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.
It’s the Character
I first became aware of Donald Trump when he chose to make cheating on his first wife front-page news. It was the early ’90s. Donald and Ivana Trump broke up over the course of months. Not that divorce is shocking, mind you. Among the glitterati marriage seems more unusual. Nor is infidelity exactly novel. But it requires a particular breed of lowlife to advertise the sexual superiority of one’s mistress over the mother of one’s children. That was Trump’s style. He leaked stories to the New York tabloids about Ivana’s breast implants — they didn’t feel right. Marla Maples, by contrast, suited him better. She, proving her suitability for the man she was eager to steal from his family, told the papers that her encounters with the mogul were “the best sex I’ve ever had.” It wasn’t just Donald Trump’s betrayal that caught my eye, nor just the tawdriness – it was the cruelty.
That’s the part of the Trump rise that is quite shocking. Most politicians, for as long as I can remember, have been at considerable pains to present themselves as nicer, nobler, and more empathetic than they really are. Since many of them (not all) are selfish egotists, this requires some skill. Now comes Trump unblushingly parading his viciousness – by, for example, mocking a handicapped man, toying with white supremacism, or encouraging political violence — and still gaining the loyalty of a plurality of Republicans.
One can imagine why voters might tolerate a little nastiness in certain situations. It’s possible that the threat of ISIS-style war crimes makes a would-be leader who vows to commit war crimes of his own seem palatable, or even “strong.” It’s not a total surprise that a regime of stifling political correctness would evoke a reaction.
But voters are venturing way out on a plank with Trump – and I’m not speaking here of the fact that he is overwhelmingly likely to lose to Hillary Clinton if he’s the Republican nominee. No, I’m referring to the copious evidence that if he won, he could cause catastrophic damage to the country.
Donald Trump is not emotionally healthy. No normal man sits up late at night tweeting dozens of insults about Megyn Kelly, or skips a key debate because he’s nursing a grudge against her for asking perfectly ordinary questions, or continues to obsess about her weeks and months after the fact.
A normal, well-adjusted man does not go to great lengths to prove to a random journalist that he has normal sized fingers. Some may think it was Rubio who introduced the “small hands” business, but it actually dates back to an encounter Trump had 25 years ago with journalist Graydon Carter. Carter had referred to Trump as a “stubby fingered vulgarian” in Spy magazine. Trump could not let it go. Carter told Vanity Fair in 2015:
To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him — generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers . . . The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!”
Notice he didn’t contest the “vulgarian” part of the insult. And remember that at a presidential debate, for God’s sake, Trump brought it up himself and assured the world that “there is no problem, believe me.” I don’t believe him, and I’m not talking about his genitals.
There is an enormous problem. Trump seems to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, an insecurity so consuming and crippling that he has devoted his life to self-aggrandizement. This is far beyond the puffery that most salesmen indulge to some degree. It strays well into the bizarre. Asked whom he consults on foreign policy Trump said “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” What grown man says things like that and continues to be taken seriously? How can he be leading the race for the Republican nomination?
People with severe ego weakness are to be pitied – but also feared. Everything Trump says and does is a form of self-medication for a damaged soul. His need to disparage others, to glorify himself, and to be the “strong man” could lead to disastrous judgments by the man in charge of the nuclear codes.
Published in General
Congratulations on your Obama class false dilemma! TPP isn’t exactly about free trade, and opposition isn’t just protectionist.
And that does not address a single complaint. Trump, contrary to his view, was not the only candidate opposed to illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, that’s not what the campaign staff and heavy money guys of the remaining serious non-Trump candidate say. Or rather, they say immigration is important, that’s why they want so much more of it. I know that “follow the money” and “personnel is policy” are cliches, but they’re cliches for a reason.
Whatever Cruz’ stated positions are, his new BFFs are solidly on board with the UniParty immigration agenda.
Speaking of BFFs: what electoral strategy has Soros backing Kasich to the tune of a couple of hundred thou in addition to his front groups supporting the fascist disruptions at Trump rallies?
Supporting a candidate implies support for all of the candidate’s positions?
Wait. Like model Melania Trump?
If memory serves, I’ve read reports that those who amount to “movement conservatives” are not voting for Trump. Is this really a suicide, or a mugging?
Wait! You mean Ted Cruz and his wife worked in the George W Bush administration?
A Texas politician hired Texans?
Someone who worked for Mitch McConnell supports Ted Cruz?
This is outrageous!
Further evidence the term establishment means nothing more than, republican I do not like.
It boggles the mind to think people look at things like this and find it disqualifying but donations to HRC, Clinton Foundation, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, support for gun bans, support for abortion and PP, single payer healthcare, etc … are disregarded. SMH
Nice Alinskyite debasement of the language you have there. Control the terms of debate; control the debate.
People like me use the term “establishment” as a descriptive, not a pejorative. Believe me, my pejoratives are an order of magnitude more effective than this clunky Latinate dog. We typically add pejoratives to the word, because in itself it is merely descriptive. The faux-bewilderment as to meaning and pearl-clutching upon hearing the term is disingenuous.
Here is a definition of the word: the ruling class or authority group in a society; especially, an entrenched authority dedicated to preserving the status quo.
It is this sense in which we use the term. Note that the term points to its own membership — any person would be hard-pressed to put a specific person in “the establishment”, and only a fool would attempt to bound the set more tightly than this definition. If you believe that there is no stratification on the Republican side of things along an establishment axis, that there are some more satisfied with the status quo than others, and particularly that there is no predictable bias toward upper-crust persons and figures of authority being more establishment than others, then your statement is consistent with your beliefs.
Usurpers pretend unity. The genuine article is proud to be separate. The establishment exists, and to claim otherwise is simply a motivated dishonesty — present company excepted, naturally.
I appreciate your response. No, I do not find the article agreeable; it is horrifying that the man Mona accurately describes is the GOP front-runner. Her portrayal of his character doesn’t tell the half of it. What, specifically, is your objection? Why should Trump’s character be off-limits? How is that “starting” anything?
Regardless of whether Mona reads this, it is, in my view, unworthy of an R> member to attack the author instead of the piece. You don’t deny the truth of her description, but argue (now) that it is irrelevant because, according to you, Mona has long attacked the principled Tea Partiers you supported before. I don’t think that’s true, and it doesn’t explain your support of Trump when Cruz is still in the race. If character is immaterial, does that go for Hillary, too?
The only people debasing the language with Alinskyite tactics are the Faux-conservatives who label two first term Tea Party senators “establishment” because they are single issue voters or sleeping nationalist-protectionists. Now the entrenched billionaire crony-capitalist who buys and sells politicians as easily as breathing and who is a major donor to his potential opponent is the outsider who will disrupt the system because he insults people and brags about the size of his penis on national television.
Those that are debasing the language with leftists tactics aren’t those of us who are standing on principle but those whose Herculean efforts in goal post shifting have turned a leftist democrat into the great conservative hope.
Not for nothing, but I’ve never called Cruz “establishment”.
Ball is right, he has never called Cruz establishment, I have seen it from others on the Trump Train – see Drudge and Breitbart.
How is this different from any bog-standard politician?
That is precisely why it is completely useless.
Difference in scale if you ask me. Trump’s behavior — the constant braggadocio, the fixation on Megyn Kelly, etc. — are very atypical.
Trump is, as you say, who he is, though you are misrepresenting his views on health care. Also: a New York property developer making campaign contributions and cultivating cordial relations with the junior and senior U.S. Senators from New York, or a former Senator with considerable government connections? I’m shocked, shocked.
Cruz, on the other hand, has professed a particular view on a pivotal issue. He has new allies and funders – recently his mortal political enemies – whose wellbeing is threatened by Cruz’ professed views. Those allies and funders, if their favored immigration policies are implemented, will create a permanent Democrat majority and gut what’s left of middle class outside of government employment. They didn’t sign on with Cruz for my health; given Cruz’ other ties to the (cough cough Tom Donelon crowd/financial sector) alarm bells went off for me.
Cruz is likely to make better Supreme Court choices.
I commend to your attention Diana West’s recent writing. She’s a bit overheated, but is an acute observer.
Her collection of mainstream GOP rhetoric about Trump, examined in light of the concept of the language of violence is troubling, particularly in light of Cruz’ weaseling about the anti-Trump fascism.
I’m not misrepresenting anything.
HRC was running for president, not Senate when he last contributed to her And neither Reid nor Pelosi represent NY.
If your argument relies on you having insight into the motives of others, better not to make it.
I will vote for Trump if he is the nominee, with all his faults. He is not my first choice. I can never vote for that shrill, cackling witch who will be running against him. As bad as he may be, his is more likely kept in check by Congress than his opponent (I can’t bring myself even to write her name). So, yes, I will vote for him if he gets the nomination and will not waste my time in criticism, because that is pointless unless Cruz gets his miracle shot.
You’re right! She was running against – what was that guy’s name? Barry something – and Trump thought that on balance she’d make a better president, and gave her some money.
I think, on balance, Bernie Sanders would make a better president than Hillary Clinton (at least he shouldn’t be in prison). I’m not going to give him money.
Of course there were a number of conservative Republicans running that year as well.