I’m seriously asking, y’all. Can our four regular readers chime in here? Because when I see stuff like this, I have to wonder.
[Romney] had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.
Followed, of course, by this:
AG
@AG_Conservative 11 hours agoAG retweeted AG
It’s all a scam. Why doesn’t anyone in the media bother asking Trump about this? https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/633477709239160832 …
Yes yes, I know — in a sane polity, Donald Trump couldn’t get elected dog catcher. He has radioactive baggage stretching back to the 1980s. But as The Z Man keeps pointing out, back in the mid-80s, the views of “right-wing maniac” Ted Cruz were more or less standard Democrat fare. The electorate has been radicalized, in ways that — were they not liberals, and therefore completely lacking self-awareness — would give Bill Ayers types a neverending chubby.
A radicalized electorate is going to go for a radical solution. As proof, I give you 2008 and 2012. Back in the 80s, Obama couldn’t get elected dog catcher either. He is, was, and ever shall be a substanceless nobody, but we’ve somehow allowed him to play more-radical-than-thou faculty-meeting politics on a national stage lo these past 8 years. Why? Because conventional politics wasn’t working.
That’s either the dirtiest secret, or most blazingly obvious characteristic, of radicalism — radicalism is the end in itself. Again, maybe I’m crazy, because it seems like I’m one of the few people who sees this. Z Man points out just today that modern liberalism has nothing to do with politics. It’s a cult, full stop:
It’s tempting to think of the modern Progressives as tarted up commies from the previous age, but there are a different breed of cat. Theirs is a spiritual movement, more than economics or even ideology. They see salvation through egalitarianism and multiculturalism. Leveling the economic playing field is simply not important to them, especially since most are in the managerial elite.
They sound, in other words, like Rousseau, the original Progressive* — bourgeois to the core, he never got over it, and in revenge he let loose upon the world this idea that living an economically secure life is somehow soul-destroying. Page back through Z’s archives for a whole bunch more of this (or just read The True Believer, which he cites pretty frequently).
I know, I know — we conservatives call lefties crazy cultists all the time. Nothing insane about that. But… why does nobody every apply these insights to us?
When I said the electorate has been radicalized, I meant the electorate. ALL of it. We’re just as kooky in our way as the left is in theirs. We don’t like to think about it, because after all, we’re conservatives. I.e the sane ones, the ones who can process realz before feelz. When the culture wars were first heating up in the 1990s, it was easy — and fun!! — to portray ourselves as the voices of sanity, holding the line against whatever Protest Studies nonsense managed to escape from the local college. As late as the early 2000s, Mark Steyn types were calling themselves “happy warriors” against leftist nonsense.
News flash: The culture wars are over, and we lost. Big time. We lost Red-Army-in-Berlin, Enola-Gay-over-Hiroshima style. Leftism is now SOP, even on the Right. Think carefully: When was the last time you heard a Republican politician urging an actually conservative approach to anything? The GOP pitches itself as better at fiddling the welfare state’s knobs and switches than the Democrats. That’s been their strategy for going on two full decades now. How’s it working out?
That’s why Trump’s ahead in the polls, y’all. Back in the 80s, or even the mid-90s, our side of the electorate thought it had a choice — vote GOP, and stop the PC madness. Realz before feelz. Fast forward two decades, and nobody — nobody— is talking about realz. Trump is the only one who gets that. His campaign badges might as well be a middle finger — to Fox News, to Cuckservative Inc., but above all to the reigning PC bullshit. He is NOT saying, and will NEVER say,** “here’s my fifteen-point plan for dealing with issue X.” He is not saying, and will never say, “here is my comprehensive governing philosophy.” You will search Trump’s voluminous utterances in vain for any kind of consistent idea that isn’t “I, Donald Trump, am fuckin’ awesome.”
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Tl;dr: The pundit biz (in which big blogs are definitely included) rests on the assumption that we’re voting on political philosophies — Dems want a government and society that looks this way; Repubs want a government and society that looks that way. Candidate X has a tranche of substantive proposals that do X; Candidate Y has a tranche of substantive proposals that do Y; and we vote on which set of proposals best matches our personal views on what state and society should be and do.
That’s wrong. These days, it’s not “feelz before realz;” it’s “all feelz, no realz.” Trump gets that, and that’s why he’s leading. That’s why contradictions and “gotchas!” bounce right off him. The radicalized non-Left just wants to put a finger in the eye of the Left, who have remade society in their horrifying, estrogenated, noodle-armed, flabby, whiny-ass image. Trump can say whatever the hell he wants, even if it contradicts what he said yesterday, so long as everything he says boils down to “fuck the Cucks.”
And so far, I seem to be one of the few who gets that. Which is why I wonder if I’m crazy.
Thoughts?
*Given how much totalitarian madness has been unleashed upon the world from Geneva, it’s tempting to suggest that the site should be nuked from orbit — it’s the only way to be sure.
**If he’s as savvy as he seems. If I were the GOP, I’d embrace him with open arms. Invite him to all the tables, and let him hash out policy platforms with nerds like Bobby Jindal. Paint him as just another politician, and his support collapses overnight. (That one was free, Jeb. I’ve got lots of others, and I work almost as cheap as a “new American.” Call me).
Loading Likes...
re Trump and your comment ” let him hash out policy platforms”
Well, yes. I’ve seen elsewhere the notion that in general the voters believe the process calls for Republicans to stake out a position, say 80 or 90 on a scale of 100, while Democrats stake out their own position as say 15 to 25, and they negotiate to a middle between 40 and 60. What makes many of us mad is the Democratic Socialist Liberal Progressive coalition stakes out their position at 10, while the Rep/conservative BEGIN at 60 or so, in the attempt to be reasonable and efficient. So we wind up at position 25 or 30, which is to many of us, unacceptable.
Trump has laid down an opener on this issue at 120. Off the chart. Not, I think as a target, but as a reminder that negotiations are NEEDED, and the other side is starting from an unbalanced lowball starting point, and end posture need to wind up closer to 50.
Yay!
I take it, then, that you believe Trump is working within the framework of traditional Republican/Democrat politics?
That seems to be the consensus opinion — which is why I’m wondering if I’m crazy, since I don’t see it that way. I really hope it’s true… even though that would entail I’m crazy. 🙂
Ah well. That’s the great thing about the internet — no matter how far out my theories are, I’ll never be the craziest guy online.
You are crazy, but you know that which makes you sane. 😉
Jonah Goldberg’s made that point in various talks as well.
“The idea of compromise is that the democrats say, ‘let’s go over this cliff at 70 miles an hour!’ The republicans say, ‘let’s not go over the cliff at all.’ So then the democrats turn around and go, ‘ok we’ll compromise and only drive at 35 miles an hour.'”
Yup. And we’ve been playing along for the last 20 years. But my theory is that “compromise” isn’t really on the table anymore. CNN recently reported that Trump is leading with women, for pete’s sake — chicks are all about security uber alles, and even they say they prefer a guy whose very existence shakes everything up.
A radicalized electorate doesn’t want compromise. It doesn’t want fifteen-point declarations and five year plans. It wants action, ANY action, the wilder and splashier the better. If Trump is forced to put out policy proposals, he should do it like his recent immigration thing — it’s so far off the charts that, as Pouncer said, nobody has any idea where to even start “compromising” with it. That being the case, I bet he goes the Paultard route and starts talking about eliminating the Department of Education and whatnot.
(That’s what I’d advise him to do, anyway, and D, if you’re reading this, I’ve got a million more of ’em. I work cheap. Call me).
I think that you may be right about politics becoming a cult, bound by a completely different set of rules then talking points, ten-point plans, etc. Our descent into interesting times continues unabated. Do you think that Trump is the strong man you’ve been predicting, or just a herald?
” . . . the Left, who have remade society in their horrifying, estrogenated, noodle-armed, flabby, whiny-ass image.” Noodle-armed is spot on, heh.
Do you think that Trump is the strong man you’ve been predicting, or just a herald?
No idea. I figured the new fuhrer would follow on Trump’s heels, combining Trump’s schtick with an actual party base. But then again, I thought Trump would’ve officially gone third party by now. So who knows? My best guess is that Trump is going to try to co-opt the Republican Party into something new and different, taking the angry, angry base with him while the Cucks give up the ghost and go Democrat like they’ve always wanted.
I have no idea if that’ll actually work, but then again, I still can’t tell if Trump is actually serious about wanting to be President — he’s not doing some obvious stuff (like getting his own policy team; I read that his immigration paper was put together by Jeff Sessions’s people) if he is, but as he’s leading the polls and has already spent a bunch of cash, I have to assume he is…
It’ll be interesting, to say the least, if it looks like he could secure the nomination. The Cucks will of course rig the rules to keep him out, at which point he… announces that he’ the Real GOP or something? That kind of thing isn’t unprecedented, but it all happened back in the 19th century, when conventions were much more backdoor, smoky-room, cabal-type affairs.
We might get a clue as to the way the wind’s blowing with Hillary. It looks like even liberal pundits are starting to turn on her. She’s been trying to run a Cult of Personality without the personality for some time — I’m betting that Elizabeth Warren sweeps in sooner or later to pick up the “vote for a chick no matter what” contingent, but what about the Hillary die-hards? They were furious at Obama in 2008; if anyone’s going to crack heads, it’s them (they can outsource the actual headbusting to union goons, paid with Chinese “campaign donations”).
I don’t think it’s at all likely, but if there’s any chance of saving representative government in this country, it’s that — a six (or whatever)-way primary fight between six different versions of the old parties.
When I said the electorate has been radicalized, I meant the electorate. ALL of it. We’re just as kooky in our way as the left is in theirs. We don’t like to think about it, because after all, we’re conservatives.
Although I think it’s a good idea to do some serious self-reflection, I don’t buy the idea that we conservatives are as “kooky in our way as the left is in theirs.” There have always been some kooky elements in the loose coalition called “conservatives,” and the fact that a large segment of this group is now justifiably very, very angry means there’s a strong potential for rage-induced, foolish behavior–like supporting a egomaniacal blowhard.
But I just don’t believe the vast majority of conservatives want to do anything more radical than unwind the damage of Barack the Terrible’s reign, control the borders/immigration, halt the growth of leviathan government and restore some basic liberties seized by the state. Which I guess sounds really radical–if you’ve bought the left’s line of bullshit–but it isn’t. It’s just rolling back to 1992 USA and trying to move forward from there (trying to control the borders and immigration, which were a mess then, too).
Trump can say whatever the hell he wants, even if it contradicts what he said yesterday, so long as everything he says boils down to “fuck the Cucks.”
And so far, I seem to be one of the few who gets that. Which is why I wonder if I’m crazy.
Yeah, he’s getting traction with some pissed-off conservatives right now. We’ll have to see how far that gets him.
He’s also saying fuck-you to the PC orthodoxy–which means he’s giving the finger to “conservatives” who bow down to it (aka “cuckservatives”), but also to the left who invented this shit, after all. The fact that he won’t apologize or back down after they do the point-and-shriek thing is a great spectacle, but it doesn’t mean he’s a good candidate, or even one worth considering.
————
Despite all the above, I have to say I really haven’t given Mr Trump a whole lot of thought. Do you remember 2011-2012, how conservatives’ attention jumped from one candidate to the next, each getting the spotlight for maybe 2-4 weeks? Does the name Herman Cain ring a bell? How about Michele Bachmann?
This made (and makes) some sense because everyone was looking around for some non-establishment (ie non-wimp) candidate who seemed really good, someone who expressed what conservatives felt and wanted, and stood a good chance of knocking King Barack off his throne.
The same thing’s happening now, with Trump expressing some of the anger of the base, jumping out in front with his big, boisterous personality and holding our attention for what, five or six weeks now? With a huge assist by the MSM that really likes him because he’s good for ratings and bad for Republicans.
The reason I haven’t devoted much thought to Trump is I don’t find him that interesting and can wait another 4 or 5 months to see how things shake out and where he’s at then. Since he’s basically content-free*, there’s a very good chance people will just get tired of his shtick or he’ll just self-destruct. In which case, all this analyzing and theorizing about The Trump Phenomenon will be about as relevant as the sexual misconduct allegations thrown at Herman Cain in 2011.
* OK, except for his borders/illegal immigrant “policy,” which may be pure bluster or (as Pouncer wrote above) a canny way to open the bidding for negotiation on the policy. But I’m also seeing a lot of stuff indicating he’s been a conservative for maybe a whole 4 months now–if at all (eg he supported the awful “stimulus package” and the auto bailout–and stands by both).
Bachmann and Cain were never leading bigtime in major polls, though. They were frontrunners in dinky little GOP polls, where internet trolls could vote dozens of times and nobody cared. I barely remember Cain and Bachmann; you can be damn sure the average voter doesn’t.
And let’s not ignore the 800lb gorilla — everybody knows about Trump. Back in 2012, the only people who knew about Bachmann and Cain were political junkies — the MSM could hardly even gin up a single lousy hit piece on them. These days, the supposedly “conservative” network is going loudest, longest, and hardest at a Republican candidate. Every time a media outlet says “he’s not a serious candidate,” Trump picks up a “fuck you” vote.
And yes, he’s a horrible, horrible candidate. I don’t think he knows what his own positions are today, let alone how today’s positions square with yesterday’s. But that’s what I’m getting at — people don’t care. They just want ACTION, any action, anything to disrupt business as usual. I know y’all hate these analogies, but this is about as Weimar as you can get without shooting heroin in a cabaret with Marlene Dietrich.
I don’t hate the analogies, I’m just not familiar enough with the details of Weimer to grasp them all right away.
Like… who’s happy right now? The one thing I’ve been able to confirm just scanning the internet and stuff is that NOBODY seems to be happy with the current arrangement. Left is angry, right is angry, upper class is angry, lower class is angry… Who’s actually pleased (or even moderately pleased) right now with the status quo? Was there something like that in Germany back then?
The one hope is that America does stuff its own way so at least its fascism won’t be like german or italian fascism. Our fascism will probably fund an expedition to go to the moon and inscribe a giant middle finger on the earth facing side to tell the world…
well you know.
I barely remember Cain and Bachmann; you can be damn sure the average voter doesn’t.
That was my point. They were temporarily prominent when the fickle attention of the Republican primaries trained the spotlight on them, and then they were forgotten.
I’ll grant you that Trump’s lead in the polls is more significant, and almost no one is apt to forget him. The question is whether there is any solidity and endurance to Trump’s lead out of the gate or if he’s just the horse who runs ahead for the initial third of the race and then fades.
I’m amazed at how seriously people take polls, especially this early on. I’ve seen polls swing around by 20 points or more in just two weeks. There’s plenty of time for Trump’s 22% of Republicans polled (or whatever it is) to melt away. Or, if his support is just a disgruntled minority of 20% – 25%, he’ll lose if enough candidates drop out (eg 25% doesn’t win a 3-way election).
And yes, he’s a horrible, horrible candidate. I don’t think he knows what his own positions are today, let alone how today’s positions square with yesterday’s.
Here are some specifics why my gut reaction is to ignore Trump* (who, unfortunately, hogs the limelight so we get to hear very little from say, Ted Cruz, to name just one candidate who seems to be the real deal and might actually do some good if elected):
1) Registered DEMOCRAT 2001 – 2008. The Democratic party has sucked big time for quite a while, not just during the reign of King Barack. It’s the party of the left and the hard-left. Semi-reasonable Democrats such as Daniel Moynihan and the entire “Reagan Democrat” wing were converted or purged during the 1990s (though, hard to believe, Moynihan’s last term ended in 2000).
Trump was right there along with them up until King Barack’s coronation. That includes two dreadful years of Dem control of both houses (2007 – 2008), led by the two-headed Reid-Pelosi monster (which he and Trump, Jr aided with a combined $50K donation to the Democrats’ senate/house PACs). What kind of “conservative” happily abets that kind of nightmare?
The man cannot have any solid principles if, just 7 years ago, he was siding with the left and/or the hard left. He’s a weathervane. Depending on the direction the wind is blowing, he finds the location that brings him the most attention and money.
I don’t care what he says now or the fact that he says it in a brash, un-PC way (well, I do like the latter, but let’s try to keep some perspective here). Talk is cheap. As with all politicians, the key is what they do, not what they say–or how they say it: think about how Obama’s soothing, reasonable-sounding manner of speaking lulled so many fools into thinking the guy was the exact opposite of what he is: a fanatical, hard-left, divisive narcissist. So let’s not be so impressed by the engaging manner of Trump’s delivery.
To me, the fact that Trump was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2008 is about 80 times more significant than all the words he’s said in the last two years–and the way he said them.
2) Donations to Democrats. Over 1989 – 2010, Trump gave money to both parties, though a bit more to Dems ($314K vs $290K). This is the pattern one sees from large corporations that have no political principles whatsoever (other than the bottom line), and are just looking to buy favors and grease the wheels, whoever gets elected. Which reinforces my point that the man has no principles other than the bottom line for his businesses, and maximizing attention to feed his big ego. (Since 2011, Trump has made amends, giving $358,700, mostly to Republican PACs. No one seems to know for sure what caused the turnaround**, but I think it’s worth focusing on what he was doing before he went all in for the GOP.)
Perhaps the worst of his donations (along with Trump, Jr) was the $50K for the Dems’ effort to gain control of both houses in 2006, thus helping to create the vile Reid-Pelosi monster. This money was not balanced by a similar donation to Republicans (only $1K to them).
Various other donations make one question which way he might go (as well as his sanity): $100K to the Clinton Foundation, $26K to Charles Rangel, a few thousand bucks to senators Gillibrand, Schumer, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, $50K for Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago mayoral run and a series of four $4100 donations to Madam Hillary (accompanied by two $6100 donations by junior). A few others: $7400 to Harry Reid, $8600 to John McCain, $8300 to Arlen Spector (before he went turncoat) and $4300 to Anthony Weiner (of sexting fame).
Again, pay attention to what’s he’s done, not what he’s saying right now. Given the above, I say this guy could swing left or even hard-left–or right or center or wherever, we just don’t know. Right now, he’s mostly talking a good game, and the way he’s talking is very refreshing. But IMHO, supporting Trump is like betting the future on a spin of a roulette wheel, because that’s about how reliable he’ll be. And given his volatile ego, I say he’s capable of turning nasty if things don’t go his way.
———
* Or oppose him, if it comes to that. Specific data below taken from http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/03/donald-trump-donated-heavily-to-democrats-especially-during-election-which-put-reid-and-pelosi-in-power/
** Some speculate that Trump switched parties after being ridiculed by Democrats at a White House press corps dinner. I think this is a credible possibility because the man is 99.7% ego; injuring his inflated self-image would likely cause drastic action.
And given his volatile ego, I say he’s capable of turning nasty if things don’t go his way.
I totally agree. I and sincerly hope you’re not taking me for a Trump supporter — the dude horrifies me, in so many ways. But he is a fascinating phenomenon. And — most important for me — he’s a near-perfect field test for my theory of how things are going.
I’ve been saying for some time that USA 2015 is basically Weimar Germany, 1932.
If I’m right, Trump’s the next president, riding a huge wave of anger and demands for change, any change, no matter what the cost.
If I’m wrong, his obvious deficiencies as both a candidate and a human being will pull this back into a normal election cycle — his support will collapse by the end of September, the GOP will coalesce around Ever-Electable ¡Yeb!, and that’s that.
Time will tell. All I know is, it’s a weird feeling — one that I get a lot these days — hoping to be wrong.
I’ve been saying for some time that USA 2015 is basically Weimar Germany, 1932.
Time will tell. All I know is, it’s a weird feeling–one that I get a lot these days–hoping to be wrong.
I’ve been reading all your Weimar stuff and find it pretty frightening, so I also hope you’re wrong. But I’m realistic enough to know that things are definitely not right in USA 2015. As you say, a lot of people are so angry they’ve lost the ability to think rationally. They want action, now! The time for effete, eggheaded cogitation and head scratching has passed.
I’ve been struck by how many people who should know better seem to have gone “all in” for Trump, despite the kind of negative things I listed in my previous comment, plenty more of which is easily found. You’d think they’d pause a moment and reflect, but they just jumped right into the deep end of the pool. Reminds me of the Obamabots in 2008, people who also completely lost their faculty for rational thought (though many didn’t have much to lose). Also, people who focused on unimportant, subordinate issues–the first black president and a calm, reasonable-sounding presentation–rather than a few central, predominant facts.
——–
I understand your reluctance to keep hammering away at this Weimar comparison, but I say keep going as long as you think it’s worthwhile. I’m usually up to date on current events, and have a good intuition about which way the wind will blow, but I don’t have anything like your background in history, knowledge that should give you a much better feel for how a seismic political change begins and develops.
Obviously, I don’t want for us to blunder down some Weimar-like path, but if we’re headed that way, I want to be warned about it as soon as possible. Which reminds me, I need make a note to buy myself a good, reliable gun and a bunch of ammo.
Which reminds me, I need make a note to buy myself a good, reliable gun and a bunch of ammo.
That’s a fun conversation to have with Significant Others. “Honey, I want to buy a gun, about a thousand rounds, and a few weeks’ worth of canned food.”
“Why on Earth do you want to do that?!”
“Well, see, after the Treaty of Versailles….”