Whether Trump is winning or losing is not necessarily based on anything Lewandowski has done or not done. Would he have been doing better without him? Maybe. Or worse? Maybe.

What we do know is that Trump has been doing poorly in the most recent stage (delegate selection) of the campaign. Is this Lewandowski’s fault? We don’t know that, either.

But none of that is what my piece is about. My piece is about Lewandowski’s previous record of non-achievement in politics, plus his poor character. Put the two together and it tells you a lot about the sort of people Trump is drawn to, and the sort who want to work for him. Lewandowski is not unusual, either, in terms of the record and character of Trump’s assistants and helpers (Roy Cohn, Katrina Pierson, just to take two prominent examples).

This makes it particularly ironic that one of Trump’s talking points is that he will hire the best people.

Something about that doesn’t ring true.

It does not surprise me to read that Trump has hired neophytes and borderline-thugs for his campaign. As the saying goes, first-rate minds hire assistants with first-rate minds; second-rate minds hire assistants with third-rate minds.

With that in mind, I’d be curious as to what you think of Ted Cruz’s assistants. I keep reading that he invested early in his ground game, and I recall that one early staffer was fired for causing trouble. But I haven’t taken the time to dig more deeply than that. What do you think?

Neo – thanks…great read.

@Matt_SE – fabulous! Been up-voting most of your comments I come across. “Gonna hafta” branch out more, as maybe getting into my own “bubble” of confirmation bias – 😉

@Beverly – you would then love Scott Adams’ (aka Dilbert) blog. I don’t buy it – that people are “hypnotized” by a “master persuader”. Aka they are “meat puppets” according to Adams’ terminology.

I believe the vast majority of people, except for a minimal group (certainly well short of 20% of the population who may have some physical mental “damage”), are very capable of thinking for themselves. We may not like, nor agree with their decisions, and they may be seriously flawed, but they are capable of walking through the analysis as much as most others.

I do believe that most humanity has a natural bias towards authority, perhaps a relic from our eons of evolution. Thus, when we have people talking assertively, if not aggressively, in a tone of superiority, we defer, if not follow. Plenty of examples in c-media of this.

Ultimately, most of us choose blinders, or other obfuscations / self delusions, ala Huxley.

@Other Chuck – what is rather disappointing, if not angering, is all the posturing about conservative principles these guys did, but when push comes to shove, they failed to follow through.

@blert – adding dividends makes the case worse for Trump, if you were assuming no dividend reinvestment were the basis of the original calc. Same with using leverage. Anyway, looking up my old notes and will see if something can be nicely posted here as a comment in response to walk you through it.

There are some valid points to debate on the issue of Trump’s wealth making capability vs passive investment, but sorry to say you didn’t hit upon them. Would rather that it wasn’t so, since we agree on Trump overall.

However, it is an important point, because it is part of the myth that Trump is relying upon to validate his “superiority”, “intelligence”, and “winning!”. If we relinquish the point on his terms, he wins. That is partly how the left has been winning in the political sphere – we let the frame the discussion.

@Eric – maybe you and I agree, or maybe not. I come from it from the POV that Liberty is a Responsibility (not a Right, as is commonly held belief, which leads to passivity, but with plenty of expectations). Like many things in life (marriage, family, job, community, etc.) it requires attention, care, and feeding.

Too many have left it to others to be involved. Sort of a “free rider”, or “tragedy of the commons” type problem. Of course, we all have our reasons (“too busy”, “not interested in ‘politics'”, etc), but the default is that those most interested then drive the processes that select and vet candidates, get them elected, and hold elected officials accountable to their expectations (and the more power is centralized, the more incentive there is for special interests to be involved, influencing the use of that power).

It is no accident that polls are indicating that many of Trump supporters have a low propensity to vote, among other things. One can rightfully wonder if these people “have been abandoned” as they claim, or if they are the ones who have been “abandoning” (in context of the above).

That we have government with fingers into nearly every aspect of our lives, and that we see an increasing level of “corruption” is not all on their laps, as we all had collectively something to do with how this all came to be.

But, yes, people do have to get involved, advocate for their own interests, engage others to bring them on board, and organize as a potent counter to all the rest of the interests.

You call it “social activism” – okay, but to me that phrase comes across with a lot of other connotative baggage from the left, so may be taken wrong by folks you want to convince.

Do I understand you correctly, Eric?

There are different sorts of intelligence. I think Trump is bright about certain things (manipulation of people, pressuring people, figuring out investment angles, sometimes charming people when he wants to), but he is not particularly bright in the academic sense, although it’s hard to know if that’s a true lack of intelligence or a lack of interest. Or maybe it’s part of his desire to appear a certain way to the public. The effect, though, is of a person who’s bright but only in very limited areas.