PDA

View Full Version : In Support of Trump



Keith Wilson
02-05-2016, 10:03 AM
Holy rat-frequenters, batman! :D Jonathan Chain on Trump.


Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination
By Jonathan Chait

The initial stupefaction and dismay with which liberals greeted Donald Trump’s candidacy have slowly given way to feelings of Schadenfreude— reveling in the suffering of others, in this case the apoplectic members of the Republican Establishment. Are such feelings morally wrong? Or can liberals enjoy the spectacle unleavened by guilt? As Republican voters start actually voting, is it okay to be sad — alarmed, even — by the prospect that the Trump hostile takeover of the GOP may fail?

There are three reasons, in descending order of obviousness, for a liberal to earnestly and patriotically support a Trump Republican nomination. The first, of course, is that he would almost certainly lose. Trump’s ability to stay atop the polls for months, even as critics predicted his demise, has given him an aura of voodoo magic that frightens some Democrats. But whatever wizardry Trump has used to defy the laws of political gravity has worked only within his party. Among the electorate as a whole, he is massively — indeed, historically — unpopular, with unfavorable ratings now hovering around 60 percent and a public persona almost perfectly designed to repel the Obama coalition: racial minorities, single women, and college-educated whites. It would take a landscape-altering event like a recession for him to win; even that might not be enough.

Second, a Trump nomination might upend his party. The GOP is a machine that harnesses ethno-nationalistic fear — of communists, criminals, matrimonial gays, terrorists, snooty cultural elites — to win elections and then, once in office, caters to its wealthy donor base. (This is why even a social firebrand like Ted Cruz would privately assure the billionaire investor Paul Singer that he wasn’t particularly concerned about gay-marriage laws.) As its voting base has lost college-*educated voters and gained blue-collar whites, the fissure between the means by which Republicans attain power and the ends they pursue once they have it has widened.

What has most horrified conservative activists about Trump’s rise is how little he or his supporters seem to care about their anti-government ideology. When presented with the candidate’s previous support for higher taxes on the rich or single-payer insurance, heresies of the highest order, Trump fans merely shrug. During this campaign, Trump has mostly conformed to party doctrine, but without much conviction. Trump does not mouth the rote conservative formulation that government is failing because it can’t work and that the solution is to cut it down to size. Instead, he says it is failing because it is run by idiots and that the solution is for it to instead be run by Trump. About half of Republicans favor higher taxes on the rich, a position that has zero representation among their party’s leaders. And those Republicans are the most likely to support Trump.

Trump’s candidacy represents, among other things, a revolt by the Republican proletariat against its master class. That is why National Review devoted a cover editorial and 22 columns to denouncing Trump as a heretic to the conservative movement. A Trump nomination might not actually cleave the GOP in two, but it could wreak havoc. If, like me, you think the Republican Party in its current incarnation needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt anew, Trump is the only one holding a match.

The third reason to prefer a Trump nomination: If he does win, a Trump presidency would probably wind up doing less harm to the country than a Marco Rubio or a Cruz presidency. It might even, possibly, do some good.

The Trump campaign may feel like an off-the-grid surrealistic nightmare, The Man in the High Castle meets Idiocracy. But something like it has happened before. Specifically, it happened in California, a place where things often happen before they happen to the rest of us, in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger won the governorship. At the time, the prospect of Schwarzenegger governing America’s largest state struck many of us as just as ghastly as the idea of a Trump presidency seems now. Like Trump, Schwarzenegger came directly to politics from the celebrity world without bothering to inform himself about public policy. He campaigned as a vacuous Man of Action in opposition to the Politicians, breezing by all the specifics as the petty obsessions of his inferiors.

In addition to being grossly unqualified, Schwarzenegger was just gross. He barely concealed his habit of reducing all women to sex objects — and, to a degree exceeding anything Trump has done, put this theory into practice. Shortly before his election, the Los Angeles Times published the accounts of six women who reported being groped and humiliated by Schwarzenegger. Even Schwarzenegger’s attempts to portray himself as respecting standards of decency revealed his inability to comprehend them. “When you see a blonde with great tits and a great ass, you say to yourself, ‘Hey, she must be stupid or must have nothing else to offer,’ which maybe is the case many times,” he told Esquire in 2003. “But then again there is the one that is as smart as her breasts look, great as her face looks, beautiful as her whole body looks gorgeous, you know, so people are shocked.”

At the beginning of his term, Schwarzenegger more or less fulfilled the worst liberal fears. He gashed a hole in the state budget with a tax cut he couldn’t pay for. He assailed his opponents in the legislature as “girlie men,” proposed a slew of right-wing ballot initiatives, and stated in a meeting that Puerto Rican–American and Cuban-*American officials opposed to him were acting “hot,” i.e., angry, thanks to their “black blood” and “Latino blood.”

But then something funny happened. When his legislative agenda stalled and his ballot measures failed, Schwarzenegger reversed course. The new Schwarzenegger compromised with Democrats on the budget, raising taxes and funding new public infrastructure. He abandoned his opposition to gay marriage, passed redistricting reform, and enacted cutting-edge legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. He proposed sweeping health-care reform based on Mitt Romney’s successful Massachusetts plan. It failed, but when President Obama passed a national health-care law (also based on Romney’s plan), Schwarzenegger defied furious Republicans and eagerly hopped aboard, which enabled his state to roll out its Obamacare exchange smoothly. By the end of his tenure, it was impossible to deny that Schwarzenegger had become a highly effective governor.

The reasons for this bear directly on a hypothetical Trump presidency. Schwarzenegger’s loyalty to Republican doctrine was tissue-thin. He joined the GOP because he vaguely shared its veneration of wealth and success. But his sub-intellectualism, which initially made him so repellent, turned out to be an asset. When conventional Republican governance made him unpopular, he had no incentive to go down with the party ship. The only thing Schwarzenegger really craved was popularity. Running for office as an exercise in ego gratification may not be as good a thing as running as a serious candidate with good ideas, but it’s much better than running as a serious candidate with bad ideas.

Having left Sacramento five years ago, Schwarzenegger floats around Trump’s candidacy like a half-forgotten doppel*gänger. When Trump left Celebrity Apprentice to launch his campaign, Schwarzenegger took over as host. He appears in ads for the video game Mobile Strike as a joyfully hawkish *general — barking, “Send a dozen choppers, when one chopper would do” — which have aired in heavy rotation during Republican debates. The juxtaposition has an understated hilarity. Video-game pitchman Schwarzenegger, like Trump, sounds like a parody of the foreign-policy thought offered by the actual GOP candidates, who promise to bring back torture and make the sand glow. The difference: Schwarzenegger, like Trump, is only playing a character. The truly dangerous Republicans are the ones who believe their own dialogue

Norman Bernstein
02-05-2016, 10:44 AM
Good article, although I have my doubts about this particular line:


About half of Republicans favor higher taxes on the rich, a position that has zero representation among their party’s leaders.

Hmm... any way to verify that claim?

S.V. Airlie
02-05-2016, 10:50 AM
Yup a dead ringer for the award!

Keith Wilson
02-05-2016, 10:55 AM
Amazingly enough, Jesse Ventura wasn't a bad governor. Except for being a bit touchy and shooting off his mouth too much, he was moderate, reasonably competent, and didn't screw up anything too badly.

BrianY
02-05-2016, 11:00 AM
Good article, although I have my doubts about this particular line:



Hmm... any way to verify that claim?

"About half" is generous.

from http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm






CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 6-10, 2015. N=1,495 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.












"In general, would you favor or oppose increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations in order to help reduce income inequality in the U.S.?"







Favor
Oppose
Unsure/
No answer






%
%
%






ALL
63
31
6






Republicans
38
55
7






Democrats
84
12
4






Independents
63
31
7

David G
02-05-2016, 11:06 AM
Amazingly enough, Jesse Ventura wasn't a bad governor. Except for being a bit touchy and shooting off his mouth too much, he was moderate, reasonably competent, and didn't screw up anything too badly.

Yes, I remember being quite pleasantly surprised that he didn't govern in the same 'loose-cannon' fashion with which he campaigned. And yes, I could see Trump being a 'make the trains run on time', but eff-up seriously at times also sorta dingbat leader.

Gerarddm
02-05-2016, 11:08 AM
Trump loves making deals. That he is therefore not an ideologue makes him better than Cruz and Rubio, sure. But he still is a lousy prospect among other lousy prospects, it's just a matter of degree.

See my signature. Vote accordingly. As John Ellish Bush would say, " you can clap now".

Durnik
02-05-2016, 11:12 AM
"About half" is generous.

from http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm





CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 6-10, 2015. N=1,495 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.














"In general, would you favor or oppose increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations in order to help reduce income inequality in the U.S.?"








Favor
Oppose
Unsure/
No answer






%
%
%






ALL

63
31
6






Republicans

38
55
7






Democrats

84
12
4






Independents

63
31
7









Interesting. In this poll, the Independents are the average.. & in favor.

enjoy
bobby

BrianY
02-05-2016, 11:14 AM
My wife asked me last night if I had to choose between Cruz and Trump who would I pick? I said Trump because I figured he'd be able to do the least harm.

Sky Blue
02-05-2016, 11:20 AM
I've said much the same for months in here, that is, that Trump is a moderate, and an apt comparison for his candidacy is that of Mr. Schwarzenegger in his run in the 2003 recall election in California.

Keith Wilson
02-05-2016, 11:32 AM
"In general, would you favor or oppose increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations in order to help reduce income inequality in the U.S.?"I think the operative phrase there is "in order to help reduce income inequality'. Without that, I'd guess the results would be notably different. It would be interesting to see the answers to the question "In general, would you favor or oppose increasing taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations in order to help reduce the federal deficit?"

Trump may be a moderate on some things, but it's very difficult to tell from what comes out of his mouth. Whether he actually believes anything he says is dubious at best, so how can you tell what he really thinks? FWIW, He's proposed an astoundingly regressive and totally unrealistic tax plan (an analysis here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf))

David G
02-05-2016, 11:32 AM
I've said much the same for months in here, that is, that Trump is a moderate, and an apt comparison for his candidacy is that of Mr. Schwarzenegger in his run in the 2003 recall election in California.

And you're still wrong. He may not be an extreme ideologue measured on the same spectrum as Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, et.al. Though we have no definitive proof of that proposition, either way.

But, even if he's not... that doesn't make him a moderate.

S.V. Airlie
02-05-2016, 11:35 AM
I've reached the point that SB should be complimented when he says something right, saves on posts continually saying he's wrong.

oznabrag
02-05-2016, 11:42 AM
Holy rat-frequenters, batman! :D Jonathan Chain on Trump.

YES!!!! I have ARRIVED! :cool:

Sky Blue
02-05-2016, 11:45 AM
I've reached the point that SB should be complimented when he says something right, saves on posts continually saying he's wrong.

No, Jamie, really it is a question of raising my observations, in a serious attempt for discussion with people here, and having the dirt-birds and the dullards shoot it down, often rudely and invariably with insults. Chait comes along months later and channels my analysis, and suddenly everyone wants to talk about it.

It is what it is. Hopefully people will learn from it.

Hugh Conway
02-05-2016, 11:48 AM
That's, to be highly charitable, an incredibly revisionist accounting of Schwarzenegger in that piece. Amusingly it dovetails very well with what Wikipedia has to say about Arnold, while seeming to have little to no knowledge of California on the part of the writer.

S.V. Airlie
02-05-2016, 11:50 AM
And why do they shoot it down, perhaps your discussions are based on your opinions, which in turn, are based of fears, lies, and hate and not on facts? No wonder!

Keith Wilson
02-05-2016, 12:06 PM
And the simple way to accomplish such is by flat tax rates . . . As H. L. Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

David G
02-05-2016, 12:17 PM
No, Jamie, really it is a question of raising my observations, in a serious attempt for discussion with people here, and having the dirt-birds and the dullards shoot it down, often rudely and invariably with insults. Chait comes along months later and channels my analysis, and suddenly everyone wants to talk about it.

It is what it is. Hopefully people will learn from it.

I don't believe that Chait is channeling you analysis. For example: show us, please, where Chait characterizes Trump as a moderate. Dirt-bird? Dullard? How rude is it to keep telling the same lies, and wasting electrons (and everyone's time), when you've been corrected many times over? What sort of dirt-bird fails to address the issues raised about his silly assertions, only to come right back and repeat the same cowflop again. And again. And again.

1984 was NOT meant to be an instruction manual. Goebbels is NOT someone you should be emulating.

Ian McColgin
02-05-2016, 04:03 PM
It's a thought except that most Germans thought Hitler was a joke, totally unelectable, for many years.

I don't think a representative democracy is strong when one party puts up an insane whiney bully. Sadly, this year we cannot get a good Republican candidate but that's no reason to scrape up the worst possible candidate.

Also, thinking back to Europe in the early thirties, what if he were to win?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-05-2016, 04:08 PM
But at the same time they don't want the

corporate tax rate to be one of the highest in the world that leads corporations to outsource and move abroad, therefore eliminating jobs.


Once again, you reduce a complex problem to a simple, but totally false statement. If you think that corporate tax rate is the reason why corporations move jobs abroad, I have some lovely waterfront property in Arizona... wunnerful deal. Sheesh.

Tom Hunter
02-06-2016, 08:34 AM
I agree with Keith's comments on the pole, its a pole about raising taxes for a specific purpose, and if you changed the purpose you would change the results.

If it said "to fix roads a bridges" Republican support would go up, if it said "to expand welfare benefits" it would go down. The fact that almost 40% of Republicans would increase taxes to reduce inequality is kind of amazing.

There is a lot of speculation in the OP, but some truth too. If Trump wins the nomination I bet we will see a very different approach to the general election from Trump.