for “white people”. There is probably some truth to that, but I know from being around them all my life, whatever racism they have on the scale of racists they rank pretty low.
I think the people who feel put upon by the complexity and insecurity of the modern world are fundamentally afraid that someone will undo, or outdo them. The fear is that there are a lot of free-loaders in this world trying to weasel there hands into their pockets. This is a rudimentary fear of social animals including man. It is excited to a frenzy when the economy is unstable and careers can be derailed at the next cycle of down-sizing. Trump knows his people.
I predicted a Republican split four years ago if they continued running further right. Not only have the continued running further right, they’ve gone off the rails. A split would be the best thing. Let the old school Republicans retake the party as moderates and then allow the Democrats to shift left. If the two main parties got closer to a European style split, we could probably tolerate the crazy fringe party. The bigger problem is getting rid of their disproportionate influence in Congress. A worst case scenario should this split happen is legitimate talk of secession. I could picture multiple groups at least walling off land for themselves and declaring sovereignty, Bundy style.
Trump’s main message is that he can’t be bought. In this, at least, he has a valid point. So the voters who most want to reduce the role of lobbying money are voting for Trump if they are Republican, and for Bernie Sanders if they are Democrat. People have been sick of the role of big-money lobbyists in our country for a long time, but I think this may be the first election in my lifetime when this is such a central issue in both parties simultaneously.
I agree. His money has certainly helped fund the logistics of his campaign, but his prominence, and the former prominence of Ben Carson, is more about voter dissatisfaction with the status quo.
This is the first, and almost only, thing that the Trump supporters I know have said about their preference: He can’t be bought.
So in their world, only billionaires should run for office. Anyone else can be bought.
That’s not how they want it. That’s how they see it going down.
What they don’t realize is that Trump is every bit as much of a politician as the Bush family. You don’t get to be a real estate billionaire in a major city without knowing how to schmooze and make deals with people in power.
The biggest difference is when your on the business side of the politicking it’s all done behind closed doors.
Trump is every bit the two faced politician. Anyone who considers what he said he will do must come to that conclusion (or that he’s nuts).
The people supporting him are just either hoping against all evidence, reason and logic, or of the low, low, low information voter type.
They have supported Republicans who have said and done things that are just loco, things that are damaging to Americans and the government. They remind me of a mob throwing gas on a burning house in the middle of their own neighborhood in the middle of a drought.
But I’ve seen liberals do the same here in Canada, low information voters who say “politicians are all the same”. One was my brother in law. He voted for the party that contracted out his job, enacted a 15% pay cut on the rest and cut benefits and other hard won contract provisions, just days after the election when they said they wouldn’t.
Perhaps it’s easier to hold that anger and jump to conclusions rather than read and find out what the politicians have actually done rather than what they say they have done. They seem to want easy solutions to complex problems. Is Trump so dumb to believe himself, or is he just lying?
Neither possibility bodes well.
Right. Trump has spent relatively little, Bush spent $150,000,000.00 That is not a typo. 150 million.
Does anyone really believe that Bloomberg, should he have spent his brains out, would be matching Trump’s numbers?
Did Hillary just narrowly outspend Bernie? Not remotely.
This entire article shows a deep, and and in an odd way impressive, lack of understanding of Trump’s appeal. Clive Crook had a good piece recently, but I don’t have a link.
Here you go:
The Meaning of Donald Trump
A couple of other interesting articles about Trump that I think everyone should read:
Waging a Comeback
and
Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment
I think all three of these articles make very excellent points and I highly encourage everyone to go read them. Trump doesn’t, I think, represent just the force of his own personality, but is tapping into a real pressure point in society that will not go away even if Trump does.
Gluonspring, your “Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment” link was insightful and surprising. Well worth reading.
Agreed – please read it.
Begging your pardon–but the person who writes the blog you link to is a bit of a loony.
I’m very familiar with him: Several years ago he went on the air and said everyone currently dependent on medications is going to die:
http://choiceconversations.libsyn.com/the-mythology-of-progress-with-john-michael-greer
The writer of the blog belongs to a fake religion that thinks industrial culture is about to collapse.
Yes, I noticed that before I read the article– “Druid” stuff….but I read it anyway, expecting it to go off the rails at some point, but it never did. It said some things that make sense of data and that I had not thought of.
If someone objects to the content of this article, with reasons, I’d read that.
Yes, it did feel odd agreeing with someone who calls himself an archdruid, but the actual content was all reasonable.
See also religious scientists.
I don’t completely buy Greer’s thesis. A), I haven’t observed much change in the proportion of the salaried class that disparages wage-earners. There’ve always been boors, but there are still very many with the same philosophy of many of us here–that the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots is appalling and that we must find a way to bring back decent pay for working people. I suspect most of us here would be in the “salaried” class–when you get together with friends do you reflexively ridicule the working class whenever it comes up in conversation?
B), my experience has been that the salaried class, rather than not feeling the economic hardships of the last few years, has in fact suffered terribly. Scientists of many fields, computer scientists, health-care providers, teachers, etc., have lost jobs, faced severe cutbacks, lost benefits and pensions, and concomitantly dealt with huge amounts of stress and destabilization.
Technically CEO’s are salary earners; but they can hardly be lumped with biochemists or math teachers or nurses, administrators, etc. I agree with anyone who says that the adage about there being “no social classes in America” is ridiculous (was there ever a time that it wasn’t?), and that there’s nothing wrong with, in fact there’s a need for, class warfare (bring back the unions!), but I don’t buy Greer’s way-too-tidy explanation of inter-class problems.
Agreed, very good article. It agrees with and nicely crystallises much of what I’ve been thinking and saying for the last 10 years or so (though I’d put it in a UK context of course).
I listen to a lot of radio comedy, and its very noticeable that the one group you are still allowed to mock and deride as much as you like is (white) working class people.
Large chunks of political correctness (not all of it, of course) look suspiciously like class prejudice in disguise.
You know the terrible thing about working class people? They don’t use Approved Middle Class Euphemisms!
Actually, you may have had in mind this more recent article:
Donald Trump, Class Warrior
There is a key flaw in both Democratic and GOP attempts to “help” working class people.
Democrats imply that if everyone goes to college we can all become part of the salaried class. Never mind the implicit denigration of labor that is, it’s simply impossible. My brother, a great person and hard worker, will never be college material. It’s not a matter of tuition. Those people outnumber people with degrees, something that is very hard for the salaried class to comprehend. Democrats want to believe that education will fix everything because they are historically committed to Blank Slate ideas… only circumstances cause bad outcomes, not intrinsic qualities.
The GOP is selling an even bigger fantasy to the working class, that if they give a big enough tax break to their boss, some magic will happen and their boss will forget that labor in China is $1.50/hour.
The working class, probably somewhat rightly, feels it’s being simultaneously dissed and played.
Not that the parties are equivalent. The Dems will definitely help working class people more. But part of the price will be a little bit of condescension, and being told that you have it good because you are white, which even if true doesn’t win the hearts of people who are insecure or struggling.
Correction.. white working class. Obviously a big chunk of the working class is black. The Dems have done a better job of convincing that block that they are on their side, but at the cost of making white working class people less sure that they are also on their side. It doesn’t have to be right or fair… it’s impressions given.
And a big chunk of working class is hispanic, too, etc. Sigh.
Democrats are not just all about higher education. They also support labour laws that protect workers, unions and reasonable wages, contrasted to Republican policies which typically support so called “right to work” laws which are really right to fire for any reason and union killing legislation, low minimum wages and lack of labour and safety laws.
As a general rule though education is a positive force. Nor does education mean a masters, technical colleges are an important part of the economy, as are educational parts of apprenticeship programs and various other educational programs, like upgrading education for workers who dropped out of school and providing opportunities for people who have been displaced by technology or exported jobs. Support that is championed by Democrats but ignored by Republicans.
Trump says he is going to just make industry come back to the USA. It would require the abrogation of almost every free trade agreement the US is a party to, most with waiting periods of some 5 to 10 years, depending on the agreement. Then it would require laws restricting the free movement of capital. It would start an international trade war not seen since the Great Depression.
I agree Democrats > GOP for working class and Trump would be a disaster for everyone. I think the best thing that could be done for the working class, like my brother, would be universal health care, which obviously only has a remote prayer from the Democratic side. With that, the instability and low pay of his job wouldn’t put him constantly on the edge of a crisis.
Nonetheless, I also think there are real and deep structural forces that put pressure on the value of labor and are likely to continue to do so possibly forever. When I say that Democrats and GOP are offering fantasy solutions, I don’t mean that Trump, or anyone else, has the real solution. I think the problem may turn out to be exceedingly hard.
I will give credit to Trump (whom I otherwise despise) for pointing out that the George W. Bush administration lied us into a disastrous war that cost thousands of lives and limbs, trillions of dollars, and destabilized the Middle East.
That’s true, but he may be saying that just to get the independent vote.
I suspect Trump blurted out the lying allegation at the debate just to rub Brother Jeb’s nose in it.
Trump’s claim that he cautioned against invading Iraq may be an effort to convince independents of his prescience — but there turns out to be a dearth of evidence he ever made any such statement before the invasion.
Yeah. Nobody else ever pointed that out.
Certainly not in a Republican debate.
Yes, that was amazing, and even more amazing that he said it in South Carolina shortly before the vote. If Trump just says what people want to hear, he would never have said that (and it did hurt him in the primary). This was kind of like insulting the Pope..oh wait, he did that too.
The number of independents who would be swayed by those statements in SC is minute. Could he be thinking so far ahead that he said them to influence independents way down the road? Maybe. But I get the feeling he really does now believe the things he says, and just blurts them out with no self-consciousness at all.
I agree. I don’t feel like anything he says is said with any kind of prior vote calculation in mind. It seems to me that the only calculation he does is done in real-time… sizing up people’s weaknesses so he can attack them. And for Trump, any weakness will do… looks, bad tie, embarrassing family, disability, getting captured, etc. There is no vote calculation, no thought about “hey, maybe this audience would consider that a virtue, or out of bounds”, there is only only the calculation that “this blow will sting”.
As to whether he believes the things he says.. I think so, in the moment he says them. But I don’t think he has thought through many issues, so what he “believes” is simply the first idea that comes to his mind and feels right in the moment. He discovers his beliefs as he speaks. He has no investment in these things, however. That’s one reason why I think it’s so hard to guess what a Trump administration would do. I can’t think of any Trump commitment that I can’t imagine him throwing out the window and embracing the absolute opposite if it suited him. The inability to feel shame is a super power here. I expect he would try to build that wall, if only because it is a signature item and he’s not likely to have any other idea what to do in his first year in office, so why not? But other than that, I think a Trump presidency would be a pure crap shoot in terms of policies.
I agree with you that he doesn’t believe what he says in many cases, but I disagree that he does it with no self-consciousness. To steal Rubio’s phrase, I think Trump knows exactly what he’s doing.
Deceit is not one of the classic seven deadly sins, but it should have been.
I don’t believe Trump really believes any of those birther theories, nor that he had a friend who got autism from a vaccine.
His secret is to masquerade as a populist when he really isn’t one. He’s the capitalist version of Big Brother.
The Lex Luther character in the 1990’s Superman series “Lois and Clark” was obviously modeled on Donald Trump.
I should hope you don’t believe he had a friend who got autism from a vaccine since that doesn’t happen. 😉
The classic seven deadly sins do not occur as such in the Bible but, perhaps ironically, the closest Biblical analogue might be Proverbs 6:16-19 which more or less gives deceit two of it’s list of seven things God hates:
In any case… I don’t see Trump as having enough of an ideology to qualify for the Big Brother comparison. It is certainly easy to imagine that he neither believes, nor cares, about the birther and other stuff, that those are just cynical manipulations. I would be surprised, however, if he had a secret agenda, or in fact really any agenda at all, beyond seeing himself on TV, hearing the cheers of crowds, and generally being the center of attention.
I had a plumber at my house last week and after we discussed some of the inane local Government policies as well as corruption, he asked me what I thought of Trump.
I knew where this was going as the blue collar crowd in the NYC Metro area absolutely loves this guy. Being that I didn’t want to get in a political argument with someone working in my home, I said it’s hard to know what to think of Trump his he doesn’t articulate anything about how he’ll actually implement any policy proposals (or really even what his proposals are). The plumber then went into a 5 minute spiel about how Trump is great since he’s tough, he gets things done, he’s from NY, and he cuts straight to the point. It was as if this guy was a spokesman for the campaign, but he quite unwittingly reinforced the point I’d just made. Trump runs his campaign on adjectives and insults, not policy.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how a guy born into extravagance and has spent his life bragging about how rich he is appeals to so many working class people. More befuddling, as the Doonesbury strip points out, evangelicals are flocking to him despite all his traits they normally claim are associated with godlessness. This is frankly perplexing, even in ‘Murica.
“Being that I didn’t want to get in a political argument with someone working in my home,”
Guy came to my house a while back to quote me on some drywall work. As our conversation wondered, he mentioned that his son, a policeman, had seen a bunch of trucks in Texas with U.N. symbols.
Knowing where that was leading, I pointed out the UN doesn’t have an army. He seemed to accept that, but I never heard from him again. He didn’t respond to my texts.
So, yeah, best to cautious.
Possibly the trucks are for gathering supplies toward disaster relief. But I don’t know.
I once had a long conversation with some dude in Arizona who had been observing forest service (and therefore government) planes flying around in the mountains. He was sure they were up to something ‘sinister’. Next he went on about UFO’s.
I really have trouble getting into that mindset. For most of us, information is so interconnected that you just can’t fit a conspiracy theory anywhere without disturbing the whole web of knowledge.
There is always some ill-defined “they” in a conspiracy theory. How “they” recruit people or who is part of “they” is never really explained. “They” are simply everywhere though.
But if you follow through the claims conspiracy theorists make, putting aside the usual dose of incorrect scientific claims that are part of the conspiracy, even following the high-level road map detailing how the conspiracy would work leads to a muddled mess. The number of things that would need to go right increase exponentially and have a equal number of things that could go wrong and bring the whole thing crashing down. For a lot of these conspiracies to have even a low chance of being true, nearly everyone out there needs to be part of the nebulous “they.” It is no wonder so many conspiracy theorists believe in multiple conspiracies. If everyone out there is involved, how could one not be paranoid?
I think it traces back to the same method of thinking that inflicts the extremely faithful. Because there could be an infinitesimal logical chance of the conspiracy being true (i.e. not complete certainty), all bets are off. Of course when you demonstrate evidence of real conspiracies (mediums, bleeding crackers, crying statues, etc.) that go against their beliefs, they turn the logic completely around and claim their is no conspiracy, for the same reasons regarding certainty and the “they” that’s out to get them.
Your plumber is the stereotypical white working class guy that Trump appeals to. I would bet that he feels financially squeezed or at least insecure. He feels that government has failed him. He sees the country changing (demographically) and he doesn’t like it. Trump’s simplistic explanations about immigrants, Muslims, and trade appeal to him.
He accepts Trump’s quasi-fascist rantings as the only way to end the country’s downslide. He looks for the man on the white horse to save him and other people in his condition. Other countries in similar conditions also saw the rise of the strong man. It could happen here. Unfortunately, the other two Republican contenders, Cruz and Rubio, are extreme right-wingers, who are hardly better than Trump, in some ways worse. For example, they are both faithists to the extreme. Some pundits refer to Rubio as a moderate. This is laughable and I hold in contempt all pundits who utter such nonsense. As for Cruz, it is hard to imagine any one more to the right than him.
The bottom line is that if any one of these people should be elected, our country will truly be lost.
Cruz is far worse than Trump due to his complete disregard for laws and his reliance on religion first. Rubio is just a light weight with no accomplishments of any kind. The only time he had a stance was on immigration, which he then backed away from quickly when called out. Even Kasich will sign a law defunding Planned Parenthood in his state.
Kasich just did.
Kasich also said this:
Rumor has it that those many women had to ask their husbands’ permission to leave the house, if they weren’t pregnant they could wear shoes and they had to promise to be home in time to have dinner on the table at 5:30.
That’s bullshit. If you look at the context, he was referring to running in the 70s when there were a lot more housewives. He was saying he only succeeded because he convinced housewives to leave and campaign for him at that time, and how it’s different today, because there’s no one at home during the day. There’s plenty of reason to disagree with him without taking him out of context.
Oh, dearie, dearie me! I forgot to use that pesky /sarcasm tag. Come back when you can recognize it when you see it.
It’d be hard to pick among those three. I suppose Rubio is my pick not because he seems moderate but because he seems most feckless, least likely to get his agenda through. Trump doesn’t have an agenda… not really. So there is a chance that Trump would actually do some good things mixed in with the bad. A big gamble, of course, but the crap shoot element makes it seem slightly less gloomy than a Cruz presidency.
There’s always a chance Trump would be so busy getting those Mexicans to build and pay for that wall of his that he wouldn’t have time to get into any more trouble.
You definitely nailed this guy’s persona. He told me he’s a vet of the first Gulf War and still has metal in his legs. He seems the evil Muslims in the Middle East as reason he still has pain now and blames our Government for not sufficiently taking care of him (on this part he’s not wrong).
Being a non-union worker, he sees problems with the predominance of unions in the area. There’s a modicum of truth here too; unions in the NY area are notoriously corrupt and in many cases have too much power. He sees the day laborers standing outside at Home Depot offering cheap help and this too is a threat to his livelihood as a worker with a real skill set. Again, there’s a modicum of truth here too. The day laborers get hired by people for a couple hundred bucks and may end up doing a shoddy job, but from the licensed plumber’s perspective, this just means they are costing him work.
I think this is the real appeal in Trump from the working class perspective. The statements he makes begin with at least a hint of a real problem and then, with no articulation or real thought, he “solves” them by appealing to the crowd’s underlying racism, xenophobia, and general lack of motivation to think of actual solutions. Trump is a businessman with a lot of money->Trump must be smart->Trump must know how to solve problems->It’s not our place to tell him how to do it. Vote Trump.
I long ago concluded that evangelicals are not in the slightest concerned with, or even informed about, the precepts of their alleged belief system. They embrace tribalism, pure and unadulterated. At this point anything, and I mean *anything*, could be dumped into the witches brew of ignorance and superstition that fuels their politics and they would accept it without question if it was delivered by the usual talking-point vendors.
Ken – amen. We have some relatives that are fundamentalist charismatic evangelicals and my opinion is that they are essentially a cult. They seem to love Paul, and don’t pay too much attention to Jesus other than if you don’t wash yourself in his blood, it’s the lake of fire for you. If the actually examined what Jesus purportedly said about money and wealth, they would all be social democrats supporting Bernie.
I often contend that it would be more appropriate if Christianity changed its name to Paulism. And it’s long been a cliche (and a truism) that if you have a question about what’s really in the bible, you’re better off asking an atheist (or an ex-Christian) than a Christian.
EA B – all so very true. I too have called a number of Christians Paulians, but often they do not comprehend the point being made. It’s probably a natural consequence of the fact that Jesus never wrote anything and Paul was verbose.
If you took some of Big J’s more ethically acceptable quotes, and rewrote them (not changing the meaning, just so the origin wasn’t obvious) and started reciting them to a fundagelical, how long before they decided you were a communist? One minute? Five minutes? Fifteen seconds?
cr
I seem to remember long ago that someone ran a poll along the lines of:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
– Do you agree with this statement?
– Where is it from?
And a majority of Americans said “Yes.” and “The Bible”.
Very good, and evidence that neither pure Marxism nor the purity of Jesus’s teachings are workable models for society.
Indeed – the *real* religion is what sociologists call “civil religion”, and it is a virulent nationalism, not a calm celebration of some genuine accomplishments. Or a particularly extreme form of “American exceptionalism”.
There is a massive class issue. Trump, for all his wealth, has a very working class persona. He loves pro-wrestling, reality shows and crude, simple language.
The tension between nationalism and globalism has been boiling for a while. Pretty much every Western government has been pushing globalism hard, but most of the population is still nationalist. This, to some extent, also explains Sanders, who’s much more nationalist than Clinton.
The quick jump to the terms “racist”, “bigot” and “fascist” are also part of Trump’s appeal. A large portion of the population is throughly fed up with political correctness and the jump to those terms to shut down debate. Someone who doesn’t care, and actively terrifies those who do jump straight to those labels is very appealing.
This is also part of the reason for his support among conservative christians. They’ve always voted for the person whose said the right things, but when in office, have pretty much followed the standard PC line and not actually addressed their concerns. Now, they’re content to at least have someone who will hit their enemies occasionally too. It should also be noted that Trump has some of the highest support among minorities not seen in a Republican candidate for a long time.
One of the underlying problems is population growth. While it may be true that each new immigrant does add to GDP, wealth isn’t the most visible factor. Infrastructure, social cohesion, and community trust are all depreciated by high immigration. All three also hit the working class far more. When you have money you can hire a babysitter, when you don’t, you must leave your kids with family or friends. The less social cohesion there is, the less you’re able to do even that. Limiting immigration, and being very picky about who you do let in is not inherently racist, but instead fairly sensible.
Globally, population is going to be the major problem of the century. 1 million people trying to get into Europe today is a crisis. The population projections for Africa alone are an extra 4 billion people. When even a fraction of them try to get into Europe, that’s beyond crisis; it’s war and genocide.
I disagree that this is about money. Jeb outspent Trump by a considerable margin. I think it exposes the likelihood that many primary voters vote based on anger or fear in place of reason. It isn’t necessary for the anger or fear to be legitimate. This process is all about managing perception. Trump was clever about one thing though – by being outrageous he got the media to provide him millions in free ad buys.
Don’t forget, though that if Trump calls Fux News, they put him on the air for fifteen minutes. If Rubio, Cruz, Carson or Kasich calls, they transfer the call to the ad department. If a Democratic candidate calls, they look at the caller ID and let it ring.
That’s one of the ways Trump is getting away with spending so little – he’s receiving so much coverage for free. that he doesn’t have to spend for ads. If Trump farts, it makes breaking news on every network.
In fact, here’s a new post on that very topic: http://crooksandliars.com/2016/02/morning-joe-crew-giggles-donald-trump-hot
Because he generates ratings, though, not because he is rich. He generates ratings because he is unpredictable, outrageous, and entertaining.
I agree that he’s put on the air because of the ratings, but that also destroys one of the arguments advanced in his favor – that he can’t be bought. All the free publicity he gets makes the wealth factor negligible, and it also means that nobody opposing him can buy the air time he gets for free. Bush could have spent $150,000,000,000.00 and it still wouldn’t have made a difference. Trump’s free exposure in what passes for news gives him the appearance of an imprimatur and nihil obstat.
Well, you can say he’s entertaining, but I find him revolting. The only news I would enjoy reading about Trump is in the condition that Clarence Darrow set forth.
Entertaining is probably the wrong word for Trump, but I can’t think of the right word.
A train crash can be entertaining in a macabre sort of way, that doesn’t mean one finds it enjoyable, just difficult not to pull your attention away from the horror of what your experiencing. Perhaps out of fear you may miss something that might have a terrible effect on your life.
He is campaigning to be nominated by one of the major parties–not the same as running for President.
And it’s looking more and more like he’ll win this one and soon be running for president.
Trump is the result, maybe you could call it the conclusion. What I mean is that if you are a viewer of Politics in America and have been paying even some attention over the last 40 years or so, you can see this coming.
I don’t specifically Trump himself, look at the other guys doing anything in this contest. Some of the most extreme and disliked people around. The only real difference between Cruz and Trump is that trump has money and he is not a politician. But they are both nuts.
A few years ago they had a Mormon – another rich guy. Before that you had an old guy from Arizona who was at least crazy enough to pick Palin. Can’t you see a trend here?4
The political system of the U.S. is in free fall due to the corrupt, money hungry toads that take part. Trump is the conclusion.
I agree. Trump’s appearance is highly anticipated by reviewing recent events (~12 years).
Riding a wave of popularity based on outrageousness as opposed to integrity is part of American culture. It is embedded in machinery and those who wish to play must learn to swim or they will sink.
I am not saying I could have predicted this, I suspect no one could have, but it is not surprising how well Trump is doing , and in my view it has nothing to do with politics, as it has to do with how history shapes itself.
I do think politics is in the mix. Inside the beltway they call Washington DC, the whole thing is politics. It is kind of a twilight zone in the U.S. Everyone lives off the taxpayer. Most of a congressman’s staff comes from K street. Most of K street comes from the congressman’s staff and also the congressmen themselves. This is where the high roller live and Los Vegas has nothing on these people.
The money flows from corporate America into the offices on K street. From here it goes over to the capital building and to the white house. It is one big happy party, I mean family. The people on K street actually write most of the legislation because they know what the rich guy or corporation want. All the congressmen do is take the money and vote on the bill and go to the next party. The congressmen to not give two shits for the people they represent because it does not matter. The money ensures they get re-elected and if they don’t, they just move over to K street where the big money is.
I don’t think Trump is the worst or most dangerous, nor do I think he and Cruz, et al are the end result. Things can get much worse, and probably will when the Republican party begins to fall apart. Right now politics is an outlet for their frustration and anger many people feel. When they can’t put their anger into politics, when Republican/tea party supporters realize it’s ineffectual, then they will act out in more immediate and dangerous ways.
We have seen the start of this in the right wing armed ranchers taking over a government building, growing problems with Sovereign Citizens (considered the biggest threat by law enforcement in 2014) and other right wing extremist groups. Luckily they were not overly aggressive even though they were armed.
The ranchers were much like the Republican gambits to shut down government or force the government into default, they had no real defined goals, strategy or exit plan. They acted out. Fortunately these were not as bad as they can get, but it will get bad.
They tried to take over by political methods via the Tea party but that only resulted in making government and politics even more ineffectual, and created a backlash. What goals they do have will be even more difficult to attain.
Their numbers are decreasing, their power is waning, victories they get in the red states are often turned over in the courts. (restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, evolution and prayer in schools)
Frustration will build, especially since many of their concerns are manufactured or blown out of proportion and exploited by Fox News and conservative radio.
I would suggest the problem is not just money but a combination of money, Fox News propaganda and insularism, along with internet search engines that return results biased to the individuals search preferences.
The same is happening to the far left. Luckily they have so far failed to take any major political power. But instead of having a major media source, they have universities where they have been very successful in spreading their ideas.
You think the “far left” controls universities? Just what pernicious ideas do you consider universities to be spreading?
I don’t think I see the word “control” in my writing. But perhaps I missed it. Can you point it out for me?
What I wrote was “they have been very successful in spreading their ideas.”
It’s called the regressive left. It’s been mentioned once or twice on this web site. Perhaps you missed the articles?
That’s what you’re talking about? A few instances of speakers being disinvited and such? What makes those people the “far left,” let alone in any way equivalent to Republican politicians, the tea party, armed ranchers, Fox News – you’re comparing an elephant to a mosquito.
Trump is racist, bigoted, xenophobic, narcissist and an ignorant blowhard. Unfortunately, this play well with the bigots, racists, xenophobic and the ignorant in the US, which is a not-insignificant part of the population. Many Americans also tolerate, and even elevate those who lie and cheat as long as they do it brashly and loudly and recklessly.
I was one of the half-million or so who voted to keep Trump from ever alighting on the cold damp shores of Non-America. It didn’t work (not that I ever wanted it to).
I do still struggle to understand Republican voters, mind? The turnout figures are through the roof for the GOP (down for the Democrats which is frankly worrying) yet the man (along with the rest of the Republican slate) is a patent clown.
That said, I presumed, like me, that the rest of Non-America was looking on aghast – then I read various posts on Brexit & Pegida with European contributors lamenting the fact they couldn’t vote for Tump!
I think I’m losing it…
I thought some of the appeal to the evangelicals was kind of like a form of prosperity gospel. The wealthy are blessed by the lord, and if you support them the lord will bless you in kind. There’s also the appeal to people who feel they’ve lost their central place in the world, so Trump’s frothing over immigrants and cries of making America (which in the minds of his supporters means them)great again.
I can try to explain or justify it, but it’s baffling to me too really.
Money can be everything but in Trump’s case it has not during his candidacy. He has spent significantly less than other candidates, such as Jeb! Much less actually, relying on free publicity and media coverage.
If anything what Trump has shown us is the significant vapidness, dysfunction and serious anti-thinking elements of a good part of the American electorate.
– Carl Kruse
Paradoxically, though, Trump has increased the amount of thinking in the GOP primary. Because of an absolutely rigid Norquist low-tax, shrink government until you can drown it in a bathtub ideology, the GOP primaries are typically nothing but a long paean to the orthodoxy. It tends to resemble idol worship more than thinking (Democrats have a similar, but less severe, affliction). Trump has forced many in the GOP to let previously forbidden concepts inside their brain/on the GOP stage, if only briefly: maybe taxing the rich isn’t a bad idea, maybe “not letting people die in the streets” and doing something positive about healthcare is not a bad idea, maybe Bush didn’t keep us safe but cost us tremendously, etc.
Sure, he’s waffled on all of those, but those topics would have otherwise been as banished from the GOP primary as endorsements of Hitler. It’s too early to say if this flirtation with thought will accomplish anything, but it’s certainly refreshing in those moments when the rest of the Trump phenomena isn’t terrifying.
Regarding Trump’s support among evangelicals: Evangelism and authoritarianism go hand in glove.
I suppose if Mr Fart is elected the Illuminati (or whoever it is runs the USA these days) will have to arrange an ‘accident ‘
See J. Thurber’s short story entitled (as I remember it) “The Greatest Man in the World”. Trump seems a little like Jack ‘Pal’ Smurch.
With 35% of the vote, his support does not even represent most of the GOP.I wonder what would happen if Trump was up against just one other republican candidate even though I insist that the only legitimate candidates for the presidency are in the other party. Trump is an opportunist, as a democratic candidate, Clinton and Sanders would have made him look like the buffoon that he is so he threw his hat into the republican ring.
Yes, the majority of Republicans strongly dislike Trump. His only chance is if Cruz and Rubio keep splitting up the 65% of the non-Trump voters. If one of them drops out (especially Cruz) and all his supporters move to the other one, then Trump is done. But hopefully, he’ll come back as a third party candidate just to spite them. That would be fantastic.
My crystal ball tells me that in the next debate, Trump will graciously offer to take on, mano-a-mano, the survivor of Cruz-Rubio.
Specifically, he will suggest that his two leading challengers agree to a pistillero duel to the death on one of Trump’s island properties.
I further see that, under pressure from the NRA and with each rival convinced that God will protect him from harm, the duel goes forward.
Trump happily pockets the global pay-per-view and like Jack Dempsey’s manager, disappears from history.
The American public recognize God’s hand, and the the Fourth Awakening, the surviving Cuban-American [or Cuban-Canadian?] is acclaimed President….
So, he’s a shoe in. 😉
Neither Cruz nor Rubio are short on cash. Cruz is a dead ender… he will go all the way to the end on the principle/to aggrandize his lone wolf crusader brand. Rubio is the only hope of the traditional GOP. He will soon have so much cash that he’ll be pushed ahead purely by the ongoing cash avalanche. I see all three candidates going right into the convention together. Unless there are some back-room convention tricks the GOP can pull, I see Trump winning.
So there should be no surprise really, except for the media who always seem to be surprise about whatever happens. They do polls on a daily basis and still they are shocked. Maybe they are doing it wrong.
There are a large number of Congressmen at the federal level who are just as wacko and extreme as the group running for president. Some of them have been there for some time. We have at least one right here in Iowa, Steve King, who is as radical and crazy as any of them. They re-elect this nut every two years, yet he is the most right wing nut idiot you could meet. Trump almost looks normal standing beside this guy.
The leader of the house threw in the towel about a year ago because he could not deal with these animals any longer. Talk about eating your young, these folks eat their old too. The republican party has jumped over the cliff and if we’re are not careful, the other party will do the same.
I agree with the poster who spoke of a discussion with his plumber about the merits(?) of Trump. As the decades roll on life gets more complex. Legislators in one country cannot always do what they would like to do because we live in a globalised consumer society. So anyone who comes along with an apparent gung ho attitude which suggests that the knots can be undone and the complex made simple is going to be listened to by substantial numbers of the population. It does not even matter that the candidate for power avoids the actual issues. All he or she needs to do is focus on the issues which that section of the electorate think they understand and provide “solutions”.
A case in point is the forthcoming referendum in the UK on the question of remaining in or leaving the EU. The main discussions ought to be centring on trade, social chapter rights and competition. however, many of those voting to leave the EU will have immigration and fear of immigration as their main focus. This, for the most part will not be immigration to the UK from other parts of the EU (eg. East Europeans, but the large number of Muslims already here and the tens of thousands fleeing Syria / Iraq and making their way through Europe to migrant camps in North France and Belgium. Some are fleeing persecution but most, including those from the Sahel. are economic migrants. Whether the UK leaves the EU is immaterial. They will seek to come to the UK as long as the UK is thriving economically. Yet, this fact of life does not penetrate. Some would rather believe that outside of the EU the UK will be more able to “police” its borders and send anyone we don’t like back. It is pointless to tell such people about non EU derived rights such as the Refugees Act 1951 and the Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Simplistic nostrums (liking building the “Immigrant Wall” are easier to follow.
This is the first I’ve heard that Iraq and Syria are in the Sahel.
Beyond that, I can see that the oppressive conditions in the two countries named may have roots in economic problems (and terrorism is becoming more of a problem in the Sahel as well) but are the conditions as one-sided as all that? As I recall, economic conditions haven’t been too good in Syria for a while, but mass flight didn’t start until the civil war did.
Bad grammar. I ought to have said, “as also from the Sahel”.
What I meant in that context is that those fleeing ME war zones will have reached safety once they get to Turkey. Heading to Greece, or from Libya to Italy they are economic migrants.
“Yet, this fact of life does not penetrate. Some would rather believe that outside of the EU the UK will be more able to “police” its borders and send anyone we don’t like back. It is pointless to tell such people about non EU derived rights such as the Refugees Act 1951 and the Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.”
All this shows is that leaving the EU is a necessary, but on its own insufficient, action for controlling immigration into the UK. I would like to see our departure followed by repeal of the Refugees Act, abrogation of the Convention on Human Rights and withdrawal from the European Court. After that, Nature has blessed us with a first class, tried and tested feature for keeping out unwanted migrants, namely the English Channel.
None of that will happen short of a UKIP majority Government. And that won’t happen. (UKIP, a party with one MP who will most likely defect back to the Tories after the Referendum whatever the result.)
And we might have to plug the Channel Tunnel as well. 🙂
These things are precisely the point for a candidate like Trump. These are pieces of paper, after all, not laws of nature. What army will enforce the Convention on Human Rights? The promise of a Trump-like candidate, like all strong men and fascists-leaning politicians, is to sweep such “pearl clutching” considerations of mere paper aside and accomplish what the populace wants accomplished. It is pointless to tell such people about these things not because they don’t know it, but precisely because they do know these things exist. They want them not to exist. And it’s pointless to tell them it is impossible because, in fact, it is not impossible. It might be hard, or very ugly, but not impossible.
This is what startles me about Democrats who say that Trumps claim that he’s going to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants is “impossible”. No it isn’t. Not even remotely. Ugly, possibly horrific, but it’s very plainly possible. You’re not going to discourage any of Trumps supporters by telling them it’s impossible because everyone knows that it isn’t. It just makes you sound like a fool in their ears. In normal circumstances, yes, it could never happen, but people are not voting for normal circumstances. They are voting for a strongman to abolish normal circumstances. From there it’s just a matter of hiring agents, checking documents, loading busses, hell, building whole new train lines if needed. I bet half the readers here could pull off the organization needed.
It shouldn’t be done, but there is no force of nature preventing someone with enough will, enough popular support, and weak enough opponents, from pulling it off.
It comes as no surprise that a misapplication of the KISS principle is seen all over the place. You are right, people in general grasp the concept that unnecessary complexity in a system is a bad thing. For less educated people, the fact that they don’t grasp the complexities of a topic just adds fuel to the fire. They know the problems Trump talks about are complex; they know that simple is better than complex. I think the problems surface when there’s a failure to realize that simple, elegant solutions come from critical thinking and serious debate, not campaign platform bluster. In other words, simple is not synonymous with easy. Many times, creating an overly complex system is actually the easy route.
Trump is a narcissist. Seems every remaining GOP candidate has a problematic psychological profile.
” As worrying as it is that as a result certain corporations pretty much own certain politicians; it is also terrifying that money can catapult someone who appears to be accountable to no-one this close to the finish-line .”
So damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
But more than that, if we remove the money the result will be the same, either politicians will make useful friends or they won’t. [My problem is that the money is so Huge. Not democratic.]
My local paper (San Francisco Chronicle) this morning had a story about the Nevada caucus, coming tomorrow.
A volunteer campaigner for Cruz approached one house and asked the man in front who he would support.
“Yeah, I’m going to be there, but you don’t want to talk to me, I’m one of those crazy Trump people” said the man.
“Why?” asked the volunteer.
“Because he says this”, the man said, thrusting his middle fingers skyward, “to everyone”.
What the man seems to be missing is that Trump really is raising his middle finger to everyone – there is roughly zero likelihood that Trump, if elected, would put in place policies that benefit the people who are now voting for him.
Trump is so far winning handily in the primaries. But there was a bit on CNN recently where it was explained that that does not mean he is the inevitable republican candidate. The party bosses are adamant that the candidate not be Trump. So far, the other leading candidates collectively add up to a near tie with Trump, and if this keeps up he may not get the needed majority in race for delegates. When it gets down to it late this summer, they could well have a brokered convention where it all gets decided.
Best case scenario for the dems: brokered convention- Rubio or Cruz wins (excuse me while I puke) and Trump goes independent. I could see Trump in his narcissistic bluster to seek revenge on those who conspired against him and bring the whole shit-heap down with him.
It would be similar to the 1912 election when Teddy went independent, only this one would be much more insane. Wilson then easily won and the party of Taft and Roosevelt went away for a bit. They came back strong to lead us into depression but then, that is what the republican party is for.
Trump appeals because he harkens back to the “good old days” of yore in the US, when men were men, women stayed in their place, the US bullied the rest of the world with impunity, minorities could be freely kicked around, etc. (/sarcasm if that needs to be said)
That’s what they mean by “make ‘Murica great again.”
Too bad Trumpster can’t fire ISIS, or the congress, or the EU, or Putin.
He’s used to a regal command model. He would be a disaster in office.
We went through this a few years ago with Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. Trump is Ventura writ large. An overgrown 12-year old boy.
Trumps appeal, and strategy seems to be saying things that are considered politically incorrect. Every time he does it crowds cheer, and his poll numbers go up. Even many of the groups who are the targets of his bigotry, while not necessarily agreeing with what he says, seem to approve of the fact that he’s not afraid to say it.
I have respect for someone who goes politically incorrect in order to speak uncomfortable truths.
Trump’s political correctness is limited to being uncouth and hurling lowbrow insults at his opponents.
One of the things that galls me to no end is the notion in the lamestream media that some how the recently departed Jeb Bush was the moderate in the race. Anyone who thinks so should consult Michael Schiavo, who could recite chapter and verse about how he was subjected to the Bush smear machine. Then Governor Bush was ready to remove Ms. Schiavo from the Hospice she was “living” in (actually kidnap her)as suggested by terrorist Randall Terry. That was until he consulted his attorneys and was told that he could be charged kidnapping under federal law, namely the Little Lindbergh statute. Further, he was also told that if she died during the abduction, he could be charged with 1st degree murder would make him subject to capital punishment if convicted. Discretion became the better part of valor. Of course, the state medical examiner, Dr. Trogmartin’s, autopsy on Ms Schliavo showed that she was brain dead, confirming the opinions of all the neurologists who examined her, except for one who is on quackwatch.
Maybe we should snatch the corpse of Jeb!’s recently deceased presidential campaign and put it on life-support, force-feed it and keep it in a state of suspended low-energy animation.
Then again, it’s probably too late; that campaign was official declared brain-dead a long time ago.
I so hope that either Trump or Cruz wins the Republican nomination as I do believe in my heart that neither of them are electable.
It would be similar to the moment when McCain picked Palin. That was the first time I thought that Obama had a very good chance of winning.
I am Canadian
and I think if trump wins, we will use NAFTA to get mexico to build a wall on our border
but I do want him to be the republican candidate as the least religious one
and who will hopefully be the end of that party
something more moderate can rise from the ashes and something more extreme can give you a third party and keep the dems in office for generations
Canada could also annex you, which means american women would have equality rights, which they do not have now.
Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
as John Steinbeck observed, Americans act like temporarily embarrassed millionaires and not the oppressed proletariat that they are; it’s all the Donald wannabes – the american dream is pretty nightmarish and worse, rarely works out for first generation rich.
+1
Americans never want to raise marginal tax rates on the top income brackets; we all have this fantasy we’re gonna wake up rich tomorrow morning.
which is why Lotteries are state run.
Graydon Carter of Vanity Fair had the best description of Donald Trump: A short fingered vulgarian.
Yeah, back in the day when Carter was editor of Spy Magazine.
I think Dilbert nails Pope vs Trump better
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139580016696/the-pope-versus-donald-trump
I first became aware of Donald Trump in the 1980s when he owned the New Jersey Generals of the now-defunct USFL, and led that league over the cliff by pushing it into a disastrous lawsuit against the NFL. I didn’t much care about the USFL, and even less about the New Jersey Generals, but The Donald quickly caught my eye. Almost instantly, I took a deep and abiding dislike to him, both visceral and intellectual, and everything I’ve seen of him since has validated that impression.
Trump has no political philosophy to speak of. He stands for nothing beyond the promotion of Donald Trump. He is a world-class fame-whore, but a public policy ignoramus. His campaign started as a celebrity lark; it’s a celebrity lark still. He wouldn’t know a plank is his party’s platform if it hit him in the ass.
The only thing to slither out of his mouth with the ring of truth came in his recent dust-up with the Pope. Informed that the pontiff had mentioned him in a speech, Trump immediately asked if it was favorable or not, “because if it’s good, I like him, but if it’s bad, I hate him.” Such are the ethical standards in Trump-world.
That’s not to say that Trump lacks for a unique skill set. He doesn’t. After years in Manhattan’s mobbed-up building business, and more years in its even more vicious world of network TV, the Donald knows clout. And he knows leverage — no one leans into an advantage with all his weight the way Trump does. Others may fight according to the Marquis-of-Queensberry rules unique to pols — innuendo, implied smear, dog-whistle — not the Donald. He has an alley-fighter’s instinct for going after an enemy’s most vulnerable parts swinging the heaviest object at hand.
Trump also has a demagogue’s ability to feel a crowd with his tongue, sensing changes in its mood, and feeding it red meat as demanded. Trump is hardly an accomplished public speaker, with a vocabulary that rarely ventures above the sixth-grade level. But he’s comfortable in the spotlight.
In interviews he has a knack for never leaving dead air, filling every void with incessant “by the way” asides (coming in clause, sentence, and handy paragraph sizes), along with his hollow assurances “to tell you the truth” or “I really mean it” or the all-purpose “honestly.” When Trump starts a sentence, nobody knows (least of all Trump) whether it will end in period, a question mark, or an exclamation point. He rarely finishes a thought in the same zip code as he started. It’s hell on anybody trying to wrangle a straight answer out of him.
I almost hope Trump wins his party’s nomination, so I get the chance to vote against him. Hell, I’d trade the right to vote in every other race on the ballot, just for the chance to pull the lever against Trump twice.
If there is any optimism, it’s that a lot of people feel the same way you do. I think they will get extreme pleasure voting against him. I know I will.
Yeah, Trump-loathing runs high among us self-respecting patriot — and both we and the nation are the better for it. 🙂
Yep. Self-respecting, humble and lovable.
How much of this is a result of the specific US system where you vote directly for people to be presidential candidates and then to be president?
Whereas in the UK, you vote for the party, and then in effect the party decides who leads the country (oversimplified I know, but you get the distinction).
If we had a system like the US then I suspect that Nigel Farage would have done something very like what Donald Trump is doing now, by standing as a pretend anti-establishment Tory. As it was, he needed a party around him, and they were all loons.
The UK system does seem to make the charismatic individual likely less effective (in gaining power).
Also, the shorter election cycle has to help keep things more sane.
I would guess that system ensures greater stability but also nurtures old-boy business-as-usual politics and minimizes real change.
That seems to be the case with the Israeli parliamentary system. For decades, the same faces have seemed to rotate in and out of the PM’s office, some of them into their decrepitude.
I think the “establishment GOP are still in denial about Trump. Just yesterday, I hear a GOP supporter interviewed on NPR and he was completely in denial.
It’s an interesting phenomenon.
Yeah, looks like the Donald might be fixin’ to drive the GOP off the same cliff he drove the USFL and his bankrupt casinos in AC.
We can hope, at least.
I take issue with the comic’s implication that Donald Trump is less slothful than “Satan.”
“Satan” is incredibly active (see the bible: faithful, active, tenacious, etc…)
citation provided as required*
*Google is your friend