Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
As has been made abundantly clear by his incessant mewling and pathetically thin skin, Donald J. Trump is not in fact an unwaveringly resolute tough guy of the type you would hope to find standing next to you in the trenches, but an insecure attention seeker who cannot help but pander to his audiences' prejudices. In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database; and whether or not it would be a good idea to suspend the Fourth Amendment for anybody who prays to Allah. In all cases he has either demurred completely or eschewed the more traditional "yes" and "no" categories in favor of some choice hedging. "That may have to be done," Trump says. "There's no doubt." "We'll look at that." "We'll consider all the options." "We're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely."
So painful has this tendency become that I have begun to hope his interviewers will get a little surreal, just to see what he says:
"Will you replace your hair with spaghetti and your fingers with soup spoons?"
"Sure. We're going to look at everything."
"As president would you consider taking suspected burglars and parachuting them naked into lava?"
"That's something we'll consider. You can't have all this crime. Terrible."
"Do you think it's fair to say that you are the egg man, that you are the egg man, that you are the Walrus?"
"We're going to examine a range of possibilities."
"GooGooGooJoob?"
"I'll be looking into that."
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say.
The most common defense of Trump's perpetual acquiescence has been that he did not explicitly say "yes" to the more controversial among the questions, and that he cannot therefore be accused of endorsement. In truth, this isn't quite right; speaking to NBC last night, he did seem to suggest affirmatively that Muslims would be required to sign into his hypothetical database or face consequences. Either way, I'm struggling to see how this defense can be acceptable to his admirers. Trump, recall, is supposed to be courageous. He's supposed to be steadfast. He's supposed to be a no-holds-barred badass who will make great deals and stare down enemies and Make America Great Again. How, one wonders, does a chronic inability to say "no" fit into that mien?
If there is one quality we need in a president, it is the ability decisively to say "no" - especially, I would venture, if that president hopes to advance conservative goals. When a sane person is asked whether he would institute a tracking database for Muslims or force one religious group to carry special ID cards, he says, "Of course I wouldn't." If Trump is unable to manage even this, how would he rein in spending or limit illegal immigration? More to the point, as Trump might ask sneeringly of others, how would he deal with Vladimir Putin?
Perhaps the only thing that is worse than Trump's silence is what he does say. Even if we are generous and assume that the man does not actually believe any of the specific proposals to which he has given his tacit consent, the attitude he is exhibiting is positively Wilsonian in character. In Trump's world, America will be restored to glory when his handpicked team of experts is permitted to experiment upon the public outside of the usual constitutional limits. Nowhere in his rhetoric will you find any reference to America's pre-existing cultural and legal traditions, or to the necessary bounds that free men insist be imposed upon the state. There is no talk of "freedom"; no reflexive grounding of ideas in the Declaration and the Federalist Papers; no conceptual explanation or underlying philosophy. There is nothing, except will to power. By his own admission, Trump's are the politics of doing enthusiastically what works in the moment; of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt; of the administrative state and of bureaucratic expertise; of the Prussians and the French and the Singaporeans. Whatever he might claim before his adoring crowds, Trump is not in fact an antidote to Barack Obama. He is his parallel.
Calvin Coolidge said "no" over and over and over again because he understood that the federal government existed for a handful of specific reasons, and that any action it took outside of its carefully delineated tramlines was inherently suspect. Donald Trump's only visible constitutional opinion is that someone strong ought to make sure the trams run on time. There's a word for men like that, and it sure as heck isn't "conservative."
So you want a good public speaker, who can win...Like Rubio...
I'm guessing Trump has more integrity than I have so that makes him a winner in my book...
Jimmy Carter had a lot of integrity...
This is probably the same crew that was against Reagan...
Oh, so as well as being a snotty brit, he’s stupid too?
I forgive him everything as long as he shuts the border, kicks out illegals and negotiates well with our allies and adversaries. It looks to me that he will.
Most of cooks stuff are arguments about how trump handled crap sandwich questions.
[Convince me I wrong.]
You drove by and dropped that off so fast to convince you of anything but...’I will be looking into that’.
I think I’m voting for Ted Cruz after hearing Trump support ethanol, wind power and govt. college subsidies at the same Iowa event.
Love Trump but I’m starting to wear down with this stuff.
Didn’t Trump raise his hand when asked if he would forgo pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee? I for one like the idea of a strong leader who is willing to listen. The evidence so far is that he listening to Coulter and Sessions. Immigration (sic) is the ONLY issue that matters in this election.
You’ve made up your mind about Trump. It’s not my job to convince you otherwise. Every hit piece posted, every Bill Kristol, every George Will, every poll supposedly showing Trump has peaked only make it plain to me that my vote for Donald Trump is well placed.
All of your “issues” are strawmen. Every election has issues that must be dealt with. This time it is “immigration” (invasion), Obamacare, and Islamic terror. Trump owns this issues, and you know it.
When I look at Trumps detractors, Medved, Beck, Will, Orielly, etc., it occurs to me that I stopped listening to them long before the Donald took the stage.
Convince me I wrong.
You are 100% correct.
That is how you feel.
There is only one issue that matters this time- immigration. If you don’t have borders you lose your language, culture, and peace. Trump is from the Coulter/Sessions wing on this issue. Cruz comes close, but he doesn’t completely convince. If you think ethanol changes the face of your country I don’t really know what to say to you.
“In the past few days, Trump has been asked variously whether, if elected, he would use his power to close mosques; whether he believes that Muslims should be registered in a special government database”
One religion in the world is responsible for approximately 99.999% of terrorism, murder, mayhem, and strife. No one has the right to immigrate here. Of course we have the right to reject the entry of persons who come here who could be dangerous. If they cannot prove that they are peaceful they should be barred from entry. The onus should be on them.
If they are admitted to enter, it only makes sense that they should be monitored in case their jihadi alter ego emerges. If they don’t like it, give them a one-way ticket back to Krapistan.
I’m a lot more concerned with the safety of American lives and the peace and security of our country than I am over whether CAIR and the muslim brotherhood get their feelings hurt.
These don't even get the back seat...I've rented a trailer for them to ride in...
When we have thousands of terrorists coming into the Country the last thing I'm worried about is wind subsidies...
Finally, someone who gets it. There are only a handful of boxes that MUST be checked to stop Obama’s transformation.
Immigration
Obamacare
Terror
Trump owns these issues because he’s smart enough to see the danger.
If ethanol or any other craven concern enters your thought process you have failed to recognize the enemy.
Just to add to your post...
Only one religion can’t peacefully “coexist” with others or even themselves-
iSlam.
(It no longer gets capitalization from me.)
I don't appreciate you no appreciating it...
What a great observation! I’ve been turned off to those guys for at least 3-5 years now.
Actually I have found the majority of posters who are critical of Trump, support Cruz.
That is what I don’t like. The two of them are not in opposition.
We should not be, here either.
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.