{"id":6613,"date":"2016-03-07T15:00:28","date_gmt":"2016-03-07T15:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/03\/07\/still-more-on-the-trump-phenomenon\/"},"modified":"2016-03-07T15:00:28","modified_gmt":"2016-03-07T15:00:28","slug":"still-more-on-the-trump-phenomenon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/03\/07\/still-more-on-the-trump-phenomenon\/","title":{"rendered":"Still More on the Trump Phenomenon"},"content":{"rendered":"

A reader opines and I respond:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

As far as I can tell, our thoughts on Trump\u2019s unfitness are pretty close, and the way you\u2019ve laid out the matter in your most recent post (Trumpian Propositions<\/a>) also mirrors my thinking. This extends to the following sentence, which I\u2019ve uttered almost verbatim to friends and family: \u201cwe know what Hillary will do, while we do not know what Trump will do.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Where we disagree \u2013 or rather, where I may disagree with you, but am still working out my thoughts and waiting for further developments \u2013 is in evaluating the implications of that statement. You take it as an argument to vote for Trump; after all, you say, \u201c[h]e might actually do something worthwhile.\u201d I agree with that quotation as well. It seems to me that HRC will be a terrible President 100 times out of 100, while DJT may only be terrible 98 or 99 times out of 100.<\/span><\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the problem: I fear that his worst could be worse, maybe much worse, than Hillary\u2019s. He is a thug, or at least often behaves like one (e.g. in his use of eminent domain both in the U.S. and in Scotland) and expresses admiration for thugs (e.g. Putin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, the Chinese in cracking down in the Tiananmen Square massacre back in \u201989, etc.). Trump, it seems to me, wants to be El Jefe, not merely the commander in chief of a Republic, subject to checks and balances and limitations on executive power. (See for example his incredible statement in the debate that he would give illegal orders to members of the armed forces, and they would follow them.)<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

BV:  If we use 'thug' to refer to someone who habitually engages in thuggish behavior, then perhaps Trump is not fairly called a thug.  But he is often thuggish, and he clearly admires thugs and thuggish behavior.  This is a disqualifier.  Lacking self-knowledge, he cannot see this fact about himself.  This is another disqualifier. <\/span><\/p>\n

It is also important to note that much of the admiration and support for Trump reflects a dark side of human nature, namely, the tendency secretly to admire supposed tough guys and  'winners,' and to have contempt for 'losers' many of whom 'lose' because they are reasonable, civil, conciliatory, and concerned for the common good, Mitt Romney being one example. To admire a winner just in virtue of his winning while ignoring the question of the morality of the  means to victory is human-all-too-human.  It is rooted in our animal nature.  In Trump's moral calculus, the worst sort of human being is the loser.  This is why the first thing he said in his  response to Mitt Romney was that the latter lost. <\/span><\/p>\n

To the extent that we can ascribe a moral theory to a shallow-pate like Trump, his is the morality of Thrasymachus, if we take that to be the view that it is right and just that the strong should dominate the weak.   Might makes right.  Success justifies.  If the  panzers of the Wehrmacht<\/em> roll into Poland crushing all resistance, then the fact justifies the deed.  My power to kill you confers moral justification on my killing you.  On the other hand, failure condemns.  If you are too weak to win and you lose, then it is right and just that you lose.  When Hitler saw that the fatherland was about to be destroyed, his attitude was that it deserved to be destroyed.  So he ordered the scorched earth Nero Decree<\/a> as much to punish the Germans for losing as to prevent useful infrastructure from falling into the hands of the enemy.<\/span><\/p>\n

In light of this it is easy to understand Trump's mocking of the man with the palsied hand and his reference to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle.  The cripple is weak and less worthy of life.  Women are weaker than men and so their claims can be dismissed as products of their weakness.  It also sheds light on Trump's assuring us that his sexual apparatus is large and in good working order. For any weakness in that area would detract from his status as alpha male<\/a> and argue his lack of value.  For a man as crude as Trump the measure of a man is the size and rigidity of his penis and the extent of his net worth.  Now many a man is concerned with penis and pelf; but few are so morally vacuous as to have no compunction about tying  one's worth as a person to such things.<\/span><\/p>\n

What matters for our latter-day Thrasymachus is to win, whatever the cost.  And or course winning is measured in the crudest quantitative terms imaginable.  Trump tweeted to a journalist who criticized him, "I get more pussy than you."  What matters is quantity of 'pussy,' size of net worth, height of buildings . . . .  It doesn't matter that those buildings are casinos wherein people degrade and impoverish themselves.<\/span><\/p>\n

And notice that he doesn't care that these damning facts are known about him.  He is not ashamed to be the crude  vulgarian that he is.  He is like Bill Clinton in this regard.  Nixon, who was brought up right, could be shamed, but not Bill Clinton.  "I did it because I could."  And like Bill Clinton, Trump has no compunction about lying.  It comes as naturally to him as breathing.<\/span><\/p>\n

And nothing he says has to make sense since it is not about making sense but about winning.  So he can make noises as if he is supportive of Christianity even though, by his own moral calculus, he ought to despise Jesus Christ.  For the world has never known a bigger loser and more utter failure than Jesus.  Humanly speaking, Jesus was a total loser<\/em>.  If that is not obvious, the case has been made most convincingly by Romano Guardini<\/a> in Jesus Christus<\/em>, chapter 3, "Failure."<\/span><\/p>\n

Like Obama, Trump will say anything if he thinks it will get him what he wants.  It doesn't matter whether it is true or even makes sense, or contradicts what he said the day before.  <\/span><\/p>\n

My correspondent is worried that Trump's worst may be worse than Hillary's worst. Could be.  We just don't know.  But we do know Hillary will do whereas we do not know what Trump will do.  So it strikes me as reasonable to roll the dice in his favor should he get the nomination.  Meanwhile, we should do our damndest to make sure he doesn't get the nomination.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It isn\u2019t clear to me that he\u2019s better than Hillary Clinton, even leaving aside his Napoleonic complex. Is there anything that you know<\/em> he stands for? He thinks Planned Parenthood is \u201cgreat\u201d, he\u2019ll let all the \u201cgood ones\u201d (Mexicans) back in, likes H1B visas, imported immigrants to work at his resort while rejecting American labor as recently as last July, was for restrictions on the second amendment until about 30 seconds ago, recommends higher taxes on the rich, has advocated torture, opposes free trade, wants to further limit the first amendment, has been playing footsies with the KKK and the white supremacists (the \u201cbad earpiece\u201d try was a joke, as he himself mentioned David Duke and white supremacists in that CNN interview), has a decades-long track record of engaging in crony \u201ccapitalism\u201d \u2013 and the list goes on and on. I don\u2019t see where he\u2019s better than she is, except on a very few issues where his \u201cconversion\u201d goes back to the instant he decided to run, and which in every case has been retracted or at least undermined by later statements during the campaign. He\u2019s a bullshitter, a bully, and a blusterer, and if you go by his actions instead of his words he\u2019s just another liberal democrat.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

BV:  There is one thing I KNOW Trump stands for, namely, his own ego.  He is all the awful things you say he is.  And I agree that it is not CLEAR that he is better than Hillary. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

So I just don\u2019t see it. [. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n

The only possible and meaningful plus I see for Trump is the possibility that he appoints conservatives to SCOTUS. There is no chance that Hillary will do so, but he might. (I\u2019m not absolutely sure about that, but it\u2019s moderately possible.) Maybe that\u2019s a good enough reason. Given that his sister is a pro-choice judge, and given his social liberalism, and given his seeming ignorance of and disdain for the U.S. Constitution (I especially liked his recent comments about judges signing bills into law), the odds of his nominating an originalist justice are iffy at best. But again, maybe that\u2019s good enough. Still: does one elect a liberal ignoramus who might be Mussolini for a shot at 2-3 (relatively) good Supremes?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

BV:  Hillary is Obama in a pant suit.  She will continue his "fundamental transformation of America." Like Obama, she is a destructive leftist.  She must be stopped. Therefore, you must vote for the Republican nominee whoever it is.  It will be either Trump or Cruz. <\/span><\/p>\n

I don't think it is right to say that the only good thing Trump might do is appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.  It is a very good bet that he will put a severe dent in the influx of illegal aliens across the southern border.  (Forget his bluster about making Mexico pay for the wall.)  But we KNOW that hate-America Hillary will do nothing to stem the illegal tide.  If anything she'll encourage it because in her cynical eyes they are undocumented Democrats. <\/span><\/p>\n

A third thing Trump might very well do is stop the outrage of sanctuary cities.  But we KNOW Hillary won't.<\/span><\/p>\n

A fourth thing Trump can be expected to do enforce civil order in the face of rampaging blacks  of the Black Lives Matter ilk.  These lying scum have targeted the police and are actively working to undermine the rule of law.  Hillary is in bed with them.  The evil bitch repeats all the lies about Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, 'mass incarceration' and so on.  And what is most despicable is that she does it cynically for her own personal advantage.<\/span><\/p>\n

A fifth thing Trump might do is defend religious liberties.  We KNOW that Hillary won't.  Never forget that the Left is anti-religion and has been since 1789.   Part of the reason for this is that the Left is totalitarian: it can brook no competitors to State power.  This is why it must destroy belief in God and in the family.  The god of the leftist is the State, the apparatchiks of the latter being the State's 'priesthood.'<\/span><\/p>\n

A sixth thing Trump might do is defend Second Amendment rights.  We KNOW that Hillary won't.  She is a mendacious 'stealth ideologue' who won't admit that she is for Aussie-style confiscation, but that is what the liberty-bashing bitch is for.  She realizes that guns in the hands of citizens is a check on her leftist totalitarianism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is the situation.  If it comes down to Trump versus Hillary, then you face a lousy choice between two awful candidates.  So you must vote for the least awful of the two.  And that is Trump.  Alles klar?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

"But why not vote for neither?"<\/span><\/p>\n

The short answer is that the Left is totalitarian.  You can't withdraw from politics, because they won't let you.  And again, we know that Hillary is a leftist who will try to extend the reach of government into every aspect of our lives.  You must take a stand.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Harry Reid on Burden of Proof<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Harry Reid, Latter-Day McCarthyite<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A reader opines and I respond: As far as I can tell, our thoughts on Trump\u2019s unfitness are pretty close, and the way you\u2019ve laid out the matter in your most recent post (Trumpian Propositions) also mirrors my thinking. This extends to the following sentence, which I\u2019ve uttered almost verbatim to friends and family: \u201cwe … Continue reading “Still More on the Trump Phenomenon”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","category-social-and-political-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6613","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6613"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6613\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}