“*I* thought it was worth discussing here at neo’s place.”

“I continue to believe that Kluge’s essay is worthy of conSIderation . . . .”

Carry on . . .

As long as you’re aware that no one was trying to get you to change. (Also, as long as you’re aware that the article was not written by me, or necessarily reflects entirely my point of view. It thought it was worth discussing here at neo’s place.)

The author himself (John Kluge) states, “I don’t expect you to agree with me or start backing Trump. I would, however, encourage you to at least think about what I and others have said . . . .” I continue to believe that Kluge’s essay is worthy of conderation by thinking people who are interested in the situation. I very much appreciate that you went to the trouble of reading it through — twice!

“I will not vote for Trump. I will vote 3rd party if my choice is the dem or DJT. I also do not gawk at burning houses, train wrecks, or multi-vehicle pile ups. I move along and take care of what I can take care of; namely family.”

This is at least as worthy a “take” on the situation as is Kluge’s.

NOW:

Am I talking out of both sides of my mouth here? YES, if only because I’m still trying to sort out the whole mess and make sense of it all. No course of action is particularly palatable to me right now, given what looks like it’s coming down the pike in November.

I think you have something there, people mistaking Republicanism for conservatism.

I see something similar in people calling someone a RINO, which means literally, Republican In Name Only. It seems to be used for people who do not stick to a conservative line, in which case, a more accurate label may be CINO. But one can be a Republican while dissenting from this or that aspect of conservatism. Many Republicans are called RINO but are very Republican, as that is more a tribal identification than an ideological outlook.

“Trump has used this lack of nuance of the angry political naifs, a lack of PC, stealing most of Cruz’ immigration plan only LOUDER, character assassination and a few unrealistic populist slogans to drive a wedge between Cruz and what should be his natural base.”

Yep.

I read the article twice before commenting… short version I found several issues to agree with and others to disagree with, but absolutely no reason to change my opinion of DJT. I will not vote for Trump. I will vote 3rd party if my choice is the dem or DJT. I also do not gawk at burning houses, train wrecks, or multi-vehicle pile ups. I move along and take care of what I can take care of; namely family.

However, the new Republican middle still talked up smaller government, liberty, lower taxes, the Constitution, et al, because they had to in order to get the base they left behind to vote for them, but they were really no longer conservatives. However, the Tea Parties were largely composed of people who never participated in, or even paid attention to politics before, so to them the Republicans were the “conservative” party. Then they betrayed the Tea Parties and tarred all Republicans as the culprits.

One of the common themes I see with Trump supporters is that Cruz is part of the “Establishment”, he’s lying about his opposition to amnesty, he’s just another corrupt politician. They actually have antipathy towards “conservatism” because they associate it with the Republican Party.

Trump has used this lack of nuance of the angry political naifs, a lack of PC, stealing most of Cruz’ immigration plan only LOUDER, character assassination and a few unrealistic populist slogans to drive a wedge between Cruz and what should be his natural base.

Anyways, that’s my speculation.

Quick personal experience. When we moved to California, I registered when I transferred my driver’s license. My wife registered outside of a local supermarket, after I got into a conversation with a gent pushing a petition. We were both Navy veterans, so he registered my wife as a courtesy–no ID, no questions. How did a man sitting outside of Walmart have the ability to register voters?

Neo, I also agree that this campaign against the “elites”, and the “establishment” has become tedious. Obviously, people who can be thus categorized, are people who have been successful, and who have chosen to be active in the political process. So, what is the alternative; listen to the unsuccessful, or those who have been apathetic? I also laugh, ironically, at people who do not view Donald Trump as part of the E & E group.

Thanks for reading the article. I thought it was very well done, in spite of the (legitimate!) points raised by neo in her meticulous critique. John Kluge gives us an intelligent glimpse into what’s making Trump fans tick, very possibly enunciating what many Trump fans feel but do not enunciate.

Even should one be very anti-Trump, it can be useful to understand the adversary — sez M J R!

The text you cited, from September 13, 2001, was pretty prescient. Hats off to whomever wrote it!

And thanks for responding.

Thanks for giving the piece your attention. It was all I might ask, when I suggested, “I hope you-all might give my ol’ buddy a fair hearing.”

I think he (John C. Kluge) makes very good points, even as he glosses over some others, such as the character question. When it comes to character, ultimately, it’ll be between Trump’s character, such as it is or is not, and Hillary!’s character, such as it is or is not — along with issues of policy and worldview and all that. He does state frankly that “It is not that I think Donald Trump is some savior or an ideal candidate. I don’t.”

As to the “Bush lied” accusation, he comes close to addressing that where he writes, “Over the last 15 years, I have watched the then-chairman of the DNC say the idea that President Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen was a ‘serious position held by many people,’ watched the vice president tell a black audience that Republicans would return them to slavery if they could, watched Harry Reid say Mitt Romney was a tax cheat without any reason to believe it was true,” and so on.

He goes on to say, “and now you tell me that I should reject Trump because he is uncivil and mean to his opponents? Is that some kind of a joke?” But no, he does *not* directly tackle “Bush lied”. Nonetheless, I think that he makes some good points, that have to be weighed in with all of Trump’s negative points (which are legion), *and* with all of Hillary!’s negative points (which are legion) [I can’t find any good points at all with Hillary!].

That he “really can’t say much against [Cruz] so he just glosses over that and moves on” is very telling.

But in conclusion, I implore you and any interested others to take to heart this paragraph:

“I don’t expect you to agree with me or start backing Trump. I would, however, encourage you to at least think about what I and others have said and to understand that the people backing Trump are not nihilists or uneducated hillbillies looking for a job. Some of us are pretty serious people and once considered ourselves conservatives. Even if you still hate Trump, you owe it to conservatism to ask yourself how exactly conservatism managed to alienate so many of its supporters such that they are now willing to vote for someone you loathe as much as Trump.”

I have a couple of friends who support Trump. One of them was featured in a comment I posted a here couple of days ago. They’re not knuckle-dragging ignoramuses. They’re serious people who fear for our country. I personally am *not* a Trump fan. But I have a sense for where my friends and not a few others are coming from. My friend’s piece has aided me in that understanding. It’s a somewhat better sense now. Possibly others who read his piece may come away with a better sense as well, without being converts to The Cause.

Anyway, thanks again, neo, for the fair hearing; it was all I could have asked.