George Rebane
Columnists from the national (Victor Davis Hanson) to our local (George Boardman) scene have concluded that Donald Trump may actually be hitting a nerve with voters who are sick and tired of politicians side-stepping and mealy-mouthing important issues like the illegal alien influx and crime, immigration policy, and how to deal with a dangerous and failing Mexico. VDH writes ‘Donald Trump and the Fed-up Crowd’, a compelling piece that concludes –
To explain the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump is to calibrate the anger of a fed-up crowd that is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology. The elite media, whose trademark is fad and cant, writes off the fed-up crowd as naïve and susceptible to demagoguery as the contradictory and hypocritical Trump manipulates their anger. In fact, they probably got it backwards. Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of “working across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump.
Now our own GeorgeB, who habits a world distinctly to the left of VDH, concludes in the print edition of the 27jul15 Union that ‘Trump may be a clown, but he hit a nerve with many Americans’ (inexplicably not yet posted on the paper’s website). After excoriating The Donald for a number of infractions, behaviors alien to polite if not politically correct society, he doesn’t quite see or at least reveal what American nerves have been hit by the candidate’s indelicacies as Trump tromps through the hustings. Instead Mr Boardman revisits the long leftwing litany of how bad the US has been about everything ranging from our foreign policy to our handling of illegal aliens. His summa is that “we created this problem, and we have to solve it eventually.” Well, no and yes.
Where our columnist does expend some ink is in solving the border security problem. There he presents a solution that does not include “building a fence at the Mexican border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico.” For the interested reader, such a secure piece of national infrastructure would cost less to build than an equivalent length of any interstate highway of the kind that crisscross our nation. Its subsequent maintenance and patrolling to reduce ingress rates would also cost less than the many alternative more porous solutions offered by the left, including Mr Boardman.
But here it’s also important to note the mental framework from which such interpretations of US culpability and plans forward arise. Mr Boardman succumbs to the prevalent progressive perspective that our building a more secure border would be the equivalent of erecting something that is “probably no more effective than the Berlin Wall” with all of its concomitant “bad optics.” He does not seem to understand the restrictive direction of the Berlin Wall, and that it was very effective for the reason it was built – to stop the mass exodus of Germans from east to west. Its downside arose as a ready symbol reminding the world that governance by communism does require a police state.
And there our columnist doubles down by claiming because of our “checkered history” in handling immigration, “there is an important point to be made about controlling our national borders. But how do we do that and weed out illegal immigrants (sic) without creating a police state.” The rationale behind this statement is mind boggling – in the least it indicates a massive confusion about the purpose of walls and fences regarding whether they are to prevent ingress or egress. Let me expand on the specifics.
First, America undeniably has had the most salutary and beneficent immigration policy in human history. Only those who subscribe to the ‘America last’ political philosophy would fault our not conducting a policy that was anything but indifferent to our interests, while putting the interests of would-be immigrants above all. Second, with a secured border it is easy to “weed out” the illegal aliens; they are the ones who are captured after crossing it without permission while violating our laws. Finally, no one with a three-digit IQ would accuse a sovereign nation-state of being a “police state” simply because it makes its own territory accessible only to people who follow its ingress laws that define the granting of visas and its immigration process (recall, that contrary to illegal entry, immigration involves a two-party agreement). So Mr Boardman, whose IQ clearly sports the required digits, should have his fears laid to rest about an America with secure borders becoming a police state.
Circling back to Trump and the Republican candidates, my own assessment continues that Trump’s discovery of America’s sensitive nerves about illegal aliens, fiscal policy, foreign policy, wealth creation, welfare, etc does not require rocket science, but merely a level of audacity and courage to say, no matter how indelicately, what millions of Americans have been thinking. I don’t think he has any chance of becoming the ‘man on the white horse’ of US politics that he thinks he is. But I believe his continued outrages will put some starch in the spines of the otherwise more mainstream Republicans. We await how their respective messaging bends toward those issues.
Finally, readers may recall that, while I believe in a more pluralistic political landscape for America, I also believe that any solo third party will by its entry sink the chances of its closest ideological neighbor. My only fear about The Donald is that he will pull a Ross Perot, and torpedo any one of the many fine and qualified Republican candidates making it to 1600 Pennsylvania. Were that to be in our future, I would consider running through the streets wailing, ‘Bernie, where is your Socialist Party of America when we really need it?!!’
[2aug15 update] We seldom watch live TV, but always DVR programs for later viewing or not. Watching Republican candidates being interviewed has been a frustrating experience. Our vaunted broadcast journalists have all turned to huckstering for the cheap thrills of competitive campaigning, instead of focusing their interviews on the candidates’ positions on issues and plans forward should they become president. I’ll use Chris Wallace’s Sunday program on Fox News for examples, but you can find equivalent ones on any channel.
Wallace interviewed Ohio’s Governor Kasich and did everything he could to divert the man from talking about his record and positions. Wallace wanted the focus to be on what Kasich thought about other Republican candidates. At one point the frustrated question was asked, ‘Well what could any president do?’ in response to Kasich trying to talk about the future. Kasich was a bit flustered, and missed his opportunity for the correct answer – ‘Chris, a sitting president can do a lot and has a tremendous impact on the condition and direction of the nation. Look at the disaster Obama has been able to create during his six years at America’s helm, especially in his domestic and foreign policies, the economy, bureaucratic corruption, and extra-constitutional power grabs. I intend to repair as much of that damage as possible during my tenure in the White House.’
Then former Texas governor Rick Perry was interviewed. Again, Wallace fought tooth and nail against Perry reminding people of his record as governor and his response to today’s critical issues ranging from the Iran deal to border security. Instead, our intrepid journalist kept asking Perry questions (my paraphrasing) like, ‘Hey, you really f*^ked up in your 2012 debates. How do feel about that, and do you think you’ll f*^k up again this time?’, and ‘Trump is really on the rag about you, he’s telling everyone how you’re trying to hide your room temperature IQ behind the glasses (let me play a few clips). What would you tell him in the upcoming debates?’.
Perry finally took the bait, and gave the viewers what Wallace wanted. His correct answers would have contained points like, ‘Trump comes from a background of an autocratic wheeler-dealer businessman. He admits to not being a debater, but one who issues orders and expects them to be executed without discussion. Trump really wants to become Commander-in-Chief of America and play the same role from the White House. But that’s not the way our government with three co-equal branches is supposed to work.’ And another time Perry should have said, ‘Trump’s political beliefs and social policies have been all over the map, and no one knows for sure where they are today. For example, he may still believe in delivering up single-payer healthcare. We have to remember that Trump is a former Democrat who today looks as if he’s had a pretty iffy epiphany.’
All this aside, we are looking forward to the best entertainment ever this coming Thursday on Fox News as the first Republican candidates’ debate airs with Trump being the wildcard. Will he suddenly turn on some statesman like charm (can he?), or will he double down as the loose cannon on a careening deck aiming his motor mouth in directions yet unknown?
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment