(Vanity) How do we solve a problem like the Donald?

Free Republic original content ^ | 08-25-2015 | grey_whiskers

[grey_whiskers]

In the past couple of weeks, ever since the Fox News GOP debates (yes, plural, there was the "kiddie table" debate with Perry, Fiorina, and Jindal, among others), there is one name on the GOP side who has dominated not only the airwaves, but most of the time and efforts of the punditocracy.

Donald Trump.

He arouses wild excitement, and withering contempt; he is an object both of fear and of hope; and his support, like his opposition, comes from all demographic groups, many different political backgrounds, and is not limited to any one state or geographic region. He is, it seems, the very embodiment of the "Big Tent" vision for the GOP (more accurately, the GOP-e, which shall be its name for the remainder of this piece) once espoused by Karl Rove.

But there's only one problem.

It's the *wrong tent*.

The GOP-e had a vision for reaching out according to the conventional wisdom: 40% of the voters, it is said, would vote for Karl Marx himself if he only had a (D) after his name; another 40% of the voters would similarly vote for Mickey Mouse if he but exhibited the (R) in the right column; and the winning and losing of elections is based upon gaining as much of your own base as possible, depressing the opponent's base, and capturing as much of the other 20% ("the mushy middle") as possible.

The GOP-e essayed to do this, over the past several elections, by quietly throwing a significant portion of their own 40% under the bus: the "crazies" or "Tea Partiers" or "closet racists" or "anti-abortion fundies" or "Fox News viewers" or "Dittoheads"... but quietly: not open repudiation, but behind-the-scenes backstabbing and betrayal, in committee assignments and deals cut with the Democrats and creative incompetence in the Kabuki theatre of opposing Obama and all his new initiatives. (The idea being that those dumb kooks in flyover country would be too, well, unsophisticated to notice the difference; and any losses could be made up by appealing to the broad middle, and to reaping the anticipated rewards of the growing immigrant class, who in the meantime make a swell source of low-cost labor for the oligarch donors behind the GOP-e.)

Or, in a more cynical light, as expressed by a number of commenters, the GOP-e might just have been infiltrated by "entry-ists" (Donkey's nose in the tent) or moles, or the leadership subject to dirty-tricks pressure; bribes, fear of exposure (Denny Hastert's structuring of withdrawals which were later connected to payments of what might have been hush money for sexual escapades with a teenage boy)...this being Washington, the possibilities were endless. And in that case, there was no longer a true two-party system, but a Uniparty, pretending to be at each other's throats, the better to exact money from partisan voters, but really with a gentleman's agreement not REALLY to advance either agenda; and to take turns, more or less, on who got to run the government and distribute the spoils.

But then...two things happened.

First, the Obama election: young, charismatic, far-left, with no executive experience except (he actually said this with a straight face on Anderson Cooper 360, once upon a time):

"...my understanding is, is that Governor Sarah Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect."

The economy melted down. Obama doubled down.

Obamacare raised its ugly head: the American people raised their voices to a fever pitch: to the point that a Republican was elected, in Massachusetts, for the express purpose of stopping it.

Obama was re-elected in 2012, and put the pedal to the medal.

To stop him, there was another wave election of Republicans in 2014; all the best efforts of Obama's magic team could not prevent the GOP from taking the House and the Senate. The people were frantically signally that they wanted effective opposition to Obama and his policies. All to no avail.

Take a brief look at the "fundamental change" loosed upon the land by Obama. Surely, the talking heads said, Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

No -- and in a surprise, it was the supposedly conservative Chief Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote, with the more liberal Kennedy begging him not to pass it.

An economic slowdown worthy of comparison the Great Depression: the number of people in the country in the labor force, gainfully employed, at the same level as the CARTER years, despite nearly 40 years of population growth since then.

What else? The virtual imposition of Gay Marriage and its newfound discovery as a Constitutional Right, not on legal reasoning, but on flowery language worthy of a New Age greeting card. Followed by the White House being lit up in rainbow lights in a cultural "in-your-FACE!" not seen in modern times. Except maybe for Obama's vacations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Supreme Court again affirming Obamacare by overwriting the express text of the law with a sense of the intent behind the law.

Obama declaring a de facto Amnesty for illegal aliens.

The rise of a small group mocked by Obama as being "the JV" but now a household word on account of their atrocities, from on-camera beheadings to the sexual slavery of Christian women. The White House's response? The President's wife sending out a selfie of her holding a hand-written hashtag: "Bring Back Our Girls." Even Dhimmi -- err, excuse me, Jimmy -- Carter (prayers up for his cancer, btw!) had more balls than that.

The throwing away of all the gains made by the Bush administration in the Middle East, the dissolution of Libya.

With the loss of Libya, the death of Ambassador Stevens; whereupon the Secretary of State lied through her teeth to the families of the victims, blaming the violence on a YouTube video.

The open targeting of conservative groups by the IRS (one of the things which got Richard Nixon in trouble), followed by the defiance of the IRS by destroying the evidence in the teeth of a Congressional investigation.

Oh, and the Secretary of State conducted her business on a non-governmental server, refusing to hand over the server entire to investigators, despite the security risks...and the presence of Top Secret material on an unsecured computer.

Did I mention computer problems? The Russians hacked the Pentagon; the Red Chinese STOLE over twenty million sets of personal information: and that from background checks, to include social security numbers and fingerprints, from the Office of Personnel Management.

Oh, I almost forgot. The deal with Iran, the country who held US citizens hostage for 444 days, the world's leading state sponsor of terror...the deal which would give them nuclear technology: with the US committed to defend their nuclear program against Israel, with Iran allowed to submit its own samples for testing, and not even to the US...being pushed for by Obama.

In addition to an Environmental Protection Agency run amok, issuing regulations governing coal which are likely to DOUBLE electricity prices.

And did I mention all the racial healing which Obama (as the first black President, second if you count the left's fawning over Bill Clinton) was supposed to bring?

Ferguson, anyone? How about Baltimore?

And finally, an exploding national debt: under President Obama, the United States will have spent more, in the last eight years, then it has spent IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY. More than every other President PUT TOGETHER.

It was all this, that the GOP was supposed to prevent: which they had been explicitly ELECTED to prevent.

But now, it's time for another Presidential election. And the GOP-e feels it's "their turn." Or, more specifically, Jeb Bush's turn(*).

And so, when Trump first made a splash, prior to the first GOP debate, he was dismissed. "It's a publicity stunt." But as he refused to fade away, word went out from the power donors behind the GOP-e: "Take him out. NOW." Curiously enough, it wasn't the other candidates in the debate who went after him, but the moderators: and at that, those at "Faux News". The supposed propagandists for the right.

We all know how that turned out. And yet, the Trump candidacy has not been stopped; indeed, his popularity has *grown*.

Watching the reaction to this is interesting, because in their panic an desperation, the powers-that-be are inadvertently showing the contents of their ENTIRE bag of tricks for upending a non-approved candidate:

The "hates womyn" card: Megyn Kelly

The "link him to raaaaaacists" card -- online commenters have compared his Mobile speech to a Klan rally

The "try to get other members of his party to undermine him" card -- during the debates, and interviews

The "fascist" card -- this has come out in the past couple of days

The "closet Nazi" card -- this has appeared on a couple of left-wing sites but has not picked up traction

The "deny him coverage / censor his speeches and rallies" card -- Fox News, and other networks; surprisingly, CNN is covering him.

The "dirty tricks" card -- Jeb Bush flying a plane around the Mobile speech claiming Trump would raise taxes

The "talk dirt about his family" card -- Glenn Beck has done this

Complaining about the coarseness of his presentation, his lack of polish -- virtually everyone

So, with all these items, what is it that motivates Trump? A large number of hardcore conservatives distrusts him, pointing out how he cannot name a specific verse from the Bible which inspires him, the fact he has been married multiple times, that Hillary Clinton got invited to his wedding, that he donated to Democrats in the past; the list goes on and on. But even more telling, they say, is the fact that he seems, not exactly uneasy while saying conservative memes, but rather unsteady: it is as though either the thoughts themselves are foreign concepts, or at best, he has traveled so long in circles where one would have to hide being a conservative, that he is still uneasy saying conservative things out loud. They compare him to Reagan, who, though he only went to Eureka College (where?), had studied conservative thought for years, had internalized it and made it his own, so that he could instinctively defend it with with, and grace, and honor. Besides, it is reasonably pointed out, if we conservatives have already been burned by those playing Ass in Pachyderm's clothing, why should we trust someone who didn't even make a show of pretending first? Isn't that just begging for trouble?

Those are fair questions; and to my mind, not only fair, but legitimate.

But -- I do not think that they necessarily disqualify Trump. Let me explain.

When a member of the GOP-e ran for the Presidency, he did so for number of reasons: the ego boost (Giuliani, Specter), or "it was his turn" (Dole, Bush, McCain), or even because they could enhance their resume -- for a run at another office, or for lobbying positions (supply your own names here).

But Trump, (if we are to be fair), is not, and cannot be motivated by these. He's a billionaire already: any lobbying money would be Chump Change compared to what he already makes; and further, he has already lost a number of business deals and partners over his run : burning bridges is not a career enhancer within the elite. Further, he's already THE DONALD: he's already bedded and had children with supermodels. And he's 69 years old. There isn't anything left of a ladder for him to climb for money or fame's sake.

What then is left? Oddly enough, I think the clue comes from another famous former RINO and failed-candidate for the Presidency, Mitt Romney.

Romney, for whatever reason, after winning the first debate with Obama, rolled over and played dead: or was ambushed by Candy Crowley (note, in passing, how different Trump's response was to an attempted shiv from a female moderator: he turned on her with all guns ablaze, and holed her underneath the water line). But over and over, throughout the campaign, his message, though boring, was constant: America is a pretty good place, let's hire someone competent to administer it. And I, Mitt Romney, am a pretty competent administrator.

Is this quite what Trump intends? Close, but not quite, for two reasons.

First, I think Trump is personally concerned, because he is 69 years old, and he remembers the America that used to be: the America before Obama, before "fundamental transformation," before 9-11: an America where everyone believed in America, and where (unlike Michelle Obama's whine), almost everyone was PROUD of America. His very campaign slogan, and the themes of his campaign, reflect this: "Make America Great Again", the push to exclude waves of crime from illegal immigrants, the promise of tough negotiations with trading partners to America's benefit, of taking a forceful, effective stance against countries and terrorists who deign to kill Americans with impunity.

Second, Trump is looking at the country, and he sees the demographic trends: not racial, but cultural: if one imports millions of people who do not share our language, who have not grown up with stories of Washington and Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of Lincoln, and the Old West...whether they be from Mexico, Somalia, Syria, or India...and if one does NOT require them to assimilate, but only sees them as fodder to be used for cheap labor, or cheap votes...

how can that be called anything but a betrayal of America, as those who share a heritage and a history going back centuries, are displaced in favor of foreigners?

Trump may not have the political theory of Burke, and Locke, or the rhetorical skills of Jefferson or Lincoln. But he DOES love the country. And I believe, he is running, he is standing his ground, he is fighting, to preserve, protect, and defend, that which he loves.

Were it only true that the other candidates -- or, for that matter, current office holders -- did as much.

(*) It is this fact, that gives considerable credence to the idea of a uniparty: Hillary Clinton has done nothing of merit but put up with (and lie about) her husband's making oral sex a household term, adding a new word to the dictionary: Lewinsky. And she has capped this with a disastrous stint as Secretary of State. Against anyone but Bush, she would likely lose in a landslide. Similarly, Jeb Bush has little to recommend him to the common voter ("Two Bushes in the White House is enough!"), but a lot, in terms of favoring illegal immigration, to recommend him to the GOP-e; and there's always this to recommend him to the Uniparty: if he's running against anyone but Hillary, he would likely lose in a landslide.

[South40]

That's not answer. Which tells me you can't.

Thanks!

[LucyT]

Ping to excellent article.

Thanks, grey_whiskers.

[South40]

I may be ready for something different also, but that’s no reason to support a liberal.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Honestly, I didnt read greys thread post before I posted that. I am thinking about printing some version of it on 3x5s and stuffing my rant into every neighborhood mailbox, federal laws be damned.

People like executive summaries. I think my rant qualifies.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Great minds and all that sort of rot, I am sure ;-)

[Fhios]

I don’t think posting a very long post on a complex topic late at night is a good start.

BMRK for later.

[2ndDivisionVet]

See my tagline. I believe I’m the only one here at FR.

[tatown]

Name one thing, other than an expired tax cut, that a supposed ‘conservative’ has accomplished at the federal level over the past 25 years. Professional politicians from both parties are working for the same team (which doesn’t include you and I) and you are arguing for trying another professional ‘conservative’?

[Norm Lenhart]

Trump isn’t a problem. Or ‘the’ problem. The problem is people too stupid to learn the lessons of their own history.

Barvie conservatives need to learn that math isn’t hard. If you want conservatism, vote for it. If you (general sense) don’t trust the guy you vote for, the problem collectively, is ‘you’.

Why are Jonbon and Mitch able to help Berry keep the baby parts and ISIS cash flowing? Because idiots elected them after being told to their faces by those candidates they would work with Barry, not oppose him.

Same thing. And all the excuses do not change the reality. Democrats did not elect these liberals. ‘we’ did.

No matter what...

[grey_whiskers]

You're right, it wasn't an answer. I followed the example of Jesus, to answer a question with a counter-question.

[lapsus calami]

 

 

Yeah, way too much over thinking, over commenting going on. There's months to go before anything gets down to a ballot box. And that's an eternity in politics. Anything can and will happen. But you know, what I find interesting in general, here there and yonder, not FR specific at all, nor not necessarily on the internet - people who've been making the "someone oughta...." complaint. "Someone oughta stand up and get in their faces" about this that and the other, "someone oughta tell those stupid people off and put them in the places...", "someone oughta stand firm, not be a wimp and give in at the first bit of resistance..." and so forth. Well, someone finally comes along and does all that - and still they bitch. Kinda like what was said in the Bible about that sort of behavior, "thou art a stiff-necked people". Yeah, well as for me, I feel like I have a ring side seat at the craziest high stakes poker game ever, am gonna ride along and see where it goes. Lots of twists, turns and surprises to be had yet before it's all done, that's for sure.

 

 

[grey_whiskers]

I'd support Cruz IFF:

a) he weren't for a vast increase in H1-B visas.

b) his wife weren't employed by "Goldman-Sucks."

As it is, he'd be a fine VP under Trump.

[South40]

So you're supporting a liberal because you've given up on conservatives?

Fair enough. Thanks for being honest.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Full disclosure: I am not for or against Donald Trump. As an IT geek, I must analyze the data before coming to a conclusion and I haven’t seen enough data either way to satisfy my preferred standards.

That said, what leads you to believe that Trump loves America? (No snark or tricks. Totally serious question.)

[grey_whiskers]

That said, what leads you to believe that Trump loves America? (No snark or tricks. Totally serious question.)

All of his "red meat" rhetoric is consistent with a "common sense" (not, you know, 'nuanced' or anything ;-) ) view of his "Make America Great Again" slogan. I tried to spell out examples towards the end of the article.

[tatown]

I’m supporting someone who isn’t a professional politician dipshit.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

Wow... We sit at the same fire. me and the pen slipper. ;-) Almost sounds like Trump and Cruz....

I swear I know nothing. I really really swear. I mean I really really really really swear.

;-)

[grey_whiskers]

Hi Lucy...what in the world is up with the parrot picture? Colorful like Trump’s language?

[South40]

You're supporting a liberal in a conservative forum and calling those who don't "dipshit"?

lol!

Donald Trump is a liberal, and calling me names won't change that.

Have a nice night.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I too am an IT geek. Data Scmata in this case. See my post here on the thread. It makes sense. I am all about logic. Here you go: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3329248/posts?page=10#10