Coming Up Trump

It is a painful thing to have to choose between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, two unsatisfactory candidates. But that does not mean it is a hard choice.

Strictly speaking, of course, there is another choice or two: there is the Green Party, and there is Gary Johnson. The Libertarian ticket is actually extremely impressive this time around. Nevertheless, unless they climb a lot more in the polls, voting Libertarian looks only like throwing your vote away—the moral equivalent of staying home.

The first requirement in a leader, the sine qua non, is honesty. Lose that in the top tier of government, and welcome to the Third World. Only then comes competence. And only then comes any particular stance on issues. Issues change, and are mostly unpredictable. Most leaders mostly only follow polls and make their political calculations anyway. And presidents are not properly responsible for that; it is the legislature, if anyone remembers.

On honesty, there is no hard choice. Hillary Clinton is the most openly dishonest major candidate at least since Richard Nixon, whom she eerily resembles. Like Nixon, she seems to lie as a matter of general principle, whether or not it is in her own immediate self interest.

This is the mark of a truly mendacious soul. When you have signed on with the Devil’s party, you come to see that general inky darkness is your best protection. As if by instinct you begin to shun the light. You are a person of the lie. Truth, even harmless truth, is the enemy.

If we elect such a person, the consequence is that warned of by Confucius as the greatest danger to good public order: words begin to lose their proper meaning. Nobody any longer says what they think. Terrorism is no longer terrorism. Male no longer means male, nor female female. Right is wrong, and wrong is right.

Okay, granted, this has already largely happened in America. This is what we call “political correctness.” The American elite, its political and social leadership, has already turned down this dark path. And they have done so, I submit, ultimately over the issue of abortion.

But Hillary Clinton would take it all to the next, and deepest level. That is a pit America might well never manage to climb out of.

Now, some will of course respond that Trump is objectively at least as awful a liar as Hillary. Trump steaks? Trump university? He lies often, and obviously. What have we been thinking here?

Sure, Trump lies often. Quite likely as often as Hillary, or more often. But there is a crucial difference here. Clinton lies to deceive. Trump lies as entertainment. Are the tales of Paul Bunyan, or Pecos Bill, lies? Are the tricks of a stage magician lies? Did Shakespeare lie in telling us there was a minor gentleman in Henry IV’s time named Falstaff?

That is the level at which Trump plays; the same level as, in his day, PT Barnum. Call them lies if you like; you are only making yourself the butt of the joke, by thus admitting you believed them.

At a deeper level, the true unshakable source of much of Trump's popular support is precisely his truth telling. In an atmosphere of growing public dishonesty, he is prepared to call a spade a spade. Even, clearly, in situations when this is not, by all conventional wisdom, in his own best interests.

The popular instinct here is a good one.

At this point, all else is already irrelevant. But some might well come back, now, with the point that Clinton is clearly more qualified. Indeed, some say she is one of the best-qualified candidates ever. By comparison, Trump has never even run for public office.

It is true that Clinton has put in the time. But what has she ever done? Yes, she served as Secretary of State. But during her time there, we had Benghazi, the email scandal, and a rapid decline in America’s influence everywhere. Not a reassuring record. Yes, she got herself elected to the senate; but largely, I think, on name recognition. Her great life accomplishment seems to have been marrying well.

So, we have a choice between an unknown quantity, and someone we know is not up to the job. Seems to me that choice is easy, too.

But it is also worth noting that Trump has at least demonstrated the most important skill; and Clinton has demonstrated that she does not have it. The chief value of a president, and his chief job, is as a communicator. The presidency has or ought to have little power to set policy. The president is there mostly to inspire, unify, set the tone, use what is sometimes called "the bully pulpit." Communications skill is what made Reagan successful; it is what made FDR successful; it is what Lincoln had; it is what John Kennedy had.

It is what Hillary obviously hasn’t.

And Trump has done nothing so clearly in the primaries as to demonstrate that he has supernatural, superhuman skill as a salesman, which is to say, a communicator.

Accordingly, there actually seems to be a chance that Trump will be a good president.

Finally, on policy, Trump and only Trump is on the right side of the one most important issue. Abortion. As I say, unrestricted abortion is what has poisoned the well of American public life. The consequences never end. Even if one does not particularly care about publicly sanctioned mass murder, you have to end this before you can do much good anywhere. It is very much like the issue of slavery in the nineteenth century.

I’m with Ted Cruz on this one. The moral path is clear.

Nothing to Sneeze At

Comments from doctors on viewing the Hillary Clinton 911 video:

“What you saw yesterday was very, very serious, and people better start taking this seriously,” Eric said. “This is big time now. This is really, really big time, so I hope that somebody really gets after this.”

“What you saw was not even remotely close to pneumonia,” Eric said firmly.

“I told my wife last night, I said I won’t be surprised if I wake up today and find that Hillary Clinton has passed away,” James said.

“There’s clearly something that’s drastically wrong, and I think that some people are overlooking that.”

The fact that the Clinton camp are still seemingly lying about what it is, and have not yet released her medical records, suggests we are wise to assume the worst. If she is not serioudly ill, releasing her records would be the way to put the rumours to rest. Whatever is there must be worse for her than the speculation is.

Their claim that she was diagnosed with pneumonia, but nothing was said about it until sme hours after this incident, also suggests we should assume the worst. Had pneumonia really been the problem, why keep it secret until it was forced out? Why not announce it immediately? Why not pre-empt the risk of such a public incident? It might well have only gained her sympathy.

No, they needed time to come up with this, pneumonia, as a plausible cover story, now required, for something more serious—serious enough that, if it were known, it would disqualify her in at least some eyes---more likely in many eyes--for the presidency.

The biggest worry in the Trump camp should be that she steps down as a candidate. Almost anyone else, at this point, would be harder to beat.

Poor Oppressed Hillary

Haplesss victim of circumstances beyond her control.

In a recent debate, Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton represented the establishment. Clinton immediately took strong exception to this. "Sen. Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment." Adding irony, her husband, the former president, Bill Clinton, later insisted at a campaign stop that his wife was not a part of the establishment.

She is a former First Lady of th US, leaving aside an education at Wellesley and Yal and a career as US Senator and Secretary of State. If she is not a member of the establishment, who is? A woman cannot by definition be in the establishment? Queen Elizabeth is not? Queen Victoria was not? Lady Crawley, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, cannot be and is just putting on airs?

Yet there is every chance she believes it. This is the same millionaire who exposed herself to public ridicule by once saying she and her husband were dead broke when they left the White House.

The modern left, at least tits leadership, is largely composed of wealthy and powerful people who believe someone else is in charge. By income, Republicans and Democrats are almost evenly matched; in bluesttes, generally the richer ones, the wealthy tend to be to the left, in red states they tend to be on the right--along with everybody else. By postgradte edoucation, Democrats predominate, In other words,the Democrats are the party of the professional elite. Generally fat capitalists are blamed for being in control of everything.There are actually few left, or many, if you count all retired people., A capitalists is prorerly someone who lives entirely by the fruit of fhis capital investoments This is a social class which has essentially disappeared since Marx created it over 150 years ago. Large coroprations are instead usually publicly held, which is to say, controlled by professional fund managers and professional managers, both of whom lean Democratic. Yet Bernie sanders sgainst the billionaire class who controls our politics. He does not note that there are in total less than a thousand of them, that most of them are politically to the left, or that, if they really controlled politics, he could not have won the New Hampshire primary.

It is a conspiracy theory, it deals in phantoms, but it is easy to believe this. It is, after all, uncanny how there does seem to be a malicious intelligence controlling the world's affairs. It i not just that the world is full of lies, but that the lies seem remarkably calculated and generally the very opposite of the truth, Hence the constant stream of conspiracy theories, involving not just rich capitalists, but the Koch brothers, the Jews, the Illuminati, the international Catholic Conspiracy, the gnomes of Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, and so forth.

The key to the strength of the modern left is that. the more one is oneself a member of the establishment, more the case with Democrats than Republicans at the leadership level, the easier it is to believe in such conspiracy theories, especially the wilder ones. After all, one is acutely aware, despite one's own high position, of affairs distinctly following what seems to be a malicious pattern beyond your control. How else explain this? Someone must be doing this, and someone who is somehow keeping themselves hidden, for you are nominally in charge and should at least know who they are, should catch them doing it. Case in point: Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of Defense, who is now convinced that the governments of the world are concealing dealings with aliens. And planning an intergalactic war,

The real answer is simple. The devil is real. He is a coherent intelligence. He really is, as the New Testament says, the prince of this world. He has real power. Fail to understand this, and the least of your worries is that you get the basic nature of the social world completely wrong. This misunderstsng has also led to some of the worst crimes of history: Hitler's scapegoating of the Jews, the scapegoating of the well-off in Communist countries, and so forth.

The prince of this world.

Clinton vs. Sanders

Reaction to the Democratic candidates’ debate has now split into two definite camps. The political pros and commentators all believe Clinton won hands down, probably clinching the Democratic nomination in the process. All over but for sweeping up the confetti. On the other hand, a focus group of ordinary Democrats hosted by Fox News, and Drudge Report’s online poll, both think Bernie Sanders won by a wide margin.

I think they are both right, in different ways. The policy wonks think Clinton won, because she won in terms of a formal debate. She had the strongest answers, she had the best command of the facts, she was never stumped or put onto the back foot. Sanders won the likability contest. As I have argued before, the likability contest is what really matters in terms of votes. So I give the win to Sanders.

At first glance, Sanders was doing it all wrong. His manner reminded me of Queen Victoria’s complaint about Gladstone: that when he addressed her, he addressed her as though he were speaking to a public meeting. Sanders had no notion that he had to tone down the voice and the gestures for TV. On the other hand, perversely, that might have helped him on likability. Lack of slickness can be a plus.

In declaring their winners, both sides focus on the same moment, the moment that will live in history. It was when Sanders volunteered that he and the voters are sick of hearing about Hillary’s “damned emails.”

To the politicos, this was, as Sanders himself called it, a political blunder. He threw away his best card against Hillary, as they see it. They ask if he really wants the nomination.

But didn’t it make him look like a good guy--refusing the chance to calumniate against an opponent? No dirty politics. Not acting like a politician at all, in a cycle when everyone seems to be fed up with politicians. Why wouldn’t you love him for it?

At the same time, it also made him look like a grown up, and everyone else, including Clinton, like children. At that moment, he owned Clinton. He was the kindly father or grandfather coming to the aid of a little girl. So who looks presidential now?

There was also a certain shrewdness to it. Sanders said everyone is tired of hearing about the emails, and wants to talk issues. Now, what is really the best way to put the email issue behind us? Who is talking issues in this campaign? Answer: a) don’t nominate Clinton, and b) Bernie Sanders.

In any case, Sanders does not need to talk about the emails. Everyone else is. In fact, by refusing to, he ensured that the emails were the lead-off story coming from the debate. Crazy like an old grey fox.

Some say Sanders also stumbled in refusing to agree to tougher gun control. Again, these would be people who think his main appeal is ideological—that his constituency is the left wing of the Democrats. No, I think his appeal is that he is prepared to say right out, for example, that he is a socialist, as he did again during the debate, when this is understood to be a suicidal move politically. This marks him as honest and principled, not a cynical politician. By the same token, diverging now and then from the far-left line reinforces this perception, that Bernie Sanders is in politics for principle, and not for power.

Many of those pros who think Hillary won also believe that the other contenders were weak, that they would have been buried in the Republican debates. That may well be so. Those on the left are less often challenged on their beliefs, notably by the press, and so they do not learn to think about them closely and are not that well-equipped to defend them if they ever are challenged.

But I think Sanders would be formidable.

The Vision Thing

A woman of (partial) vision.

Pols say Hillary Clinton's campaign is struggling in part because it is failing to articulate a vision, a reason for a Clinton presidency. They need a slogan, kind of like Obama's “Hope and Change.”

Problem is, it has to resonate with the persona of the candidate.

A few suggestions:

Hope against hope. 

Real policies for real people. 

My village wants your children. 

It's my turn to have interns! 

Because I said so. 

“Retro” is the new “change.” 

Nice country you got there. Pity if something was to happen to it. 

The nineties called. They want their foreign policy back. 

I need the money. We've been broke since we left the White House. 

Why should North Korea be the only country whose leader wears pantsuits? 

Vision? I've still got perfect vision in one eye. 

What difference, at this point, does it make? 

You're so welcome, Democrats. Happy, in return, to accept the post of press secretary.