The writer quotes John Adams at great length, to indicate some understanding of Adams' reasoning. He does not quote Donald Trump at great length, but substitutes his own ex cathedra type of conclusions about Donald Trump, thus indicating no actual understanding of Donald Trump's reasoning. He baits the reader with Adams--a fine mind;--and then switches to his own ex cathedra theories about Donald Trump.
The writer has written a hit piece; but analyzed, it is a very awkward hit piece that should not persuade anyone with the intelligence of a fifth grader--to reduce this to the writer's cognitive level.
Look, if you would understand Donald Trump, both now and in the future, you need to understand his focus in different situations, and his reactions to what he focuses on, which will indicate aspects of his personal inclinations.
My stab at such analysis has convinced me Trump: Metaphor For American Conservatism. He is the best, perhaps the last hope for saving our heritage--the heritage of Adams in New England; the heritage of Jefferson in the South; the heritage that Reagan alone of any of the Presidents since Coolidge, both understood & honored.
We Stand With Trump!
Well said.
Of course, Kevin Williamson and his National Review comrades are little more than bitter partisans when it concerns Trump, so it’s not like they care if their reasoning is honest. They are counting on the mud they are throwing to stick and that’s all they care about.