Trump Claims a Silent Majority (and my hair is on fire!)

 

Donald Trump has resurrected the “silent majority” concept of the late sixties.  The phrase was coined in a 1969 speech by President Richard M. Nixon.  With massive demonstrations going on against the Vietnam war, many Americans disapproved of the methods and style of the message that anti-war protestors employed to make their point.  The methodology of protest was often extreme, with egregious examples like that of Jane Fonda, the American actress who posed and protested with a North Vietnamese artillery unit, atop a tank, or inspecting an enemy grenade launcher.

To some degree, there were among the “silent majority” Nixon claimed to champion people who were aghast (and terrified ) at “race riots” -- looting and burning in American cities.   Nixon was of the opinion that the media light was not shining upon the large number of far less vocal or exhibitionistic people and hence, they were “silent.”  And so he claimed them as his own, much as Trump is trying to do.  

Among this “silent majority,” there were no doubt some racists and culturally ignorant people as there are today in both major political parties.  But CNN reporter Allison Camerota (formerly of Fox News) this morning referred to Trump’s recall of the “silent majority” term as akin to a racist dog-whistle.  This is historically inaccurate and likely an intended smear of Trump in accordance with general CNN hypocrisy and principles of supporting any Democrat.  CNN and others are very happy to use Trump as clickbait, blaring his propaganda and slogans the livelong day, and will gladly sacrifice real news stories and air time to puff pieces about Trump’s hair-do. 

I’m not a Trump fan but it’s a very low blow to call him a racist, even by his own low blow standards.  I would describe him as culturally ignorant, bigoted even, but to call him a racist is a long step down a very dark road.  I’m no fan of Jorge Ramos either, but Trump’s repeated “orders” for him to “sit down, sit down, sit down” were ignorant, unsophisticated, and demeaning in the way a spoiled rich boy with inherited wealth might be to persons he considers inferior. Consider that, if you don’t agree with Trump, this inferior label includes you. 

Trump was furious when Ramos refused to act like a well- trained and obedient dog and sit upon orders from his master. There,  we got to see how much he expects everyone to fall prostrate before his billions, his catch phrases, and his bumper sticker campaign.  Instead of “silent majority,” Trump might instead substitute the term “gullible majority” or perhaps “blindly following majority.”

The “silent majority” was not silent because of one single thing like the civil rights movement, as CNN’s Allison Camerota said today.  It was silent because it didn’t believe that the hysterical street theatre of the 60s and the riots at the Democrat National Convention advanced democracy or American constitutional principles. When you consider how narrow-minded, dogmatic, and dangerous the 60s left had become (think Weather Underground In U.S. or Baader-Meinhoff gang in Europe (aka RAF – Red Army Faction),  you can almost forgive Nixon for Watergate, or Trump for his truly effective media demagoguery.  But too much of what Donald Trump says is either simplified to the point of being ridiculous or carefully calculated (against his rivals) lies.  This should not be forgiven.

How Long Will the Trump Binge Last?

And When Will the Hangover Start?

Last night some Twitter people put me in the position of slamming Donald Trump.  I don’t dislike Trump, the businessman, never did, though I pointed out previously that he was dumb, dumb, dumb to attack Senator McCain’s (and other Vietnam war prisoners) war record. Also, his point about the border problem is well known and voiced first by other candidates. Worst of all is his generalized smear of Mexicans, great people, a hard-working and resilient people, with generally conservative values.  

I could go on, but I will just add that it was also a brain-dead move to do his little number on Fox News correspondent Megyn Kelly.  Trump has since backed off of his statement about McCain, but still sorry to say he ambushed Megyn Kelly, rather than the opposite way he played the contretemps. He knew in advance he was going to be asked a “woman question,” of course, and, knowing that the vast public masses (me included) are fed up with the media, he was scripted to bite anyone who asked a question he wouldn’t answer.

I understand, too, that Donald Trump is the most media savvy political phenomenon since Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister.

Media savvy or not, just about everyone can demagogue the media. It’s just that serious people who really care what happens to America choose not to play that game. Demagoging the issues, really, is getting easier all the time with the expansion of social media, something that Donald Trump recognized early on.

Trump has never made any secret of his contempt for the media and you have to say (generally) it’s rightly deserved. But many Trump reporters are either Democrats or blind followers willing to put by their moral prescriptions, their alleged conservative principles for a guy who says he supported Hillary Clinton (to buy her allegiance, you’re supposed to believe), who figured prominently in NY Mayor Bloomberg’s gun control campaign, who is or was for single payer health care, and other liberal causes.

Yes, Donald Trump has expropriated the ideas and talking points of the other GOP candidates and hyped them to the max, embellishing them, amplifying them with hyperbolic claims that sound like they’re from a Superhero comic book.  Everyone knows what he’s saying because he’s the most colorful figure to appear on the political scene since Barack Obama (no skin color pun intended). It doesn’t matter that the other candidates have said these things first, and long before Trump decided he would be a Republican.

For that matter, I am not sure he is a Republican. A real Republican would not be at all willing to hand a win to Hillary Clinton by running third party. A real Republican, running as a Republican, would make that clear from the start.  Or else Donald Trump should run as an Independent from the start. No, the Republican badge, for Trump, seems to be the outgrowth of his opportunist nature.

Yet, this colorful and animated character follows a “conservative” pattern (helping the liberal media destroy the GOP nominee or not voting for them) that gave us the Messiah Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and wants to replace him with Messiah Trump. Lots of people may blah-blah-blah about “principles” and then forgo them just to make themselves feel good, or to merge their identities with billionaire celebrities, hoping desperately that some crumbs will fall from his table.

With Trump, it’s not about the message, it’s about the messenger. Celebrity. All good, but what’s in it for America?  Just the hangover after the drunk.

Hillary Clinton: “Man the Lifeboats!”

You already know this. I’m one of the failed predictors who thought Hillary Clinton was the unsinkable Democrat Party nominee.  Now the HRC luxury yacht is being tossed about upon a fickle sea of Sturm und Drang and, as she tries to brazen things out, her bilge pumps aren’t working fast enough to keep the boat from sinking.

The entire Democrat Party edifice at this time hinges on manipulating public perceptions on the Iraq War, Benghazi, Server-Gate, more red lines in the sand (even while ISIS mounts chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurd Peshmergas with WMD obtained from Assad’s stockpiles or the late Saddam Hussein’s) the rising health care costs most people are experiencing as the direct result of Obamacare, the Iran Nuclear capitulation, the willful failure to secure adequate and vitally necessary status of forces agreements in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Democrats congressional throttling of the former Republican president’s attempts to maintain a stable Iraq after the successful surge. 

Yes, I am saying that many Democrats were willing to see Iraq and Afghanistan collapse for no other reason than to punish George W. Bush in a mass suicidal Guyana style attempt to salvage their self-fulfilling surrender monkey foreign policy. These latter failures are a national disgrace and glaring insult to the honor of the veterans and veteran’s families who suffered and died in the service of American democracy.

So then you have Hillary Clinton with her finger in the dike holding back the flood of rebellious Democrats who have gotten a whiff of the whole stinking mess.

There are several things to consider.  The Dems don’t have a fallback position unless Biden gets into the race, in which case it will have a weak one. Even Elizabeth Warren would be seen as a duplicate Bernie Sanders and it is understood she couldn’t possibly match the huge crowds Sanders has already drawn away from the center-left Democrat coalition.

President Obama has to bet either bet on a horse about which much is known and too little of it good or he has to put his faith into a second tier candidate who hasn’t yet had the courage to spell out what the public knows already from reading the newspapers.

Then there are Hillary Clinton’s repeated lies about classified information disseminated (to who knows what enemies) on her private server. Even socialist Democrat (whatever that is, exactly) Bernie Sanders hasn’t dared to comment on Hillary’s maintenance of an illegal private server to conduct the people’s business, the erasure and deep wiping of the memory, and much more.

The much more has to do with how much pressure President Obama can bring to bear on his newly appointed Attorney General, and on the FBI which has seized Hillary’s email server and is presumably trying to resurrect the data.  Or cover things up with some kind of vague blanket statement about finding it unethical but not rising to a criminal level. Look out for and read carefully between the lines about what happens now, what statements are made in this regard, and especially look to see what direction the Obama inner group is taking.

In light of the congressional inquiry, the FBI and IG investigation, Obama may think ultimately that the risk is too great to continue to prop up Hillary Clinton. After all, the relationship between Hillary and Barack wasn't ever anything more than the political equivalent of a convenient one-night stand anyway.

The Fabulous Four: Trump, Kasich, Rubio, and Bush

I’ve been in absentia, too busy working on my upcoming novel “One to the Heart.” Not only that, but also because there is already too much time devoted to the 2016 race that I didn’t want to add to the detritus of early speculation.  Who needs me to perorate on these weighty matters?  Only my dog and my cat;  herein depicted in attentive and reverential pose, pretending to listen when they are hoping for extra special treats in the form of food.  That’s not much different than much of the electorate though, is it?

It’s no secret that Hillary Clinton is getting squeezed. Those anguished cries coming from the Clinton Money Machine is proof enough that Server-Gate and Bernie Sanders’ alarming and precipitous rise in voter polls is hurting the doyenne of Benghazi Lies. Does Hillary Clinton also hear footsteps padding up behind her from VP Joe Biden, quietly assessing the mood of the electorate while spending time with his family after the tragic death of his son?  These obstacles are certainly more formidable to her than the rain of barbs levied upon her by current GOP (or third party) candidate Donald Trump.

But here are my time-saving tips for watching the political show:  Trump, first of all, will continue to have his appeal although the appeal already seems to be wearing thin. His interview with Hannity just two days ago was ample indication of that.

I’m enjoying Trump, the man, though I have reservations about Trump, the president. I serious did not like his attacks on McCain’s war record, remarks which I found absurd, uninspired, and disgusting. He was on soft ground there, considering his four draft deferments during the Vietnam war.  The Rosie O’Donnell thing? Wrong, but manageable in context of the poisonous vitriol she heaped on him.  Hitting at Megyn Kelly for her question: dumb, dumb, dumb because it sounded like the whining of a spoiled billionaire. Not to mention it looked like bullying. In spite of the social media uproar Trump created in disparaging her “bleeding from the eyes or wherever” the Fox News reporter wasn’t of such great media stature as to be a worthy target. She’s just a smart, tough reporter doing her job.   In raining invective upon Kelly, Trump turned a blister into a sucking chest wound, and the entire chorus of blind followers chimed in on Twitter to vent their outrage at a question that his Democratic opponents will ask him again and again. Was Trump thinking he would, by his reaction, put the question to bed?  Think again, Donald. You’re going to have to come up with a better response than to shoot the person asking the question.

Now for the rest and the more interesting part of my rant.  The entire political world has united against Jeb Bush.  The various factions invent their own reasons.  Hillary knows he’s going to be there, that he’ll be the last man standing, and she has to deal with that.  Chris Christie, who by virtue of his Obama Beach Hug at the Wrong Time, will never get anywhere and attacked Jeb Bush yesterday in a convoluted way to raise his own profile. These people know what will get picked up in the news cycle. So Christie saying Jeb was trying to “re-litigate” the Iraq War was simply his grab at headlines.  Okay, Christie, we get it; you were a federal prosecutor. But you are straining to use the "litigate" word, banging us over the head with it.  No one's trying to "litigate" the Iraq wars-- get over yourself!  It was similar to Trump’s mention that he was against the Iraq War (don’t know if he was against it after he was before it, though).

For the rest, Marco Rubio has a good game going, as does the new face John Kasich.  I can see Kasich breaking out at some point though he is certain to face criticism from the lockstep pundits kiting Trump—people like Laura Ingraham, e.g., Mark Levine, Sean Hannity (to a lesser extent), Anne Coulter, etc.  They don't find him conservative enough while the rest of them, somewhat ironically, find him too religious.

  I like most of the GOP candidates. I’ve even warmed a little to Fattie, or at least I’m able once again to see his strengths if I can ever get by the images of the Beach Hug and jumping up and down with Gerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys franchise. 

 I probably should have stated earlier that I think Jeb Bush would be the best president of the bunch.  I’ll explain later in full detail why he’s my pick, but the short version is that the next president will face the residuals of Obama's capitulation in the Middle East and Iran. I think there will most certainly be a momentous and unforeseen attack on the homeland by ISIS or AQ inspired Islamo-Nazis. A collective amnesia has already set in.  We are constantly blasted with the meme that we are "war weary" Americans when the fact is that Obama sounded a retreat on all fronts even while George Bush handed over a stabilized Iraq.  Obama also followed behind the Europeans in bombing Libya, then becoming confused and washing his hands of the whole thing--pretending, as it were. The result was Benghazi. 

I want a war president, a thoughtful,  informed, resolute leader who  will guide America with a steady hand through what is to come. Don't think for a moment that Jeb hasn't been studying world affairs, and that he hasn't benefited from his father's and brother's experience.  It's in his blood, so to speak, and he's got the right mix of it, neither too much of sabre-rattling nor too little of action when action is warranted.

We've had a newbie over the last 7 years and I don't want to see another president doing OJT with a nuclear Iran or a Pearl Harbor type surprise attack via dirty bomb in some American city.  Screw all that meme about "another Bush" -- everyone deserves to be looked at for who they are.  I am not my brother and neither are you your brother's keeper. (For the record, I would vote again for Papa Bush or George). 

If there is good news to bring it will be that any of the Republican candidates will manage an improvement in economic conditions that will help to abate the violence, dissension, and job losses in poor American communities.  (bi-lingualism would be a plus for any applicant as will a willingness to really understand what’s going on in the inner city neighborhoods of American cities)

 I think that Kasich, Rubio, and Jeb are the ones to watch as they gain on frontrunner Trump. The thing aboutTrump is that, while his energy level is high, and while he’s injected life into the process, you still don’t know who he really is. He’s so mercurial that you either wonder what vitamins he’s taking or when he’s in talk show mode or presidential campaign mode.  I suppose the two modes have become quite the same these days, so perhaps that’s is an “unfair” observation. 

The one thing you don’t wonder about Trump, however, is his ability to rock the media back on its heels with some neat feints and combination punches. That’s impressive to me, and Trump is TBE. So, homage!  There’s almost no one who doesn’t feel the MSM deserves to get bitch-slapped for its excesses, for its focus and delight in small matters of little consequence, for its pandering and its cowardly reticence in dealing with the really hard things like Benghazi and Server-Gate.

A word must be said about Carly Fiorina. I think she flagged in the California race against super-lib-left Barbara Boxer, but who could succeed in the Left Coast anyway?  She comes to this raise as a surprise (at least I was surprised) and a steady voice on the issues. She fought back successfully at Democrat smear-mongers who know little of economics or business but feel entitled to mouth off about her being fired as HP CEO.  Boardroom battles -- if you don't ruffle any feathers you're not doing your job, she says. I haven't included her in the list though I expect her to rise and keep rising.  She's a straight shooter and honest. I'd love to see her debate Hillary but she's not my pick because of the broad policy experience problem.

Remember that Hillary was on the prosecutorial team that pilloried President Nixon for his deceptions about Watergate.  What lessons did she take from it? Did she learn to lie better, more effortlessly? Did she learn how better to cover her tracks as Secretary of State?  It would be nice indeed if she learned that she should resign from the process and make way for Sanders and Biden.

 Nice, but impossible for the Deception Diva of the center-left Democrats.