Thursday, August 20, 2015


This is in response to Alan Kurschner's post about the myth that Trump is unelectable. It's unclear to me what kind of Trump opponent Alan is responding to.

i) My objection to Trump is not that he's unelectable. Now, one objection to Trump is that if he either ran as an independent or the GOP nominee, he'd make it more likely that Hillary would win.

That, however, is not the only objection. What's objectionable is not merely the specter of Hillary winning, but the specter of Trump winning. 

There's no evidence that Trump is any better than Hillary, or Bernie, or Al Gore–or whoever the Democrats ultimately run. Indeed, that's an understatement. There's abundant evidence that Trump is just as bad as Hillary. He's is like the Roman Emperor in Satyricon

I'm struck by the number of credulous conservatives who let themselves be led by the nose when Trump yanks their chain. Alan says "this is 30,000 people who are concerned that our country is being invaded, and view Trump as someone who will actually do something about it."

Because Trump bought 30,000 gold-plated nose rings for gullible voters who don't know a scam artist when they see it.

ii) I'm also struck by alleged conservatives who are so indignant about the GOP that they throw their weight behind a candidate like Trump. In the name of morality, they pick the most venal candidate in the GOP lineup. Their high-sounding idealism becomes indistinguishable from amoral cynicism. In the name of ideological purity, they pick the debauchee. 

It's like saying Marco Rubio is weak on illegal immigration, so let's nominate Pablo Escobar for president! Let's go from bad to worse. 

iii) And from a Christian standpoint, what makes illegal immigration the top issue? 


  1. If the Republicans in Congress, Republican governors, etc. are as bad as Trump supporters often suggest, then where are all of the equivalents of Trump who will be replacing them? Most Senators aren't even up for reelection next year. How's Trump going to govern, if the Republican leadership is as bad as Trump supporters often suggest? Is he going to act unilaterally?

  2. Incidentally, let's say for the sake of argument that Trump is a "hidden" Democrat. I would still vote for him over the Republican party. At least his brand of Democrat (Reagan Democrat?) is more in line with traditional Republican values than the spineless RINO establishment that screwed their voters in the last election.

    I still want to see Jindal run as an Independent. Oh wait, he is "unelectable."

    RIP Republican Party.

    1. "At least his brand of Democrat (Reagan Democrat?) is more in line with traditional Republican values than the spineless RINO establishment that screwed their voters in the last election."

      i) Alan, a "Reagan Democrat" is typically defined as a white, culturally conservative, working-class voter.

      Aside from the white part, Trump was never culturally conservative, and never working-class.

      So perhaps you mean that's what he stands for, that he identifies with Reagan Democrat values or identifies with Reagan Democrats as the constituency he would fight for.

      If that's what you mean, he doesn't identify with Reagan Democrat values. He's a culturally liberal blue blood. By birth, breeding, and lifestyle, he identifies with Upper Manhattan values.

      From what I can tell, the only reason you classify him as a Reagan Democrat is because of what he's saying as of 2015. If so, you never address the question of why you find him believable. Now that he's running for prez, he's taken a hard right turn. Why don't you find that suspicious? What makes you think his sudden populist tilt is plausible?

      ii) You haven't bothered to explain what you think the spineless RINO establishment can do so long as a Democrat is in the White House. It takes supermajorities in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Not to mention that the Obama administration flouts the law, and is sometimes enabled by the Supreme Court.

      "I still want to see Jindal run as an Independent. Oh wait, he is 'unelectable.' RIP Republican Party."

      What is that supposed to mean?

      i) Are you saying he'd be electable as an independent? If so, your argument is really with Jindal, since he's Republican by choice.

      Nothing and no one prevents Jindal from running as an independent, if he so wishes.

      But if he's doing this poorly as a sitting Republican governor, what makes you think he'd suddenly achieve escape velocity as a third-party candidate?

      ii) Who has said he's unelectable? He has a shot at the primaries, just like his rivals.

      iii) At the moment, Jindal's problem is that he lacks significant grassroots support. His problem is not, in the first instance, party affiliation, but voters–or lack thereof.

      iv) Keep in mind that Jindal is only 44. This is hardly his last chance to run for prez.

  3. Another problem with Trump is he's a brazen opportunist. He changes with what best suits him. He may not stick with what he currently advocates. He may be elected on a "conservative" platform, but there's no guarantee he'll remain "conservative" after he's elected.