Classiness is Nice, but Not Essential in a President

PresidentialSealby FJ Rocca8/20/15
We live in a dangerous world. It seems to me it was a lot less dangerous during the Cold War, when the probability of nuclear war was in inverse ration to the possibility. The greater the weaponry, the possibility grew; but this reduced the prospect of ultimate world destruction to virtual impossibility.

The two giants who dominated these mathematical predictions were, of course, the US and the Soviet Union. Each had its coalition of allies, the US with the free West and the USSR with its Eastern European Bloc. When the Cold War ended, largely by Reagan’s brash insistence on vast American military superiority, Russia imploded, its economy in shambles after unaffordable spending on military hardware. Maintaining its huge military forces and wasting enormous sums on prosecuting its failed war in Afghanistan caused its ruin. The US emerged not only the strongest, but the most feared and respected nation arguably in all of human history.

But since that time, the insane Leftist notion that power among nations must be equalized in some grand gesture of egalitarian generosity has reduced the prestige and might of the US in global affairs. The steady effort by its internal enemies to propagandize American evils and equate its achievements with greed and lusty hegemony have succeeded to a great extent. Through the false narrative of the Left, that is met with tepidly polite and often clever aphorisms from the Right, Americans have been compromised into believing we are not still strong or right in our cultural superiority to the rest of the world. Yet outside the US, our dominance continues to be proven through imitation. American culture is still the model in everything from political policy to popular music to movie style to television quiz shows. People from these countries still suffer hardships and danger to come here and become a part of our free nation.

In little more than a year we will face perhaps the most important national election in modern US history. In one way or another it will be definitive, a game changer. If we choose carelessly, we could elect a leader that, on one extreme, destroys American culture through limitless immigration of third world escapees and the complete dissolution of our economy and self-determination as a nation, and a powerhouse Commander-in-Chief who will fearlessly take apart the welfare state and revitalize our military. The first kind of President will put America—and us with it—into a grave of collectivist ideology, which could include the corruption of our carefully constructed laws, which are based on self-direction and freedom of the individual, into a messy elaboration of feudal principles, with the cataclysmic specter of Sharia possibly thrown into the mix. The second kind of President will enable us to reject the false idol of Leftism and replace it once again with the true ideal of Americanism, the very philosophy that made our nation great in the first place.

A true leader will not be elected in a contest of polite dissertation. The Left is not polite. The left lies, cheats and steals to maintain power. Indeed, the Left does not even believe in itself. It believes in power. How can the Right combat the powerful lies and fraud of the Left with polite protestation, with classy repartee? No one can make  peace with the crude power of Leftist Political Correctness. Compromise is impossible with the Left. It can only be destroyed through vigorous and very impolite action. The Left shout us down. We must do no less than shout them loudly down slap them firmly into submission. One cannot compromise with liars. We must destroy and defeat them, speak endlessly against their evils and, in November of 2015, we must vote them into non-existence.

We need an impolite warrior in the White House. I am not necessarily advocating a vote for Donald Trump, but I will confess that it was gratifying to watch him slap down the impudence of Bret Baier, Megan Kelly and Chris Wallace. Yes, he could have done it less crudely, but their obvious agenda was to knock him off the podium in order to rehabilitate their real favorite, the badly sagging Jeb Bush.  Trump effectively shut them up to shut them down. And he didn’t wait to craft his words. He warned them, threatened them, and reminded them that he and not they set the agenda. And in so doing, he also reminded them and us, that WE are the ones to set the agenda, not the Left and not the RINOs of Fox News.

Trump reminded me a little of Gingrich in the 2012 debates. Unlike Gingrich, Trump will not be defeated by RINO money. But like Gingrich, Trump will not be defeated by timidity that afflicts too many in the Republican field. They’ve learned, too. Many are now trying to emulate Trump’s loud toughness. But on most of them it is just a veneer.The RINO Right want a moderate. They are still stupid enough not to recognize that the anger of the American people will prevail with someone like Trump and not with a moderate like Bush. The proof is in the pudding. They got a polite moderate in Romney. Enough said about that.

Do we have anyone on the roster with Trump’s gumption, who will not talk to our enemies but cut them down with a broadsword? Christie is a loudmouth, but he appears to be nothing more than an empty suit with typically moderate policies. Preacher Huckabee, whose name alone conjures fire and brimstone, might lift a sword and even swing it once or twice, but he’d swing it with religious fervor, not smart policy. Scott Walker is too quiet and resembles the school kid who always raises his hand and waits to be called upon before he says anything. Marco Rubio is smart, maybe too smart. You may recall that he once favored amnesty for illegals on the curiously Pelosi-like rationale that we had to make them legal in order to find them. Rand Paul is plenty angry, but his anger seems diffuse, aimed at his rivals rather than at the true enemies within. But in my estimation, they are just not leaders.

Carly Fiorina is classy, more polite and polished than Donald Trump, and no less tough. She is becoming a noticeable personality in the Republican field. But she took the feminist position on Trump’s handling of Megan Kelly. She may have been right to do so in polite circles, but she cannot afford to be polite in dealing with Hillary Clinton. And she is somewhat cautious about some things, for example the “anchor baby” question. No doubt, she could wield a sword with power and even a little glee, but would she? Ben Carson is a nice, very classy man, who couldn’t even lift a sword, much less wield one. Dr. Carson is not a wimp, but he seems too classy a gentleman to hold up the hard policies we need to restore our culture to greatness. We don’t need gentleness any more than we need classiness.

This brings us back to Donald Trump. Refreshingly impolite, he challenges the status quo from a position of experience on its opposite side, having admittedly bought politicians, including Hillary Clinton. His opponents accuse him of not having policy positions, but he has already presented a dynamic package of tax reform and business recreation, as well as a tenable position on illegal immigration. And Americans like what he says about everything from e-verify to close interpretation of the 14th Amendment. He doesn’t use political jargon. His is the argot of American common language, which at times causes him to run his words together. But he gets his message across and curiously, without many catchwords or phrases. He says simply, that we must make American great again, and to this people cheer. Trump’s remarks against Megan Kelly were crude, but, honestly, who cares? Being polite to Megan Kelly, an unimportant talking head, who does nothing for American policy, is meaningless. Nobody wants a polite warrior.

Trump could have been classy and not insulted Kellly, but classiness is subordinate to the exercise of power and we need someone who will courageously confront the enemy, within and without. Trump has already proven that he is a force not easily reckoned with. As President, he would prove an action oriented leader whose impoliteness cuts in two the Gordian Knot of Political Correctness. And that is what we need. We cannot tolerate a wimp in the Oval Office. We need a warrior who will no longer be polite to our enemies, within or without, but will slay them with the sword of the American idea.


FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com. • (916 views)

Share
FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Classiness is Nice, but Not Essential in a President

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    But she took the feminist position on Trump’s handling of Megan Kelly. She may have been right to do so in polite circles, but she cannot afford to be polite in dealing with Hillary Clinton.

    Noting that my opinions are always subject to change due to new information, I’m not impressed by Carly. She was fired as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. I wonder if she didn’t rise to the level that affirmative action allowed. Here’s a quote from Wiki: “The company’s stock jumped on news of her departure, adding almost three billion dollars to the value of HP in a single day.”

    Wow. If that is true, there are some unwritten stories there. Beware of Carly. And her website makes it abundantly clear that she’s not running for President but running for the office of First Woman President. She’s a woman. And she’ll never let you forget it. Beware.

    but he [Carson] seems too classy a gentleman to hold up the hard policies we need to restore our culture to greatness.

    Ben Carson at least has real achievements to his name. And I can’t remember where I read this fairly recently, but it defined Establishment Republicans as those for whom lively debate and real political differences was just not what gentleman do. [On the other hand, Rush just report that Carson said that we need armed drones patrolling the border, so maybe he does have a little brass.]

    So we need to eek out what “classy” means in this regard. I think Carson probably is of the mindset that real gentlemen don’t have disagreements. They work for “unity,” they “compromise,” they kumbaya. And that means melting instantly into things as they are now.

    Michael Medved is a GOP Establishment lackey. He had Ted Cruz on his radio program yesterday and asked him something like “How can you get things done as president if you can’t work with Congress?” And Michael had a hard time hearing Ted’s answer which was “The definition of ‘getting things done’ and ‘working together’ in Washington means growing government. But there is another way to ‘work with Congress’ and that is to do what Ronald Reagan did which was to go directly to the American people who then pressured their Congressman to support Reagan for fear of losing their jobs.”

    It was a good answer, and one that Medved had a very hard time understanding or dealing with. And so we first have to understand that “classy,” much likes “works well with Congress,” is self-defined by vested interests as “going along to get along,” a point Cruz made as well.

    Sure, Trump is brash. But what we need to understand is that politics-as-usual is all one gigantic theatre of well-practiced lies. It’s all a stage of falsehood. We’ve gotten so used to it, it does seem quite brash if someone doesn’t use the same language as the insiders, of The Ruling Class.

    And don’t look for Carly to break with this. Only three people have realistically done so: Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Bobby Jindal (who, unlike Fat Boy, certainly did not play grab-ass with Obama).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We need an impolite warrior in the White House. I am not necessarily advocating a vote for Donald Trump, but I will confess that it was gratifying to watch him slap down the impudence of Bret Baier, Megan Kelly and Chris Wallace. Yes, he could have done it less crudely, but their obvious agenda was to knock him off the podium in order to rehabilitate their real favorite, the badly sagging Jeb Bush. 

    Rush played a clip today of Trump absolutely trashing Jeb Bush. He took him on for his weakness on illegal aliens (Bush had called illegal aliens “compassionate” for breaking the law). And he nailed him (perhaps a bit out of context) for Jeb saying we need “skin in the game” before getting involved in Iraq. Just wasted him. Double-barrels. And he hit him hard on “women’s health.” I don’t know what Jeb said about “women’s health.” And I’m certainly not against “women’s health.” But, in practice, that means I have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s promiscuity.

    But that’s Trump. He’s certainly going to play to the “Reagan Democrats” if only because he is one. And I like that he’s taken the fight to the journalistic tramp, Megyn Kelly, and her type. Go Trump!

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    George Neumayr has as article that makes some terrific points: The Big Tent Republican They Don’t Like. And I’ll put it here, because of what Neumayr says in the last paragraph that I’ve quoted:

    In a way, Trump has hoist them by their own petard. For years, they touted the importance of bringing idiosyncratic Republicans into the Big Tent. Now they have one on center stage and they don’t know what to do with him. Having dismissed the value of adherence to the party’s platform, they find it difficult to call Trump out for departures from it. They find it easier to level politically correct criticism at him, which ends up inoculating him against serious conservative scrutiny. . . .

    Primary voters will not reject Trump for his alleged nativism, but they might reject him for his statism, both past and present. Of course, that would require his opponents to highlight it, which they appear loath to do, as many of them share it. When Trump boasts that “Democrats will love” him for the way he would “take care” of women and the poor, they feel less concern than envy. They don’t question the big-government premises of such declarations; they too would like to see themselves as a “conservative with a heart,” which is Trump’s description of himself.

    Under George W. Bush, conservatives learned the meaning of this compassionate conservatism: a federal government just as bloated as the one under the Democrats. One would think Trump’s opponents, just out of political opportunism, might warn conservatives about the bitter surprises and disappointments in store for them under a Trump administration. But even with an opening as large as the one presented by Trump’s past support for a special wealth tax, they don’t take it. They would prefer to carp about his “tone” and other trifles.

    Be sure to read this. Neumayr’s last paragraph (not quoted) in the article is an astute bit of political reasoning and shows a rare awareness of the situation. I might indeed throw up my hands and support a fighter, even if he is a somewhat liberal Democrat. As Neumayr says, “if the party is going to lose it might as well lose with the boldest in the bunch.”

    A commentor (oldfashionedfellow) has a nice summing-up himself:

    The source of the anger from Trump supporters isn’t just about decades of failure and or capitulation on every issue of note to a conservative. No, it’s revealed in two telling respects.

    Jeff Sessions remarked that he had never seen the GOP fight as hard for anything, as it did recently to pass Obama’s trade deals. Set aside the merits of the bills, and contrast their efforts in that case with the typical, but nonetheless infuriating complacency of the same people when video evidence of PP in the baby organ trade came to light. Where the GOP refused to defund, because that might have meant shutting down the government, and looking unreasonable….

    What Trump supporters can glean from this in regard to the spine of the GOP establishment, is that when money and support from their big money donors is at stake, they’ll fight like the devil himself, but when it’s innocent life in question…..nothing but acquiescence to evil.

    Nothing could more clearly display what it is that really matters to the Establishment GOP; not human life, but money and power.

    I think that well describes the vapid, immoral core of the Establishment GOP. One reason they swipe so hard at the Trump types (and any outsider) is to try to disguise the fact (if only to themselves) that they are Voldemort.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A neat article. I especially liked his point that Trump’s moderate-to-liberal deviations don’t hurt him because his Establishment critics actually agree with him on those issues. (Cruz doesn’t, but Cruz has chosen not to attack Trump.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yeah. That agreement on many of the issues creates a real quandary for Establishment Republican candidates. Let ’em squirm, Trump, and then we’ll figure out later whether you or Biden will do the least harm.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    It would be nice to have a classy president — but no Democrat is classy, and whoever runs had better be fully prepared to deal with that. Perhaps what we need is someone who can be classy — but also knows when and how to brawl. The basic problem with Establishment Republicans is that they can’t bring themselves to brawl with the other party’s members (though they sometimes are ready to brawl with their intra-party foes, as was the case with Mitt Romney).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The basic problem with Establishment Republicans is that they can’t bring themselves to brawl with the other party’s members

      I agree. That’s a big feature of Establishment Republicanism…although we should note they have no problem brawling with conservatives.

      My Mac’s definition of “classy” is: stylish and sophisticated. Remember when the boob, David Brooks, drooled over the tight pants creases of Obama? This is why “classy” has little positive meaning in terms of picking a candidate.

      That doesn’t mean we want a crude one. But “crude” will always be defined in the near term as those who expose and disagree with the Ruling Class or Leftist beliefs about this country. It was indeed “crude” for Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut because she was complaining to a Congressional committee (of some type..hardly matters what type) that her sex life was so active, she couldn’t afford to pay for her own birth control.” But Rush was also spot-on.

      Trump could see his support bleed away fast with this “women’s health” stuff, because most conservatives understand that “women’s health” means other people paying for women’s birth control and abortions. And they know it’s just pandering to feminism. Does anyone worry about men’s health? Don’t men’s lives matter? (Thus we see feminism and Cultural Marxism rooted here.) Although he got some good shots in at Jeb, this is one that could backfire.

      But I think conservatives are looking for a fighter and are willing to overlook a certain amount of unorthodoxy. How much is the question. But then for the last couple of decades, conservatives have become well-practiced at overlooking the obvious problems with the core ideology of candidates and squinting just enough to pretend they are conservative. And we resent having to do that. So any swipes that Trump takes against the Republican Establishment are probably going to continue to score points, especially if he continues to play Punch-and-Judy with Jeb Bush who, like most vapid Establishment Republicans, probably believes that Trump’s “harsh tone” will turn everyone off.

      But when has a “harsh tone” ever disqualified Democrats? This “new tone” that GOP traitor and infiltrator, Karl Rove, instituted in George W. Bush’s presidency is something we’re still paying the price for. “New tone” means not defending yourself and thus letting yourself be defined by your opponents. Anyone here believe Trump will be this kind of passive punching bag? No, I didn’t think so.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Trump is no conservative, but neither are Christie, Kasich, or Bush (at least by current standards). Several others are debatable.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I was listening to Medved right now (and to a speech by Bernie Sanders) and both are basically saying: We need to unify and have government fix the problems that need solving. Most people see the political process as being broken.

          I think that’s a fair summing-up. So what that Bernie wants a $15.00 minimum wage and Michael might have a different goal. This is what you tend to get from Establishment Republicans. They’re not specific. They just say “Give us the power, we’ll fix things.”

          And I have little doubt that most Americans are attuned to that message…and we all have different definitions of what is broken and why. But at least in the Republican primaries, the diminishing portion of the country who is aware of this vast political con game are flexing their muscles now, and that muscle supports Trump.

          Whether Trump turns out to be just another con (or far more liberal and statist than conservatives can stomach) remains to be scene. But it’s interesting that “tone” has been trashed as something one must stick to, an idea that yours truly has been screaming about for years.

      • David Ray says:

        Poor pampered little slut Sandra. She found out that all that coddling yielded only a brief illusion.
        She could only attract a handful to hear her drone on at her “rally” in a parking lot. (Michelle Malkin observed that the DNC couldn’t spare any bussed in supporters that day)
        She also could only attract just a handful of voters in California.

        And so ended her 15 minutes of fame.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    In little more than a year we will face perhaps the most important national election in modern US history. In one way or another it will be definitive, a game changer. If we choose carelessly, we could elect a leader that, on one extreme, destroys American culture through limitless immigration of third world escapees and the complete dissolution of our economy and self-determination as a nation, and a powerhouse Commander-in-Chief who will fearlessly take apart the welfare state and revitalize our military. The first kind of President will put America—and us with it—into a grave of collectivist ideology, which could include the corruption of our carefully constructed laws, which are based on self-direction and freedom of the individual, into a messy elaboration of feudal principles, with the cataclysmic specter of Sharia possibly thrown into the mix. The second kind of President will enable us to reject the false idol of Leftism and replace it once again with the true ideal of Americanism, the very philosophy that made our nation great in the first place.

    One of the hard realities to face, Frank, is that in 2008 we had such an election. Not the John McCain was the reincarnation of government-cutting Calvin Coolidge. But America did indeed vote for the America-hating collectivist and then re-elected him.

    The choice has already been made. The hard reality for conservative Americans to swallow is that we are already, and have been for some time, a “fundamentally transformed” nation. And with so many people collecting “free stuff” from the government in one form or another, there is zero chance that anyone will significantly stop the rot anytime soon.

    As Rush often notes, in order to change any of this, one must first run on a conservative platform so that one does have a mandate for reforming the welfare state and some of the other problems (such as illegal aliens). And, as Rush notes, it’s very very difficult for a presidential candidate to come on the scene and sell this ideology once every four years when your typical low-information-voter is being fed Progressive ideology in schools, TV, the news, and movies every single day of every single year. (Such people are called “interns” at National Review Online, for example.)

    What we face is something much deeper than politics. We are indeed involved in a cultural war. And we’re losing. We could put Calvin Coolidge in there tomorrow and, at best, we’d get a little slowing down of things.

    By all means, someone disagree with me and give me a little hope (even false hope would do). But the roots of all this are far deeper than any one election cycle. Or two. Or three.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      To be fair to the voters, Slick Barry ran as a moderate in 2008 — criticizing McCain for taxing the more extensive plans in his medical reforms (which Obama proceeded to do in his own) and emphasizing racial unity (which he tossed aside as soon as he was in power). He was the only Demagogue with a proposed medical reform plan that didn’t mandate buying insurance (which he proceeded to adop in his own afterward). It’s understandable that people who don’t follow politics sufficiently could be fooled. Re-electing him in 2012 was another matter.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I suppose that’s why they’re called “low-information voters.” One would think there is a minimal moral and patriotic obligation to do one’s homework. Hitler wrote “Mein Kampf.” He was no secret. Neither was Obama.

        And “to be fair,” the Republican challenger (in either campaign) did not set the recored straight. So what is the average American supposed to gauge from that except that the abnormal is normal?

  6. David Ray says:

    Prime Minister Ben & I have something in common; we’d both be thankful for something other than a narcissistic lunch-money-victim who negotiates with our enemies armed with knee-pads & mouthwash.
    (Also if I recall correctly, Hillary shrugged off that 3:am phone call from Bengali. After all . . . her & B Hussein had more pressing priorities in Vegas.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *