Designing the perfect Donald Trump
In the back-and-forth of comments on this recent thread you may have noticed a repeat of an old argument that centers on the character and style of Donald Trump. I don’t have to recap; you know the drill.
The commenters here aren’t a unitary bunch on that score, but there’s a general trend. I’d say that the majority of people here are practical middle-roaders on the Trump style question. In other words, a great many people here didn’t support him in the primaries, reluctantly supported him in the election only because Hillary was seen as worse, and yet are supporters now because of his accomplishments in the policy sense as well as the appointment of conservative judges. They have also seen him as fighting back hard against constant and unfair attacks for things he has not actually done (as well as sometimes against fair attacks for things he has done), and many of the attacks have been far more vile than anything he has said.
What’s more, the current opposition on the Democratic side makes Hillary Clinton look like Barry Goldwater.
But what of this “style” thing? It’s still, somehow, one of the main objections to Trump, and some supporters understand and to a certain extent share that objection; they simply think it’s small compared to all his pluses. Does the style problem involve his language, his more juvenile attacks (many of them during the primaries, targeting his Republican rivals)? His infidelities and marital history? What is it, really?
I’ll leave it to you to flesh that out. For me, though – and probably the main reason I’m writing this post – I have observed that often in life you can’t pick and choose and keep the good traits and leave the bad. The reason is that those good and bad traits are usually linked.
Just to take one example, you might hear a woman say, “I want to find a man who’s strong-minded and yet does what I tell him.” (Actually, you won’t ordinarily hear a woman say that in so many words, but women often say something that boils down to that.) Sorry, those things tend to be mutually exclusive. Or, you might hear a man say some equivalent of, “I want to find a woman who is intelligent and thinks for herself but doesn’t ever argue or disagree with me.” It’s not that such a thing is literally impossible to find. But those traits just don’t tend to go together.
Politics had become poisonous before Trump came on the scene. It’s a cliché to say so, but he’s a reaction rather than a cause. Does his presence ratchet things up? I believe it does. But I also believe that was happening anyway. All you really have to do is recall the invective directed at the relatively mild George W. Bush, and you can see what I mean.
The main reason Trump is hated is not his style. It is what he has done and what he promises to do. That the package “Donald Trump” also contains a style most people – including many of his supporters – find abrasive and harsh is a fact. But Trump’s style is inextricably linked, I believe, with his ability to be bold in his judicial appointments, his foreign policy, and his criticism of a press that had become a Pravda-like Democratic organ long before he came on the scene.
I can imagine a Republican candidate who might have done all of that and yet retained a smooth and relatively polite and erudite style, and yet would also have managed to defeat Hillary Clinton (that last bit is all-important, because without that it would be moot). And although such a combination of traits in one person isn’t literally impossible, it is so unlikely that I don’t think it’s realistic to have expected such a person to have come along at just the right juncture in 2016. It would be like waiting for Godot.
[ADDENDUM: That perfect candidate would have to have a keen intelligence, articulate speech, impeccable character, spotless record, winning and likeable and magnetic personality, the strength of character to stand up to terrible mud-slinging unperturbed, and also be able to fight dirty enough to win against the dirtiest of fighters. Only a few extremely unusual historical figures have that combination of traits, and no politician alive today has them.
A gentleman (or gentlewoman) on the right probably would not survive this particular political climate, and that fact way predated Trump. In fact, at this point, a gentleman or gentlewoman on the left doesn’t seem to have much chance of surviving either.]
Perhaps it is time to invoke a phrase popular with MSM during the Clinton presidency. We were told that people have a nuanced and “bifurcated” view of Clinton. Maybe the same is true for Trump although I doubt that the MSM will believe that.
“The main reason Trump is hated is not his style. It is what he has done and what he promises to do.”
I have to disagree with that, at least in part. Any Republican elected President would have appointed more-or-less conservative judges that would have threatened the Left’s lock of judicial power in America, so they would have been hated for that.
But compare the relative levels of hatred and hysteria regarding George W. Bush and Donald Trump. No matter how bad you think the situation is on our southern border or now much you blame him for it, Trump’s record in office doesn’t hold a candle to the catastro-bleep that was the Presidency of George W. Bush. Yet the fury directed at Bush was largely relegated to the fringe while it’s been mainstreamed with Trump.
I’m not saying it’s the only reason he’s hated but I think the main reason Trump is despised is because he proves the image a lot of people have of themselves and their world isn’t true, that they’re not as smart or as good as they think they are and that the world their building isn’t as perfect as they believed it to be.
Mike
The tool to whom you’re making reference repeatedly blamed the president for the bad behavior of the federal police, intelligence services, and Democratic members of Congress. He must be real fun to deal with in mundane life.
Hypothesis: the problem is that being fussy about abrasiveness is correlated with an indifference to actual accomplishment and, commonly, a dearth of actual conviction. George W. Bush was steadfast in prosecuting the Iraq War, but in domestic affairs he followed the David Gergen playbook: split the difference, always and everywhere (though, to be fair, the uselessness of the Senate Republican caucus was decisive). Mitt Romney was an accomplished businessman. As for his public career, he’s called ‘Windsock Romney’ for a reason. A critic of Trent Lott noted that he cared so much for orderly prosecution of Senate business that he was rolled into handing the Democrats a mess of lifetime appointments to the federal bench in return for some seats on regulatory commissions. It’s amazing how little Republican legislators get done at all levels. The most accomplished politician of the last generation has been Rudloph Giuliani, who is not a sweet man. Others who made a difference have been Scott Walker, Tommy Thompson, and the double act of Newt Gingrich and Richard Armey. These men are not replicas of Trump, but they have resolve.
Yet the fury directed at Bush was largely relegated to the fringe while it’s been mainstreamed with Trump.
Disagree there. General liberal discourse was ferocious about Bush (and the alt-right types were at least as bad). It is true that the establishment in Congress was more reasonable than is the case right now.
At times our current public condition seems to consist in something such as this:
1) take the second [derivative] dictionary definition of the term “hagiography”,
a. The writing of an admiring or idealized biography.
b. An admiring or idealized biography.;
2) recollect the application of that business to President Pseudonym;
3) now take the antonym of that definition of hagiography;
4) apply that “satanography” to President Trump.
So queer is our present public condition, discourse, or what-have-you.
It’s vicious far beyond Trump’s own failings, whatever those may be.
However . . .
Trump’s record in office doesn’t hold a candle to the catastro-bleep that was the Presidency of George W. Bush
Bush’s presidency did not begin to unravel until April of 2004, and it wasn’t until September 2005 that he began to lose the public irretrievably. I’d like to think the next several years will be agreeable for the country, but who knows?
(NB, New Orleans has in the last decade made a partial demographic recovery, and is in some respects a more secure city than it was 15 years ago; the political violence in Iraq is regrettable, but the death toll in a typical month is < 1/10 th of what it was in 2006-07. Today isn't forever).
MBunge:
I disagree with you entirely about the fury directed at Bush. The term “Bush Derangement Syndrome” was coined to describe it, and it was very mainstream, complete with assassination fantasies. There was also “Bushitler.”
The hatred against Sarah Palin when she was McCain’s VP candidate in 2008 was incredibly and horrifically harsh, and very mainstream.
However . . . at times I do harbor a velleity that Trump’s evident utter disdain for theoretical political thinking were replaced by — if not a love for it — at least a smidgeon of appreciative curiosity toward it. I think he might thereby have saved himself (and therefore the country) one or two wastes of otherwise inefficient expenditures of energy.
But — and I say this with great regard — his grasp of purely practical political thinking is pretty much without compare among American statesmen in my lifetime, so far as I can see.
“General liberal discourse was ferocious about Bush and the alt-right types were at least as bad”- wait, what?
As someone who spent a lot of time defending Bush way back when it seems to me that Bush worked long and hard to drive away supporters like me, and he did it thoroughly and well. When you refuse to secure the US border, won’t criticize your opponent in a presidential election, botch the handling of a major war, and willingly accept blame for the incompetence of a democrat-run state government, topping it all off with a catastrophic economic collapse, maybe you shouldn’t be surprised when a good fraction of your supporters become vocal and hostile critics.
Good riddance to him.
Our political class is accustomed to politicians’ statements being a signal of intentions.
They don’t think bargaining and deal-making are how government should work. If that goes on, it will go on in back rooms away from the public, and the public statements will be nuanced and vague statements of intention.
I’m picking Rubio here but any politician will do:
Rubio, speaking to Fox, endorsed Trump’s points on law enforcement and making the immigration system more merit-based. After movements on those two fronts, Rubio suggested, “then you can do something very reasonable with the people who have been here a long time who are not gang bangers, who are not criminals, who are not a threat to public safety.”
“I believe if Democrats are willing to accept that direction then we can get something done,” he said. “If they continue to fight for of the unrealistic, the ‘Let’s give everybody blanket amnesty,’ or ‘Let’s give everybody citizenship,’ or ‘Let’s do it backwards,’ or ‘Let’s be against any effort to enforce the law beyond symbolic things, ”then I think we’re going to continue to be stuck in the cycle we’ve been in.”
“I’m hopeful,” he concluded. “It’s going to be difficult, but it is possible.”
There’s no give and take in these statements. He’s talking about his intentions. He may not mean them, but he’s saying them and intending them to be taken as statements of intention. He’s not talking about bargaining even in the back rooms he is probably doing so. He’s saying first we’re going to do this, and if that works we’ll do the other thing next for all these reasons, and if our opponents instead choose to do these other things then we won’t do any of it.
So when Donny from Queens says “I think people who do X should be strung up by their heels” as many folks from Queens and elsewhere tend to say, that is taken as a public statement of intention.
The public has known Donald Trump all his adult life, they know what he means and that’s what they would mean.
I agree entirely with Neo’s summary of this. People who still can’t get around Trump’s “style,” however they define it, can comfort themselves with the realization that he’s unique. I only hope that by the end of his second term conservative politicians will have learned that they don’t have to defer to the leftist media and can be forthright, if perhaps more smooth, about saying what they mean.
Brilliant as always neo
Nah, I still think we could do way better without the clownish buffoonery that this guy is. I know I’m wrankling some people as if Im making a personal attack upon them, but, by golly, (Straightening my bow tie), I wish we had a guy that was more responsible behavior wise. Again, moot point cuz we’re stuck with the guy, but while we’re on this topic, I just thought I’d repeat what Ive said earlier: Im glad for the Donald Trump life vest which is barley holding my head above the leftist sewage, but Id feel much happier with a more secure bottom under my feet.
And you know what? It’s OK for me to say so. It really is.
Let the ad homs begin.
Harry:
I don’t know whether you get the fact that people here agree with you but – as I attempt to point out in this post – it’s moot.
A person with that particular combination of traits is so rare as to be almost nonexistent. The person has to have a keen intelligence, articulate speech, impeccable character, spotless record, winning and likeable and magnetic personality, the strength of character to stand up to terrible mud-slinging unperturbed, and also be able to fight dirty enough to win against the dirtiest of fighters. Only a few extremely unusual historical figures have that combination of traits, and no politician alive today has them.
So as I said, your point is moot. A gentleman (or gentlewoman) on the right probably would not survive this particular political climate, and that fact way predated Trump. In fact, at this point, a gentleman or gentlewoman on the left doesn’t seem to have much chance of surviving either.
Just to take one example, you might hear a woman say, “I want to find a man who’s strong-minded and yet does what I tell him.” (Actually, you won’t ordinarily hear a woman say that in so many words, but women often say something that boils down to that.) Sorry, those things tend to be mutually exclusive. –neo
Ken Kesey, author of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” called that “going for the fried ice cream.”
Although there really is a desert called fried ice cream — breaded ice cream briefly deep fried — but you get the picture.
Ive agreed just in the last thing I posted that the point was moot. As for your contention that we’re not going to get the perfect candidate: again, I agree.
Could we have done better? Why yes, yes we could have.We could have done much better. Cruz would have been better. But again, moot point.
Can I ask this: Could we at least have a moratorium of fawning admiration on any idea that Trump is some kind of mastermind genius hero of the Republic? That would help immensely.
Thanks.
We were and are facing an existential threat to our democratic republic from the far left. Trump is the only effective person stopping them. Complaining about his personal habits or style is like complaining that the lifeboat that’s picking you up out of the ocean doesn’t have seat cushions on the seats. Just think about the relative level of importance of those two things.
huxley:
Baked Alaska.
A person can dream.
Ken Kesey, author of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” called that “going for the fried ice cream.
+10
Can you hear Nelson Rockefeller’s cadence?: “I luuuhv it…”
Poor Harry, points out the obvious (President Trump isn’t perfect and Harry doesn’t like him (stomp feet and pout)) and then when no one says “amazing Harry you are a genius!” falls into the I’m a victim of ad homs. Not too original, Not even Manju whines about ad homs.
Concern trollery
Now Irv, I agree with you that we are facing an existential threat from the far left. I just question whether or not Trump is the only effective person stopping them. You may believe that is true but I say that one is a hard sell to the vast middle whose vote we’re going to need in 2020. Fortunately for us, most of the democrat field is also very off-putting. So much so that I feel we should be doing way better in the polls. Id hate to have this election go down like the 2016 election where it comes down to who we despise least.
that one is a hard sell to the vast middle whose vote we’re going to need in 2020.
The ‘vast middle’ is about 7% of the electorate. They were described thus by James Neuchterlein about 20 years ago: “They’ll vote against someone for a reason like, ‘She reminds me of my 1st wife.'”. Swing voters are…random.
The vast middle seems to be who both parties want to attract (except it seems the far left who thinks their ideas a so superior you;d be an idiot not to like them once you’re forced into compliance), so I figure the middle to be more important than you’re admitting.
Look: All of you can relax. Come next election Im holding my nose and voting for Trump. He’s the only rope I have to hang on to. Thready as it is.
Harry’s dilemma reminds me of a time I debated my Episcopalian congregation (it was usually me against everyone) over the Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address back in 2006, in which he quoted a Byzantine Emperor’s blunt remarks about Islam and jihad, to wit:
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.
Benedict was speaking at his alma mater in German to other Germans about the general topic, “Faith, Reason and the University,” but the speech was reported internationally and upset Muslims, needless to say, many liberals in the West, and certainly my congregation.
Also, needless to say, Muslims started killing Christians just prove Benedict wrong or something.
Anyway, I defended Benedict’s brief quote in a German university to other Germans. A fellow congregant criticized Benedict’s “violent words” for being “in [Muslims’] face” and “spitting in their eye.” His solution was to follow the way of Dumbledore in the Harry Potter books, and be gentle and polite always.
Given the stakes, following the advice of a children’s fantasy series seemed rather delusional to me. It would be great to find someone who was Dumbledore and General George Patton at the same time, but as neo notes, it usually doesn’t work that way.
Abraham Lincoln was as spiritually remarkable as any US president, but he was still hated, hated, hated and we had the Civil War anyway.
I just put up a post about some of the roots of the style-based hostility…both verbal style and mental style…to President Trump.
Trump and the Ukrainian Translator:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/60755.html
huxley’s statement exemplifies the decay caused by the rot within.
Besides, we cannot have Muslims upset, can we? They might fall back on decapitations and bombs as conversion strategy.
I just wish that Pope Benedict had not resigned. I suspect it was due to the entrenched bureaucrats in the Vatican, whom he could not depend on except for subversion, and who seem to have no trouble with the near-liberation theology of Pope Francis.
As many of you know, I was a volunteer for Cruz in my native Iowa. The campaign asked me to go to Reno, NV so at my own expense I worked there for two weeks. I was definitely invested in his bid for the nomination. I was not pleased with Trump’s childish, absurd attacks on Cruz. However I voted for Trump.
I have come to greatly appreciate djt’s efforts. I like that he routinely calls out the msm for the propaganda machine that they are. Yes, Trump is abrasive, tweets too much, and has in my mind a weird persona.
As to why the statis power players hate him, it is simply because he exists outside their hive mind. Outsiders are not supposed to take the White House.
By the way Harry, LBJ was just as crude and rude as Trump. The difference was he kept his ‘dark side’ hidden from the general public. Cruz has put Trump’s campaign smears on a shelf and supports his agenda. So have I.
Cruz is likewise outside the hive mind. If he was POTUS he would have received a DC MSM staunchly against him.
Remember, Ronald Reagan was a gentleman, also a fine wordsmith and speaker, but of course was reviled by the Left as a ‘dunce’ and ‘grade-B actor’—or worse.
Donald Trump is a more outgoing, ebullient person, but like Mr Reagan he is entirely unafraid to speak his mind. What some don’t like is his willingness to get down and the mud and spar (verbally and Twitfully) with his opponents. Watch his rallies, though, and you’ll see that (like Reagan) he’s having fun. My wife doesn’t like it, but I think he’s hilarious.
Part of the humor is that President Trump is completely transparent. He does not dissemble; he speaks his mind, and usually it’s exactly what his supporters want to hear. And what they want to hear are the simple truths, the plain, obvious truths that politicians (of all stripes) are so fond of avoiding, eschewing, or contorting beyond recognition. Whether it’s as fleeting as the character of his opponents or the media, or as significant as his policies on immigration or trade, President Trump does not dissemble. When he speaks, what people hear is plain and simple common sense.
That’s why I call him ‘The Common-Sense President’. For more, please see here: https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/the-common-sense-president/
/LEJ
Oh Neo, you’re so very very perceptive:
But Trump’s style is inextricably linked, I believe, with his ability to be bold in his judicial appointments, his foreign policy, and his criticism of a press that had become a Pravda-like Democratic organ long before he came on the scene.
What was the 60s phrase, The Medium Is The Message.
I used to say I don’t like Trump’s words & style, but now much less. Now I focus on his successful results, and ask – what’s more important. Words? or Results?
Even most Trump haters will say “results” — but then we both know that their hatred against Trump is not so reasonable. (This has worked, a bit, on a couple of Liberals I’ve talked to in Europe.)
When I was coming down from Barstow towards LA, there was a Mexican place my mother used to like.
They served Fried Ice Cream.
I understood it was made in a French Fryer, where Baked Alaska is in a hot oven
If I wanted hot & cold, I’d get hot cherry pie a la mode.
“Can I ask this: Could we at least have a moratorium of fawning admiration on any idea that Trump is some kind of mastermind genius hero of the Republic? That would help immensely.
Thanks.”
-Harry
Can I ask this: Could we at least have a moratorium on the angst-filled, concern trolling and incessant tut-tutting and the harumphing about manners and style?
I’d go along with that Harry. Would you? I’m not so sure myself. But we could try.
We could call it The Orange Man Neutrality Treaty. I don’t subject the man to hero worship, though, so it might be easier for me. I just appreciate his fighting spirit and that he employs it on my behalf. Full disclosure: I was a Ben Carson supporter. Then a Ted Cruz supporter. Finally, with many reservations, a Donald Trump supporter. And frankly, the only reason I pipe up when you and the Anns of the comment section appear with the hand wringing, mewling remarks is because seeing such whiny supplications turns my stomach. Its like watching a 40-year old man cry about his My Little Pony toys in a YouTube video. Unseemly. Tawdry. And worse, put out there like its something to be proud of rather than ashamed of.
Alea Iacta Est- The die is cast, bro, and we can’t go back. All the hand wringing and worrying isn’t going to change anything for the better. Only for the worse as it kills morale. There’s a reason the term Concern Troll was coined, and there’s a reason why people distrust them. Who but the enemy would actively, constantly try to undermine morale?
You may not be the enemy, but sometimes, you make it hard to tell the difference.
I don’t think Trump is any mastermind, but he’s a winner, and seems to have the right gut instincts to win. At this point in time, that means to fight.
To fight PC-BS (see, I’m on the too-polite side; maybe too close to being a girly-man? But my wife likes me better this way)
Trump fights against PC-BS, and America needs that, and the world needs that.
That’s not hero worship, that’s calling for a Flight 93 storm the cockpit and stop the suicide flyers action.
I hope and pray for a big 2020 win for Trump and conservative Reps, and actual draining of the swamp. Some, anyway. I fear the Dem media, Dem lies, Dem academia and their long term discrimination against Reps, which has now become demonization. Bush Derangement Syndrome, Trump DS; and Palin DS, Kavanaugh DS; there was earlier Reagan DS without it being called Derangement Syndrome.
Democrat Derangement Syndrome – one name for all the Dem derangement we see around us. Too many college indoctrinated folk now suffer from Democrat Derangement Syndrome.
The vast middle seems to be who both parties want to attract
Waal, when the electorate is evenly divided, they’re decisive, no matter how odd and unpredictable.
And, no, that hasn’t been the Democrats’ playbook. They’ve been on a ‘mobilize the base’ kick for about seven years, convinced that their partisans have a natural majority. Why do you think the sorosphere pushes tripe like ‘Black Lives Matter’?
Trump is a showman, not in the actor Ronald Reagan’s sense, but more in the P.T. Barnum style. He talked his way into the Manhattan real estate market, was a football team owner in an upstart league, a casino owner, and a fan of WWE to the point of being part of their in-your-face showmanship hype. He built a successful TV series and created the sticky marketing motto, “You’re fired!” as its and his calling card.
I originally supported Cruz, but converted to Trump by the time of the primary in my state. Even if he could have been elected, Cruz would not be as effective as Trump. Look at the Trump/Cruz affair regarding the insults to their wives. Whether you agreed with Trump’s reaction or not, who came out on top of that exchange?
Look at what Trump’s done with the border. His major campaign promise was to build the wall (and make Mexico pay for it). Congress refused him the funds for it, so he tried to change the immigration rules to something reasonable but was blocked by judges. so he transferred the wall funds from the DoD. Judges blocked him again, so he fought back while negotiating with Mexico and Honduras. So now Mexico is paying for our illegal immigration problem even if not the wall which is being built with the DoD funds. At the same time, he has pushed the countries of the problems’ origins, and that seems to be bearing fruit.
ANY other politician would have quietly folded, railed futilely against the unfairness, or ignored the judges’ orders, triggering a true constitutional crisis. I wish Cruz and Pence could learn from him, but I doubt it’s possible. Pinning my 2024 hopes on Nikki Haley.
L.E. Joiner: Your comment “Part of the humor is that President Trump is completely transparent. He does not dissemble; he speaks his mind, and usually it’s exactly what his supporters want to hear. And what they want to hear are the simple truths, the plain, obvious truths that politicians (of all stripes) are so fond of avoiding, eschewing, or contorting beyond recognition.” is excellent. President Trump enjoys being with regular people. He does not look down upon them the way so many politicians do. He interacts sincerely with them. And he respects them.
There are so many examples of this. Consider Salena Zito’s famous article about a Trump rally in Sept. 2016 in western PA: “The 70-year-old Republican nominee took his time walking from the green room toward the stage. He stopped to chat with the waiters, service workers, police officers, and other convention staffers facilitating the event. There were no selfies, no glad-handing for votes, no trailing television cameras. Out of view of the press, Trump warmly greets everyone he sees, asks how they are, and, when he can, asks for their names and what they do.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/
There are many other examples: stopping before entering a rally to greet and talk with the firemen just outside; halting a speech when he noticed someone had fallen over and asking for medical help, and then waiting until the help was complete before continuing the speech (so the medical staff would not be distracted by loud applause and noise from the crowd); while flying back to DC just before Christmas, stopping at the Secret Service base to greet each of the members, etc.
Maybe all politicians could benefit from a background in a rough and tumble competitive business. Such as being a real estate developer in the most competitive market in the world, New Yawk City.
Trump learned he had to outwork, outsmart, out-tough his competitors. At the same time, he was exposed to the working men and women who did the hard work of planning, financing, getting permits for, and constructing major projects. That kept him in touch with the “deplorables” who constitute his major support. He knows, as most politicians don’t, that those people have work ethics, character, and dreams that few career politicians understand. He’s open about that and it scares the Commies and Globalists who don’t care about the common citizens, only about their ideas for power and wealth.
The business of America is business. Without robust economic activity hopes and dreams die, and countries shrivel. Trump understands that, believes in it, and is willing to fight for it. And he is not intimidated by the MSM, the Dems, Hollywood, or academia. Is his style smooth? Nope. Is he statesmanlike? Nope. Is he a man of impeccable reputation? Nope. Does he get results? Yep. Do you know where he stands? Yep. Unbelievably, and I certainly didn’t support him until he won the nomination, he has turned out to be equal to the daunting task of combatting vicious attacks from his enemies since the day he won the election. To quote Lincoln about Grant: We need this man. He fights. Trump in 2020. Keep America Great!
JJ…the Grant quote is very apt.
The left have become rabid, hyper vitriolic, spittle dripping, by any means necessary, lunatics … and they know it.
But they grant themselves a plenary indulgence in this regard because they are at war they believe, with Neanderthals, who because of their primitive self-interest just cannot be brought to see the joys of being reduced to useful thralldom to the vanguard class.
This liberty is not of course meant to be reciprocal, and does not imply to the progressive “mind” that the Neanderthals should cease their “superstitious habit” of attributing human value and souls to the Progressives, nor stop treating the Progressive with a politeness, dignity, and respect which no Progressive could justify himself as being objectively entitled to.
It’s just that Progressivism works so much more smoothly, and looks so much more impressive when the deplorable cattle don’t dare to talk back.
You are so spot on Neo.
I am reminded of Lincoln’s response when confronted with U.S. Giant’s drinking: ” I can’t spare te man. He fights!
Sorry for typos
Trump speaks his mind plainly and does what he says he’s going to do. Why on earth would anyone be turned off by that kind of style? This is a POTUS we’re evaluating, not the nuances of the latest Chanel collection.
I agree with neo that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a person with with a smoother style and less caustic personality than President Trump who could achieve what he has done. But, I think the rage of the left and the never Trumpers is due to something very fundamental that we won’t truly understand for many years to come.
There’s no question that the Democrats have been demonizing Republicans for decades (from Truman calling Dewey a Nazi in 1948 on). However, the fever pitch hysteria about Trump among otherwise reasonable people is unprecedented. This is particularly surprising since prior to the election, Trump was consistently a moderate, supporting many Democrats and was never considered a hard right Republican like Cruz, Reagan, or Goldwater. In my case, I voted for him reluctantly because I was afraid he’d govern as Hillary-Lite.
I believe it’s highly likely he would have compromised again and again with the Democrats if they had not been so obnoxious and destructive. Clearly, politicians are far more adept and wheeling and dealing than I am, yet they did and continue to do everything possible to alienate him and to shut the door to reconciliation. Why have they been making that choice?
Based on the behavior of the media, politicians and deep state bureaucrats, I think they were planning some fundamental restructuring of the country to assure their absolute control now and into the future as a new class of aristocrats of pull (to borrow from Ayn Rand). Like the Rome of Augustus, the European Union and the Soviet Union, there would be elections and the dressings of representative government, but real power would lie with them. Further, I think they were far closer to reaching their goals than we ever imagined. All they needed was one more election victory and they could effectively disenfranchise the deplorables through massive immigration, gun control, censorship through control of both old and new media, grinding taxation, and oppressive regulations.
Now, my speculation about the goals of the politicians and bureaucrats has no more weight than the psychologists who claim to diagnose Trump from his tweets. But, if I’m right, it does explain the extraordinary viciousness of their reaction. They feel that they were on the very edge of achieving a fundamental change that would assure their security and power. This was an effort of generations, probably going back to Wilson and certainly to Gramsci. They could almost taste the sweet wine of victory as they brought the chalice to their lips, only to have it dashed aside by an orange haired lout and his horde of yokels from the hinterland*. Even worse, Trump was almost one of them. He was welcome in their salons because he used his money to buy influence, which they fully understood. He was a self financing court jester, providing entertainment to the elite and distracting the plebs with his antics.
Imagine the frustration and fury of people who have been thwarted after dedicating their entire lives to building their dream of absolute power and wealth, They had to suck up to the powers that be to get into the right schools, and to then get unpaid internships and low paying entry level jobs to position themselves in politics, journalism or the bureaucracy. At every step they have had to hollow themselves out by letting go of their ideals, looking aside when financial and sexual corruption was flaunted in their faces, abandoning their morals and compassion, and even forbidding themselves to speak truth, all in pursuit of the power they crave. But now their years of sacrifice and effort have been smashed in an instant. Instead of achieving their dreams of being Mandarins, they are the butt of jokes and derision by their inferiors. They thought they were the Masters of the World, and yet were laid low by a buffoon. More than anything else, I think the deflating of their over-inflated egos and recognition of their own impotence is the root of their rage.
We will actually be able to test my hypothesis if impeachment fails and Trump is re-elected in 2020. If I’m wrong and this “Resistance” is actually a revolt by the Elites and their lackeys against conservatives, we can expect the next step to be actual and open violence and terrorism. That is, having exhausted the soap box and the ballot box, they will turn to the ammo box. In turn, once it becomes clear that the cold civil war has turned hot, the deplorables will give as good as they get and I fear our nation will not survive.
On the other hand, if I’m right, these wanna be Elites will not be able to recruit a significant number of fighters and will be unwilling to die themselves. Their resistance will crumble by about 2022 in acrimony and bickering among themselves. Naturally, a new left wing party (calling itself Democrats or something else) will emerge as a counterweight to the right wing. Hopefully, it will be saner and healthier than its current manifestation.
(*I consider myself to be one the yokels from the hinterland.)
Roland Hirsch: You are absolutely right: Donald Trump is a contractor, and he has spent his life working with people who make and build and repair and maintain things, the things so many of us at desks and cubicles take mostly for granted. He understand, as perhaps no President ever has, that these are the people who make the country run, and who have been left behind in the rush of the elites to dump the ‘parochial’ values of main-street America in favor of a globalist vision of a world run by plutocrats and statists. Mr Trump speaks the language of Main Street, not that of Davos. /LEJ
Dave from NC: You are right that President Trump threatens to throw a monkey wrench into the smooth ambitions of the globalist elites, the ‘Mandarins’ as you call them. Simply by insisting on a wall on our southern border, and by challenging the outsourcing of American manufacturing to China, he has threatened the ambitions and the wealth of the ‘progressives’. Sundance at the Conservative Treehouse says, correctly I fear, that there are trillions of dollars at stake. My worry is that if push comes to shove—i.e. President Trump winning the 2020 election in the face of this phony ‘impeachment’—that their agents in the Deep State may resort to cruder methods. I hope the President is very well protected. /LEJ
Dave from NC: “That is, having exhausted the soap box and the ballot box, they will turn to the ammo box.”
Looking back to the 1960s and 70s when the left turned to violence to get their way, it took a while, but eventually enough blood was shed and property destroyed that the hot heads like Bill Ayers and others of his ilk turned to peaceful methods to get their way – subversion and quiet sabotage. The likes of ANTIFA have a lust for violence until more of their blood is shed than that of their opponents. They’ve had it pretty easy so far. If they think they can intimidate the military, they’ve got another think coming.
As long as law enforcement and the military stay true to the Constitution, the anarchists will not win.
I liken this time of political unrest to those days of the 1960s and 70s. I saw Los Angeles and Baltimore in flames. I saw policemen with German Shepherds and sub-machine guns patrolling the streets of Baltimore and D.C. I was in Chicago inside the Palmer House hotel the same day that an airline crew was savagely beaten on the streets out in front of the hotel. I laid over in San Francisco when the Zebra murders were taking place. As an airline pilot I was all over the country and saw a lot. I expect things could go that way again. Violence like that, when met with real pushback, eventually burns itself out.
Dave – excellent!
Trump still remains the only Republican with the guts to call out the news media for the lying, corrupt incompetents they are. And for that alone he deserves to be on Rushmore. His willingness to tell the truth about the press is unprecedented. And the benefits of his doing so will redound to the nation’s benefit long after he is gone. He has whipped the wicked witch when no other Republican had the guts to even Hope it might happen. Polls now show that no one believes them anymore. Thank Trump. The grossly biased but still trusted news media was the greatest strength the Left had. And it’s gone. No one else could have done it. No one else was even willing to try.
Irv on October 2, 2019 at 3:42 pm said:
We were and are facing an existential threat to our democratic republic from the far left. Trump is the only effective person stopping them. Complaining about his personal habits or style is like complaining that the lifeboat that’s picking you up out of the ocean doesn’t have seat cushions on the seats. Just think about the relative level of importance of those two things.
* * *
Very apt.
Harry on October 2, 2019 at 3:41 pm said:
..Could we at least have a moratorium of fawning admiration on any idea that Trump is some kind of mastermind genius hero of the Republic?
* * *
Could we at least quit mistaking Neo’s comment threads for The Conservative Treehouse’s?
I’ll sign on to Fractal’s treaty if you will.
For all the people harrumphing about Donald Trump’s style and demanding a more serious candidate, their own seriousness never rises above a student council presidency. To be fair, Neo doesn’t mention it in his entire post either.
Donald Trump cannot be separated from -policy-. It is the reason he stood a chance of winning election at all by conquering industrial states. It is the reason he is beloved by the American WORKING class. It is the reason that all the elites who have bet everything on China are screaming in rage and falling to new lows of civic disorder. Trump brought trade and immigration to the forefront. It is ludicrous to say that any politician since Ronald Reagan could or would have fought nearly as hard on these issues.
Or maybe it’s the fact a politically connected billionaire “killed himself” in a NY jail. What are NRO and the cucktail circuit so scared of?
Trump has visualized, organized, and successfully carried out large complex projects over and over again for years. He has done this in a world of crooked politicians and bureaucrats. His opposition is stuck in a zero sum world belief. Trump and his supporters understand the role of creativity in wealth creation.
Basic human nature may always create an Evil Party and a Stupid Party. Trump took over the Stupid Party, and brought his life experience in getting things done to politics. He is enjoying it. He does think the Democrats are mostly corrupt idiots and can honestly attack them endlessly.
He is a good person and has a big picture that guides him. His supporters sense this and will not be dissuaded. Any other Republican would have been destroyed at this time in history.
IMO he will take both houses in 2020. Historians in the future will call this period the Trump Restoration.
Dave from NC,
Agree 100%. I would add that their likely loss of the chance for a Supreme Court majority for years to come is the real crux of the matter. No wonder they are losing their minds! They need the court in order to undo the Constitution. That’s why gun control is such a big thing with them. If they can abolish the 2nd Amendment, the rest will go down like ninepins.
Stan,
Amen.
Interesting commentary. I just discovered this site from a Powerline link. I am a 53 year old woman with a degree in molecular biology. My husband, 55, runs his own small construction business.
I initially reluctantly supported Trump, but I would have considered voting for Lucifer if he were running against Hillary. His style was off-putting to me. I constantly wished he would just shut up. “You’re blowing it!”, I thought. My husband, however, was gung ho on the man. “No!” he said, “This is exactly what he needs to do. Tweet more, bring the fight to them!” As time went on I found myself endeared to Trump. I like his style and the hair on fire reaction it elicits. I think Neo is correct that these personality traits are inexorably linked. I am reminded of the Solzhenitsyn quote, “The battle line between good and evil lies through the heart of every man.”
And I agree with most of the posters here that results are most important; actions do indeed speak louder. I will proudly vote early and often for Trump in 2020.
Didn’t know much about Trump in 2015, but knew he was the one to open the door and let in the sun.
The outrage from all sides proved he was the proper person at the proper time
MAGA 2020
This ticks the deeper aspect of socio-cultural/political change over the past half-century– incredibly phony-baloney quota-hiring practices, elevating objectively inferior poseurs to over-compensated positions-of-influence despite all manner of disqualifications. Where “worse is better”, scum rises to the top.
Over time, this “Inverse selection” is a Kiss of Death– not what you do, but who you know because of what you are, blasts every aspect of competent performance at the root. Beneficiaries of this hyper-politicized charade know all too well that, in reality, their credentialed bona fides are nothing but Big Talk. So Status Anxiety ensues– the sense that any challenge whatsoever will commence a slippery slope to impecunious oblivion, and rightly so.
On this basis, vulnerable “diversity” hires, quota-babies of all stripes, react with extreme rancor to any perceived threat– in fact, to any non-complicit truth-teller at all. Soon enough, “perpetual incumbency” as institutional self-preservation of the unworthy subsumes all else… and after all, when one is simply a jumped-up poseur to begin with, what else is there?
Sooner or later, Reality bites down… once deadhead incompetents universally beclown themselves, their bubbles burst at any slightest prick. Living a lie, incumbent fools have no defense; and when they fall, as inane stupidity requires, baseless PCBS façades collapse upon themselves.
I happen to be old enough to remember how they treated Reagan. Now you will hear many in the Left speak of him with grudging respect but back then it was a constant everyday assault. Same with both Bushes and the utter destruction of Nixon.
In the meantime glorifying the guy that gave us the Bay of Pigs, resulting in nukes in Cuba and almost WWIII, that other guy that gave us Iran Hostages, the idiot who molested interns and the genius who gave us Obamacare.
I did not support Trump in the beginning, I was for Cruz, but now as far as I am concerned Trump is perfect!
Unfortunately I do not have a link but the first person to articulate the characteristics for a winning Republican candidate was Bill Whittle. He stated in a video in Dec 2012 that the person who would beat Dem candidate would emerge from a cultural milieu because that is the arena where Repub candidates were getting beat up. He didn’t mention any names of likely candidates but seemed to describe Trump.
I have great admiration for the President and would add to this discussion only two things.
First, this President cares about people as individuals and not as some amorphous thing known as “the people.” That is what distinguishes him from his immediate predecessors.
Second, like the President, I was born and raised in Queens. That explains him for me; we have scant patient for baloney and will react harshly if wronged or even if we believe we were wronged. And, exaggeration is our stock in trade.
I, too, was a Cruz supporter in 2016 but, frankly, I am thrilled that DJT is the man in the White House. The time had long since come that a President was elected who did not belong to the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party of which the President’s two bete noires were members — Paul Ryan and John McCain. That he is not a member of the club has driven the so-called elites insane. The real question is where will we find another like him.
The republicans have been rolled so many times in the past that they were round little balls with large Ls for “loser” printed on them, particularly the statesman pets who gave way when it mattered—I am thinking of the Bushes, Romney, McCain, and Bob Dole (the tax collector for the welfare state). Then came Trump, who has passed all expectations. He is a fighter, so when the Dem media types pull their usual baloney, they push him right and he punches them in the mouth.
They could have done so much better with honey than vinegar. Thank heaven they went with their natural, base inclinations. They have made Trump a better president than I ever dreamed he could be.
Reality check time. A lot of people on this thread keep lamenting the fact that our president isn’t Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz can’t win Ohio. (Ohio does not care for Bible Thumpers and he’s just not a likable guy. Nobody cares whether he knows the Constitution like the back of his hand or not.) And if he can’t win Ohio, he can’t win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin, either. And if he can’t win those states, he will never be president. Ted Cruz will never be the president of the United States.
You dance with the date you brought. With Biden’s self destructing campaign and Comrade Sanders permanently benched with a bad ticker, that leaves only one viable dance partner from the Left: Granny Warren, grandmother and founder of Occupy™. And DJT on the Right. After four years, we know what we’ll get with four more years of DJT. But Warren is not exactly an unknown quantity. While she’s been pretty much a do-nothing Senator, what I hear from her on the campaign trail is a whole n’other kettle of fish. Open Borders. Free basic income. Free heath-care. Free college… for illegal aliens as well. All she needs is 90% of your income. Her lying about her heritage aside, do we really want to be Venezuela? I don’t mean this to be a flippant question, but don’t think it can’t happen with enough (massive) voter fraud, this could become our reality. This undesired possibility is being considered seriously amongst Wall Street and other normally Left-leaning institutions.
The treatment of Judge Kavanaugh, as he sought to become a Justice and continuing to this days, renders all concern for Trump’s style moot.
HE FIGHTS! HE FIGHTS! HE FIGHTS! That is all I really need to know. It’s a bit of a trope, but the hero doesn’t always come in the form you expect (or want). It’s worth remembering King David was a murderous philanderer. I don’t have hero worship towards any man and certainly not the Donald (Well, Christ, but he was also God). On the other hand, I can appreciate the virtues in another separate from their vices. Not to get too biblical on you, but God’s purpose is often accomplished through a flawed vessel.
Any Republican would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices? I’m not so sure. I think each of the 16 Republican opponents defeated by Trump in the primaries would have wilted and capitulated under the withering fire unleashed on Kavanaugh. The only exception I can envision being Cruz. The appointment of Ginsburg’s successor will make Kavanaugh look like pre-school teasing.
Trump was the necessary man when it came to two things: The defeat of Hillary, and following the act of Barack Obama. Trump is undoing quite a lot of the progressive damage wreaked by the Obama administration. Not many Republicans would have the stomach for it. If one imagines it is only Trump who would have faced this much #Resistance, then one must have slept through Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush.
Any Republican would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices?
Over the last 60 years, Republican presidents have managed to persuade Congress to confirm 14 appointments to the Supreme Court. On contentious issues (for which responses are determined by one’s understanding of constitutional text and the role of judges in expounding on it), Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter turned out to be complete duds and sought to do real damage in their years on the court. Lewis Powell, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Anthony Kennedy gave the law professoriate what they wanted in regard to their top priorities, which in turn required gross exercises in intellectual dishonesty. The jury’s still out on John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The good ones have been Wm. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Three out of nine ain’t a great record.
NB, the last Democrat appointed to the Court who proved to be an occasional impediment to the law professoriate / NGO lawfare constituency was Byron White, who was confirmed in 1962. All seven appointed since have been reliable, though they differed on some granular issues.
There have been two issues of cardinal interest to lawfare artists where they haven’t gotten their way: denial of free speech rights to incorporated bodies likely to oppose the Democratic Party (Citizens United) and defining the ‘right of the people’ to keep and bear arms as something other than the personal right the language declares. And they’re in a rage about that.
L. E. Joiner on October 2, 2019 at 5:10 pm said:
.. President Trump does not dissemble. When he speaks, what people hear is plain and simple common sense.
That’s why I call him ‘The Common-Sense President’. For more, please see here: https://walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com/2019/02/26/the-common-sense-president/
* * *
Excellent essay!
If you are new to Neo’s blog, or late to this thread, I highly recommend it.
That video sealed the deal for me. He obviously was neither a clown nor a buffoon, although he sometimes seems to play one on Twitter.
Leland, you bet (about their hate of Kav), and you can add how the Left hounded Nick Sandman.
Dave from NC, very Gripping stuff, but I don’t see how you connect the stuff, about the Dems’ heartbreak after being so close to Mandarin Power, with your last part, about “wanna be Elites will not be able to recruit a significant number”, vs. “the next step to be actual and open violence”.
That is, why would the Elites will not be able to recruit a significant number
into violence, whether or not your main theory is correct?
What theory (about motives for this Dem tantrum) would have to supersede yours, in order for a Hot Civil War to emerge?
My take is that the style objections come from class bigotry combined with snobbery of thinking your own class is higher than it really is.
‘Or, you might hear a man say some equivalent of, “I want to find a woman who is intelligent and thinks for herself but doesn’t ever argue or disagree with me.” It’s not that such a thing is literally impossible to find. But those traits just don’t tend to go together.’
On that subject, there was a ‘Foto Funnies” (copy available upon request) in the October 1979 National Lampoon that has stayed with me for 40 years. It went like this.
Naked man and woman in bed. Sheets pulled up to waists. Man smoking. Woman speaking until last panel.
panel 1: You know what I really dig in a guy?
panel 2: I dig tenderness…
panel 3: And a lot of strength.
panel 4: And I dig a guy who’s really supportive but who’s still really out-front and completely honest with me, too. And really intelligent but not stuck-up about it…
panel 5: A guy who’s, like, cool and everything, but is still in touch with his emotions, and really assertive, but also gives me lots of my own space to be in…
panel 6: (man speaking) Look, you find a guy like that and *I’ll* f*** him!
NateWhilk:
LOL.
For aNanyMouse, thanks for your kind words. I left out a bunch of steps because I was already droning on way too long. Briefly, elites don’t make a revolution. Every revolution is made by a minority who seek to overthrow the existing system. To succeed, a revolution needs the hard men who enjoy fighting, terrorizing, and killing in sufficient numbers to cow the majority of people into not fighting back.
Remember Melissa Click at Mizzou asking, “Can I get some muscle here?” A real revolutionary would have swung a metal pipe at the journalist’s head herself. Revolutions fail without brutes like Stalin, Beria, Castro, Che, Wang Li and the Red Guards, Ernst Rohm and the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA), etc. to act as enforcers. Of course, antifada would love to be the new stormtroopers, but they are far to few and they face far too many of us who are armed and ready to fight back. This is why disarming Americans is the single most important goal for the would be revolutionaries. As long as many of us are armed, the cost of revolution is too high for most thugs.
These elites want to rule, but they don’t want to get down in the mud tossing bombs and smashing heads if there’s any chance they’ll be on the receiving end. They all want to be Chou En Lai or Joseph Goebbels, where they can organize and direct the massacres without getting dirty. Compared to successful thugs like the Mafia, MI-6, union enforcers, death squads, and the like, they are weak tea.
That’s why I think they will fold like a cheap suit if Trump succeeds in getting reelected. All their words, all the plans, and all their corruption of of society will be further discredited. Their glamour and sense of inevitability will be shattered. They thought they were building an edifice of control that would last the ages, instead they are ephemeral as a soap bubble.
If I’m wrong, they will fight viciously and we will see a civil war that will make the Balkans look like a schoolyard shoving match. If they do fight, so will we. If our nation is lucky, we may be able to keep the number of deaths under a million, but whatever emerges on the other side, it won’t be the America we remember.
I don’t know if they realize that if they manage to steal the 2020 election, or successfully impeach or assassinate Trump, things won’t go back to normal. They will have made it clear that they are grabbing power and condemning half the population to poverty and subservience. I don’t think we’ll take that very well. By playing their administrative and propaganda games successfully, they could trigger the same civil war that I fear, but with them at a tremendous disadvantage.
Sorry for the overlong answer to your question. It’s hard for me to get to the point.
Dave in NC, your “overlong” answer is super! All of this is too crucial, to be forced into sound-bites.
I gather, then, that you see the Elites’ current tantrums as being driven by an authentic emotional reaction to the shock of his victory (from which they’ll somewhat recover their senses, if he wins next year), rather than as an utterly- premeditated determination to sabotage the US, whenever they are forced to face that their Mandarin dream is good and dead.
Neo, the subject of this exchange with Dave in NC is of such importance, that I hope it spurs you to such reflections, as to inspire a whole new post, about the Elite Mentality and its possible evolution.