What Trump knows that you don't

The Washington Examiner ^ | August 27, 2015 | W. James Antle III

[2ndDivisionVet]

When pundits call Donald Trump a "know-nothing," they are not just using a historical if pejorative term to describe his immigration stance. They really mean that he appears to know nothing about public policy or governance.

On the charitable assumption that his blustery, content-free stump speech isn't an act, you'll get no argument here. But Trump does seem to know a lot more about politics than many of his detractors, including those critics who are well versed in the finer details of entitlement reform or international trade policy.

Trump's success in the polls has been particularly frustrating for wonky conservatives. How can so many people buy into the business expertise of someone who so often gives technically wrong answers to economic questions?

Worse, why do so many conservatives seem enamored with a candidate who has taken unconservative positions on issues like taxes, abortion, healthcare reform and entitlements — that is, most of the conservative domestic agenda — and in some cases hasn't even bothered to move to the right on them?

Pat Buchanan gave us a hint in his 1992 Republican National Convention speech, when he spoke of "conservatives of the heart" whose political convictions were more visceral than intellectual. "They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did," he told the delegates.

Many Americans, even those engaged enough to identify as liberal or conservative much less Republican or Democrat, aren't systematic political thinkers. They vote for candidates based on who they like or trust. They cast their ballots on the basis of real and perceived self-interest. To the extent that they approach politics in a more ideological or partisan way, it is often through a nexus of loyalties and identity as much as a specific preference for how high the capital gains tax should be.

A lot of conservatism is based on an inchoate sense that something important about the America of old is being lost. Maybe it's because the government is getting too big, or social values are changing, or the demographics are different, or even a feeling that the country's foreign enemies are ascendant. But conservatives haven't always thought it was morning in America.

Mainstream Republicans have capitalized on these sentiments many times. Party leaders from George W. Bush to Sarah Palin have rallied attitudinal red staters. Trump has just taken this identity appeal to the next level.

But in terms of policy, it isn't just that some conservatives haven't read Hayek. They fundamentally disagree with him. At the grassroots level, the American right has always had strong strains of nationalism and moralism. That's not an inherently bad thing, but the modern conservative movement has generally tried to wed these tendencies to a more limited or even libertarian view of government.

Nationalism and moralism can easily be expressed through strong, activist government as well. The platforms of right-wing parties in Europe and the rest of the world are frequently anything but libertarian, even in the loose sense that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were.

Trump also understands that many voters across the ideological spectrum aren't looking for a detailed political platform or five-point policy plan as much they want leadership. They want their government, and the people who lead it, to fix things and get things done. They want someone who will fight for them.

All of this annoys conservative intellectuals, who patiently point out to Trump voters that they shouldn't want leadership from someone who supports single payer, or conservative activists, who with increasing impatience try to explain that the right can't be led by a Hillary Clinton/Harry Reid donor.

But certifiably mainstream conservatives, from Andrew Breitbart to Ted Cruz, have employed the fighting terminology long before Trump, with varying degrees of specificity. You knew whom they were fighting — the Left, big government, the establishment, Washington — but they didn't always have the same answer about the ultimate purpose.

Before Reagan, Richard Nixon won two terms in the White House successfully pairing populist, culturally conservative Silent Majority rhetoric with frequently quite liberal policies.

The Donald knows that for many people politics is a team sport. The fans who cheered Brett Favre in Green Bay booed him in Minnesota and vice versa. Trump is trying out for the GOP team and has the marketing experience to sell it. While his pitch may seem crude, with the thrice-married braggart invoking the "great Billy Graham" and calling the Bible his favorite book, but is it that much cruder than the fundraising appeals conservative and Tea Party groups send out daily?

In retrospect, Trump's 2013 appearance at Graham's 95th birthday celebration in North Carolina might have been the biggest tip-off that he was serious about running for president.

When Trump came on professional wrestling broadcasts and trash-talked Vince McMahon, the crowd loved it. He is simply applying the same approach to Jorge Ramos, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. The crowd still loves it.

Finally, as somebody whose success comes as much from his fame as his real estate fortune, Trump gets the celebrity culture. Americans are obsessed with it and reality TV has blurred the lines between entertainment and, well, reality.

The citizenry's desire to keep up with the Kardashians and its anger at the political class has proved a potent combination. Many Americans think the people running their government are jokes, self-promoting blowhards with bad, expensive haircuts engaged in pointless political theater.

Why not have a candidate who will:

A.) Pick up issues with significant political appeal that the establishment in both parties won't touch

B.) Treat the system like the joke that it is and

C.) Lampoon the bad-haired self-promoters just by existing?

Trump may be a blowhard, the reasoning goes, but at least he's our blowhard.

This act is probably less sustainable than the entitlements Trump doesn't want to reform, but for a limited time it can be just as popular with its intended audience. The know-nothing may know a thing or two after all.

[longtermmemmory]

we have to question people who want to vote for the same style of candidate and expect a different result.

[papertyger]

I'll take your ignorantly projected cynicism as opposed to willful delusion.

How does a supporter "project cynicism?" Or are you claiming to be willfully deluded?

If you're going to answer a post, at least understand the meaning of the words you use.

Questions of integrity mean much more when they don't come from a functional illiterate.

[hosepipe]

[papertyger]

we have to question people who want to vote for the same style of candidate and expect a different result.

In all fairness, I DO believe Cruz is a different breed of cat, and most of the evangelical cynics are Cruz supporters.

Unfortunately, Cruz supporters are absolutely deaf to the message that he doesn't have the media savvy to break out of the blockade the press has imposed on him since the week after he entered the race.

[papertyger]

As I’ve said before, I fully share your opinion of Cruz.

I only disagree on his viability.

[JediJones]

But in terms of policy, it isn't just that some conservatives haven't read Hayek.

Salma?

[hosepipe]

It’s a well worn groove, now. “Trump is out for himself” and “if you can’t see that, you’re stupid.

---

I don’t believe that.. Trump is out to DENY Ted Cruz the Presidency..
A crony capitalist ringer.. simply..

He didnt want/or need to do it(run) (as he says) but indeed a Cruz Presidency would be curtains for the CRONY’s..

ALL or many of them are his friends being a child of inheritance.. friends of the people THAT OWN America..
or friends of their friends.. the farmers on the ANIMAL FARM..

And does not want things to change AT THE TOP of the HEAP...
Ted Cruz threatens THAT.. things would really change under Cruz..

Making America GREAT Again for everybody BUT INDEED NOT threatening the MANAGERS AT THE TOP of the heap..

Cruz would bring DOWN the Crony’s.. and many would be facing PRISON for sedition.. in a new Justice Department..

With Cruz everybody would be EQUAL again.. ZERO special ones at the TOP of the HEAP.. LIKE NOW..

TRUMP has always been SPECIAL... he was born special with special rights/privileges... to a connected father..
THAT MUST STOP.. by getting rid of the federal reserve..
and/or a laundry list of laws passed after that..

Expecting TRUMP to STOP IT.. by stone dyslexics will not happen..

** Stone dyslexics->> conservatives that support Trump..

[papertyger]

So you’re saying Trump is out for the status quo?

How does that make sense? He could have stayed out of it and that would have been the result by default.

You have to believe Cruz could secure the nomination on his own then win the election for that to work, and that’s just something I can not believe.

[hosepipe]

As I’ve said before, I fully share your opinion of Cruz. I only disagree on his viability.

---

AND I don’t HATE Donald Trump.. just do not want him near the Presidency.. maybe the Cabinet where he can be watched.. you know monitored..

IF...... he is serious about FIXing America he would do it..
If not than the Cabinet is much to low level for him.. and he would deny it..
Which by the way would EXPOSE all I have said of him..

Hope he accepts and makes me WRONG.. but doubt it..
TRUMP as President is too horrible to conceive..

A right-wing Barry Obama is the exact same thing as a left-wing Barry Obama.. i.e. Congress being the fly in the ointment..

it’s like the difference between Socialism and Fascism..
SAME thing only different..

[hosepipe]

You have to believe Cruz could secure the nomination on his own then win the election for that to work, and that’s just something I can not believe.

---

You mean believe or WANT to happen..

Cruz is raising the most money from small doners AND
is extremely VIABLE...

Surely you know POLLS are agitprop..
If Cruz voters are never POLLed they are non existent..
Or POlled in a “managed” way..

Most people Even on Free republic are too damned LAZY
to go to You Tube and see many of his speeches..
So he is tagged with bullshit opinions..

Trump has support from the Crony’s AND many of the smarter democrats(privately).. If it got out democrats supported him many conservatives would have second thoughts..

going whats up with that?.. except the true believers in Trump..
they are into celebrity worship.. mode..

[papertyger]

My opinion of Cruz’s viability comes from his Mainstream Media presence, not some misunderstanding of his policies.

Your position is analogous to the VHS vs. BetaMax contest. No one who has any understanding of the two formats disputes the superiority of BetaMax from the technical aspect.

What caused VHS to shut out BetaMax was superior marketing. And contrary to what any may like to think, that superior marketing does not constitute “laziness” on the part of video tape consumers.

[Carry_Okie]

Questions of integrity mean much more when they don't come from a functional illiterate.

Say that three times to a mirror and then go back and and attempt to read what I posted again; you might even understand it, if you try, really hard.

I was giving you the courtesy of presuming your post grounded in projected cynicism instead of attributing it to delusion.

I must have been mistaken.

[papertyger]

...go back and and attempt to read what I posted again

I read it just fine. The problem was with what you wrote.

[hosepipe]

What caused VHS to shut out BetaMax was superior marketing. And contrary to what any may like to think, that superior marketing does not constitute “laziness” on the part of video tape consumers.

---

WRONG it was advanced data compression techniques..
lead to digital imaging and archival changes..
I was “there’.. was part of it..

[papertyger]

WRONG it was advanced data compression techniques.. lead to digital imaging and archival changes.. I was “there’.. was part of it..

Funny, I was selling them and those issues never came up.

[smoothsailing]

[hosepipe]

[smoothsailing]

[kvanbrunt2]

I see so you do not know what the problem IS...

i think i do.. our constitution requires an intelligent, informed, moral, diligent population. sans that the system doesn’t work. it’s not a top down system.

[gleeaikin]

It is all very well that people with no insurance were admitted to hospitals and stabilized there, but costs are a lot lower if treatment is given regularly by a clinic, HMO or regular GP. So long as hospitals are required by law to give emergency care, then government IS in health care.

I like your $10,000 deductible catastrophic insurance coverage. While we are at it why not remove the first $10,000 in interest paid each year from the IRS 1040 form. This would encourage people to invest in interest paying stocks for the long term, and help stabilize the market.

Does anyone think it is rather unChristian for big pharma to be earning 20% profits on the backs of the sick and desperate, while most companies have a 3% to 7% profit margin? I wonder what the profit margin is on Trump’s businesses?