Noah Rothman, in Commentary, is appalled at the fact that we have two fringe candidates risen to prominence who are both willing to praise authoritarian Communism.
Within the span of 24 hours, in equally reprehensible violations of every classically liberal norm for which America stands, two prominent “outsider†presidential candidates took to national television to rehabilitate and legitimize thuggish and authoritarian communist regimes. …
On Wednesday, Sanders was confronted with his own obsequious praise for the repressive communism practiced in Cuba. Univision’s anchors asked how he might atone to Florida’s voters for those comments. Many South Floridians remember life under communism — the real thing; not the Potemkin facades with which Sanders is so impressed — and they deserved an apology. The Vermont senator declined the opportunity. Instead, he said that the United States was “wrong to try to invade Cuba†and to overthrow militant socialist governments in Latin America. “Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America,†Sanders asserted.
Either Bernie Sanders is remarkably ignorant, morally obtuse, or he believes his supporters are fools.
In the increasingly socialized American education system with which Sanders is so enamored, the study of American history has surely deteriorated. They do, however, still teach the Monroe Doctrine in public schools. And they teach it as it is: the doctrine that held the United States would oppose European intervention and influence in the Western Hemisphere; not the perverted Howard Zinn version of history to which Sanders and his fellow travelers subscribe.
Sanders’ desire to re-litigate the Cold War is all consuming. Clearly, the man’s formative period as a mock revolutionary in the late 1960s still informs virtually all of his political beliefs today. Sanders is still waging a war against Henry Kissinger, and he is still denouncing Eisenhower’s CIA, which played an activist role in the ouster of democratically elected regimes in Iran and Guatemala – operations that served the much greater goal of containing Soviet communist influence. But Sanders’ desire to lump together these actions with the ouster of revolutionary, unelected governments in places like Nicaragua and Cuba is the height of irresponsibility. To ascribe to these regimes legitimacy is to consign their people – and future generations imprisoned by authoritarian socialist autarchism – to a nightmarish prison. …
When asked about [comments made in a Playboy interview years ago, criticizing Gorbachev’s lack of firmness, and obliquely praising the “strength” of the Communist government that forcibly suppressed the Tiananmen Square demonstrations], Trump insisted that he was not “endorsing†the vile murder of an untold numbers of Chinese democracy protesters. “I said that is a strong, powerful government that put it down with strength. And then they kept down the riot,†Trump said. “It was a horrible thing. It doesn’t mean at all I was endorsing it.â€
Two observations: First, if you approve of the outcome of these brutal tactics, you do not genuinely believe them to be “a horrible thing.†Second, the notion that the Tiananmen uprising was a “riot†is sickening. These were liberal activists who had erected under the omnipresent gaze of Chairman Mao a replica of the Statue of Liberty. These were men and women willing to lay down their lives for the cause of democracy. Not only did Trump embrace the outcome of the Tiananmen massacre, he wanted to see the Soviets exert the same ruthless force in order to preserve a system that had killed tens of millions and enslaved half the world. That he would dare consider himself worthy of the Oval Office after such repulsive comments — or that a significant subset of the American public would endorse his presidential bid — exposes a crisis of purpose in the United States like nothing this country has faced in half a century.
Corey Pein argues that pointing to class divisions is insufficient to explain the rise of an outsider candidate with no legitimate political credentials, the acceptance by large numbers of conservative Republicans of a candidate with a long record of liberal positions and an even longer record of support for democrats. The mystery of what’s going on here is increased by that candidate’s indecorous behavior, his rudeness and crudity, his gleeful violation of all conventional standards of civility and his brazen and bold-faced lying. His getting away with all that is downright preternatural.
Something more profound is occurring. An election is, at its core, a form of mass ritual. What dreadful forces are being summoned this time? Tremors ripple through the noosphere. Can you feel them? It’s eerie, as though the dogs have all stopped barking at once, the birds have flown away together to parts unknown, and the sky has turned green.
The strangeness of the moment exceeds the descriptive capacity of what passes for civil discourse. Even the people who are right on the particulars are wrong on the whole. What’s worse, any attempt to explain Trump’s popular ascent is doomed because these events cannot be explained in the empirical fashion to which modern people are accustomed. The election is nothing less than a psychogenic storm. As such it can only be discussed in metaphysical terms that sober, prudent, smartphone-having people are unwilling to countenance.
The press in particular is doomed by its methodology, which assumes that human events are dictated by discrete, quantifiable forces. Watch how desperately they cling to the mistaken belief that some combination of polling data and campaign finance-flow explains the dramatic subversion of expectations that is the looming Trump nomination. This is all in vain!
The key to understanding this election cycle—and its energetic locus, Trump—is to accept that we are not dealing with an ordinary man, bound by the rules of decorum and the presupposition of coherence. I have another idea. I propose that Donald Trump is the personification of a Norse god named Loki.
2014: Donald Trump has announced he will build five new luxury apartment buildings in the heart of Manhattan with separate entrances and elevators for the poor tenants.
“I’m doing a great thing for this city. I didn’t have to put low-income units in my building. They should be happy they have it. There is no reason however for the normal wealthy people who pay their hard-earned money for a nice apartment to have to be bothered with the riff-raff.â€
“They are on the third floor because our market research has shown that the poor are very unhygienic and don’t bathe regularly. They also have a tendency to boil cabbage for dinner. We didn’t want any of those odors wafting down into the lobby area.†(Note: This quotation is satire, not a real news item.)
And Megan McArdle says, Donald Trump can’t afford to run a Third-Party campaign and hasn’t got the ability to raise adequate funds elsewhere.
I’m not saying whether it would be a good idea for the GOP to deny him the nomination if he gets a plurality but not a majority of the delegates. But if it does, he won’t run third-party: He can’t afford it.
I direct you to his personal financial disclosure form, which said he had about $300 million in cash and marketable securities. That’s a lot of money! Stunningly, however, it is not enough money to run a major presidential campaign, which now clocks in at around $1 billion.
If Trump runs as a third-party candidate, the money to do so is going to have to come mostly out of his own pocket. The Republican Party’s traditional donors certainly aren’t going to help him. And so far, he’s shown no ability to raise the kind of staggering totals that, say, Bernie Sanders has managed to get from small donors. Trump’s campaign has raised just $25 million, of which only about $8 million comes from sources other than Donald J. Trump. He’s raised less in small contributions than Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio have.
Author John C. Wright urges us to come together because:
The worst possible Republican candidate is better than the best possible Democrat candidate.
But it is not that simple.
One truth people need to understand is that electing non-conservative Republicans has bad results. Other people, it wasn’t me, elected Richard Nixon. Nixon created the EPA. Nixon recognized Red China and gave it most favored nation trading status. If you do not like US jobs going to China, thank Richard Nixon. Nixon also screwed the pooch politically and had to resign, in the process losing the Vietnam War and electing that nasty little peanut farmer in the process.
George H.W. Bush is a good and decent man, but he is a classic Country Club Republican. He is not a principled conservative. Bush I signed the Americans with Disabilities Act (which imposed mandates costing billions). The Siege at Waco* and the Shootings at Ruby Ridge took place during his administration. And he broke his word and raised taxes and, ooops! thereby elected Slick Willie.
George W. Bush is also a good man. I admire his character, and I respect him. But he screwed up as president. He fiddled around too long in Iraq, and he let the Radical Left demoralize Americans and undermine support for the War. He let the CIA run a disinformation operation against his own administration. He left office unpopular and in bad odor, and he did nothing to help create a Republican succession. He essentially handed the 2008 election to the democrats on a silver platter.
It always happens. Elect a me-too, not-really-conservative Republican and, as sure as the sun comes up in the East, you’ll get another big, fat, expensive and intrusive federal agency or mandate, and that guy will flounder around, losing the political struggle to the democrats. He will leave office under a cloud and, before he goes, the not-politically-engaged majority of voters will pull the lever for a democrat.
If this country is crazy enough to elect Donald Trump (assuming he doesn’t declare himself emperor and start ruling by edict), Trump may very possibly provoke an international trade war and a wave of reciprocal tariff barriers which will sink the whole world economy, and make the recession we have had since 2008 look like the Good Old Days.
You can also bet that Trump will expand the Federal Government and create some other enormous and expensive Big New Thing. A guy like him will have to make his mark on History. And you can rely on it that Trump will be so annoying, such an embarrassment, such a disgrace, in office that his election will present the democrat party with a “One Free Presidency” card, which they’ll use in 2020 to elect some really spectacularly radical and repulsive communist.
Politics is like football. There are times the wisest thing to do (however much you don’t want to), is to drop back ten yards and punt, and allow the other team to screw up. A Donald Trump candidacy would be one of those times. We would be better off having Hillary in there, ruining the future of the democrats, than Donald J. Trump laying the foundation for a dynasty of radical left-wing democrat presidents.
Brett Arends, at Marketwatch, debunks Donald Trump’s claim to being sooo much more competent that all those professional politicians.
The Republican front-runner has made much of his supposed “success†in business and says he now wants to do the same for America.
But the only part of his business track record for which we have the full picture shows that Trump wasn’t a successful executive but an absolute catastrophe.
For 10 years between 1995 and 2005, Donald Trump ran Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts — and he did it so badly and incompetently that it collapsed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. His stockholders were almost entirely wiped out, losing a staggering 89% of their money. The company actually lost money every single year. In total it racked up more than $600 million in net losses over that period.
Trump was chairman of the board throughout the entire time, and CEO as well for about half of it.
This is the sort of record usually associated with an Enron or a WorldCom or a Pets.com.
Meanwhile, over the same period, all his competitors were enjoying an enormous boom. Take a look at our chart. …
Donald Trump ran the worst performing casino company on the stock market. This isn’t a matter of “opinion.†This isn’t speculation or politics. It’s a matter of plain fact.
However, one person associated with Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts did make money:
Donald J. Trump.
A review of the company’s public filings show that over that period, while his ordinary investors were getting hosed, Trump himself was siphoning millions out of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts through salary, “bonuses†— yes, really — and cozy “service agreements†or side deals with his private corporations.
In total, Donald Trump pocketed $32 million over nine years, while his public stockholders lost more than $100 million.
Follow the money. It really isn’t that complex.
Now his supporters want to put him in charge of the federal government. They actually hope he will do for America what he’s already done for his business.
Rod Dreher understands, and sympathizes, with the anger that is causing a lot of people to rebel against the Establishment and support Donald Trump. He’s just sad at recognizing that Trump is a phony and that rebellion is going nowhere.
I’ve been pretty explicit in this space for some time about how I think the Donald J. Trump phenomenon is based in something real. I mean, the grievances to which he speaks are not phantoms. What I find impossible to accept is that Trump is anything other than a voice of resentment. If he offered some kind of way to redress those grievances, to do something concrete about them, things would be different. If he had the moral probity and personal character to lead others to solutions, things would be different. I keep wanting to think he does, and have been trying to give him the benefit of my own severe doubts about him. But after last night’s deplorable show on state in Detroit, it could not possibly be clearer that Trump will deliver for nobody. If he wins the presidency, he is going to betray the people who believe in him. That’s who he is. …
My own “burn baby burn†moment regarding the GOP was learning last fall from Congressional insiders that the party’s leadership had no plans for religious liberty legislation post-Obergefell. They don’t want to have to be told by the media that they’re all bigots. And, plainly, their deep-pocketed donors are embarrassed by the church people who give the Republicans their votes. So, screw us, is the thought.
I understand that Republicans cannot achieve, post-Obergefell, what people like me would like to see them achieve in terms of protecting traditional marriage. That ship has sailed. The culture has shifted. It’s unreasonable to expect the moon.
But for pity’s sake, when the Republican Party cannot bring itself to defend religious liberty, and the right of church people who don’t sell their Christianity out to be left alone, what bloody use are they? …
We are …watching the ongoing dispossession of people in this country of their history, at the hands of progressives — and the forces of political conservatism are saying nothing about it. From the front page of the Stanford University newspaper yesterday, a report about a move underway to purge the campus of all references to St. Junipero Serra, a Catholic missionary who was a pivotal figure in California history. Excerpt:
Leo Bird ’17 introduced the resolution in the ASSU senate. Bird, who prefers to be referred to by the gender neutral “they,†said that they were motivated by what they saw as the discrepancy between Serra’s actions toward Native Californians and his legacy on Stanford’s campus.
“It really started out of conversations that I started to have my freshman year at the Native American cultural center,†Bird explained. “I started to get involved with Bay Area activism and started to recognize that there was this historical figure [Serra] that was represented that was sort of praised, honored, in a way that I felt really did a disservice to a lot of the California Native community as well as to my own identity, being here at Stanford.â€
“They.†Good lord. This is the kind of person who triumphs, over and over, because our universities and the elites they serve have gone corrupt and insane. Who stands up to this? They win and they win and they win. If people conclude that they are being dispossessed in their own country, and the Republican Party is effectively colluding with the dispossession, then who can be surprised by a backlash that takes the form of support for Trump? When the left wages culture war, as it constantly does, it should not be surprised that at least some conservatives see the only one on their side who brings any kind of fight to the battle is an extreme vulgarian named Donald Trump.
I’m not defending Trump. I’m trying to explain his appeal. Believe me, my heart wants the Republicans to be spatchcocked and grilled, but my head says that the country would take an unacceptable risk with Trump in the White House.
“If you close your eyes while listening to presidential hopeful Donald Trump, you can see and smell that neighbor you have with too many dogs and a drinking problem.”
