Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Is Winning Because He Taps Into Issues No One Else Will Tackle
At The Federalist, Dan McLaughlin (aka the Baseball Crank) discusses the phenomenon of the Donald Trump candidacy from the perspective of military strategy. If nothing else, it is a great primer on military strategist and aircraft designer John (“Forty Second”) Boyd, one of the most remarkable men to ever woIk at the Pentagon. Using Boyd’s principles, McLaughlin explains both why Trump has been a success so far, but also how he may eventually fail.
My overall take is that McLaughlin is overthinking Trump. While Trump has certainly shown far more political skill than his detractors give him credit for, I don’t think he would have skyrocketed to the top if he hadn’t hitched his ride to a number of pre-existing issues and trends. How much of this was deliberate strategy and how much pure luck I can only guess, but I suspect that Donald Trump is genuinely surprised by how well things are going. Regardless, I see three underlying issues propelling Trump forward. In descending order of importance, they are: immigration, the GOP establishment, and Political Correctness.
Immigration: Trump championed this issue right out of the gate. Until he announced his candidacy, both parties favoured more immigration (minus a few recalcitrant Republicans like Senator Jeff Sessions). The Democrats wanted to increase their voter base and the mainstream Republicans wanted to satisfy the cheap labour lobby. This issue was ripe for the plucking and Donald Trump plucked it. I think there is little doubt that Trump would not be leading the pack if he weren’t championing this cause.
The GOP Establishment: This is closely related to the immigration issue. The voters — not just Republican voters, but a strong majority of American voters — want immigration curtailed, while the Republican Party steadfastly refuses to do so.
While some voters can be fooled some of the time, the voters as a whole tend to get their way after they wake up. Because in a democracy, numbers count. Smart politicians understand this. Many in the GOPe are not smart. They think they can win a contest of will with the people. The logical conclusion of this contest will be fewer dumb politicians. This is already beginning. Eric Cantor and John Boehner, for example, are both gone but they won’t be the last dumb politicians to see their careers destroyed before this business is finally over.
And it isn’t just immigration. Take Rep. Paul Ryan’s recent budget deal, a conglomeration of everything that Republican voters hate about the Republican Party. Ryan became Speaker of the House because his predecessor’s tenure simply became untenable but –with this deal — Ryan is copying the most despised aspects of Boehner’s governing philosophy. His days are now numbered as well.
It is no accident that the top four Presidential candidates — Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Rubio — are outsiders. While Rubio is touted as an establishment figure, he came to national prominence by challenging a sitting governor of his own party for the Senate. It is a mark of their desperation that Rubio is the straw that the Establishment clings to now. In the same way, it is no accident that the Jeb Bush, the establishment Republican of this election cycle, currently gets support from less than 5 percent of Republican voters in recent polls, despite the $100 million he raised.
In normal times, the insiders can say, “Look, we may be grubby and compromised but we know how to get things done in Washington.” The fecklessness of the Republican Congressional leadership has undercut this justification. Feckless, duplicitous, and utterly incompetent: the perfect mix of qualities for a stock villain.
Political Correctness: I have long held that opposition to Political Correctness is political low-hanging fruit that nobody has yet picked. Until now. You can see this issue resonate every time Donald Trump says something controversial. The media and the pundits — including many conservative standard-bearers — declare that Trump’s much-awaited implosion has arrived. But then, the opposite happens and Trump claims even higher in the polls as he refuses to back down. What is happening is that Trump has stumbled upon the right strategy for slaying Political Correctness. Instead of being perplexed why Trump gains support even though he refuses to apologize, his critics should be studying him for tactical lessons.
Trump gains by defying PC norms because everybody – and I mean almost everybody across the political spectrum, from left-of-center liberals, to low information voters, to hard-core conservatives — hates Political Correctness. It is unfair, oppressive, and gets more odious by the day as its injunctions evolve to become ever more ridiculous. Stand against it, like Trump, and you will be the hero.
If the Republicans really want to stop Trump, they should hug him on these issues. If they can put no daylight between themselves and The Donald on them, these strengths will have been neutralized, and they can be free to attack Trump’s actual weaknesses. Radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin understand this.
Only one Republican politician does. His name is Ted Cruz.
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Politics
Whatever Trump said before and what he’s saying now as candidate, plus bluster and all, he’s always struck me as a patriot, someone who likes and loves America and the American model.
That quality used to be taken for granted by voters but no longer. Anybody who can speak loudly and unashamedly about America, American security, and American interests, i.e., the interests of its people, is bound to catch the attention of a wide swath of the American electorate.
Has anyone noticed how Trump has been able to cut through 30 years of thick and steadily thickening PC smog in American daily and political discourse? Why has Trump been able to confront successfully the heavily biased leftist frauds masquerading as journalists? Because he has credibility. Even they can sense the simple truths that often come out of Trump’s mouth. To Savannah, the fraud: “It happened, Savannah, you don’t have to say alleged anymore” (re the Lewinsky affair). (Contd below)
#61 Contd
No other Republican politician (perhaps Cruz excepted, reflecting his logical prowess) has any credibility with the Drive-bys. They either stand tongue-tied, whipped and trapped within the liberal’s architecture of PC, language distortions, euphemisims, and the liberal memes they seem to have been guilted into and internalized.
A piece of evidence: Do you remember how the Republican pundits and media-types (Kudlow for one) were so anxiously wringing their hands (pre-Trump) about “oh how it’s going to be so difficult, so touch and go, no, it’s better not attack her, don’t bring up the scandals” for the Republican men to attack Hillary. Not anymore, not with Trump. He simply cuts through to the truth, credibly.
Do you really think one has to read position papers to take a reasoned view on a candidate’s position? For instance, he has spoken about VA on TV, and like you, I think, with his CEO background, he probably has the best chance of cleaning up the mess.
On immigration, the Wall is a clear policy position; it’s not a new concept–remember the unfinished fence? Again, here, there is a solid proposal, that people can take a view on, compared to positions of other politicians who hem and haw aimlessly.
There is enough out there for people to put two and two together and come to a reasoned view, no emotions, no outrage needed.
I submit your assumptions are not well founded.
It’s amazing how many people, including the author, cannot believe that Trump is talking out of conviction. He didn’t “latch on” to the immigration issue, he TOOK IT ON!. Nobody else would. Everybody expected the blowback he experienced would take him out, but he turned it to his favor.
Trump had insight to see the issue; rhetorical skill to present it to the publc; and courage to do so. He knew exactly what he was getting in for by putting the country before himself and he did it anyway. The word “patriot” comes to mind.
Political correctness was NOT something “everybody” was against until Trump took it on. It was the tool the liberals used to solidify their gains and make them unchallengable. It was Trump’s shattering of political correctness that has led the conservative commentariat to describe him at different times as a boor, an ignoramus, a bully, a clown.
Trump has not “latched on” to anything. He has showed the role of courage, insight and rhetorical skill in the public space.
You confirm them.
Not the response I was expecting.
Now, look who’s being emotional.
Not at all. There is a lot of emotion surrounding him.
“There is a lot of emotion surrounding him.”
That’s visibly true, but I sense you too might have been roped in, given how:
Seems to me support for a candidate inevitably carries with it emotion, but that’s a wholly different animal than signifying support being based purely or mainly on emotion sans assessment of issues.
The latter interpretation suggests a dismissive wonkishness, salted with a touch of pique and lack of awareness. I can only hypothesize it’s likely driven by anecdotal evidence.
I prefer to reading position papers. Many politicians are very charismatic speakers, Marco Rubio & Chris Christie among the best this cycle. I would rather read their positions and leave the charisma portion out of it.
I am not sure your meaning. I don’t follow the cult of personality of these guys, not any more. I have no idea if I am better or worse informed.
I agree that supporting a candidate brings emotion. I’ve supported them in the past. Most recently Ted Cruz for Senate and early in his Presidential campaign. I am not supporting any of them right now.
I enjoy reading their positions and hearing from Ricochet.
Trump is an elderly man lacking the endurance for 2 hour debates. He is passionate, charismatic, and doesn’t appear to grasp our Constitutional or founding principles.
I am not supporting or opposing Trump. I very much respect the passion and anger of his supporters, but think he is a poor outlet for their energy.
I have a feeling this is as far as we can take this issue.
On the meaning of my corollary above, it addresses the notion that while you find Trump’s positions coherent, his supporters cannot possibly have arrived at the same conclusion; they had to be mainly driven by emotion. Your reason: you read position papers and they don’t.
It struck me that since you found Trump’s position coherent, and coherence is an objective entity, you of all people should expect that Trump supporters (including those on Ricochet) would, by analyzing the myriad other sources of good information available out there (whether or not they include your position papers) come to the same conclusion as you did. To completely discount that and insist on emotion, not grasp of issues, as their main motivation for support, you came across as over-elevating your position papers, and by corollary, yourself above all them yahoo supporters. This stance was puzzling to me, that’s all.
As always, thanks for the exchange.
(Btw, I do not count myself a Trump supporter; only a supporter of some of his important issues. But I am totally fascinated by the phenomenon and the gutter hatred it seems to generate in some).
Koolie, I wasn’t commenting on my position papers, I was commenting on Trump’s position papers. I am not running for anything (thankfully for the Republic). I think his immigration position is strong, but his articulation of it is mostly an emotional appeal.
I was indeed referring to Trump’s position papers. I was using “your” position papers only in the sense of the “position papers” you appear to hold so highly over other sources of information. There was no confusion.