{"id":6639,"date":"2016-02-26T12:55:13","date_gmt":"2016-02-26T12:55:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/02\/26\/trump-for-and-against-2\/"},"modified":"2016-02-26T12:55:13","modified_gmt":"2016-02-26T12:55:13","slug":"trump-for-and-against-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2016\/02\/26\/trump-for-and-against-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump: For and Against"},"content":{"rendered":"

A regular reader, professional philosopher, and Trump supporter writes that he is "very puzzled" by my position on Donald Trump.  The occasion of his puzzlement is my linkage to a vitriolic anti-Trump piece by C. W. Cooke at NRO. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

But what exactly is supposed to be so terrible about Trump?  So terrible as compared to anyone else who has any chance of winning the [Republican] nomination or the election?  For the most part, he [C. W. Cooke] seems to be focused on issues of character or history:  Trump is 'an entitled mess' with a 'questionable' record, he merely pretends to be religious, etc.  He fails to even address the real reason for Trump's appeal. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What's so bad about him?  Well, for one thing he is vicious and narcissistic.  He is in some ways like Brian Leiter who is also a New Yorker and who is on record as justifying his offensive behavior because he is one.  Like Leiter, Trump viciously attacks people without provocation and then acts hurt and wronged when a reply in kind is made, sometimes to the point of threatening  a law suit in retaliation.   Trump's attack on Carly Fiorina's appearance is a clear example, one of many.  He did not criticize her on something over which she has control such as personal hygiene, but because she is not beautiful.  And he did it in public.  Is this the sort of person we want representing the greatest country that has ever existed? If nothing else, it shows very bad judgment on his part.<\/span><\/p>\n

And then there is the fact that the man is mendacious.  Many of us conservatives are sick of the brazen liars in politics.  Obama and Hillary are  prime examples.  It is now well-known that Obamacare was rammed though on the basis of repeated lies. There is no doubt that  both Obama and Hillary are liars in the strict sense of that term.  Why would we want another presidential liar?  Trump clearly lied<\/a> when, 'channeling' Code Pink, he claimed that Bush the Younger lied about WMDs in Iraq. The man seems incapable of controlling his mouth. <\/span><\/p>\n

You say all politicians lie?  But are they all liars<\/em>?  There is a difference.  Are they all brazen<\/em> liars in the Obama mold?  It may be a good idea to make some distinctions here.  In any case a defense on the ground that all politicians lie is pretty weak.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Trump a conservative or a leftist?  We expect Obama and Hillary to lie: they are leftists.  Truth is not a leftist value.  What matters to a leftist is power and winning.  That sounds just like Trump.  Winning is what counts; otherwise you are a 'loser.'  Winning by any means.  The end, winning, justifies the means, e.g., lying about George W. Bush, a morally decent man, even if inept.<\/span><\/p>\n

Vicious, petty, petulant, narcissistic, and how about unprincipled<\/em>?  Ted Cruz is rooted in sound conservative principles.  Trump is about as principled as Hillary, which is to say devoid of principles except for the supreme 'principle' of personal ambition.  Anything to win.  When Cruz pointed out that Trump had reversed himself on key positions, he called Cruz a liar when the mendacity is all in the Trumpster's court.  He cannot take any criticism; he can only flail about and lash back.<\/span><\/p>\n

Not only is he unprincipled, his proposals  are little more than vacuous bluster.  He says he will build a wall.  That's great.  I'm all for it.  But he also says that the Mexicans will pay for it.  How exactly?  He said something last night about trade deficits.  But how is this supposed to work in detail? We got nothing last night.  In all fairness, his people have made some detailed proposals here<\/a>.  Perhaps the Donald should bone up on his own position statements.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump has some good ideas but he is incapable of articulating them in a way that could appeal to any reasonable person and persuade fence-sitters.  For example, he has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration.  That is a sound idea easily defended.  But he can't defend it or even articulate it.  For example, to properly articulate the proposal one has to add some qualifications.  Suppose an American citizen who is a Muslim visits a relative in Turkey.  Does the Trump proposal prevent him from returning to the USA?  It had better not.  And Trump had better make this clear.<\/span><\/p>\n

A typical business-type, he seem incapable of thinking in any abstract way grounded in principles.  If I wanted to persuade you of the reasonableness of a moratorium on Muslim immigration, I would start with the idea that there is no legal or moral right to immigrate.  I would then make points about the purposes of immigration and right of a nation to defend its culture and values, and in so doing select immigrants on that basis.  I would explicitly point out that there is nothing 'xenophobic' about an immigration policy that excludes unassimilable elements and favors certain countries of origin  over others.  I would point out that at the present time there is no net benefit to Muslim immigration.  I would make sure that people understand that moratoria, by definition, are temporary.  And so on.<\/span><\/p>\n

Is Trump capable of this?  Is he capable of persuading anyone not already a member of the choir?  I see no evidence of it.  Instead of calmly making a case for those of his proposals that are reasonable, he alienates people with incendiary rhetoric, vicious and wholly unnecessary personal attacks, bluster and braggadocio.  These are not just 'academic' points I am making.  They pertain to electability.  Hillary must be stopped.  Trump, I fear, won't be able to stop her because of his manifold defects as a candidate.  He won't be able to persuade enough people to support him.  It is a good bet that many conservatives will stay home out of disgust. <\/span><\/p>\n

You say he is a builder.  Excellent.  But what does he build?  Casinos.  So we need more casinos?  What we really need in this country is moral renewal.  But a moral low-life like Trump is not the man to lead it.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

People are inspired by the fact that he's giving them a _voice_ for the first time.  They can't speak plainly about the evils of immigration and multiculturalism, for example, and he talks about it.  The country is facing existential threats, and pretty much everyone in power, including mainstream 'conservatives', pretends that it's all great. In this situation, what matters is that someone is standing up for the beliefs and values of ordinary people who've been silenced. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here I am in broad agreement with my reader.  Trump's appeal is a populist appeal.  He 'channels' people's 'inner Jacksonian.'  He does give people a voice and says for them what they cannot say for themselves free of reprisal.  People are sick and tired of political correctness.  They are disgusted by the liberal-left scum who have been allowed to infiltrate our institutions. <\/span><\/p>\n

But the question is not what explains Trump's popularity; the question is how to stop Hillary.  Can Trump stop her?  I don't know.  And I don't know whether Cruz has a better shot at stopping her.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if Trump gets the nomination I will of course vote for him.  Politics is always about the lesser of evils.<\/span><\/p>\n

Want more?  Read here<\/a> how Trump got beta'd last night.<\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>Brian Leiter's Christmas Present to Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A regular reader, professional philosopher, and Trump supporter writes that he is "very puzzled" by my position on Donald Trump.  The occasion of his puzzlement is my linkage to a vitriolic anti-Trump piece by C. W. Cooke at NRO.  But what exactly is supposed to be so terrible about Trump?  So terrible as compared to … Continue reading “Trump: For and Against”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6639","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=6639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}