Posted on 07/31/2015 7:59:26 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Trump as a candidate is almost entirely a creation of the media. That is not to deny that he is adept at manipulating the media, that is perfectly plain. But it is to say that a man adept at manipulating the media has met a media eager to expose Trump to further its own needs. The media gains readers and viewers and makes money off the Trump phenomenon. History tells us that the media habitually builds up that which they will later destroy when it simply begins to bore them or suits their politics.
There is a third element which is vitally important to understanding the Trump phenomenon: He has given voice to a burning frustration and actual fear in middle America that we are losing our country through feckless policies such as immigration and trade. He is right and he says it better than any other candidate. The media hates the message but loves to feature the messenger (whom they also hate) because it pays so well. The more the media attacks the messenger, the more frustrated and fearful Americans, quite rational in these feelings, instinctively side with Trump. The more Trump denigrates the media, the more middle America instinctively sides with Trump because middle America viscerally understands that the media and the two political parties are in cahoots. The disenfranchised middle has almost no choice but to turn to a maverick and the more Trump is positioned either by the media or by his own mouth to be out of the mainstream, the more he fits the role of white knight riding to the rescue with no motive other than to save the Holy Grail of our way of life.
How then will the media ultimately destroy Trump's candidacy? First it is necessary to understand that Trump's candidacy is a media event, not a grassroots movement, not a development within the party, not a political movement. It is a series of media events.Trump makes good copy and gives good video. Rather than a grassroots movement, rather than a bottom-up phenomenon, it is a sensory event, one that must occupy the screen and preoccupy the consciousness or fade out. A media phenomenon survives only so long as it is a phenomenon in the media. That implies that Trump must be ever more and more outlandish if he is to hold media momentum. He will be confronted with the choice: Either he burlesque's his own character ever more and more or he moderates. If he chooses the former he will eventually cross too many lines; if he chooses the latter he will lose the magic. His timing and stage presence must be exquisite if he is to keep the cameras rolling.
The choice Trump must make comes in the context of issues. We have already seen him start to dance on the issue of immigration: Who he will deport; how he will uncover them in America; how he will physically deport them; whom he will allow to return to America; upon what standard; whom he will make citizens; why?. His answer was virtually incoherent but even if regarded to be coherent, his answer was hardly confidence inspiring, in reality, it was not the kind of second act needed to keep the media bubble growing. Was he moderating his position? Has he continued to differentiate himself from other true conservatives like Ted Cruz? How is his immigration stand different from Scott Walker's? Sooner or later, Trump must say something other than, "I will make America great" he must choose. With choice inevitably comes opposition or disillusionment. Either he makes more enemies or he disappoints his supporters who need more and more.
The media creature can endure determined attacks in the media but he cannot survive disillusionment. Either the media bubble must grow and caricature itself until it bursts or it will spring a slow leak of disillusionment which only gathers speed and the whole balloon collapses. We have seen this time and again in American politics. Have we forgotten Herman Cain?
The upcoming debates might expose Trump to be a shallow opportunist who has diagnosed the problem but who has failed to rigorously think through his soundbite solutions. Most likely, the upcoming debates will not derail Trump's circus, it is still too early in the media cycle bubble, but it will begin the process.
Today he is up around 40% of the GOP polled. I’m not seeing the Ponzi Scheme collapsing, but rather growing.
I’m not sure if it is Trump, anyway, but rather something he represents... It’s millions of pissed off people, or, if not angry (which I think is said, politically, to make these people sound like Neanderthals), just determined not to elect a GOPe politician who lies to them to get their vote.
Who are the GOPe Politicians? ANYONE already in Washington.
The media hates Trump because they have no control, plain and simple.
As July turns into November, what say you now?
I’ve always enjoyed your stuff. It’s time for another vanity.
When I used to analyze companies for a living, I was fond of saying that many an investor has gone broke being right at the wrong time and I still believe that the fundamental assumptions concerning Donald Trump and his campaign will prove true, the timing is the problem. Fortunately for the argument, the fundamental assumptions allow for variations in timing. That vanity was filed just before the first debate and it predicted that Trump would eventually (that is not necessarily as a result of the first debate) "top" and then see his poll numbers begin to deteriorate. This did not in fact occur after the first debate, indeed it did not occur after the second debate but it does appear to be happening now, at least in Iowa.
Just a few minutes ago I watched a "debate" on Fox in which the contention was made that Trump's numbers in Iowa are deteriorating as a result of ads which emphasize his penchant for eminent domain and which include the allegation that he personally profits from exploiting eminent domain. Although I have no way of judging what sort of ads are actually appearing in Iowa, it is abundantly clear that there are multiple points of vulnerability of this sort which can be exploited in ad campaigns against Trump. It's clear the Trump has the financial wherewithal to respond in kind but can he "win" such as air war? Pissing contests are not healthy environments for one who can survive only so long as he is larger-than-life. When an organization such as the Alliance for Growth showcases these attack ads, Trump has no individual, no person, whom he can Alinsky-like humiliate and discredit. The Lilliputians can thus bring him down with a thousand cuts.
Having been burned several times getting the timing of investments wrong, reality has taught me to be to be wary of going on the public record to predict Donald Trump's political eclipse when it is attached to any timeline. Nevertheless the temptation to do so is strong when one looks at the polls in Iowa which show remarkably similar results and proclaim a radical reversal of fortunes for Trump and Carson. These two polls can be very significant because much of Trump's appeal, or at least much of the tortured rationalizations in support of Trump's grotesqueries, are "so what, the man is a winner -just look at the polls." Well, let's look at the two polls in Iowa and we must conclude from them that the Emperor has no clothes, at least in Iowa. Trump is not inevitable, rather he is vulnerable and he has a record which makes him vulnerable on every front. He is vulnerable to attacks from the left and he is vulnerable to attacks from the right. He is vulnerable to attacks for his boorishness and he is vulnerable for attacks for his misogyny. There is scarcely any issue in which he is not offended both sides at one time or another with his public remarks. Donald Trump is vulnerable.
Thank you for your kind words.
I used to know the answer to that question (why Pickett didn’t recieve support.) But I forgot a long time ago. I’m old.
There was a fundamental divergence of opinion between General Longstreet whose corps would have furnished the "missing support"and General Lee about how to wage that battle. It is a simplification but largely accurate to say that Longstreet was thinking tactically and Lee was thinking strategically, although Longstreet's tactics were to quite consciously exploit the strategic geographical map.
Lee wanted to bring the European powers into the war if possible even after the Emancipation Proclamation, he wanted to win a signal victory in the North which would break the morale of the North, and encourage the antiwar forces there. He knew that his army could not well subsist in Virginia but it have to get by quite apart from a logistic line of support by foraging in the North. Indeed the battle itself occurred because the Confederates had heard that there were some shoes to be had in Gettysburg. Lee felt that his window of opportunity to bring about a decisive engagement was limited by his lack of logistics, and his inferiority of force.
Lee, with some justice, felt that his army was invincible after Chancellorsville and the whole record of 1862. He knew that a long war meant inevitable defeat for the outnumbered and outgunned South. So he's famously said words to the effect, there is the enemy and there is where we will fight him. Lee sought a major victory to end the war before the weight of numbers and matériel simply overwhelmed his Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederacy.
Longstreet looked at the maps, one topographical of the area around Gettysburg and the other strategic of the theater of war. He saw from the former that the Union forces occupied the superior ground to the rebels' disadvantage and he sought to remedy that by reference to the larger map.
He argued that Lee should continue to maneuver to interposes army between the Army of the Potomac and a strategic city such as Washington, Baltimore, or Philadelphia, occupy high ground and compel general Meade to offer battle at is his disadvantage but which could not be declined because the Confederates had maneuvered into a strategic position which the Yankees must attack.
Advantaged by hindsight, I am inclined to agree with Longstreet but Lee was not so favored by second sight and determined to fight. Many have faulted Longstreet for being tardy. I think events have proved Longstreet evaluation of the terrain to be correct.
Another possible reason for the lack of support was the shortage of ammunition for the artillery which was supposed to soften the Yankee lines. A message was sent out from the artillery commander who said in effect, for God's sake if you're going to attack, attack now I am running out of ammunition.
Finally, there is the question whether there was any real lack of "support" considering all the factors, including the terrain, the Yankee artillery and strength.
If there had been a breakthrough, one wonders whether the Confederates had sufficient strength to capitalize on that local victory and decisively beat general Meade's whole army. It is been the tragic story of the Army of Northern Virginia that Lee could not capitalize on his brilliant victories because he simply did not have the resources to follow through. Without a decisive victory over the whole of the Yankee army, Gettysburg would not have altered the inevitable outcome of the war. After Gettysburg the Confederacy could not win the war but the union could in fact lose it at home in the North.
In high school, I was the expert in the politics of the Civil War, aND especially of the Reconstruction. A childhood friend was the expert of the waging of the war. He’s now a retired colonel. In high school, we’d all go to Gettysburg once a year. We’re both old now. I haven’t walked the battlefield in five or so years. And our friends are starting to die off.
I forgot what year that occurred, do you know?
I believe it was 1913.
I remember seeing the film many times. Like so much else, I don’t remember the year. I count it a blessing that when I go to the doctor and the girl behind the counter asks my birthdate, I still remember.
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.