The Real Donald Trump

Trump4by Patricia L. Dickson5/15/16
The best indicator of someone’s truecharacter is how he treats others (employees, family, and friends) and whether or not he gives back to the community (time or resources).  We have learned Hillary Clinton’s true character from stories leaked from White House staff members, including the Secret Service agents.  When a candidate is running for the highest office in the land, we must put aside our biases and make an honest effort to seek factual information that will allow the electorate an opportunity to learn the person’s true character by presenting to them the “whole person.”

I have listened to pundits and other politicians as well as read dozens of articles about Donald Trump’s character ad nauseam.  The problem I have with the individuals who write and comment on Trump’s character is that none of them actually knows him or has ever sat down and had a conversation with him.

The narrative is that Donald Trump, a 69-year-old man, is a serial adulterer and philanderer.  This narrative was also repeated by Senator Ted Cruz when he unloaded on Trump during his meltdown the last day of his presidential campaign.  In fact, it has even been said that Trump would destroy the moral compass of the country should he win the White House.  If the president of the United States sets the moral compass of the nation, then we have failed miserably with our past presidents.  We have elected to the presidency Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama – foul-mouthed drug users, liars, and adulterers.  And those are the ones we learned about due to advances in media and technology that have enabled us to get information about their private lives.  Besides, it is the Church’s job to set the moral compass of society, not the president’s.

Exactly what parts of the Trump character narrative are true? Donald Trump has been married three times and is currently still married to his third wife.  He and his first wife, Ivana, have admitted that his adultery is what caused their divorce over twenty years ago.  There is no record that he has cheated on his second or his current wife.  So how it is that he is a serial adulterer?  Trump is also characterized as a serial philanderer due to his bragging about his sexual encounters on the Howard Stern show.  Although I do not condone adultery or fornication, Trump was a single man in the early seventies and part of the late nineties (his second divorce was finalized in 1999) until he married his current wife in 2005.  I don’t know of many heterosexual single young or middle-aged men who are not philandering, or at least trying to.  Trump had the advantage because he was a billionaire at a very young age.

I am appalled that most of the people attacking Trump’s character as a serial philanderer are men.  Currently, Trump appears to be happily married.  His children are well educated and successful, and they adore and respect him.  In addition, Trump has never drunk alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or taken drugs.  I know of many so-called Christians who cannot abstain from alcohol.

When listening to the media cover Trump or reading articles written about him, I notice that there is never any reference to the good deeds that he has done for others and his community.  There is also never any reporting of the positive character references given by people who know him personally, who work with him or have interacted with him.  The following are just a few of the omitted stories:

  • Lynne Patton, a black female executive at the Trump Organization, tells the inspiring story of how Trump and his family stood by her even when she fell into substance abuse.
  • The time when Trump saved a family’s farm from foreclosure, after the father had committed suicide, by paying off the mortgage.
  • Trump sent a $25,000 check to a  U.S. Marine to help him get back on his feet after Obama left him to rot in a Mexican jail.
  • When the NYPD did not have money in the budget to pay for fliers needed to catch a serial rapist, Trump donated the $40,000 needed.
  • When singer Jennifer Hudson’s mother, brother, and nephew were murdered, Trump allowed her and her family to stay at Trump Tower, free of charge, while making funeral arrangement.
  • Trump used his business acumen to prove how inefficient government is when he stepped in a saved Wollman Rinking, an ice-skating rink in Central Park.  After the NYC government spent six years and flushed $13 million down the drain at an attempt at total refurbishment of the rink, Trump took over the project without taking a profit and finished in less than four months at a cost of under $3 million.

Another Trump narrative is that he was a lifelong liberal Democrat until he decided to run for president.  I Googled Trump’s party affiliations, and all I could ever come up with publicly is him being a Republican.  As far back as 1988, Trump was being interviewed by Larry King at that year’s Republican convention.  There are several YouTube videos of him through the years talking about the same things he is talking about today: America’s unfair trade agreements with China and other countries.  In fact, Trump has been saying the same things for over thirty years.  He has appeared before Congress and been interviewed several times making these same comments.

He admitted to once being pro-choice back in 1999, and he has explained the circumstances that led him to change to pro-life.  It is reported that Ronald Reagan was once pro-choice as well.

As a businessman, Trump has donated to both Republicans and Democrats.  In fact, he has donated to more Republican candidates than Democrats.  Yet the narrative is that he has been a lifelong liberal Democrat.  Where is the evidence?

Donald Trump is an open book who has been in the public view since the 1980s.  Trump has always said he did not want to be president, and he has always hoped that someone else would step up and fix the problems he has been talking about for the past thirty years.  Yet no one came along.  When he announced his candidacy for the president of the United States, he said he had to do it because no one else will.

That fact that people are willing to outright lie about Trump or misstate his positions when there is so much about him available through the internet proves that people are either lazy or extremely biased.  According to Bobby Knight, the legendary coach of the Indiana Hoosiers, Trump is the most prepared man to enter the presidency.  If conservatives are so afraid that he’s going to revert back to his liberal policies, please tell me what those policies are.

PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1691 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to The Real Donald Trump

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We have learned Hillary Clinton’s true character from stories leaked from White House staff members, including the Secret Service agents.

    If you’re referring to, or including, Gary Aldrich’s Unlimited Access, I’ve read that. And assuming it’s accurate, the Clintons are the political equivalent of trailer trash.

    As for Trump, one of his advisers has said ”This words matter stuff is ridiculous.” Trump is also walking back his idea of halting all Islamic immigration calling it a mere “suggestion.”

    I don’t see how anyone who supports Trump can believe a word coming out of this guy’s mouth. The best case one can make for him is to keep Hillary out of office, cross your fingers, and hope he isn’t as bad as Hillary.

    And I’m still waiting for him to go after Hillary with the gusto he went after Ted Cruz or even Ben Carson.

    Also worrisome is the mob-like mentality behind many of his supporters, at least the ones you see writing online. Many just want to blow things up. I watched a very interesting two-part series on Netflix yesterday called The Great Train Robbery. The first part tells this story from the point of view of the robbers. The second from the point of view of the police.

    What was interesting was to see how the robbers were justifying their actions because they were “sticking it to the establishment,” as if having an establishment to protect property from hoodlums was a bad thing. I think this vibe runs throughout many Trump supporters and it is worrisome.

    I want the GOP Establishment ripped up but not the idea of an establishment. You can’t have law and order, justice, and liberty without an established order. But the GOP has become corrupt. The best description I’ve read lately of the difference between what I want and what, say, Paul Ryan wants was written by Andy McCarthy:

    At the risk of overgeneralization, I see the intramural fight in the party as between principled conservatives (who do not always agree among themselves) and Republican operatives who want to move the party in a politically progressive, Washington-centric direction — either for ideological reasons or, more often, because they think that’s how elections are won and power is amassed. I believe conservatives want to try to move the voters toward us; what’s commonly called the “establishment” wants to move the party to where it thinks the voters are in order to maintain power in Washington. My side thinks the Republican party should be a conservative vehicle; the other side thinks the Republican party should be a “pragmatic” vehicle with a conservative veneer — its main job being to win elections and control the spoils.

    Trump’s musings (and certainly you can’t call them political philosophy) on nearly any subject come off as evasive, incoherent, if not absolutely unintelligible. By all means, make the case that Hillary would be so bad that we must take our chance even on electing a game show host. But I think it is a tragic mistake to try to see the glass any more than a 1/3 full in the case of Trump. Let’s not make a habit out of lying to ourselves.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I mostly agree with your comments here, of course, but there are a couple of points I would make. For one thing, Trump’s point about certain policies being “suggestions” seems to be an indicator that he realizes that he can’t simply order things as President, but must persuade Congress to pass them (or what he can get of them). That’s actually a rare encouraging sign. For another, Trump is already hitting “crooked Hillary” in his own inimitable way. You may recall that he earlier got Slick Willie away from Slick Hilly’s campaign by pointing out his record of sexual abuse of women (e.g., Eileen McClellan, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Corbin Jones, and Kathleen Willey).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I’m quite sure that Trump’s followers didn’t join his cause because of mere “suggestions” of what he was going to do. And I seriously doubt that Trump or his advisers are showing an appreciate for the limits of presidential powers. I think he’s once again showing his slipperiness.

        The subject of Trump is like reading chicken entrails or a witch doctor throwing bones onto the dirt. You can read anything into him. I think that’s how he likes it.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          I’ve seen exactly this point made about his suggestions. But his discussions of this do reflect an awareness of the limits to his power — if you think he means it. And of course your last paragraph is just another similarity between Trump and Obama (at least the 2008 version).

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Who knows what this guy means? And that’s the point. He’s been so obviously all over the board, who can know what he would do? Who can know what any politician will do even in the best of times? But certainly Reagan followed through on his ideology. He didn’t try to fool anyone. But I don’t know how anyone could make any meaningful predictions about what Donald Trump would do. About all you can see is “He’s not Hillary.”

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Another Trump narrative is that he was a lifelong liberal Democrat until he decided to run for president. I Googled Trump’s party affiliations, and all I could ever come up with publicly is him being a Republican.

    In February this year, I supplied the information below.

    Until 1987 Trump was a registered Democrat.
    From 1987-1999 he was a registered Republican
    From 1999-2001 he was with the Reform Party
    From 2001 to 2009 he was again a Democrat
    From 2009-2011 he was again a Republican
    From 2011-2012 he was an Independent
    From 2012 to now he is again a Republican

    As I mentioned in February, I think this list simply shows Trump is an opportunist or in fact a Trumpocrat.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I hate to say this of a valued contributor here (valued by me as well as others), but Patricia’s case is very one-sided. To be sure, it may well be that the charge of philandering, at least as infidelity, may be exaggerated; the news media can be trusted above all to lie. (Consider, as she never would, the news source that ran a poll asking if Cruz might be Zodiac — whose murders began before Cruz was even born. Naturally, once the question was asked, some people would consider it a real possibility — why else would they ask?)

      On the other hand, she mentions Cruz melting down without mentioning the reason — Trump’s insinuation that Cruz’s father was part of the (probably non-existent; Lee Harvey Oswald was too much the loner to conspire with anyone) plot against JFK.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        she mentions Cruz melting down without mentioning the reason — Trump’s insinuation that Cruz’s father was part of the (probably non-existent; Lee Harvey Oswald was too much the loner to conspire with anyone) plot against JFK.

        Why would Cruz have a melt-down? All Trump did was hint that Cruz’s father was a conspirator with, perhaps, the most infamous American of the 2oth century. I mean, really, how could that offend anyone?

        Why would Cruz, be offended when Trump threatened to “spill the beans” on his wife, thereby insinuating there is something to spill the beans over, i.e. that there is some immoral or illegal action to be exposed.

        Why would Cruz be irritated when Trump insulted Heidi’s looks? What husband would be expected to stand up and protect his wife? How quaint.

        Of course the Trumpkins understand why Cruz was so upset. They are simply too dishonest (OK some are simply obtuse) to admit that any criticism of The Donald (especially honest and true criticism) is anathema to the Church of Trump.

      • GHG says:

        I don’t think the “one-sidedness” of Patricia’s article was intended to give the complete picture of Trump. I think she clearly states that most of the stories about him intend to paint a negative picture so her article is intended to balance that.

    • Rosalys says:

      Or maybe he’s just not ideologically attached to any one party.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        If this is the case, then remain an Independent. One simply doesn’t change political parties the way one changes one’s socks. Or should I say wives? (Yes I am using a little hyperbole with the socks comparison.)

        However, this was not the main point of my post. That was to refute the spurious claim, to wit;

        Another Trump narrative is that he was a lifelong liberal Democrat until he decided to run for president. I Googled Trump’s party affiliations, and all I could ever come up with publicly is him being a Republican.

        It was rather easy to obtain the information which I supplied. The point is…when covering something or someone, we should all try to get the information correct. Only then can one truly develop an informed opinion. Even with a load of information it can be difficult, so how much more difficult is this with false or faulty information?

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    How many wives does it take to qualify as a “serial adulterer?”

    You write,

    The problem I have with the individuals who write and comment on Trump’s character is that none of them actually knows him

    Yet you later claim,

    Trump has never drunk alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or taken drugs.

    How is your claim any different from what you condemn about others’ claims? Are you a close personal friend of Donald who has associated with him over the last fifty years that you can speak so definitively?

    I can fully understand people supporting Trump as the lesser of two evils. But I am baffled by the lengths to which people will go to put this man on a pedestal. It is quite disturbing. Have our values dropped so precipitously?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Frankly, I would prefer a stoner president if he understood the Constitution, was a friend to liberty, and had a richly developed conservative philosophy of government. No, I don’t completely separate out someone’s personal character from their politics. This kind of “compartmentilization” is dishonest, at best. It matters that people aren’t dirt bags.

      But Donald Trump may have been a choir boy and never dropped an f-bomb and that matters not one whit in the face of the fact that he is so wildly shallow on issues of policy. And when he does have an opinion on something, it changes.

      I don’t like or dislike Donald Trump because of his personal morality (or lack of same), although I don’t find it to be of particular benefit. The problem with Trump is that his egomaniacal, ham-fisted, petulant personality — combined with his often wildly incoherent or just simplistic thoughts on policy — is not a good match for the highest office in the land. The final straw that breaks the camel’s back is his almost unswerving devotion to Progressive ideas. That seems to be his natural inclination, not conservatism.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I would prefer a stoner president if he understood the Constitution

        What was the guy’s name, Gary Johnson? Ex-governor of New Mexico.

      • Rosalys says:

        “Frankly, I would prefer a stoner president if he understood the Constitution, was a friend to liberty…”

        I thought you didn’t like Libertarians?

        “…and had a richly developed conservative philosophy of government.”

        There are very few of those people left. What is a Conservative anyway? All sorts of people are calling themselves Conservatives nowadays. Even Missing Linc Chaffee tried to claim to be a Conservative! I think the Conservative name is in the process of being coopted by those who in no way wish to conserve anything (as the name Liberal was coopted by those who in no way stand for liberty) – because leftists destroy everything, even language – in order to hide their true selves, or to destroy the Conservative brand.

        I like two definitions, myself. One comes from David Limbaugh, written in that piece recommended by you, Brad:

        “Conservatism is not just a set of ideas, but a philosophy toward governance. It is grounded in a belief in unalienable rights from God that are enshrined in the Constitution and its scheme of limited government that guarantees our liberties like no other nation in world history.”

        The other comes from John C. Wright:

        “Conservatism is summed up in seven ideas. They are, in order: 1. truth, 2. virtue, 3. beauty, 4. reason, 5. romance, 6. liberty, 7. salvation.”

        Taken together, this second, moral definition could perhaps keep the first, political definition from morphing into some ugly, twisted shadow of its former self.

  4. Patricia L. Dickson says:

    Please tell me Mr. Kung Fu Zu, where you got your supposed list of Trump’s Political Party affiliations. If you got it from wikipedia, you should know that it is not accurate because anyone (including you and I) can edit it.

    Also, you failed to mention WHY Trump even brought Rafeal Cruz up in the first place. The day before the Indiana, Rafeal Cruz told a group of supporters that the choice was between good and evil and that Trump was basically the devil and his son Ted was chosen by God. That is nothing but self-righteous slandering. Trump had not said anything about Rafeal Cruz. So, Trump fired back by mentioning an article about him in the National Enquirer. Everyone that Trump has attacked has always attacked him first. However, the media only reports Trump’s counter attack as though he attacked first.

    Cruz had a meltdown on Hannity’s radio show and on meet The Press with Chuck Todds as well, blaming the media for Trump’s success and his failure. This is a democracy where voters choose the nominee. Trump won fair and square. The voters chose Trump, plain and simple. Cruz did not have crossover appeal to win the general election to begin with.

    I keep hearing the repeated lie that Trump has not been specific or consistent on his policies. If anyone really wanted to know where he stood on his policies, all he or she would have to do is go to his website and read them just like Cruz’s policies were on his site.

    As for the discussion about conservatism, I told a radio audience last week that there has not been a conservative in DC since Reagan left. If it had, how is it that we have run up a 10T dollar debt in under eight years? All of a sudden we are pretending that we want to ensure we keep conservative principles. That is nothing but a joke. The fight is now Nationalism vs Globalism. Everyone currently in DC (including Ted Cruz) is for Globalism. Only Trump and the majority of Americans (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) are for Nationalism. It is no longer political parties. It is now America first. Whether you agree with it or not, that is why Trump won and will win the general election.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This has certainly been a vicious campaign season on all sides, but Trump is in a class by himself when it comes to vicious personal attacks on everyone who gets in his way at all. It helps that the National Enquirer is run by a big supporter, which gives him some convenient smears on occasion.

      Meanwhile, I will point out that the task of unifying the party after Trump’s win isn’t made any easier by claiming (e.g.) that the Colorado convention involved no voter input (in fact, voters chose country delegates at the March 1 precinct caucuses, and the county delegates later chose the delegates to the state and district conventions) and were nothing but a fix for Cruz (the rules haven’t changed in decades, but Cruz’s campaign paid attention and Trump’s didn’t).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      As for the discussion about conservatism, I told a radio audience last week that there has not been a conservative in DC since Reagan left. If it had, how is it that we have run up a 10T dollar debt in under eight years? All of a sudden we are pretending that we want to ensure we keep conservative principles.

      Patricia, I think that’s a disingenuous argument, at best. I’ll grant you that there are many so-called conservative voters who keep voting in these Big Government types. That’s a big problem. But unlike what Trump’s advisor recently said, words do mean things. “Conservatism” is a word, just like “apple,” and it’s still conservatism even if some people are call it a banana. You surely know that.

      As for the policy positions on Trump’s web site, they sure aren’t coming out of his mouth. Perhaps it’s unfair to repeat the rumor that he has neither wrote them or read them. But from what comes out of his mouth, it sure seems like it.

      Also, you failed to mention WHY Trump even brought Rafeal Cruz up in the first place. The day before the Indiana, Rafeal Cruz told a group of supporters that the choice was between good and evil and that Trump was basically the devil and his son Ted was chosen by God.

      Patricia, you have an unwavering need to uphold Trump in all things. I think there is a choice between good and evil in this election: the evil of Progressivism/socialism or the good of limited-government American-style conservatism. Unfortunately, the latter is not on the menu.

      And because Rafael Cruz is supportive of his son, what does it say about a man who would repeat such a clearly and disturbingly bizarre theory about Rafael Cruz and Oswald? Only a disturbed mind could come up with that.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The attacks on Heidi Cruz (who did NOT attack Trump; he assumed without evidence that an anti-Trump Super PAC was coordinating illegally with Cruz when it presented publicly available photos of his wife as a model, and attacked Heidi in “response”) and Rafael Cruz combined with Trump’s decision to turn his Colorado failure into a victory by smearing Cruz (for outdoing his campaign) and the state and national party to change me from preferring to Cruz to Trump (but being ready to vote for Trump if he won the nomination) t wondering if I actually prefer The Donald to the Fire Witch. (Probably, but he and many of his more thuggish supporters make that increasingly difficult.)

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Well said, Timothy. I went into this primary season with an open mind on everyone but Jeb Bush. I never leaned toward Kasich or Christie, and Carly never impressed me as anything but an affirmative action mark-up who did damage to HP because of this. But Cruz liked her. Maybe I was wrong. But I didn’t put a pencil through any name but that of Jeb Bush.

          I was the near perfect blank slate in regards to Trump. You hear about how hard it is to find impartial jurors when a case comes up regarding a major celebrity. Everyone knows who O.J. was, for example. And if they didn’t could they really be qualified to sit on a jury? Absent spending time on a lunar colony or in a monastery, you have to wonder what people are doing if they remain so blinkered.

          But I remained so blinkered about Trump. Other than a general impression of him as another blow-hard in a pop media culture full of them, I didn’t have much of an impression of him either way. I knew he was rich. But I had no idea he was on his third wife or that his current wife was so beautiful. I had no idea he screwed many people in his business dealings (a trait generally shared by all mega-successful businessmen). I had no idea he built strip joints. And I had no idea he attended the Clintons’ wedding.

          I was open to being sold. But he didn’t. He proved himself time after time to be a relatively shallow man. Probe him beyond the generalities and there doesn’t seem to be anything there. And the weight of his pomposity always seems to land him on the Left no matter how conservative he says he is.

          I realize our choice this election cycle is between bad and worse. And with Trump’s propensity to say really stupid things, it’s a real tossup who would be worse, Trump or Hillary. Neither is remotely qualified to be president, just from an emotional, knowledge, corruption, and temperamental point of view. I’m not even talking ideology. As much as I dislike Joe Biden, I think he could manage the office of the presidency very well. He would know which buttons to push.

          But Hillary’s competence is very highly over-rated. Other than a skill with victimology and raging feminist rhetoric, she wrecks nearly everything she touches.

          And with Trump we have only rhetoric to go by. He has never been in elective office. He is trying to make the highest office in the land, and in the world, his apprenticeship. So it matters what he says. And the preponderance of what he has said — quite apart from any character issues — is little better than babble. And given his propensity to waffle, there is little reason to believe that what he says today will influence in the least what he does tomorrow.

          An honest appraisal of Trump — or perhaps just an optimistic one — would say that he’d likely draw from a more conservative group of advisers and cabinet officers because they’d (presumably) be coming from in and around the Republican Party. And even if he doesn’t, could he really be as bad or corrupt as Hillary?

          And that, in the end, is about the most one can honestly say about the man. There is no way to know how he would act as president because he has not shown any consistent philosophy of governance other than forwarding his own massive ego. And when there has been a thread, it has tended toward the Progressive view of politics and culture.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Very early, I rated Kasich and Bush as candidates I would be hard-pressed to support even if they won the nomination. Trump is, at best, very close to that now, due to a long train of abuses.

            Incidentally, your point about people who have no idea who someone like O. J. is reminds me of a parody I did in FOSFAX. It had Hillary and Rush facing off in the 2008 election, with 45% of the electorate committed to each candidate — so the 10% who had never heard of either decided the election.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I was working in an office at the time of the O.J. trial with a woman who cried tears of joy when the decision came down in the favor of the murderer.

              There’s a damn good reason I disengage from much of vacuous pop culture. The way some people live their lives through it is unbecoming of an American…or a human being, for that matter.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Please tell me Mr. Kung Fu Zu, where you got your supposed list of Trump’s Political Party affiliations. If you got it from wikipedia, you should know that it is not accurate because anyone (including you and I) can edit it.

      The Washington Post ran a story on June 6, 2015 which stated Trump had changed parties at least 5 times. This story was apparently based on a site which searches public documents for its reports. It has been about a year since this story was published and I have not heard Trump or any of his minions deny the contents.

      There is another story by CBS News reporting how toward the end of 2011, Trump changed from Republican to Independent. He changed back to Republican in 2012.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The fight is now Nationalism vs Globalism. Everyone currently in DC (including Ted Cruz) is for Globalism. Only Trump and the majority of Americans (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) are for Nationalism. It is no longer political parties. It is now America first. Whether you agree with it or not, that is why Trump won and will win the general election.

      Here is a sample of Trump’s “Nationalism”.

      Trump spouts a lot of “prop-America” verbiage, but his past actions do not indicate that he will back it up. More importantly, I find the content of his “Make America Great Again” spiel, does not begin to address the root problems.

      Has anyone heard Trump promising to rein-in the EPA, OHSA, the SEC, IRS and other bureaucracies? Has anyone heard him promise to stop the expansion of the Federal Register, which grows at something like 5,000 pages per year? Has he uttered anything about getting government off the backs of small businesses?

      And when one looks at his other claims, it becomes clear that much it is nonsense. For example, I have heard he wants to pay for the wall on the US/Mexican border by deducting funds from remittances made by illegals in the USA to their countries of origin. How is he going to do this? Executive order? That is illegal. Get the Congress to pass a law? Even if he could, the law would be challenged and go before the Supreme Court. Does anyone seriously believe the Supreme Court would allow the country to unilaterally take money from people without cause?

      What Trump is talking about is some sort of currency control. This is something one saw in third-world countries thirty or forty years ago. Is the USA going to go down to that level?

      Trump makes other claims which are equally vacuous.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        It is no longer political parties. It is now America first.

        I like what you said. But let me expand on that, Mr. Kung.

        America first in what? First in liberty? Great. As one prominent writer mentioned, Trump doesn’t mention the word, liberty, in his speeches.

        First in manufacturing? Great. Has Trump talked about getting to the core of the real problem? Government regulation, taxation, and the various menacing federal agencies that make planning a business activity more difficult?

        First in education? Great. As Mr. Kung mentioned, has he mentioned getting rid of the Dept. of Education? Has he mentioned the horrible political correctness that is stifling universities? If he has, he needs to mention it again and again and again.

        First in the sciences. Great. Has he mentioned how the fraud of global warming has corrupted much of science?

        First in jobs for Americans. I couldn’t agree more. Illegal aliens should not receive benefits or be able to work without a proper worker’s permit. They should be starved out. But, again, the vexing problem regarding stagnant wages for the middle class stems from too much government, too much crony capitalism, and too much extra-governmental agencies that increase the cost of everything and make it hard for businesses to pay higher wages.

        First in national defense? Great. But from his lips pour the most incoherent, even embarrassing, thoughts regarding foreign policy.

        First in demagoguery and playing to the gullible masses, some of whom have a legitimate reason to be angry? Check, check, and check again.

        Being angry or feeling like a victim does not entitle one to lose one’s good judgment. I can understand anyone voting for Trump because they think Hillary would be worse. But to try to elevate Trump to a candidate who represents anything but holding your nose and voting is not a worthy effort for a conservative.

  5. GHG says:

    There are many who view Trump’s vicious attacks as evidence that he is unfit to be president. If this were a generation ago, or even just 8 years ago I would be in that camp. But the reality as I see it is the game has changed. Civility, collegiality and all the niceties of the past are not a requirement for the job, they are a roadblock, as unfortunate as that is. This is a war of cultures and the objective is defeat the enemy – not be gentlemanly. Trump is an alley brawler and the only one capable of defeating the witch, which is more important than archaic decorum.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Civility, collegiality and all the niceties of the past are not a requirement for the job, they are a roadblock, as unfortunate as that is. This is a war of cultures and the objective is defeat the enemy – not be gentlemanly.

      Mr. Lesser, for me Trump’s rhetoric isn’t a problem because he doesn’t pass the civility test. I think it hurts him because it doesn’t pass the “man worthy of holding the nuclear trigger” test. He is mercurial, temperamental, vindictive, and wholly absorbed with himself. His press conferences are all about telling us about how he looked or did. And his remarks regarding Putin and other affairs of the world either put him as delusional or just dangerously naive.

      Listen, this idea that the house is on fire therefore we need to blow up the barn too is a really stupid one. Because the GOP Establishment is corrupt is absolutely no reason to hire a vapid game show host as the leader of the free world.

      But I’m with you in regards to needing a strong leader who is willing to engage the culture wars from the right. And that’s where Trump’s largest failure lies. The man couldn’t even condemn Planned Parenthood nor the stupid gender wars regarding bathrooms. He’s a demagogue and will tell any crowd what they want to here. He is basically a different kind of RINO (Republican in Name Only).

      It’s a bizarre circumstance to me that we have become such a shallow and petulant culture that we throw our hands up in stated disgust at the RINO Republicans and then choose at the prospective leader of the party someone who is very arguable even less Republican.

      Face it. The voters screwed up. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, need to think seriously about a do-over.

  6. GHG says:

    The culture war is being lost in large part because the political correct police make it impossible to counter the leftward plunge. Trump is the only political figure is sight who has a chance to blow that up. To me, that’s worth the baggage that he brings.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      What is politically correct about Trump? Nothing. As Dennis Prager correctly notes about that phrase:

      …the very definition of “politically correct” is “that which is acceptable to the Left”; and the definition of “politically incorrect” is “that which is unacceptable to the Left.”

      The man won’t mention the Left by name. You can’t blow something up that you don’t name. He brings no more understanding to the subject of political correctness than your average Joe on the street who shares Trump’s New York Values, which are Progressive values. And I know a few of those who say they are tired of political correctness and yet have no idea what that means.

      Trump is skimming above the surface of the problem just like every other RINO. He won’t condemn Planned Parenthood or the ridiculousness of gender fantasies.

      Ann Coulter got all goo-goo eyed over Chris Christie because, in trying to balance his state’s budget, he took a whack at the teacher’s union. But he isn’t anti-union. She was fooled about who Christie is just like all of you are fooled about who Trump is.

      What is disturbing is to see conservatives become like the Left who look to their leaders for the validation of their emotional pain. And that’s about all you or anyone can say about Trump “He’ll blow it all up.” And that’s another way of saying, “He’s a vent for my anger.”

      Look at what this type of thinking has gotten so many liberals like those living in Detroit or anywhere else predominantly run by liberals. They have the psychological satisfaction of being told by “their side” that them other guys are bad but we’ll take care of you.

      Have we become such passive twits ourselves that we need to look to a pompous game show host for validation, even one who shares much more with the Left than he does with Ronald Reagan?

      This is truly the theatre of the absurd. And I refuse to ratify it. We are stuck with two bad choices for the leader of the free world. All we can do is try to put lipstick on this pig which is ironic because Sarah Palin has sided with the pig.

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a good article by Dennis Prager: Why Don’t Republicans Name the Enemy?

    But Republicans focus their ire on individuals — Barack Obama, and now Hillary Clinton — as if they individually, not the Left and leftism, are the problem. Think, for example, about how much conservatives attack Political Correctness. They are, of course, right to do so. But all these attacks are almost meaningless, since they never mention the source of Political Correctness — the Left. In fact, the very definition of “politically correct” is “that which is acceptable to the Left”; and the definition of “politically incorrect” is “that which is unacceptable to the Left.”

    In other words, virtually no one — from Bloomberg and Koch to the entire conservative and Republican worlds — connects the dots. If Donald Trump becomes, as is expected, the Republican nominee, he will probably never mention the Left. He may not even know that it is a factor, let alone the factor, in America’s decline from the greatness he wishes to restore.

    Here’s another great article, this one by David French: Blame Parents for Millennials’ Laughable Fragility

    I don’t expect Trump to deal with any of this. As they say, unless you can name the problem, you can’t fix it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      All we can do is hope, and after 8 years of Barry Screwtape Obama, we really don’t like having to rely on that. But the rioters against Trump events may help him see who the enemy is, just as he does with the jihadists. (Incidentally, I responded to Prager’s comments on Town Hall, pointing out that I had been linking liberalism to IngSoc for over a decade.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The problem with people such as Trump is that they lack introspection. They are blind fishies swimming in the fishbowl unaware of the water. Those on the Left are notorious for living in their bubble, oblivious to other points of view. Their point of view just seems utterly natural and normal.

        They have no way of talking about the Left because they do not understand the game being played. Hillary probably does, or at least she is a committed player in the game. Trump is not, at least as a devoted adversary of Hillary and her type.

        On the other hand, listen to Ronald Reagan. He was very well aware of who the Left was and what their goals were. Yes, we need to “blow things up.” But dynamite placed at random by people who don’t know the first thing about engineering will only create a bigger mess.

  8. Timothy Lane says:

    For what it’s worth, Donald Trump has finally released his list of suggested SCOTUS nominees, including the brother of Senator Mike Lee of Utah. His proposed choices have been praised by both Charles Grassley and the head of Cato, so they probably really are good choices. The list is available at this link:

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I will need to hear the opinions of others such as Andrew Napolitano, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin as well as those of the Federal Society and Heritage Society. I would also like to hear from some Bush picks who were filibustered, especially Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, if they are still with us.

      I would have liked to have Michael Luttig named as one of the possible nominees.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One of Trump’s proposed nominees, according to Hot Air, was in fact one of the judges filibustered by the Demagogues, though he finally made it on the Gang of 16 compromise. NRO (which is reflexively anti-Trump) also seems to have praised them.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      “The Art of the Deal” lingers in my mind. Who would he really nominate if president?

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I understand your skepticism. Your average dishonest politician would be boxing himself in by releasing such a list. But Trump likes to brag about being different and flexible. Who really knows if he would actually appoint one of the judges mentioned on the list?

        As far as the list goes, Pryor appears to be a true constitutionalist, but he went after Justice Moore a bit to aggressively for my tastes.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Gary Trudeau (sorry, Justin Trudeau) sounds like a preview of Trump:

    Yet the prime minister got all hot and bothered by this situation. Why? Maybe he was tired. Maybe he wanted to get things moving in an orderly fashion. Maybe he thought the opposition parties were stalling the vote on purpose.

    Whatever the reason, Mr. Trudeau then acted in a reprehensible fashion more befitting a petulant child than of a national leader. His short fuse, which many of us have heard about over the years in private (and thought was gone), was suddenly on public display.

    First, he jumped out of his seat and marched toward the opposition benches. Second, he grabbed Mr. Brown by the arm to get him past the mini-mob. Third, he reportedly told some New Democrats to “get the f*** out of the way.” Fourth, as he was dragging the Conservative whip against his will, he elbowed a NDP MP, Ruth Ellen Brosseau, and went back to the government side amid wild cheering from Liberal MPs.

    Naturally, I’m not going to suggest that Mr. Trudeau’s elbowing of Ms. Brosseau was similar to something you would see in the National Hockey League. But she was understandably shaken up by this incident, and briefly left the Commons floor.

    Mr. Trudeau headed back to the opposition benches, presumably to catch up and speak with Ms. Brosseau. He was then confronted by NDP leader Tom Mulcair, who was heard saying, “What kind of man elbows a woman? It’s pathetic! You’re pathetic!” This led to a bench-clearing brawl in the Commons (if I can use another hockey analogy), and threw the country – and social media – into a tizzy for the rest of the day. It’s been covered by the BBC, Associated Press, and New York Times, among others.

    This “Prime Minister” barely looks old enough to shave. What a weird fetish the Canadians have with the Trudeaus. About as bad as our obsession with the Bushes and Clintons.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Not to mention the Kennedys, especially in or near the People’s Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Makes one wish Preston Brooks were in the Canadian Parliament with a cane ready for Trudeau.

      The old elbow in the chest was somehow symbolic. This is how an avowed male “feminist” handles women in these days of equality. On the other hand, one suspects the female MP is something of a feminist herself, so she shouldn’t expect males to treat her with any more respect or tenderness than they treat each other.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Of course, Brooks was angry because of what Senator Sumner said about his uncle (Senator Hammond, I believe). Referring to “the harlot slavery” was a bit harsh.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Whether it be the myth of Camelot or a nice high on dope one had in one’s youth, I think people are often voting for a dreamy idealism. How else can you explain this kid being prime minister of Canada or Jerry Brown as governor of California?

        Christians take a lot of grief, their faith being equated to believing in a “flying spaghetti monster” or something like that. But at least they have magnificent reality as a backdrop which inherently justifies an extraordinary explanation. But what is the excuse for the serial gullibility of these libtards as they seemingly try and try to recreate that drug-addled time in their lives when they were free from responsibility? Their soupy and blinkered idealism is a faith anchored in nothing but self-absorption.

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a good article by David French: Trump Supporters Who Taunt Conservatives Only Reign Over Ruins

    Every political campaign requires compromise, but the extent to which Donald Trump’s “conservative” supporters abandoned one core tenet of their ideology and morality after another to advance their man — and themselves — was breathtaking.

    Men and women who had demanded consistent conservatism embraced a candidate who flip-flopped by the hour. Former advocates of individual liberty cheered a man who proudly advocated rollbacks of critical constitutional liberties. Champions of limited government shrugged their shoulders at Trump’s embrace of the entitlement state and call for state-run health care. Critics who had spent years decrying the dishonesty of the Clintons and the lawlessness of Obama wrapped both arms around a shameless liar who pledged executive actions that would make even Loretta Lynch blush.

    After scorning an Obama foreign policy built on a combination of hard-left ideology and hopeless naïveté, Trump’s supporters embraced a foreign policy built on a combination of bluster, insanity, and ignorance. It’s intolerable that Obama met with Iranian leaders. It’s fine that Trump is willing to meet with Kim Jong Un. Critics of Obama’s stagnant recovery shrugged their shoulders as a reality-TV star spewed threats to start trade wars and declared his willingness to default on American debt — two policies that would devastate working-class American families, Trump’s alleged core constituency.

    Conservatives who expressed outrage at Democratic name-calling and incivility are proud to back a man who mocks people with disabilities, spews insults at any woman who crosses him, turns on fellow Republicans with a viciousness never seen in primary politics, and peddles bizarre conspiracy theories. Obama said that Republicans “cling” to guns and religion, and these people howled with outrage. Trump said that fellow Republicans lied their way into a deadly war, and his people were unmoved. Men and women who decried identity politics knowingly and gleefully stoked online mobs of white supremacists to threaten and intimidate Trump’s critics.

    But no matter. Trump was winning, and when Trump was winning they were winning. Consequently, we learned that their much-vaunted conservatism was a mere means to an end. Virtually every character defect or ideological blind spot they condemned in others, they overlooked or even justified in Trump.

    The human soul is often torn between ambition and principle. Are you willing to be a mere foot soldier in a movement that preserves individual liberty and restores constitutional governance, or a general in a movement that replaces one lawless leader with another? The question is easier to answer in the abstract, harder in the real world. A ragtag coalition of trolls, gadflies, and fading conservative stars chose the latter, and they won.

    I’m reminded of John Milton’s Paradise Lost, an epic work that grasps the truth not just about the war in the heavens between good and evil, but also the war in our own souls. Are we willing to die to ourselves? Or do we declare, “To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heav’n”? While humans are incapable of creating heaven on earth, we’re quite adept at creating our own infernos. And when naked ambition dictates that you support liars, frauds, con men, and demagogues, then you take giant leaps on the road to hell — without even the excuse of good intentions.

  11. Timothy Lane says:

    There’s an article in The American Spectator (linked to in Hot Air, which is how I came across it), “The Thinking Man’s Guide to Donald Trump” by Don Surber, which gives a good argument for supporting Trump from someone who, as a conservative, was initially disinclined to take Trump seriously. In particular, he argues that Trump has all the characteristics of a good leader — including keeping his word, as indicated by other businessmen who trust him after all this time (such as T. Boone Pickens). If so, it would be very important for those of us concerned not so much with Trump’s stated positions, but whether he would keep his promises. The link is:

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I understand the attraction of the cult of dynamism. Particularly in our hyperactive media and entertainment age, there may be little room left for a Silent Cal type of leader. People who I thought were otherwise fairly thoughtful, such as Jeffrey Lord, have gone off the deep end, seduced, presumably, by the power and excitement of pure dynamism, regardless of where that dynamism is headed or what it represents. Power indeed is very seductive. I get that.

      And I find articles such as this to be the equivalent of thumb-sucking. People are trying to convince themselves that Trump is someone other than who he is.

      And almost all those points, with minor revisions to apply to a different time, would apply to Hitler:

      1) Inspires and motives others. Check. A value-neutral concept. Inspires them to do what?

      2) Displays high integrity and honesty. I think that many of the businessmen that Hitler dealt with would say the same thing about him. They needed him and he needed them to rebuild Germany. And he was fairly honest about his ideology, both in his speeches and in “Mein Kampf.”

      3) Solved problems and analyzes issues. Again, another value-neutral concept. In Hitler’s time there was “the Jewish problem” which he solved with aplomb.

      4) Drives for results. Ditto. Value neutral.

      5) Communicates powerfully and prolifically. I suppose this is a matter of taste. I saw through Obama immediately as the leftwing ideologue that he was. And Trump’s speeches simply show a shallow man out of his depth. But to each his own. But, again, in terms of powerful speaking, Hitler was heads and tails above Trump.

      6) Builds Relationships. Check. Hitler was very good at that. Again, another value-neutral concept. Build relationship with whom and for what purpose?

      7) Displays technical or professional expertise. Well, Hitler was apparently the first major political figure to make use of the airplane for his political barnstorming. And he, and his staff, made masterful use of the technology of the time, both in terms of armaments and propaganda.

      8) Displays a strategic perspective. This isn’t so much value-neutral as pure fluff. Very few people go around “displaying an unstrategic perspective.” They just do stupid or destructive things, whether they planned on it or not.

      9) Develops others. Check. Again, value neutral. Hitler sure developed a lot of Hitler Youth, for example.

      10) Innovates. Check. Value neutral.

      And the worst of all from this clown:

      Bonus: Champions change.

      How could anyone live through eight years of Obama’s “hope and change,” not to mention the previous decades of “change for change’s sake” of the Left, and even write such vapid words? Before Jonah left the fight, he wrote some very wise words about this in “Liberal Fascism.” Surber ought to read it.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        How could anyone live through eight years of Obama’s “hope and change,” not to mention the previous decades of “change for change’s sake” of the Left, and even write such vapid words?

        Wouldn’t it be nice if Trump promised to turn back the clock to when America was a sane country, by following the constitution? That’s change I could live with.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        With regard to point 7, Hitler was also quick to see the advantage of the mobile warfare taught by Heinz Guderian, and apparently had a phenomenal command of details in military affairs (the strength of an autodidact).

        My main concern was the idea that Trump has a history of keeping his promises, given what he’s promised to do. Let’s be real — it’s going to be Trump or the Fire Witch, so any indication that Trump won’t be quite as bad as we fear is encouraging.

  12. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The idealist in me hopes this was not a pre-planned stunt. Until I hear otherwise, I will credit Trump for being genuine. This reflects well on him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s certainly in stark contrast to our America-hating, white-hating, Marxist president who can’t be bothered to wear an American flag on his lapel.

  13. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This article shows one of the main causes of job loss in the USA. It is TECHNOLOGY. I think this example is very apt. While there will no doubt be new jobs created in the drone business, it is doubtful that they will be anything near the number of jobs which this technology replaces.

    When discussing this point with others, I often use the example of what the electric calculator did to employment in accounting operations. Last week, I was speaking to a man who was the CFO of a large multinational company which had its headquarters in this area. He mentioned that when he started working for the company in the 1960’s there were something like 2,000 employees in the accounting dept. When he left some 15-20 years ago, there were only about 200, and the corporation had grown.

    What is Trump going to do about this?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Welfare/socialism (which gives a disincentive to gainful employment) and Big Government (which makes it hard and/or expensive to do business) are the largest reasons for job loss (really…the lack of the creation of jobs…jobs are not like apples that automatically appear on trees).

      Automation has been going on for a couple centuries now and industry is booming because of it. Certainly some individual sectors will grow while some shrink but the overall trend has been toward a job for anyone who is willing to work for it.

      The free market (such as it exists these days) is no panacea. But it has led to the bettering of people’s lives despite the Dickensian images that still endure of people slaving away in factories. The reality is they were not slaves and that overall they were escaping much worse conditions.

      Certainly the natives are restless because of the flood of illegal aliens. Surely much of Trump’s appeal is this sort of nativism, not unjustified. I see this unassimilated flood as bad because it is ruinous to our idea of a culture which particularly includes the idea of the rule of law. We do not want to become a banana republic with tin-pot tyrants such as Obama who govern by mere whim.

      The reality is probably more complicated. The Dems want the voters the GOP wants cheap (and, perhaps more importantly, willing labor). The baloney line from the Left is that these illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” There can be much truth to that. But it doesn’t justify the entry of an illegal alien into our country.

      But I do think they are likely doing jobs that most American yutes won’t do now. These little precious snowflakes now demand to start at the top. And the general rot of the Left, welfare, the victimhood mentality, etc., means that when people are working they are often doing so grudgingly and giving the minimal effort possible.

      So it’s one thing to talk about automation as a trend, particularly as it blazes new trails and creates industries and possibilities that never existed before, such as the invention of the integrated circuit or the airplane. But I have to believe, slight cynic that I am, that it is on the minds of Big Business to automate-away the low-skill, low-cooperation American worker. And, frankly, I can’t blame them.

      What this will inevitably do is create a permanent underclass….which is what we have now to a large extent anyway. I read an article the other day that said a firm majority of people (I forget the numbers) would rather order their meals at a restaurant via automation rather than deal with a human being.

      In theory, this automation will simply continue the growth of opportunities via technology. The Luddites of England were right in the short-term. A number of jobs in the clothing mills were lost. But long-term, automation was a boon to employment in the overall.

      But that was in an economy where people wanted to work, they wanted to improve their situation. In our present economy who can disagree with the statement that an increasing number of people simply “want” without feeling the commitment to have to earn anything? These people will still fulfill some function in society, if only as Democrat voters. But I can foresee business giving up on the American worker (and system) as they have already.

      Nativist Donald may say he’ll do something. But he has not spoken one rational word on the subject. If you want to create new jobs in America, you have to get rid of the obstacles that are preventing businesses from doing so and obliterate the disincentives to gainful employment. No amount of haranguing China, new tariffs, or defaulting on loans will do that. And I think people should understand the kind of destructive demagogue that Trump is. And if dispensing with “political correctness” is key to this, as many naive Trumpsters believe, then they should be watching for him to speak out against global warming, socialism, victimhood, environmental wacko-ism, and excessive government taxes and regulation.

      Don’t hold your breath.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, Trump has discussed the effects of taxes and regulation on the economy (and employment) on occasion, though not as much as he discusses tariffs and illegal immigration. Incidentally, the latest employment report was a “gain” of 38,000 jobs.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          We should be glad that employment is up. If those numbers are real. And in the Orwellian misinformation state we’re living in now to a great extent, skepticism is due.

          Trump is crashing in with words of demagoguery about how he’s going to fix things without showing the required knowledge of how things work in the first place. In his world, his ego and sheer will-to-power were what “fixed things.” And that can be a huge factor in the success of a business. Steve Jobs was arguably California’s #1 asshole with an ego and obnoxious personality to go with it. But in the realm of private business, it worked well.

          But government works a bit differently. That doesn’t mean the same skills in business are irrelevant. Any businessman has to understand his market, the rules of the game, the need for results, the need to provide leadership, the need for reality-based approaches (a CEO, unlike a president, can’t survive for long on mere rhetoric), etc. All of these skills are very transferable to the presidency.

          But the government and the economy are different things. And until Trump can show he has a basic understanding, we’ll likely get Jimmy Carter II. Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, had a working and reality-based theory for how the economy worked, for why it wasn’t working under Carter, and how to fix it. But the fix was difficult. It took time. There were about 2-1/2 excruciating years until his new policies showed results, and then the results were spectacular for years after that. But his theory was sound. There was no magic, only hard work and patience.

          Does Trump even mention the word “Reagan”? I haven’t heard it. He shows no sign that he knows the least about how an economy works. He shows every sign that the thinks just snapping his fingers and shoving his weight around will do the trick. That is a recipe for a disaster.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            What’s needed in government officials are 2 things: a proper vision (which we here believe comes from modern conservatism) and the ability to manage the government so that the vision is put into place. Some years ago, I concluded that businessmen generally were very weak in the first respect, though good in the second. Selecting businessmen as assistants who put through the ideas of whoever’s in charge would work well. A few (such as Steve Forbes) might be good in charge.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I can see why someone in business might be short of the vision is takes (or what we might call “political philosophy”). In business, political philosophy might even be mocked, for what use it to the bottom line?

              But without a good political philosophy (or perhaps even a bad one), one will just be governing by the seat of one’s pants, anchored to little more than polls.

  14. Timothy Lane says:

    Jonah Goldberg has one of his weekend pieces, which will appear tomorrow on NRO but was available to me today in my e-mail. He discusses the liberal mobs rioting against Trump, and points out the persistence for decades of the liberal attitude that violence as a means of political coercion (i.e., terrorism, though he doesn’t use the term) is acceptable for them (whatever helps the Cause is good, whatever harms the Cause is bad) even as they complain about even the theoretical possibility of conservative violence.

    In particular, he sees Trump as liberals (and GOP Beltway Bandits) reaping the whirlwind that they sowed by smearing the Tea Party movement until it effectively collapsed. (He even quotes the relevant Biblical verse, Hosea 8:7.) I would note myself (and may do so tomorrow) that this is another example of the argument Richard Scammon and Ben J. Wattenberg made in The Real Majority regarding the issue of violent crime: When you confront a basically moderate person with an immoderate situation, you can get an immoderate response.

    The link unfortunately was only to my e-mail, so I can’t give it at present. No doubt anyone interested can get the NRO link tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

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