-----------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 08/27/2015 8:56:11 PM PDT by 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.
” Trump is a lifelong liberal Democrat . . . “
And just where did you get that [WRONG] information ????
dumb
Also, what about allowing purchases from legitimate drug companies in Canada especially in bulk for clinics and hospitals to bring down costs. VA buys medicine in bulk. My late husband’s Alzheimer’s medication was something like $7 a month. My Kaiser Permanente thyroid medication is $15 for 3 months.
In his book,”The Art of the Deal,” which I read 30 years ago, he speaks well of his ex-wife whom he put in charge of one of his major Atlantic City operations, because he respected her judgement/expertise.
You’re making a blatant claim that Trump has ‘great disdain for women’. I would appreciate if you could identify if this is a belief you hold, or if you have evidence to support this. And I sincerely hope you don’t try the whole Megan Kelly nonsense, that would be quite foolish.
Honestly, that’s a pretty outrageous claim.
I am unsure if anyone pointed out to you that your statement of Trump going bankrupt a bunch of times, is patently false. He himself has never declared bankruptcy. I know, small difference right? I mean, if you owned a business that suffered and had to declare bankruptcy, I’m sure you’d be fine with someone stating that YOU filed bankruptcy, correct?
I can't say your comment doesn't give me some measure of satisfaction.
There have been more than enough articles posted on FreeRepublic to satisfactorily explain exactly why those supporting Trump are immune to criticism of his past, and do so without heaping derision on them. Yet a small contingent insists on trying to insult their opinion into ascendancy.
This phenomena reminded me of a line from Ayn Rand:
"If we look at modern intellectuals, we are confronted with the grotesque spectacle of such characteristics as militant uncertainty, crusading cynicism, dogmatic agnosticism, boastful self-abasement and self-righteous depravity —in an atmosphere of guilt, of panic, of despair, of boredom and of all-pervasive evasion.
This new phenomenon I have dubbed "evangelical cynicism." (not to be confuse with religious evangelism, but parallels do give one pause.)
So to those who have set for themselves the goal of spreading the gospel of cynicism: may your labors continue to reward you with the sour fruits they so richly deserve.
Well
He knows how firm Melania Knauss’s round ass is....I’ll have to give him that
Welcome to FR on your first day of posting.
Hopefully, you’ve been a lurker for some time so you understand how FR rolls.
In his book,”The Art of the Deal,” which I read 30 years ago, he speaks well of his ex-wife whom he put in charge of one of his major Atlantic City operations, because he respected her judgement/expertise.
He is a good businessman.. and conniver.. makes “deals”..
Which goes on every day in Washington D.C.
WHICH is the PROBLEM.!!!. back room deals.. espionage, sedition and other nasty conniver gambits..
Trump’s expertise... America has been connived to DEATH..
Spun threadbare.. this for that.. a little grease for the Gipper.. Bribery.. Corruption.. even TREASON...
Ted Cruz will STOP some of that... then more of that.. and eventually most of it..
Always present when you have democrats and Rinos..
In Washington D.C. TRUMP will have fallen into CONNIVER HEAVEN... HELLO..
Is he a conservative.?. Well NO he isn’t.. What could go WRONG WITH THAT?..
” Trump is a lifelong liberal Democrat . . . “And just where did you get that [WRONG] information ????
True; and is a hard member of only one party..
He’s Trumpocrat.. but he tolerates republicans.. this week..
He’s gone bankrupt more than once ...
******************************************
Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy.
If you have evidence that he did, then provide the data.
I respect liars more than traitors.
LOL! Cynical Conservatives Unite.
If Trump becomes President and doesn't deliver on his high level agenda in a real and meaningful way he will be a 4 and out President. The Republican base has shown as far back as GW Sr. that when you say high level stuff like "Read my lips No New Taxes!" we expect you to deliver.
As far as understanding Trump, my analysis of his campaign can be summed up as follows: IT's AMERICA FIRST, STUPID!
As far as how he is going to get things done I think he's already shown us. He's going to fight for his proposals. He's not going to wilt at the first bad thing said about him in the MSM or by his opposition. He's not going to backdown. Not to Megyn Kelly, not to Jorge Ramos, not to anyone. He's accomplished in a very short period of time what the other candidates dream they could accomplish.
Your #50 is a very good posting!
The Democrats have become the commies we fought the Cold War against. It has certainly gone a long way from the party that gave us JFK. And it has certainly gone a long way from the party of my dad’s. It is incredible how many Americans have become tolerant to the political shift left that the Democrats have gone in the name of “progressivism.”
What makes me concerned is that those on board with the Democrats today, find no problem with Joe Stalin or even Fidel Castro. They think Kim Jong-un is cute and Ayatollah Khomeini is justified in hating Christians. These killers of countless human beings are now getting computer technology that is high tech muscle to control human beings. How much more tyranny will they put on their subject population? What would Hitler or Mussolini have done with that muscle? America’s Left has access to the best of such technology. The data mining that the NSA is doing now will become an evil the totalitarian Left will unleash once they have no opposition. Yes, the Democrat Party has left America because it no longer believes in the freedom our nation has stood for since its founding.
My own thoughts here are for a Trump/Cruz ticket hoping that Cruz will provide the Constitutional anchor and direction to keep the new elected Dictator on a course to resurrect the Republic. I think that the first act must be to shut down the powerful agencies, particularly EPA and Education- end them. It will require a Fiat to do it and it would have to be done immediately before they have a chance to regroup and fight back.
The office of President is now effectively and unavoidably a Dictatorship. The new holder of that office can try to stay with Constitutional practice and theory and will be swamped by the true power holders, the Democrats/totalitarians,communists/moslems who own the Agencies. If he uses the power now inherent in the office to put in place all the things we see as Right and Good he will have failed, because the office is still that of Dictator and the next one will undo it all or he will as things take hard turns later in his term. The only answer I see is to abolish the agencies and to persuade, powerfully prersuade but not force, the States to go to the Article 5 Convention and to hope for the best. The States can take their rightful Constitutional powers back in this manner if they are shielded from retribution by a powerful man in the Presidency/Dictatorship. Power cannot be returned directly to the Congress. Congress doesn't want it and the Court will stymie the process.
Then it will be up to the States and they may or may not reinstall the Republic. They must first of all repeal the 17th Amendment. It' ratification in 1913 is ultimately what brought us to the present pass with assists from the 16th and 19th and with the fact that the society is rich enough to support a huge non-productive segment that desires the total nanny state and that includes far more than the welfaristas- it is also the Academics and the MSM.
= :^)
To be honest, I’m not sure what the best approach on this is.
Hospitals get some amazing pricing with generics, but are stuck paying top dollar for name brand products.
Pharmaceutical companies do have different pricing for domestic and foreign sales. I don’t know why. It may be government related, or it may be another reason. I’d like to know more about why before I make a determination here.
Pharmaceutical companies are thought to be problematic on a several levels. They charge a lot for medications. Sometimes they charge a big per tablet price. They do so because the treatment the patient used to get wasn’t as effective and cost more. Now they just pop the medication, elimination in some cases surgery.
The general public isn’t privy to this. They are not privy to the concept that pharmaceutical companies can study hundreds of medications before they hit on one that can be useful. When they do find one, it may be an item that they patented over a decade ago to protect their rights to the chemical chain.
The patent may not last more than a few years by the time they get around to testing, do research, development, animal testing, human testing, and market the product providing the FDA agrees it is efficacious and safe.
Jumping in here with both feet isn’t as simple as it would seem, because there are a number of considerations.
We need pharmaceutical companies to be able to make a large amount of money to cover all these costs and investments on the next big wonder drug.
I’m not convinced something couldn’t be worked out to help keep costs down. It’s not an outlandish thought.
I generally agree with that. Good call.
Thanks octex. I appreciate it.
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.