It's not exactly "I have a Dream..." but then, what do you expect from the tax evader?
Posted on 07/13/2015 7:06:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Las Vegas — It’s the height of political fashion to bash Donald Trump, and I’ve done my share. It’s harder to understand his appeal, but it’s absolutely necessary if we are to come to terms with the political times we live in.
Anyone who watched Trump’s speech to 2,000 attendees of FreedomFest in Las Vegas on Saturday could easily lampoon his bizarre, meandering, and egomaniacal delivery. But by the time he left the stage, a big chunk of the audience approved of him, and many expressed a willingness to vote for him.
“Trump was upbeat, and, unlike other candidates, he’s a man of action,” Barbara Carter, of Las Vegas, told me after the speech. She is considering voting for Trump. A former resident of Wasilla, Alaska, she was a fan of Sarah Palin’s when Palin was mayor there. She says that both Palin and Trump cut through the politically correct rhetoric of our day and speak plain truths. When I pointed out that Trump never presents any evidence for his charges that the Mexican government deliberately sends rapists and killers to the U.S., she agreed that both Palin and Trump “may have been pushed onto the national stage before they were ready.”
Kate Wright, a writer from Los Angeles, isn’t a likely Trump voter. But she says that the GOP establishment has underestimated the depth of contempt that many conservatives have for the party’s leaders in Congress. “Trump scored big when he said the GOP in Congress complains about Benghazi and the IRS scandal but then seems to forget about them,” she told me. Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina echoed that same theme today when she said on ABC’s This Week: “People are angry at a professional political class of both parties that talks a good game, gives good speeches, but somehow nothing ever really changes.” She has elsewhere noted that Trump benefits from conservative resentment of a media double standard that lets extremists such as Al Sharpton and socialist Bernie Sanders get away with inflammatory statements.
“Trump hits a nerve when he talks about crime by illegal immigrants in Arizona,” Don Edwards, a retired economics professor from Surprise, Ariz., tells me. “He demonstrates that the issue has been ignored because of political correctness, and so he is there to fill the vacuum.” Nonetheless, Edwards isn’t close to considering Trump for president. “He’s economically wrong and uninformed. . . . [He]answered a question on the Federal Reserve by swerving into one-liners about the debt.”
But even some attendees who know enough to be wary of Trump’s Patent Medicine prescriptions are impressed by him. “He is forthright, clear speaking, and he shows leadership,” says Lloyd Nirenberg, a Californian who has a Ph.D. in science and runs a company specializing in rocketry. “I’ve been so disillusioned by other candidates. He is refreshing to listen to.”
Other people I spoke with in Las Vegas said that while Trump is a very entertaining speaker — “He’s like watching a train wreck; you know you shouldn’t look, but you do anyway” — he will probably hit a natural ceiling on his support. They noted the mean streak that lies just under the surface of every speech he makes. He opened his speech by emphasizing that the FreedomFest hosts had to apologize for a scheduling misunderstanding, which made them “semi-honorable” in his view. He then alternated between insulting companies he’s done business with and proclaiming: “I’m a nice guy, really.”
But he reached his low point during a truncated Q&A session with the audience. Roberto Salinas, a respected free-market economist from Mexico, told Trump he was insulted by his remarks about Mexico and asked if he would build walls around every state to prevent criminals from crossing those borders. “I was waiting for this,” Trump snapped. “Did the government of Mexico ask you to come up here and say this?” He then cut off Salinas’s response and called for a wall across the entire southern border. A happy warrior Trump is not.
Donald Trump is not the “rodeo clown” depicted by columnist Charles Krauthammer and others. He is the P. T. Barnum of American politics, a brilliant self-promoter who knows exactly what he’s doing and who changes his opinions constantly to match what he thinks audiences want to hear, much as Barnum used to switch out circus acts between towns on his tour. Barnum, incidentally, entered politics late in life and served as a state legislator and mayor of Bridgeport, Conn.
But even the great showman who was able to fool so many people sometimes went so far out on the edge that he fell off. In the 1850s, Barnum inserted into his shows an elaborate hoax in which he fooled audiences with a weed that would supposedly turn black people white. Some said he even came to half-believe such a thing was possible. Angry customers eventually forced him to drop the hoax, after costing him much business.
Like P. T. Barnum, Donald Trump might well believe everything he is saying in the moment. But, with his Las Vegas speech, Trump showed that while he can attract an audience, he, like P. T. Barnum, lacks the discipline and charm to pull off the Big Sting.
— John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for National Review Online.
Everyone knows he’s dirty, he’s been in public eye for decades.
>> Am I equating Trump’s politics to Ronald Reagans? Certainly not, but I am comparing the process of their rise in the political world <<
There’s a big difference in the “processes” of the two. Nay, it’s a COLOSSAL difference.
Trump is more-or-less 100% pitchman-cum-carnival barker. But while his IQ is obviously sky-high, and while he has a rapier-sharp ability to parry and attack when facing rhetorical adversaries, he shows no depth of economic and political analysis, nor does he display any long-term consistency of political, social and economic philosophy.
Reagan, by contrast, spent years reading deeply in economics and politics. Then he artfully distilled the wisdom of these classic works into his writings and speeches — especially his radio commentaries from 1975 to 1979. Moreover, he apparently did the task without the aid of an editor or ghost-writer.
This impressive literary output by Reagan shows a man of serious intellect, with a logical and consistent philosophy of politics, economics and society. I think that to equate his “process” with any “process” of Trump is to verge into a calumnious fantasy.
>> His estimated inheritance from his father is estimated between 40 - 200 million <<
Adjusted to today’s prices, those sums look to me like 400 million to two billion. That ain’t hay!
>> Bankruptcies (4) were business strategies allowed by law <<
Sure. Legally speaking, ALL successfully executed bankruptcies are allowed by law. But does that make them morally acceptable? I think not, especially when they occur again and again at the hands of the same man.
>> He gave political donations about equally; some say more to Republicans <<
So that makes his donations to the Clintons OK?
>> The tv show did not build his wealth <<
No, but the shows did build his fame, a/k/a his name recognition. And that’s what he playing from today.
Anyway, thank goodness that fads have a way of fading. And the greater the rise, the greater the fall. So we should be finished with DT within a few months.
You really can’t turn 40 million into 2 billion. No, I am puzzled by the venom, the hatred, that some people on this site have for Trump. You are snuggled up in bed, very comfortably, with the same people, the very same type of people, you accuse Trump of being. Does that bother you at all?
Projection is strong in John Fund.
Fiorina should grab Trumps themes with both hands, polish them up a bit and run like hell as a populist outsider. She is smart enough to do that but I don’t think she believes that our borders are a winning issue.
Yup!
And isn't that what representatives in a representative democracy are supposed to do? Represent their constituents positions?
Both candidates (Reagan and Trump) appeal to a significant portion of the population that feels they have been either silenced or ignored by the DC establishment.
Both candidates have a stage awareness due to their acting backgrounds.
Both candidates have a gift of presentation appeal. They are comfortable talking to a crowd and can woo the crowd.
Both have "command presence". They take charge of their surroundings.
In many ways Reagan's and Trump's appeal isn't political. They fill a void we have experienced in the feeling of lack of leadership in the role of the president. Bush took the hits without responding to his critics. Obummer either can't or won't make a decision.
“he shows no depth of economic and political analysis, nor does he display any long-term consistency of political, social and economic philosophy.”
Trump has a degree in economics, as do his kids.
“If that eventuality comes about, I’d wager that JEB is 99% certain to be the GOP nominee”
Yep. However, I think with the other 15 in the race right NOW, Jeb(no last names please) has a 98% chance of being the GOP nominee.
>> Both candidates (Reagan and Trump) appeal to a significant portion of the population <<
Sure! Absolutely correct.
But one of them is an unprincipled demagogue and carnival barker who will say just about anything to please an audience, while the other was a statesman of great character — a man of world-changing significance. To equate them is to make a grievous insult upon the memory of the latter.
Can't argue with that.
>> Trump has a degree in economics <<
So do I.
In fact, I have two.
Therefore, I think I’m well qualified to say it doesn’t mean squat regarding Trump’s qualifications for POTUS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.