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."
And I’m tired of ad hominems substituting for coherent debate.
Careful, that realization is going to cause her to start frothing at the mouth.
...Too late.
His “mouth” is what is making him *more* attractive to voters tired of mealy-mouth professional politician Boomer platitudes. Do you want old-style ‘civility’ or do you want to win and save the republic? Pick one, because the political landscape is such that you can’t have both any more.
He believes in covering those who cannot do for themselves.... We have always had this in our system and it is not controversial with most people, except maybe you.
AHAH! You sure are one to talk. But then Mr. Cruz is not a whiny baby.
Right on!
There is a war on CW, I don’t appreciate it. One can make comments without purposely degrading/insulting the other.
Will never vote for Trump. Refreshing at first, has become childish.
I see she did a hit and run thread.
Mr Cruz, a man I respect would not talk about his opponent in the fashion that you prefer.
At some point, you are going to have to get a grip, because he IS going to be the GOP nominee.
Trump will be the nominee. Cruz will be his VP. Are you committing here to vote for the Democrat opposition in that instance ?
I don’t usually say bad things about Cruz.
I certainly do not make Cruz a project, to smear here. I have once or twice said why I do not support him for the presidential candidate, and decided instead to support Trump.
I like a whole lot of what Cruz believes in, though. I believe he might be a better Supreme Court nominee than presidential candidate.
I am just saying though however, that appears to be what you are involved in with regard to Trump. You are not supporting Cruz, but rather trying to tear down Trump. That is not a productive contribution, either to this conversation, or in support of your candidate.
In my opinion.
Universal government-paid-for healthcare. Obamacare by a different name.
We have always had this in our system
No.
We live in a dangerous time. We need a strong state.
Any one who hasn’t paying attention to the disintegration of the world around us hasn’t been paying attention.
There is a long road ahead to restore America.
It won’t survive by being weak and leading from behind.
Donald Trump is the anti-Obama.
You know that dingbat hates Cruz, too ?
When that happens, I truly wonder how many GOPe head explosions will be in need of aisle clean up?
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.