The disintegration of Donald Trump

[TitanTiger 20,708]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Folks are buying from a snake-oil salesman and won't get it until it's too late:

For just a moment it seemed that Donald Trump's bid for the presidency contained the seeds of an ideological revolution. Trump had tapped into something that felt like a fresh European import, an ideological right wing motivated by populist nationalism rather than conservatism.

Like European rightists in Hungary and Poland, he wanted a wall to shut out "invading" immigrants. Like the Front Nationale in France, he showed no taste for dismantling the welfare state, only in putting its levers of power to work for his native clients. Like UKIP in Britain, a map of where his strongest supporters live is practically a map of the nation's deindustrialization.

In Trump we suddenly seemed to have the kind of culture warrior imagined by thinkers like James Burnham, who opposed liberalism not because it offends the Constitution or runs roughshod over the little platoons of civil society, but because it is the verbal justification for the contraction of Western societies: the diminution of their military power and the demographic decline of their native populations.

Instead of professing loyalty to a free market that is indifferent when choosing between Americans and foreigners, Trump acknowledged that trade can be a form of economic competition, not just cooperation. And so he promised to change the rules of the game to favor Americans again.

Further, Trump pit the cost of foreign wars against the interests of Americans, asking people to imagine where America would be if the country had invested all those trillions spent on a war in Iraq in America instead. Because Trumpism seemed to be generated by global economic shifts, and because he was so easy to connect to global trends in politics, he suddenly seemed inevitable and formidable.

Trump has also sounded completely out of his depth on immigration, much to the chagrin of his restrictionist fans. In a debate in Detroit, where Trump would supposedly have some of his most nationalist-minded fans, Trump said, "I'm changing. I'm changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can't do it, we'll get them in." He described his position on immigration as "softening" and then long-windedly explained why Americans would not take seasonal jobs on some of Trump's American properties. One of the reasons he offered was the weather. That's right, the pro-American-worker Trump says that America is just too hot for American workers. Trump also pushed "touchback" amnesty, where illegal immigrants are granted legal status if they go home and obtain a guest-worker pass from an employer. Suddenly the "big beautiful door" in the Mexican border wall sounds a lot bigger. As Trump has begun to emphasize about immigration, "everything is negotiable."

Trump's non-interventionism also seems to be on the table. In the Detroit debate he talked about creating "safe zones" in Syria to stem the refugee flow. And in the Miami debate he said he would commit ground troops to Syria and Iraq: "We really have no choice, we have to knock out ISIS... I would listen to the generals, but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000-30,000." It is unclear which generals have Trump's ear, but the number of troops he cited sounds remarkably like he has been told about Frederick Kagan's white paper on defeating ISIS. Essentially, Trump endorsed the plan for Iraq and Syria that has been promoted lustily by Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. In other words, gone is the America-first foreign policy, in comes the non-credible plan to transform the region again through force of arms, with America leading a mythical, and surely quite moderate, Sunni fighting force.

As Ben Carson aptly put it last week, "There are two Donald Trumps." Indeed, Trump has confessed he plans to change from nationalist caterpillar into establishmentarian butterfly. "When I'm president I'm a different person. I can do anything. I can be the most politically correct person you have ever seen."

Indeed, the transformation is already showing. On policy, Trump is caving to normal Republicanism. He's trying to get elected by pining for someone to finish the dang fence but has amnesty on the mind. He's promising to protect American workers from unfair competition, but angling to pass a plutocratic tax reform. By the end of his campaign the only thing he'll have added to the Republican Party is a reputation for crudity and disorderly violence.

His nationalist challenge to the status quo is disintegrating before our eyes. Instead of the inevitable transformation of the American right, Donald Trump is just the most successful huckster, selling gold coins and survival seeds to a scared public.

http://theweek.com/articles/612240/disintegration-donald-trump

[quietfan 233]

Interesting read. Thanks.

I'm just a little surprised there's room in the already well- and long-established snake oil market for a new vender...particularly one as arrogant, crude, and offensive as Trump!

But I guess the secret, as every con man knows, is to be able to convince the gullible public that your particular rip-off product really is different from all the crooks'. It was true during the height of the patent medicine days of the late 1800's and apparently it's still true in politics today.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

[Guest NC1406]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

Usually your "funny" posts offend me. The posts can be as bad as a frat boy wearing black face. In this case I could not agree more with your comments. As an unaffiliated voter I am disgusted with this choice.

[AUwent 3,794]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

Ditto.

[AUFAN78 4,061]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

I'm a bit disgusted with both frankly, but I think I see your point.

[Strychnine 1,804]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

Indeed. The Trump supporters that I know and have discussed it with personally, are not particularly enamored with his bombastic rhetoric. They are simply fed up with the Republican Party, and view support of Trump as a protest vote. I cannot really disagree with them, as Trump is probably where I would end up if given a choice between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Sadly, the only guy in the Republican race that is worth nominating is now in a distant third place.

Clinton is an enigma to me. She lost to Obama in 2008, and that really should have ended her future for Presidential elections. If it didn't, being publicly tarred-and-feathered over Benghazi and e-mails should have done it. I do not understand how voters can consider her likable, and I have not personally met a single human being that acknowledges supporting her. I'm not convinced that her own husband really likes her. The Democrats that I know would rather have Obama for a third term than Clinton for one. It's like there's some indomitable force behind her that is compelling people to vote for her at gunpoint, insisting that at some point she MUST be made President, and that we will like it. It's like the Democratic Party insisted that she not face any serious opposition in this primary. A candidate like Barack Obama would probably beat her in this primary too, so the Party made sure she didn't have to deal with one. They underestimated Bernie Sanders, but he never had a chance.

I am not a registered member of either party. I voted for George W. Bush twice, because the Democrats offered me Al Gore and John Kerry. I voted for Barack Obama twice, because the Republicans offered me John McCain and Mitt Romney. I lean toward the left in some regards, and lean toward the right in others. Neither party seems very interested in representing me, or others like me. That disturbs me, because I think there are ultimately more like me than anything else.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Usually your "funny" posts offend me. The posts can be as bad as a frat boy wearing black face. In this case I could not agree more with your comments. As an unaffiliated voter I am disgusted with this choice."

Good! I am glad you are offended. I hope it is offensive and provocative. It is a reflection of what I find offensive, those who mindlessly cheerlead for a party without thought, without genuine concern for the country, without concern for humanity, without critical thinking, without integrity. If you fit that description, good! If you are provoked to a deeper level of thinking, even better.

[AuburnEagle79 2,171]

I feel certain I will be the only one but, I am more disappointed in Democrats for voting for Clinton than Republicans voting for Trump.

I'm disappointed that the majority of Americans are dumb enough to vote for either one.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"I'm disappointed that the majority of Americans are dumb enough to vote for either one."

I hear you. I understand. However, I do not blame "Americans". Few institutions are directed from the bottom, up. Certainly not either party. You have identified why I made the statement to begin with. Good job! Very good!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

Only two datapoints, but this Kasich supporter and his wife who supported Rubio will not vote for Trump. If the exit polling is any indication, we aren't alone.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

Only two datapoints, but this Kasich supporter and his wife who supported Rubio will not vote for Trump. If the exit polling is any indication, we aren't alone.

It all kind of reminds me of when I was a kid and a guy named Big Jim Folsom was Gov. of Alabama. Nobody liked him, would swear they would never vote for him, but he just got elected again and again.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

"Only two datapoints, but this Kasich supporter and his wife who supported Rubio will not vote for Trump. If the exit polling is any indication, we aren't alone."

You must choose the form of the destructor.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

"Only two datapoints, but this Kasich supporter and his wife who supported Rubio will not vote for Trump. If the exit polling is any indication, we aren't alone."

You must choose the form of the destructor.

I don't have to choose anything. I just have to be able to live with the vote I cast and answer to God with a clean conscience for it.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

The choice has been made!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

"Only two datapoints, but this Kasich supporter and his wife who supported Rubio will not vote for Trump. If the exit polling is any indication, we aren't alone."

You must choose the form of the destructor.

I don't have to choose anything. I just have to be able to live with the vote I cast and answer to God with a clean conscience for it.

We are all free to choose but not free from the consequences of our choice. I pray everyday for God to give us leaders who will put country before their own selfish and political interests. Whoever I end up voting for I will make that prayer that I am voting for the one who God will lead in that direction. No one is unchangeable.

[Strychnine 1,804]

The choice has been made!

So what you are saying is that we get the Staypuft Marshmallow Man?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Yep, it's Mr. Stay Puft! Nice goin there, Titan.

[cooltigger21 0]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

[homersapien 11,812]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

Yeah, consistent obstructionism has been so good for them.

[cooltigger21 0]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

Yeah, consistent obstructionism has been so good for them.

Actually it has. You call it obstruction, I suppose that's true. It won them two midterm landslides though.. When it comes to presidential elections, they want to nominate people like McCain and Romney, two guys who embodied the go along and get along mentality, Both lost big.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

Yeah, consistent obstructionism has been so good for them.

Actually it has. You call it obstruction, I suppose that's true. It won them two midterm landslides though.

Those midterm successes have far more to do with having control of 31 state legislatures and getting to redraw congressional districts in ways favorable to Republicans than any accomplishments in Washington.

When it comes to presidential elections, they want to nominate people like McCain and Romney, two guys who embodied the go along and get along mentality, Both lost big.

We got McCain and Romney because frankly there weren't really very many other good options on the bench. At least who were willing to run. We were in a lull just like the Dems were in 2004 (and to some degree in 2000).

[cooltigger21 0]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

Yeah, consistent obstructionism has been so good for them.

Actually it has. You call it obstruction, I suppose that's true. It won them two midterm landslides though.

Those midterm successes have far more to do with having control of 31 state legislatures and getting to redraw congressional districts in ways favorable to Republicans than any accomplishments in Washington.

When it comes to presidential elections, they want to nominate people like McCain and Romney, two guys who embodied the go along and get along mentality, Both lost big.

We got McCain and Romney because frankly there weren't really very many other good options on the bench. At least who were willing to run. We were in a lull just like the Dems were in 2004 (and to some degree in 2000).

That's true to a point. 2010, the candidates for office ran largely on opposition to the Democrats and Obama in particular. 2014 was more or less the same thing. Even more striking was the number of GOP candidates for state and local office who got elected running as a conservatives. My basic point is that by agreeing with and going along with the Democrats on things like amnesty is a recipe for failure for Republicans yet they keep wanting to do it. Romney was doomed because his Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. He wasn't a great candidate by any stretch but he was ok enough.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Only one datapoint but this Rubio supporter is going to Trump. It will be interesting to how the split of Rubio donors/supporters goes.

I think the vast majority ( in excess of 75% ) will move over to Cruz. When Rubio went along with the gang of 8, that doomed his presidential aspirations. Seems the Republicans just never learn. Going along with the Democrats is not a winning strategy.

Yeah, consistent obstructionism has been so good for them.

Actually it has. You call it obstruction, I suppose that's true. It won them two midterm landslides though.

Those midterm successes have far more to do with having control of 31 state legislatures and getting to redraw congressional districts in ways favorable to Republicans than any accomplishments in Washington.

When it comes to presidential elections, they want to nominate people like McCain and Romney, two guys who embodied the go along and get along mentality, Both lost big.

We got McCain and Romney because frankly there weren't really very many other good options on the bench. At least who were willing to run. We were in a lull just like the Dems were in 2004 (and to some degree in 2000).

That's true to a point. 2010, the candidates for office ran largely on opposition to the Democrats and Obama in particular. 2014 was more or less the same thing. Even more striking was the number of GOP candidates for state and local office who got elected running as a conservatives. My basic point is that by agreeing with and going along with the Democrats on things like amnesty is a recipe for failure for Republicans yet they keep wanting to do it. Romney was doomed because his Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare. He wasn't a great candidate by any stretch but he was ok enough.

Well, as with most things, the choices are rarely "go along" or "obstruct everything that isn't exactly what you want." The need to compromise was baked into our constitution, yet we've managed to turn it into some kind of dirty word that instantly labels one a RINO. We could use some folks that understand what people on both sides used to know how to do - work with both sides and give and take a little to get good legislation for people.

Romney was doomed because he was clueless about people outside his insulated bubble of the well-to-do. He really didn't get how average people lived at all and it came out in condescending remarks that he didn't even realize were condescending. And also, there was some discomfort with the Mormonism if we're being honest.

But as far as Romneycare/Obamacare - conservatives are going to need to get off this notion that health care should be treated like having the latest iPhone or a 65" flat screen. It's not a luxury. It's a necessity. And just from a practical standpoint, we could reduce our overall spending on healthcare in this country if we covered everyone and didn't allow health problems to fester until they are much more expensive to treat. Preventative medicine is always less costly than emergency or late term care. And honestly, much of Romneycare/Obamacare was modeled on a conservative health plan that was put forth in the 90s as an alternative to Hillarycare. So I take all this 'principled' opposition to it with a truckload of salt.

Now I'm not a big fan of the ACA as it played out, though I do like some of the provisions. I have close friends who literally would be bankrupt and suffering if things like preexisting conditions and being 'uninsurable' weren't removed as an issue by the ACA. It makes absolutely no sense that in a country as well off as ours, that the number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills. None whatsoever. And to me there are many ways to skin a cat so to speak. I really don't care whose idea it is, whether we model universal coverage after Canada, Britain, et al (but hopefully find ways to avoid problems they've had), or whether we come up with some amazing free market way to do it. I just think it needs to happen and if the Republicans want something different than Obamacare or single-payer then they'd better craft a comprehensive plan that will do it. And it needs to be more than just bluster about buying across state lines because that alone is not a panacea.