Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."
So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:
"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"
"Sure. We're going to look at everything."
"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"
"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."
"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"
"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."
"GooGooGooJoob?"
"I'll be looking into that."
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.
The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?
If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.
Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."
That depends on your definition of conservative.
Trump is aggressively for American jobs.
Who else is?
Ahhh, I understand now...it was unrequited love... Such as it is I suppose.
The Sabato article said Trump is going to have a trove of contradictory statements etc that ads will be made from. Also said in month before first primary in 2012 there were 3 different leaders and a fourth, different candidate won it.
When he talked about putting his liberal sister on the supreme court scared me.
His style of communication has worn on me. Don’t think he could turn it off to govern. He may be ready for national lampoon high school prez.
He says no to illegal immigration. He says no to big government. He says no to Obamacare. He says no to TPP. He says no to anti American proposals all over the map... Where in Heck do you get he says no? He likes Cruz...that won my respect.
Limited (U.S. Constitutional) government, individual rights, rule of law.
Trump fails. [Cool sloganeer though.]
Trump is for American jobs.
Nobody else is.
Oh lookie, another ineffective Trump hit piece!
You know what-Trump is the ONLY candidate to say an unequivocal NO to amnesty. If they get to stay, that equals amnesty and all others are either for this or are quite vague on the matter.
He agrees with Kelo "100%"; he supports government-paid-for universal healthcare.
Other than that... you're sorta correct.
Actually, I think you must projecting.
He is for competitive across State lines competition for health insurance.. Competition will lower costs.
boy are you rude. Bedtime?
My feelings only get worse about Trump. A few weeks ago I was defending him. He is HS prez material. Cannot control his mouth.
I agree. I am a supporter of Ted Cruz but the attacks on Trump by his own party are sleazy and remind me of the way the democrat party attacks conservatives.
What the elites in the Republican Party (Mitch, ex Boehner, Jeb, Riebes and fellow travelers) do not understand is the Republican Party is no longer the tool of the elites. The GOPe has more in common with Pelosi and Reed than they do in their voter base. We are taking our party back!
Next time get behind a better candidate - one that won't lose coming out of the gate and inspire you to become a neurotic PITA.
Maybe he’s changed. Last month he was for universal healthcare paid for by the government:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/
You are advocating for Cruz.
This sort of sniping is not good for your candidate.
Will you vote for Donald Trump when he is the Presidential nominee in November 2016 ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.