Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."
So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:
"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"
"Sure. We're going to look at everything."
"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"
"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."
"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"
"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."
"GooGooGooJoob?"
"I'll be looking into that."
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.
The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?
If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.
Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."
>>”He’s all for our laws and the Constitution.”
How would you answer these criticisms?:
He not only has excellent advisers, he has a quick natural instinct for answering these questions. Maybe it has been honed by all his years as a negotiator, as well.
By the way, he mentions Carl Icahn so frequently that I wonder if he is considering him for vice president, not just a cabinet position. Seems like he is trying to get the general population familiar with the name.
“Absent Trump, we’d be seeing a media-orchestrated contest between El Jebbe and Walker over which would earn the right to lose to the Butcheress of Benghazi.”
Amen. And that’s an apt handle for Hitlery. Also, absent Trump, they’d all be clamoring to shove comprehensive immigration reform aka amnesty down our throats.
Cooke's piece nicely tees up my feelings about Trump and his ideology.No one really cares what your feelings are.
The day is incomplete until the last TRUMP defamation article written that day is read. And for the past 24 plus hours this has been a busy day indeed.
To all the anti TRUMPS across this fruited plain... remember this- He leads at the moment, he is a proven, accomplished AMERICAN man who gets things done, makes it happen, gets the ball rolling, shakes it up. He makes a practice at being successful and it shows.
So let it be said, every possible move has been attempted to bring this Man down. And guess what? HE IS STILL STANDING. The suggestion to you would be give it up. You begin to look like fools after so much time and this is the point where that begins...
The last attempt indicates the barrel has been scraped clean...there is only one other way to get the job done in bringing him down. And THAT is unlawful. If used, you might not live to regret it and if you happened to live, it might be behind bars. Allow the man to continue to campaign. It’s his right to do so, just as it is yours to refuse to vote for him or anyone else. BUT STOP with the constant lies and fairy tales. It does not help you nor does it help our AMERICA. After all, we’re in this together at least we were at one time not long ago.
TO the MFM - It’s time you took a pledge to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
GO TRUMP! GO CRUZ! ~ YOU WIN OR WE LOSE!!
I’m not going to changer your mind, but, obviously, we disagree.
>>”Absent Trump, we’d be seeing a media-orchestrated contest between El Jebbe and Walker..”
I don’t think so at all. Maybe Walker would have hung in longer. I think we’ll end up without Trump and Carson - by spring, and go from there.
It would be better for conservatives without the delay; but, then again, we disagree.
I see you still don't understand what I said. But since you brought Reagan up, let me use him to further my argument.
Reagan did a lot of policy speaking, in general terms, but that's not my point.
Time after time, in his campaign speeches as well as his media covered speeches to various interests, Reagan explained Conservatism in a way the average Joe could understand it. It was all impromptu, never used notes and backed everything up with little lessons about US history.
This is what I mean.
As to Trumps posted policy papers, I note that he never gets into them, other that a short quip or accusation. That is what is meant when I say no substantive arguments or illustrations.
As to your list of attributes, I don't doubt them. Those are good average American patriot opinions. But I am looking for someone who can put those opinions into a speech and illustrate why they are good opinions...
To be more blunt, I want the steak, not just the sizzle.
I love it when he says “bomb the shit out them.” And so does the huge crowds roaring their approval. Same with build the wall, and deport them all! And then his poll numbers peak... again! No one goes directly to and connects with the people like Trump.
I respect your choice anyway, but it doesn’t seem you have an argument against Trump’s lack of integrity.
Well said.
I am a Cruz supporter and avoid the primary fights among Freepers this year.
I have posted yesterday and today in defense of Trump because of the posts repeating a media lie about what Trump said.
GO CRUZ*****GO TRUMP
Trump is not a conservative. Trump is still the best candidate. There ya go.
Pathetic attempts at humor is this piece as well. Cooke is way too heavy-handed a writer to be witty.
YEah, and the day he’s elected that will all STOP and they will be trying to come to surrender terms with him. Recall the hostages flying home on Reagan’s inauguration. This is all old hat. They said all the same things about Reagan but now he is one of the all time great presidents.
The more succinct way to say that is : “A woman scorned...” There is something about hell and fury too...
He is a late arrival to the political arena. He was busy building his empire and couldn’t use other criteria for picking whom to donate to. Now he is working out his policies carefully—yes, with his advisers, as everyone does.
I would wait and see what he proposes for his health care plan, instead of assuming it’s going to be universal, single-payer. One thing you can be sure of, it will be more affordable for the average person, who right now is paying for all the Obama incompetence and corruption.
I hope he does that before Iowa or at least before New Hampshire.
I bet she does the exact same thing when one of her friends doesn’t get selected for something or ‘her’ contestant loses on one of the big talent shows like The Voice.
It seems to me that the only one that is being held to this standard of having to give a definitive answer, on everything, is Trump. Only when he started giving out more detailed plans on issues, did everyone else.
I realize the article and thread isn’t about Rubio, but I can’t help but comment on the fact that he isn’t ever asked anything requiring details. More importantly, he lies through his teeth about immigration and never gets called out on it.
By your standard, Abraham had no integrity. Jacob had no integrity. Moses had no integrity. David had no integrity.
Indeed, when your standard is such that Jesus Christ had no integrity, I submit you are destined for the trash heap of human memory.
When you really know you’re right about what is best for the American people, it is actually a moral imperative to sell that idea to the people by whatever means you can.
Trump’s message is very simple. And he repeats it in every speech. Not shallow, because there is policy behind it, but simple, like when a professor uses the old rule of “tell them what you’re gonna tell them.”
“Sizzle” is the wrong word, too. Restaurants create the sizzle by throwing water on the plate right before it comes out of the kitchen. “Sizzle” means deceptive.
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.