Trump the Alinskyite
I thought of this the other day when contemplating Trump’s “play fair,” “don’t rig the process to deny me” tactic. I realized this was a case of Trump following Alinsky Rule 4 through and through: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
And then it occurred to me that there are a lot of Alinsky’s rules that Trump follows. In fact, when you refresh your memory on those rules, it’s hard to escape the conviction that Trump’s an advanced practitioner of Alinskyite methods. Let’s take a look:
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources ”“ money and people…
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
The only rules Trump doesn’t seem to care much for are numbers 2, 9, and 12. But he makes up for that with his devotion to the others. Every single one of the remaining rules has been hammered home by Trump to a degree that’s as great or even greater than they’ve been by Obama, who once taught courses in Alinsky’s methods. I’m not sure whether Trump is a natural at this or whether he’s done a study of it, but it’s dramatic how often and how effectively he follows the rules.
People argue about whether Trump is more of the left or of the right. He’s an unusual mix of the two. But whatever your opinion on that question, he certainly is using Alinskyite methods in the service of what it is he’s selling.
Has Trump consciously studied Alinsky, or are they simply kindred spirits? If Trump had been first, Alinsky would have claimed it all as his idea, so I suppose Trump may do much the same. It’s all about winning, whether you’re a “victim” or not.
Trump will explain to you how he’s the biggest “victim” of what’s going on right now. Just listen to him and listen for it. You’re a victim, just like Trump, he says. Because we’re so much alike. We’re real Americans, and we’re the true victims.
That’s the message.
“Rules for Radicals” is really just “Rules for street fighting,” and Trump is a street fighter. He has no more read Alinsky than he has read the Constitution.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
this is not necessarily alinskyite… the other side of it is.
if your making a side live up to their own rules, your implying your side doesnt or wont…
this is the idea behind law, making us live up to our rules
the weakness is in the idea that rule makers make rules even when they dont have to!!!! thereby creating a system in which mixing rules negates and causes unpredictable outcomes…
on another note
‘Are They Going To Kill Me?:’ Trump Supporter Talks About Being Injured During Melee
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/04/29/are-they-going-to-kill-me-trump-supporter-talks-about-being-injured-during-melee/
SHOCK VIDEO: ‘Dreamers’ flip off Trump supporters, shout expletives at passing cars
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-video-children-flip-off-shout-expletives-at-trump-supporters/
they are showing that this is an invastion, not an immigration
that they hate the people of the country they are invading, and are willing to fight to hold the hills theygrab and will kill to do so. islam understands this is an invasion, mexico the country does too…. but since the US is so nice and doesnt do those midevil things to prevent such, well, we have to lose that land eventually… but first, hav eto pay the invaders to hurt us, spit at us, yell and beat us, and ship tons of meth, herion, cocaine, molly, and more to fund their fanmilies back hom the way the british did with the chinese and opium… but i dont see a boxer rebellion happening, do you?
It’s going to be a very Alinsky summer. Left Alinsky v. Right Alinsky.
There are more Alinskys on the left than the right, and the left Alinskys are far more practiced and battle-tested.
The Trumplinskys are not deft.
Well, much of Alinsky probably derives in large part from Sun Tzu’s Art of War and Machiavelli. There is nothing new under the Sun these days.
And conservatives are not intimidated by dishonest shilling, misdirection and deflection.
General Rule: Anything Trump Fan claims against Cruz (ie., “Lying,” cheating, making backroom deals) is deflecting from the fact that Trump has already done the exact same thing multiple times. Like, on a minutely basis.
General Rule: TrumpFan complaints about NeverTrumpers deflect from the unstated threat that TrumpFan will stay home in November rather than vote for Cruz.
General Rule: Claims that Trump opposition is “hate” sounds a lot like ObamaFan claims about their opposition. For a reason.
F has the right of it.
And following this idea of how Trump operates, Kurt Schlichter has a great article at townhall that outlines how Trump will use his tactics to beat Hillary:
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/05/02/looking-back-on-how-donald-trump-beat-hillary-clinton-n2156600
I agree with David Bernstein 99%:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/02/nevertrump/
Physicsguy, great find! That’s also how scott adams of Dilbert fame has predicted this election would play out.
Scott Adams is a “meat puppet”.
He takes an interesting idea and extends it to the absurd. Somebody’s obviously brainwashed him…
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/117001860731/brainwashing
He thinks Trump has been doing so well because he is a “master persuader” (IMO, Trump is an ego “master b*ter”), when the reality is that he was getting a plurality in a divided field, and was virtually ignored by his competitors until much much later in the process.
Adams is one of those stealth fanboys who says he is against Trump, but gives Trump all these fawning reviews, while conveniently ignoring some of these other realities.
It is of the type of praise that is no different really than the fanboys who marveled at how obviously superior Obama’s intellect was.
Trump will face some very different circumstances if he becomes the GOP candidate (still too close to call, IMHO, at least until tomorrow night)…
– It is no longer a divided field.
– He would be handicapped with historic negatives across key demographics that he needs to win.
– And, given how he’s burned bridges with many rank and file GOP supporters, and how he has veered far from conservative orthodoxy, fat chance he’d make up for it with a great, historic GOP turnout.
– The media would be eager to defend Clinton and promote her narrative about Trump. They’ve been friendly to the extent that he is bashing other GOP, and given him lots of free airtime. That would change.
– Trump would not be a surprise to the Dems (like he was to the GOP), and they seem much more willing to fight fire with fire out of the gate.
– His shtick is wearing thin, so by November it would get to be too much, too often, so voter fatigue would set in.
– Trump would continue to fail to grasp consequential details of what he proposes and will continue to contradict himself before a much less forgiving audience, and media.
Wolly Bully, Berstein’s article is self parody. Here’s a guy who’s written a book, Lawless about the Obama administration, and states that he’d rather have Hillary win. In case he hasn’t noticed, she’s married to Bill, who’s most certainly a rapist, and is currently under investigation by 150 FBI agents for massive violation of Federal intelligence laws and for influence peddling by selling access via the Clinton Global Initiative. If she wins, the White House is going to be a bazaar and the Lincoln Bedroom will rent by the quarter hour.
Paul in Boston,
Oh come on, you exaggerate! It would be 3 an hour not 4.
Dear Paul in Boston, Sure, and the best way to make sure that Hillary is our next President and Bill our first First Gentleman is to get Trump nominated. As I’ve said before, I won’t vote for Trump. Never, ever.
F Says:
“Rules for Radicals” is really just “Rules for street fighting,” and Trump is a street fighter. He has no more read Alinsky than he has read the Constitution.
Not hardly.
They’re highly effective political tactics for those without conscience, ethics, morals, principles or honor to win the PR/propaganda war for power against those who still adhere to those antiquated values. The left has been living those rules for the past century, with more and more overt help from our “unbiased”, “objective” “news” media.
To have a street fight, both parties need to know they’re in one. For most of that century, Americans, even most conservatives, didn’t even realize we were in bloodless civil war with domestic Marxists, who will lie, cheat and steal to gain power.
I’d say they’ve been pretty damn successful, wouldn’t you?
Most of us believed that when the Berlin Wall came down, we had won the war against Communism, when in fact all we had done was delude ourselves into thinking we no longer had to guard against Marxism. Big mistake.
As for Donald the Street Fightin’ Man and his jayvee Alinskyites, well, they really won’t know what hit them when a couple million professionals with 100 years of practice show them how it’s done.
Trump as nominee will be a belly up dog in the general, having completed his mission. At first he will huff and puff, and then he will gradually whimper and whine. Being POTUS is just too much grey hair for orange man. Hil and Bill will give him a key to the Lincoln bedroom for more than Paul in Boston’s 15 minutes. We are all Kabuki now, unless Cruz can win IN and CA.
Strange season, strange days.
Wooly:
You are saying that your vote does not count. If that’s what you think, then why should the rest of us – who value our right to vote – why should we pay any attention to you?
It seems the person Trump most resembles is Bill Clinton:
1) Likes woman. Though he was able to divorce periodically and remarry – rather than the mistresses.
2) Doesn’t have much of a political philosophy one way or the other.
3) Wants to be successful and liked by everyone. Loves adoration.
4) Charismatic in their own way.
5) Will probably follow policies of those that have supported him the most along the way. Trump will govern more conservatively than Clinton, but this is because Clinton was supported by liberals, while Trump is supported by conservatives.
One interesting difference: Trump seems to be much more attuned to his family. Clinton never showed all that much interest in Chelsa, except as a prop. So I guess Trump scores maturity points on that angle, vs Clinton.
physicsguy Says:
May 2nd, 2016 at 4:12 pm
“And following this idea of how Trump operates, Kurt Schlichter has a great article at townhall…”
&&&
Even so, Kurt acknowledges that Donald hasn’t anything close to the finances and media support that Hillary will get.
She’s going to HAVE to implode for Trump to prevail.
His negatives are that astounding.
Ted Cruz is much the better man, much the better nominee.
1) Hillary is going to get many Democrats to sit at home.
Her numbers were better back in 2008. (!)
2) Cruz is certified to rally the GOP faithful.
HE is what the 2010 & 2014 elections were all about.
Trump must mean simply more GHW Bush – 0bama economics.
It’s significant that crony capitalist Buffett hates Cruz more than Boner.
A flat tax would END Berkshire-Hathaway’s profit engine — it totally turns on the tax code as applied to insurance companies.
James Says:
May 2nd, 2016 at 10:26 pm
“It seems the person Trump most resembles is Bill Clinton:….”
&&&
Chelsea is purportedly not even his child.
That’s the tabloid allegation.
I have to say, I don’t see any of Bill in her.
James,
I think djt is not mostly supported by conservatives. He is supported by angry, frustrated moonbats and ditch and switch progressives in the primaries. Trump’s ceiling as nominee in the Electoral College is 100 at best, more likely 50.
BTW, Slick Willy has no desire to hump his daughter. That alone puts him leagues ahead of djt in a character contest.
Big Maq Says:
May 2nd, 2016 at 6:52 pm
Scott Adams is a “meat puppet”.
%%%%%%
Mega-dittos.
I couldn’t state the facts better.
blert,
Chelsea is well schooled in pandering, lying and misdirecting, and sucking up dollars from dolts, a combination of hill and bill dna.
BTW, newer polls show Trump closing the gap with Hillary.
I don’t believe this for a second, not with a 70% disapproval rating. This is the same shit the left pulled with Todd Akin, and the Trump supporters will eat it up.
As I said in a previous post, there’s been some really weird stuff going on with polls recently, and it can’t be innocently explained. Something stinks.
blert:
I think there is no doubt she’s Bill Clinton’s child, and I see resemblances. Particularly in her hair (she straightens it now, but it is naturally curly and reddish-brownish, much like his was when he was young). Her hair is nothing like Hillary’s (which is basically straight). Chelsea also has Bill’s legs and not Hillary’s.
James:
I completely disagree with you on Bill Clinton vs. Donald Trump as family men and fathers.
Trump left his children and wife for another woman when they were little and was an absentee father for quite a while. Plus, he talked to the media publicly about the fabulous sex he was having with his new girlfriend.
Bill tried to keep his liaisons secret, at least, and never left his wife. Donald flaunted his. That his children are doing well is a testament not to Trump but to others, and particularly to HER parents, who were very involved in raising them:
Now, of course, they’re all adults and engaged in the family business. All is well between them. But that doesn’t mean that Trump was anywhere near a good father when they were growing up, and I’m sick and tired of hearing the kids’ psychological health being attributed to him as though he was wheeling their carriages through Central Park and kissing their boo-boos.
In addition, of course, there are his weirdly inappropriate sexual remarks about daughter Ivanka.
Cap’n Rusty:
No, Wooly is NOT saying his vote doesn’t count.
He’s saying that both his vote and his integrity count. Perhaps he will vote third party, for example.
He is saying that his vote counts for so much that he refuses to prostitute it. And no, voting for Donald Trump is not like voting for other previous GOP candidates with whom a person might have disagreed. See this.
Lots of great comments here…
@Matt_SE – looking into Rasmussen’s latest polling, a surprisingly large 1/3 of the non-affiliated likely voters (aka Independents) couldn’t pick either Trump or Clinton, instead mostly going 3rd party or some undecided.
So there is a lot of wiggle room between those numbers and what an election day would look like (to say nothing about how they are spread across the electoral colleges).
It is a good bet that the much higher negatives with key demographics will be much more important in how a Trump nominee would fare.
@blert – thanks!
“A flat tax would END Berkshire-Hathaway’s profit engine – it totally turns on the tax code as applied to insurance companies.”
Right. Doubt that if Buffet were 20 years old today, starting over, he’d find the business atmosphere as conducive to his “strategy” of using insurance companies as his own hedge fund.
Give the man his dues for all that (unlike Trump, he actually outperformed the index), but in recent years, he seems much too close to government, and received deals that are just too good to be true. His moves to hide his wealth from inheritance taxation (his right to do so) belies his stand on taxes.
@Geoffrey B – “F has the right of it.” Agree.
@parker – “Slick Willy has no desire to hump his daughter. That alone puts him leagues ahead of djt in a character contest”
Agree. Unsavory as Bill Clinton’s character is, as a politician he knew his stuff, knew what he could do and couldn’t do policy wise, was relatively stable and consistent in his approach / advocacy, and he could sell it to the public.
Trump seems unbridled by anything, prone to mercurial public fits, has a much more ominous threatening streak to any who oppose him, oblivious to the details of any of his proposals, most of which seem made up on the fly, and are changeable by noon the same day. IOW, not even remotely fit for the office. So yeah, entirely different leagues.
I should clarify: I posted that link as an example of possible tactics Trump could use, not as an endorsement.
I think we are now reaching the endgame of the Baby Boomer generation. Too many of us bought into the bullshit we were expounding in the 60’s and made it their “life’s work”; which is to destroy the U.S. I still cannot understand the psychology of my fellow Boomers who grew up so comfortably to want to tear it all down.
So now we are faced with two Boomer candidates for president. One a pathological liar determined to punish the country and at the same time profit from the destruction. The other, the embodiment of the narcissistic Boomer attitude of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, where everything revolves around the holy concept of “me”. In a tremendous case of irony, the Greatest Generation gave birth and raised the Worst Generation that will end up destroying the last great hope of humanity.
geokstr:
“They’re highly effective political tactics for those without conscience, ethics, morals, principles or honor to win the PR/propaganda war for power against those who still adhere to those antiquated values.”
The general will of We The People is – and has always been since the founding father activists – a function of activism. The activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is. Participatory politics subsume electoral politics. To compete for real, conservatives must collectively become a social activist movement.
Thus far, conservatives’ aversion to activism has consistently undermined them by gifting the Left, and now the alt-Right, an open field to run up the score and seize critical social nodes – including the media – virtually uncontested. A cognitive cornerstone of the Right’s self-sabotage is the rationalization that all activism is tantamount to Alinskyite leftist-style activism “without conscience, ethics, morals, principles or honor”. The “jayvee” Trump-front alt-Right has reinforced that perception by their strategic choice to mimic the Left activism that’s long proven against the Right and GOP.
However, while there are common principles in the activist game, like any kind of competition, there are different styles of activism. One reason I like to cite the example of the successful Ivy League pro-military campus activists is their activism was scrupulous and, without mimicking Left activism, they defeated elite campus ‘SJW’ radical leftists on their supposed home turf. In other words, effective counter-Left (and, by the same token, counter-alt-Right) activism is not necessarily leftist-style activism repurposed.
For the embattled Right, the first decision is whether conservatives will collectively adapt activism necessary to compete for real in the only social cultural/political game there is. If they will not, then it’s game over, surrender with much complaining but without any real resistance.
If, however, conservatives choose collectively to compete for real, the next step is to figure out activism that’s compatible with their tastes upon the bottom-line that it’s effective in the arena. Like any kind of competition, you can’t just talk about. The developmental process is iterative and involves taking lumps at the hands of more advanced competition. But defeat is how competitors learn to win and develop their own arena-tested ‘varsity’ cadre.
You say “jayvee Alinskyites, well, they really won’t know what hit them when a couple million professionals with 100 years of practice show them how it’s done” as though facing varsity Democrat-front Left activists will be their Waterloo. Not at all. At worst, it would be their Kasserine Pass. Moving up in competition level from self-defeating ‘rec center’ conservative and GOP non-activists to varsity Democrat-front Left activists is how ‘jayvee’ Trump-front alt-Right activists will raise their game.
Keep in mind that the alt-Right is only supporting the Trump campaign for their own purposes. They’re building a social activist movement for their Gramscian long march to reify their preferred social condition with paradigm shift. They’re neither limited in purpose nor subordinate to the 2016 Trump campaign. At current stage, their principal goal has been to displace conservatives and take over their space in the American political landscape, following the precedent of the leftists that displaced and replaced liberals. They can accomplish that goal with or without Trump winning the general election. They’ve mostly already accomplished their principal goal.
And with or without Trump winning the general election, they can improve their “jayvee” social activist movement to a varsity level via head-on competition with the varsity Democrat-front Left.
With or without Trump winning the general election, alt-Right activists have already won this round. Conservatives have already lost. Unless conservatives evolve collectively to activism in order to compete for real, the proximate defeat at the hands of the alt-Right insurgency can cascade in short order to an evolutionary, existential finish.
neo neocon: How does an authoritarian narcissist raise such children? See this. Short answer: other people raised them.
that is true to some degree of most wealthy parents, and even single mothers… the key is not that someone else does something, but that you select the right people over time to provide what no single set of parents can have, with an awareness of the odds of outcomes..
but you really have to go past the short answer:
what did the high-flying dealmaker think of his kids’ prospects for the future?
“Statistically, my children have a very bad shot, children of successful people are generally very, very troubled, not successful. They don’t have the right shtick.” Playboy in 1990
The kids grew up in the close company of nannies and security guards who worked for the family. Ivana’s parents lived with them when they were young; the boys’ interest in hunting and fishing came from grandfather Milos. In 2011, Donald and Eric went trophy hunting in Zimbabwe, killing an elephant and cheetah among other large animals
“My father is a very hardworking guy, and that’s his focus in life, so I got a lot of the paternal attention that a boy wants and needs from my grandfather,” Donald Jr.
[same with myself… my grandparents were closest to me when young]
[and one if his kids fit that mold, the child of maples]
with this awareness, he has done the right thing to avoid the bad issue when a parent has too little timeand has a heteronormative patriarchal evil family structure… not like leaving them with abusive strangers like the children of feminists and their victims do, and not leaving them to grow without any such structuring.
They work for their father as executive vice presidents of development and acquisition. (Trump also has two younger children, one each by his second and third wives.) As for their specializations: Don Jr. manages the existing property portfolio, Ivanka oversees the family’s hotels, and Eric manages the family’s golf assets.
[so when something goes bad, is it Trump, or his kids?]
[edited for length by n-n]
Big Maq Says:
July 20th, 2016 at 11:21 am
@Artfuldodger — It was not trump’s “leadership” that won, at least not in the way your quotes imply.
yeah.. your right.. he didnt make the decision not to collect money, and didnt make the choice of what to say, and didnt make the choice of where to go, and what position to take… that was all his political pollsters like hillary… but wait, he had none..
so your wrong.. it WAS his leadership… you just dont want to recognize that…
if it wasnt his leadership, then who was making the choices and stragegies? ayers and valerie jarret?
Big Maq Says:
July 20th, 2016 at 11:32 am
““Peace won by compromise is usually a short-lived achievement.” Winfield Scott “ — Art
But, isn’t trump the ultimate compromise? After all, he is hardly conservative, having a history of stances consistent with the Dems.
no… he isnt. your confusing compromise to close a deal to reach parity, etc… with compromise ones values..
given that winfield scott was a general, do you think he didnt mean compromise ones values?
there are two meanings to that word..
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. [the one you focuesd on]
accept standards that are lower than is desirable. / weaken (a reputation or principle) by accepting standards that are lower than is desirable. / ring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior./ cause to become vulnerable or function less effectively.
Trump makes deals, so he does the first
but Trump does not back down on his standards, his values, and so on… which is what i was pointing out
when they called him racist, he did not back down
when he said he insulted women, he pointed out it was a war with a very nasty woman whose daugher hates her and has run away from her several times (she lives in my old neigborhood in nyack)
Cruz wanted 500% increase in foreigners
THAT is what killed him.. not his conservative principals
but when he was hit on that, he compromised his values to compromise with the public in exchange for the votes which they did not give him
the sentence has both meanings and relates to the quote…
thanks for the cogent point to talk about!!!
(a real compliment)
Big Maq Says:
July 20th, 2016 at 11:32 am
GOP was supposed to mean something, but wt(hey) do principles count for any more?!
yes, they compromised their values for a short win
funny, but you had the answer in your post and didnt see it…
junior Says: Whenever I start to make peace with the idea of voting for Trump in order to deny Hillary the White House, all I have to do is listen to Trump supporters on political sites, and the feeling mysteriously vanishes.
spend more time on leftist liberal sites listening to them and their inanities and you would be partially cured. but note, many of the left is also on trumps side as they sense sociopathy and while they may have fought for socialism, the reality of it was not something that they would want in their lives, but was ok to fight for, get laid for, be popular for
not to mention that once the left lowers the bar to the game, its a free for all… queensbury rules disappear the minute you try to kick em in the balls
and some of those horrid trump supporters are actually leftists trying to turn you off to supporting him (and sadly some are not)
your ignoring the lefts kill whitey, murder white babies in the hospitals, shooting police, planting bombs, lying outright, creating hoaxes of abuse blaming the opposition (hate hoax is very popular, from rolling stone magazine to college professors hanging nooses to claim racism)
your comparing these people woh are ginned up for the first time in their lives (most of them) against people caling for extermination, wanting eugenics, dedicating their books to lucifer, robbing banks to start race war, violating the constituation.
you really should get out more often and go check out what is going on in the opposition groups and even worse, they dont erase them, say they are wrong, but all agree in corus
Islam turned otu to be the religion that appealed to my feminist ideals – theresa corben writer CNN
how about asking them their ideas on selling fetal baby parts? trump makes golf courses and he is evil, but the left sells baby parts and they are good.
Big Maq Says:
July 20th, 2016 at 12:58 pm
““Evil draws its power from indecision and concern for what other people think.” ― Pope Benedict XVI”
and your complaint is that trump doesnt care what people think of his opinion? how about a bit of consistency here..
(and your point was to vote for a third party which the record holder for the most votes there was ross perot, same as not voting)
““The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith”
so thats why you are not on the side of trump, he makes you think by not taking the conventional view.. that he violates this all the time… and that the lefts ays the conventional view is that trump is not presidential (but lbj and his big dick were?)
consistency of thought might help..
When you look at people who are successful, you will find that they aren’t the people who are motivated, but have consistency in their motivation. Arsene Wenger
Anyone that has a job that takes them away from home, I think, can understand the difficulties in maintaining consistency, not only with your family and those you love but with your friends. Heath Ledger
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Ralph Waldo Emerson
The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Henry David Thoreau
[hillary is what profession outside of politics?]