Update, Aug. 11th: Those who thought Trump would implode after bullying everyone at the GOP debate and blowing lots of noisy hot air out of his.. orifices, new polls indicate the opposite, because, heck, the conservative base likes what Trump represents. The GOP leadership want to hide this ugly reality from the rest of America.
In the first contest state, Iowa, according to the latest poll, Trump leads the field at 19%, followed by Ben (who?) Carson at 12%. In the second state contest and first primary, in New Hampshire, Trump jumped up by 7% to 32% [New Hampshire poll] after the debate. The second choice, Jeb Bush, dropped to 11%.
I think it's time for this blog to endorse Donald Trump for the Republican Party's nomination in 2016. I think Sarah Palin would be a great VP on the ticket with him. What? She's not running? OK, let's keep our eyes & ears open on this.....
---------------
Another excellent editorial by Paul K; it's worth reading it in its entirety. (see below)
The GOP strategists and party leaders aren't happy with the Donald because he's damaging and already damaged party with the mainstream (centrists and independents) voters. But, what Trump represents is the basis of the activist part of the Republican party. He's expressing views that, although deeply-held in GOP's heart, are not usually expressed when Republicans are seeking mainstream votes. Don't believe me? Just read the national and state Republican parties' platforms. There, you find many abhorrent views that fly well with the conservative base but are sunk in the waters of where the rest of the country lives!
I often wonder how it's possible two people to see something in front of their eyes and form totally different conclusions. If it's about factual findings, then, I had believed, it'd be a simple matter of using logic and evidence to ascertain the facts. But, in reality this rarely happens, especially when something is deemed important by the individual! People are greatly influenced by culture (including religion), ideology, and a personal sense of a comfort zone. The ideological part can numb the mind and make someone lazy to chew up and digest information. Conformity was rewarded. Venturing outside the comfort zone--into the discomfort of realizing you've made a mistake--wasn't/isn't desired either.
But, I think it may be a personality trait on how to approach life. Being a conservative is natural, or at least it's how the vast majority of humans lived and experienced their lives. Captured by culture and in time. Very few ventured outside the norm. It can be argued that such approach made sense too. At the very least, blaze makers were not rewarded but they were rather persecuted, tortured, and killed. Group think was the norm. Of course there were divisions and big conflicts. Recently, I've been pouring over the religious conflicts after the Protestant Reformation. Yes, Martin Luther, Kalvin, and others brought about tremendous change, but much of it--and it took many generations to be evident--was unintended. The bloody religious wars pitted one religious faction against another, but in essence all sides hadn't been that radical--as they all held different versions of the same flawed illusion of a divine creator who insisted upon how we dress, what we eat, how we screw, how we kill our enemies, etc.
Now, how is it that most of us think Trump is someone who uses empty (though appealing) rhetoric. He said he didn't prepare for the first GOP debate last week. I believe him, because he doesn't have to be specific as long as he appears to know and uses generalities specifically addressing the concerns of the conservative base. Instead of responding to Megyn Kelly's question about his paleolithic views on women, he responds by personally attacking her and ..Rosie O'Donnell. That debate broke all viewership records for such debates other than presidential ones. Trump was tramp. The GOP leadership may not want him but if the activist base--those who show up during the Republican primary selection process--this is exciting.
The 2016 election, was supposed to be a showcase of the "new" Republican party. There's no incumbent running this time, so both parties have a chance to re-define themselves by showcasing their candidates. They're indeed doing so....
This
was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle
Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the
nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott
Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like
Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide
margin. What happened?
In the first contest state, Iowa, according to the latest poll, Trump leads the field at 19%, followed by Ben (who?) Carson at 12%. In the second state contest and first primary, in New Hampshire, Trump jumped up by 7% to 32% [New Hampshire poll] after the debate. The second choice, Jeb Bush, dropped to 11%.
I think it's time for this blog to endorse Donald Trump for the Republican Party's nomination in 2016. I think Sarah Palin would be a great VP on the ticket with him. What? She's not running? OK, let's keep our eyes & ears open on this.....
---------------
Another excellent editorial by Paul K; it's worth reading it in its entirety. (see below)
The GOP strategists and party leaders aren't happy with the Donald because he's damaging and already damaged party with the mainstream (centrists and independents) voters. But, what Trump represents is the basis of the activist part of the Republican party. He's expressing views that, although deeply-held in GOP's heart, are not usually expressed when Republicans are seeking mainstream votes. Don't believe me? Just read the national and state Republican parties' platforms. There, you find many abhorrent views that fly well with the conservative base but are sunk in the waters of where the rest of the country lives!
I often wonder how it's possible two people to see something in front of their eyes and form totally different conclusions. If it's about factual findings, then, I had believed, it'd be a simple matter of using logic and evidence to ascertain the facts. But, in reality this rarely happens, especially when something is deemed important by the individual! People are greatly influenced by culture (including religion), ideology, and a personal sense of a comfort zone. The ideological part can numb the mind and make someone lazy to chew up and digest information. Conformity was rewarded. Venturing outside the comfort zone--into the discomfort of realizing you've made a mistake--wasn't/isn't desired either.
But, I think it may be a personality trait on how to approach life. Being a conservative is natural, or at least it's how the vast majority of humans lived and experienced their lives. Captured by culture and in time. Very few ventured outside the norm. It can be argued that such approach made sense too. At the very least, blaze makers were not rewarded but they were rather persecuted, tortured, and killed. Group think was the norm. Of course there were divisions and big conflicts. Recently, I've been pouring over the religious conflicts after the Protestant Reformation. Yes, Martin Luther, Kalvin, and others brought about tremendous change, but much of it--and it took many generations to be evident--was unintended. The bloody religious wars pitted one religious faction against another, but in essence all sides hadn't been that radical--as they all held different versions of the same flawed illusion of a divine creator who insisted upon how we dress, what we eat, how we screw, how we kill our enemies, etc.
Now, how is it that most of us think Trump is someone who uses empty (though appealing) rhetoric. He said he didn't prepare for the first GOP debate last week. I believe him, because he doesn't have to be specific as long as he appears to know and uses generalities specifically addressing the concerns of the conservative base. Instead of responding to Megyn Kelly's question about his paleolithic views on women, he responds by personally attacking her and ..Rosie O'Donnell. That debate broke all viewership records for such debates other than presidential ones. Trump was tramp. The GOP leadership may not want him but if the activist base--those who show up during the Republican primary selection process--this is exciting.
The 2016 election, was supposed to be a showcase of the "new" Republican party. There's no incumbent running this time, so both parties have a chance to re-define themselves by showcasing their candidates. They're indeed doing so....
Paul Krugman's editorial [link] in its entirety
This
was, according to many commentators, going to be the election cycle
Republicans got to show off their “deep bench.” The race for the
nomination would include experienced governors like Jeb Bush and Scott
Walker, fresh thinkers like Rand Paul, and attractive new players like
Marco Rubio. Instead, however, Donald Trump leads the field by a wide
margin. What happened?
The
answer, according to many of those who didn’t see it coming, is
gullibility: People can’t tell the difference between someone who sounds
as if he knows what he’s talking about and someone who is actually
serious about the issues. And for sure there’s a lot of gullibility out
there. But if you ask me, the pundits have been at least as gullible as
the public, and still are.
For
example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard
conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused.
But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he
could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr.
Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the
relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor.
Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther”
— someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the
United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration
that he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?
Mr.
Trump’s declared intention to deport all illegal immigrants is
definitely extreme, and would require deep violations of civil
liberties. But are there any defenders of civil liberties in the modern
G.O.P.? Notice how eagerly Rand Paul, self-described libertarian, has joined in the witch hunt against Planned Parenthood.
And while Mr. Trump is definitely appealing to know-nothingism, Marco Rubio, climate change denier, has made “I’m not a scientist” his signature line.
(Memo to Mr. Rubio: Presidents don’t have to be experts on everything,
but they do need to listen to experts, and decide which ones to
believe.)
The
point is that while media puff pieces have portrayed Mr. Trump’s rivals
as serious men — Jeb the moderate, Rand the original thinker, Marco the
face of a new generation — their supposed seriousness is all surface.
Judge them by positions as opposed to image, and what you have is a
lineup of cranks. And as I said, this is no accident.
It
has long been obvious that the conventions of political reporting and
political commentary make it almost impossible to say the obvious —
namely, that one of our two major parties has gone off the deep end. Or
as the political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein put it in
their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become an “insurgent outlier … un-persuaded
by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science.” It’s a
party that has no room for rational positions on many major issues.
Or
to put it another way, modern Republican politicians can’t be serious —
not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party.
Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary
parts of a candidate’s resume.
Until
now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a
façade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the
pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What
distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack
of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the
party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those
positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?
Remember
how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain?
Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking
extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him
on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care
less about him.
Can
Mr. Trump actually win the nomination? I have no idea. But even if he
is eventually pushed aside, pay no attention to all the analyses you
will read declaring a return to normal politics. That’s not going to
happen; normal politics left the G.O.P. a long time ago. At most, we’ll
see a return to normal hypocrisy, the kind that cloaks radical policies
and contempt for evidence in conventional-sounding rhetoric. And that
won’t be an improvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment