Posted on 04/03/2011 12:53:30 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Donald Trump will announce in June whether he plans on being a contender for the presidency in the Republican primaries later this year. For several reasons, my excitement over the prospects of a Trump candidacy is mounting.
Let me say first, that in a perfect world, the very idea of a man like Trump running for the presidency, on either party's ticket, would be unthinkable. This isn't to suggest that Trump is a bad man, but only that he has no experience in the art of governing. It is a common misconception among many on the right that success in business is likely to translate into success in politics. Not only does this assumption ignore the fact that the frameworks of incentives and constraints within which politicians and free enterprisers respectively operate are by and large mutually antagonistic; it ignores as well the fact that success in business could just as easily portend political failure.
Any business is an enterprise. An enterprise is defined by the goals toward which it is oriented, the goals toward the realization of which each of its members is expected to contribute. Now, obviously, the enterprises that constitute a "system" of "free enterprise" are not compulsory organizations. However, a state is indeed such an organization. It is a mistake of the first order, then, to confuse government with a private employer and citizens with employees.
Free citizens must be free to determine enterprises of their own choosing -- not those that the government decides to impose upon them. And what this in turn implies is that a government belonging to citizens, not subjects, free men and women, not servants and/or slaves, simply cannot be patterned on a business or enterprise model, for it exists for no other reason than to facilitate peaceful and orderly co-existence between individuals engaged in all manner of self-chosen pursuits.
A wildly successful businessman like Trump is no less likely to lose sight of this than someone devoid of all business experience.
There is another reason why, in a perfect world, no conservative would treat Trump with any seriousness in connection with the presidency -- namely, Trump is no conservative. That "business" and "conservative" are considered virtually synonymous terms by right and left alike is a standing testimony to how effectively the left trades in fictions. A person's involvement in business is no signifier of his political orientation, it is true, but it is also true that the tycoons of the largest businesses -- what the left derisively refers to as "Big Business" -- usually donate to Democrats. That he has contributed to the coffers of no small number of Democratic politicians proves that Trump is no exception to this rule.
Still, our world, the real world, is far from perfect. Given current political realities, Trump may be just what Republican voters need at the moment.
As Trump himself has noted, if not for pervasive voter disenchantment with President George W. Bush, we wouldn't now have President Barack. H. Obama. In 2008, voters in both major parties and everywhere in between had grown weary of Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Of course, being but a euphemism for ever larger government -- that is, exactly that thing against which Republican campaign rhetoric rails -- it was neither compassionate nor conservative, as conservatives understand these concepts. The Republican Party claimed to have learned this lesson, but beyond vague references to "spending," no GOP 2012 hopeful has so much as explicitly repudiated Bush "conservatism," much less specified the respects in which their governance will differ from that of the last Republican president.
Trump, in glaring contrast, has already indicated the willingness, the eagerness even, to make it abundantly clear to both the party and the nation how and why he will be no Bush Republican. This the party faithful and -- more importantly, to hear the Republicans tell it -- the independents and "moderates" regarding whom the politicians from both parties spare no occasion to woo both need and deserve to know.
But this is not all.
It would be a gross understatement to describe The View as Obama-friendly. Yet just this past week while making an appearance on it, Trump did what no other Republican, much less a Republican with presidential aspirations, would so much as think of doing: he unabashedly expressed his skepticism concerning Obama's birth certificate. With a single utterance, the Donald in effect legitimized a group of people whose concern for this very same issue earned them the scornful name of "birthers" and rendered them a collective object of derision by left-wing pundits as well as such "respectable" right-leaning personalities as Bill O'Reilly and Michael Medved. And what Trump did for this issue, he will be able to do with any number of issues that McCain and the GOP establishment sought (and continue to seek) to avoid like the plague.
This is the point: there is simply no way that anyone can succeed in depicting someone as internationally famous as Donald Trump as a fringe figure. This, obviously, isn't to suggest that Trump would be anything at all like an invulnerable candidate; no one is without weaknesses. But Trump's enemies (among the establishments of both parties) will simply not be able to dismiss him as an "extremist."
Finally, there are enough disenchanted Democrats, along with similarly disenchanted independents and Republicans, who would be more than willing to give Trump their ears. When this Washington outsider -- indeed, outsider to politics! -- promises that upon his election to the presidency, "business as usual" in Washington will become a thing of the past, they will have good reason to believe it.
Trump in 2012? This may not be such a bad thing.
I listen to Rush occasionally. He is fine but is NOT running for President so why bring him up? Reagan was fine and like I said he was divorced decades before going into politics. I don’t see why my bringing up morals is such a bad thing. Listen, how on Earth can Trump talk about family values? It is impossible for him to when he does not have any. He is NOT going to be President so why have this discussion? He is popular because of the Birther movement which I appreciate but that does not translate into being a President. In 2008, everyone was so on the Thompson boat that flame wars were all over the place and he did not make it and I knew he wouldn’t but you can’t tell people that without emotions getting into it. Why not wait and see who our candidate is before DEMANDING that he be the ONE? We have a ton of time until the election in political life anyway. We should all just step back and wait and see who gets in. Maybe Trump will be the only candidate and then he will be the one everyone votes for unless a good conservative runs third party and then that will be another discussion but only if that time arrives.
I am just responding to your comment about if Trump is the candidate he does not get your vote because he is divorced, don’t see the logic? What difference did it make when Reagan got a divorce before he entered politics, he still got a divorce. He did a great job speaking of family values. Trump’s children from his different marriages get along very well, that must speak of his value for the family. I am tooting The Trump because he is going to be the only one to win against Obama. Do you really think Bachmann, Romney, Huckabee, even Palin will beat Obama in a debate? They will be stiff and too rehearsed, extra cautious of what they say. Trump doesn’t give a crap, he will call it as he sees it and throw Obama off his game.
We shall see. I think it is early and I believe when Sarah announces everyone else will be an after thought. However, let’s just see how this plays out. We cannot continue to discuss Trump at this point as he has not announced and he will not AT LEAST until May after the Apprentice is off the air because he can’t. So until he announces then this is all moot.
Clinton aside, they all represent areas that he has business interests in. Which happen to be more Dem dominated areas.
These are very good thoughts, IMO. I think we need a president who can work with both sides, because let’s face it - we’re never going to have an all one-party Congress. Sure, there may be a majority in one chamber or the other - but, not all of one or the other. As much as I hate DEMS and their ideas, they were elected by their constituents as well.
We truly need a uniter. I think Sarah could do that, but, it remains whether or not she will run. The press has beat her up so bad, and to be honest, there are still people who believe this crap.
It will be an interesting election, that’s for sure. But, whoever gets the nomination - we need zero and his corruption out of office.
-or-
It could affect a resurgence of support for Obama, and like numbers as last election will show up at the polls to vote for him again.
I can’t see him getting the blind hopey-changey support he had in 2008.
I think people aren’t as stupid as they were back then.
[especially those who lost their jobs, homes, pets, pay outrageous gas prices, etc] *plus* his ‘core” is p*ssed over Libya, his big backers aren’t happy and all those folks starving while Royalty feast on rare delicacies surely are noticing.
Not to mention the Muzzies and Black Panthers turning on him.
Face it, he *only* won because he *wasn’t* W.
In 2012, that might turn around and bite him on the ass.
My vote [if I don’t get my top choices] will be solely based on “NOT 0”.
I doubt I’m alone in that respect.
I hope Trump does run a vicious interference for whomever get the actual nomination.
But, having said all that, nothing surprises me any more and I’m pretty much running solely on the thinnest thread of hope that he gets GONE.
[his campaign slogan, if truth in advertising actually mattered, should be “BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY”]
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.