Posted on 12/08/2015 3:36:55 PM PST by LS
For those of you who have been reading these semi-regular editorials, if you put them in a collection you'll probably have my next book, a campaign biography of Trump.
In July I began to see a unique phenomenon in American politics---someone who was quite different than John Anderson, George Wallace, or Ross Perot: a serious candidate (as defined by wanting, and actually expecting to win) who was self funding, but without any party structure whatsoever.
This has never happened before in the modern political era. Wallace, Anderson, Perot, and Nader all had rump breakaway parties from the mainstream parties, or, in Perot's and Nader's cases, a new grassroots organization. But Trump, while operating somewhat within the labels of the Republicans (and partly as an obligation to a pledge they made him sign early---remember that?) has in one sense a party and in another sense no party at all.
I have, in previous essays, reviewed the history of the Trump campaign through about November. Early on, I came to a conclusion that Rush Limbaugh has recently begun hitting in a serious way (he also intuited it early), namely that Trump is not only impervious to press criticism, but like the stuff in Captain America's shield, seems coated with a substance that sends it back to the sender more powerfully than when it came in.
Some of this was his familiarity with hard-knuckle business dealings combined with the backbiting world of television media from his 'Apprentice' show. (The stories he could tell about that, I'm sure, would be legendary). This is an astoundingly unique background for any of our current political crop, almost all of whom are career pols. Even Ted Cruz, by far the best of all the "traditional" politicians, has not had much of a life outside of elected or appointed office.
So by his very background, Trump brought a different set of values and strategy to politics. (One could have said the same for Carson, but his scattershot philosophy never seemed to find a theme and he personally seemed incapable of a good fight, despite his life history). What Rush alluded to, and what I have been dwelling on for months, is that Trump is a master of both the new media with Twitter/Facebook and the traditional media. This in itself is odd, because the traditional media hates him, yet gives him about 1/3 of all political air times in its total of some 800+ hours of coverage so far! More than 250 hours of coverage have been on Trump, with Hillary (the media's favorite) coming in second at around 200 hours, meaning all the other 15-20 candidates (depending on one's definition of a 'candidate') had to parcel out the remaining 400 hours.
Much of this we/you already knew. But what increasingly has been worth analysis is just why the GOPe hate Trump so much. After all, they have lots of money, though ultimately not as much as Trump. Still, Trump has spent an astonishingly low amount of money---and even then, much of that has come from small donors. If Trump is so loony, why are they so terrified of him? And if he doesn't have a chance---as Kasich, and Bush, and others keep saying---why bother with him at all? Why not just go after the 'real' candidates?
The answer to the last question is that, of course, not only does Trump have a chance but as of now---regardless of how much one thinks Cruz is 'surging'---Trump is the likely nominee until proven otherwise. But as to why they hate him? This bears some analysis and I think here even Rush doesn't quite have it all.
Rush's explanation of why Trump is so hated is that because of his money and his complete toying with the media, they can't control him. He is absolutely right as far as he goes. But I think it goes even deeper than that.
Trump threatens the entire GOP establishment, top to bottom, because as a businessman he has for years (no matter what you think of his methods) has been driven by winning. That is the only bottom line in business (and sports), winning. Did you make your deal? Did you make money? If it was good, you should be able to prove it on a balance sheet.
As much as his independence, this business aspect of Trump is absolutely crucial to understand the threat that he---and only he---poses to the establishment in D.C. For five years the GOP has campaigned on, and 'governed' on (and I use that term loosely) its 'opposition to Obama. 'We'll repeal Obamacare.' 'We'll stop illegal immigration.' 'We'll stop the Iran deal.'
Of course, everyone knows how all those promises worked out. But here's the key: The GOP would always have an excuse that "Obama could veto a repeal bill,' or, 'we can't shut down the government,' or, 'McConnell won't let it come to a vote.' Always an excuse.
Along comes Donald J. Trump. There are no excuses. There is only win, or lose. And if you want to win, you FIND a way to win. Remember the Obamacare votes? Recall how Pelosi and Reid strong armed some, gave away the farm to Baby Fat Landrieu? Lied flat-out to the 'pro-life Democrats' (who needed little convincing, despite their moniker). They WON. They did what it took to win.
Ever since then, really after the 2006 creaming at the hands of the Dems, the mealy-mouthed, cowardly GOP has campaigned on all sorts of promises, yet fulfilled none. This is also unfortunately true of the Tea Party supported senators like Kelly Ayotte, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, David Vitter, Mike Johanns, and Rob Portman. Only Ted Cruz and Mike Lee have put up a fight at all, plus the venerable Jeff Sessions.
The dual threat Trump poses is that he is uncontrollable, either through money or through the media, or through the party apparatus; and that he demands accountability as defined by winning. Have you noticed how much he talks about 'winning' and 'America will win again' in his speeches? Listen to what people say. He means it. And he will see that America wins, and that the Wall gets built and that trade deals are renegotiated in our favor, and that idiot immigration policies that let in jihadist killers are immediately curbed. And if you're not winning with him . . . wait for it . . . You're fired.
Excellent analysis.
Trump's model is accept reality as reality, and work forward from there.
This is why the media side of the media-politics symbiosis doesn't work with him.
Exactly! I reread Art of the Deal shortly after Trump announced. He is approaching this campaign with ONE goal...to win. That is how he defines success. And like you suggest it won’t stop when he becomes President. Because then there are a multitude of other things to compete at and win.
LOL. I’d be happy with the mantle of Barry White.
I’ve been waiting for someone serious to delve into the Trump phenomenon.
Good distinction.
Yes, somebody posted something from “Art of the Deal” earlier today and it’s exactly what Trump is doing.
And, adding to all that .. a caller into Rush’s program said he thought the statements by Trump were a political ploy to get all the attention .. even though one poll was showing Cruz ahead of Trump .. Trump’s statements last night put the whole conversation back on Trump.
Very, very clever.
And .. it didn’t hurt Cruz.
great post!
Agree 10,000%
Good read.
No, and it won’t. Cruz has deftly stayed away from attacking The Donald. But at the same time, why go for Cruz when you can go for the “winner?” Ted has a traditional strategy. I don’t think tradition will win this time.
You might find some of my old editorials, but I plan to have the book ready to go after his election. The minute after.
I bought your Patriots History and just now bookmarked your forum posts for later reading.
Beautiful!!!
Thank you Larry. And great name. If you want any of my other books, I’m running a special where if you get any two I’ll give you a free copy of “What would the Founders Say?”
Outstanding and right on the money.
Excellent!
Excellent analysis. Thanks for posting.
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.