Wednesday, February 10, 2016

How many view the Trump campaign

by Keith

As this.

(Conceivably NSFW, depending. Hat tip: R.D. Brewer @ AOSHQ))


Bookmark and Share

Posted by Keith at 2/10/2016 10:58:00 AM

Labels: , ,

7 comments:

  1. pikkumattiFebruary 10, 2016 at 11:42 AM

    Here's how I see the Trump campaign. (Not because of the ideology, of course -- of which Trump has none -- but the unexamining belief of the followers.)

    P.S. I had forgotten how funny Triumph is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KeithFebruary 10, 2016 at 5:50 PM

    Pik, I'm actually more disturbed by the creeping tacit acceptance, across the board and into both Congress and SCOTUS, of the unitary executive, if not of an outright imperial executive as well.

    The conventional wisdom these days has a Great Leader if not a Führer - either a "wrong" Great Leader or a "right" Great Leader, depending on one's tribe - instructing his nobles in the other branches on how the country should proceed, which nobles then dutifully carry out the Great Man's vision or obstruct it.

    Without his own private standing army even a would-be Caesar in the presidency is helpless to do much damage so long as the other branches do their job.

    But when the Congress abdicates its primary legislative leadership role and SCOTUS defers to the Great Man as well, that's when we're in big trouble, even with our own Great Man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pikkumattiFebruary 10, 2016 at 7:16 PM

      Hear hear.

      But I think your worry is one and the same with mine that the populace is all too accepting of, if not demanding, a massive and omnipotent federal government, regardless of which branch is the seat of power.

      Just check out how many votes were cast in NH yesterday for the following Big Gov't types of the top two in each party:

      Trump : 100,406
      Kasich : 44,909
      Sanders : 151,584
      Clinton : 95,252

      Total for these 4 : 392,151

      That's 73 % of the 540,000 or so of the votes cast. If the state motto up there is "Live Free or Die", I guess NH is choosing to Die.

      And along those lines, I worry that if Rubio doesn't start making a better fight of it, the GOP money and power types will conclude that they can work much easier with a President Trump than they can with a President Cruz*, and bigger gov't will be a fait accompli.

      *He who dared call Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor.

      P.S. If Jeb!'s fervor for Common Core or his scorched-earth campaign tactics aren't enough to disqualify him for you, his call for Citizens United to be reversed or amended out certainly should be.

      Delete
    2. PauliFebruary 11, 2016 at 10:29 AM

      I'm more worried that a President Sanders will have a gun placed to my head than a President Trump doing the same. If he *really* wants to bring true socialism to America, he's going to have to turn the military against the citizenry and force us to comply.

      Delete
    3. pikkumattiFebruary 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM

      In the extreme, perhaps so, Pauli. But I suggest that the difference is only the rate at which it will come to that, in that a President Trump may only grow the federal gov't big and strong enough so that the next fascist can come with the guns.

      P.S. I'm not so sure Sanders will bring the guns. But we know Hillary will, one way or another.

      Delete
    4. KeithFebruary 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM

      I think both of you may be missing something rather obvious and important.

      No one swears an oath to the President of the United States. All, President included, swear their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

      So for any given element to oppress the citizenry it's got to (A) value its current leadership charismatically more than it values its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (B) in the face of that net of those others either countervailing against them by upholding their oaths or abandoning them.

      Sure, there's the immovable object of the bureaucratic administrative state as Megan McArdle points out, but even it cannot fund itself. Nor can any President fund it.

      It needs a Paul Ryan and friends for that.

      Again, all heads swivel reflexively towards a Great Man, good or ill, as a lazy, vicarious alternative to the tedious, unglamorous plodding work of primarying in or out legislators who do or do not serve constituents' interests.

      In the end, we Americans always get what we deserve, because, by action or omission, we ultimately give it to ourselves.

      Delete
    5. pikkumattiFebruary 11, 2016 at 6:20 PM

      While inadequate separation of federal powers may be a contributing factor to the Nation's ills, I don't see it as the main problem.

      Rather, the problem is that we will soon have, if we don't already, a majority of the voting populace dependent on government paid for by the minority. If that majority is happy with an overwhelmingly large federal government because of the free stuff paid for by the minority, they'll just keep voting so as to get more free stuff. And they'll get more (especially with a co-enabling legislative branch, as you suggest).

      This is why, to me, it is essential that we begin swinging toward reducing the size and scope of the federal government*. And why it is essential that we do so now, before we reach the point of no return.

      *And yes, with proper exercise of the separation of powers.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)