Trump Is the Poison His Party Concocted

[bobalot]

Trump Is the Poison His Party Concocted

The adults patrolling the playpen of Republican politics are appalled that we’ve become a society where it’s O.K. to make fun of veterans, to call anyone who isn’t rich a loser, to cast an entire group of newly arrived strivers as rapists and shiftless criminals.

Somewhere, we crossed a line — from our mothers’ modesty to strutting braggadocio, from dutiful decorum to smashing all the china in the room, from respecting a base set of facts to a trumpeting of willful ignorance.

Yes, how did we get to a point where up to one-fourth of the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan now aligns itself with Donald Trump? Those same political marshals would have us believe he’s a “demagogue,” a “jackass,” a “cancer.”

They say he’s trashing the Republic brand. They say he’s “stirring up the crazies,” in the words of Senator John McCain. But Trump is the brand, to a sizable degree. And the crazies have long flourished in the Republican media wing, where any amount of gaseous buffoonery goes unchallenged.

And now that the party can’t control him, Trump threatens to destroy its chances if he doesn’t get his way, running as an independent with unlimited wealth — a political suicide bomb.

Trump is a byproduct of all the toxic elements Republicans have thrown into their brew over the last decade or so — from birtherism to race-based hatred of immigrants, from nihilists who shut down government to elected officials who shout “You lie!” at their commander in chief.


It was fine when all this crossing-of-the-line was directed at President Obama or other Democrats. But now that the ugliness is intramural, Trump has forced party leaders to decry something they have not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Consider Trump’s swipe against McCain’s military service, and by extension all veterans who have been involved in the fog of combat. Republicans were apoplectic at Trump’s claim that McCain was no war hero.

“All of our veterans, particularly P.O.W.s, deserve our respect and admiration,” said Jeb Bush. The Republican National Committee was quick to lay down a similar principle, saying, “There is no place in our country for comments that disparage those who have served honorably.”

No place except a presidential campaign, that being the 2004 attempt to destroy the honorable Vietnam service of candidate John Kerry. Where was Bush’s “respect and admiration” when his brother was benefiting from a multimillion-dollar smear of a Navy veteran with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart?

The wise men predicted Trump’s demise after he demeaned a former prisoner of war. But polls posted late this week showed Trump still in the lead. How can he get away with bashing combat veterans? Simple: The party he now wants to represent wrote the playbook on it.

The racism toward Mexicans that Trump has stirred up has been swooshing around the basement of the Republican Party for some time. Representative Steve King of Iowa did Trump one better in 2013 when he said undocumented immigrants had “calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

Did this make King a pariah? Not judging by the number of presidential candidates who showed up at his Iowa Freedom Summit in January, there to curry his favor. Among them was Rick Perry, the former Texas governor. This week Perry called Trumpism “a toxic mix of demagogy, meanspiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if followed.”

Using the X-ray vision of his new glasses, Perry has correctly diagnosed the problem, and forecast the outcome. But that toxic mix has been just the tonic for his party for years, including Perry’s suggestion that Texas might have to secede. President Obama was barely into his first months in office when Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted “You lie!” at him in a joint session of Congress. For hurling that insult, Wilson was widely praised in conservative media circles.

Trump also stoked the humiliating lie about President Obama’s citizenship. He began that crusade, he claimed, because so many Republicans still believe it, and have encouraged him to keep it alive.

Now, the only way to trump Trump is to act like a fool in public. So Senator Rand Paul, formerly seen raising good questions about national issues, fired up a chain saw and took it to the tax code a few days ago — a pathetic stunt. And there was Senator Lindsey Graham, flummoxed by Trump’s exposing him as sycophant to a plutocrat, destroying his cellphone in a blender. It only made us long for the real thing: Dan Aykroyd’s Bass-O-Matic.

All of this overshadowed the entry into the race of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a sensible conservative who could beat Hillary Clinton. But he won’t get any traction until Republicans destroy Donald Trump and the vulgar, nativist element in their party that they nurtured — until it became a monster.

Source

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Pfft. Trump is simply channeling the worst of the Republican Party in a toxic cocktail they stirred for years, from various nonsense like climate warming denial-ism, blatant racism, anti-intellectualism, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, they reap what they sow and can go get stuffed.

[Irbis]

I like the weasel lumping of Reagan and Eisenhower. How is Trump different from Reagan, exactly? He is the product of 80s, and if there is anything different in GOP now, it's the fact in 80s Reagan still has sad remnants of Eisenhower era politicians in party to hold some of the insanity back.

[Gaidin]

I like the weasel lumping of Reagan and Eisenhower. How is Trump different from Reagan, exactly? He is the product of 80s, and if there is anything different in GOP now, it's the fact in 80s Reagan still has sad remnants of Eisenhower era politicians in party to hold some of the insanity back.

For all of Iran-Contra and the crapshoots that happen during any given presidency, Reagan did have a legitimate presidency. The modern Reagan they like to project is a helluva lot different than the 80's Reagan I think.

[Gandalf]

What is a "legitimate presidency?"

[Simon_Jester]

Pfft. Trump is simply channeling the worst of the Republican Party in a toxic cocktail they stirred for years, from various nonsense like climate warming denial-ism, blatant racism, anti-intellectualism, etc. etc. etc. Honestly, they reap what they sow and can go get stuffed.

That's pretty much the thesis of the article.

I like the weasel lumping of Reagan and Eisenhower. How is Trump different from Reagan, exactly? He is the product of 80s, and if there is anything different in GOP now, it's the fact in 80s Reagan still has sad remnants of Eisenhower era politicians in party to hold some of the insanity back.

Reagan, at least, had a measure of dignity. As long as politicians show some dignity and refrain from childishly mocking their opponents, then there are limits to how far they can fall apart even if they're wrong about policy issues.

It's like, you can say Eisenhower was 'right' and Reagan was 'wrong,' but both of them were willing to play the political game by the rules. Trump is peeing on the rules while mooning everyone in the country that isn't a Trump supporter... and about a quarter of the Republican base loves it, because they've been conditioned to love it.

What is a "legitimate presidency?"

I'd go with...

A presidency characterized by functional policymaking processes, some reasonable degree of constructive interaction with the loyal opposition, and the ability to either comprehend policy issues directly or appoint others who do.

Reagan may not have been great by any or all of these metrics, but he was adequate. Even if I have good reason to think his policies were wrong, they were not completely insane. Reagan's policies were generally based on serious, thoughtful decision-making processes by a variety of people, who included a considerable fraction of the nation's intellectuals. Even if the thoughts and intellectuals were in some way objectively wrong, someone was thinking. Reagan's efforts to appeal to the public included real, dignified leadership, not just stunts and childishness. Reagan could show respect for his opponents.

Trump can't.

[Gaidin]

Also, what Jester just said re: Reagan Presidency is a helluva lot different than what you traditionally get out of any talking head and modern politician re: Modern Reagan Mythos.

[Welf]

A presidency characterized by functional policymaking processes, some reasonable degree of constructive interaction with the loyal opposition, and the ability to either comprehend policy issues directly or appoint others who do.

Reagan may not have been great by any or all of these metrics, but he was adequate. Even if I have good reason to think his policies were wrong, they were not completely insane. Reagan's policies were generally based on serious, thoughtful decision-making processes by a variety of people, who included a considerable fraction of the nation's intellectuals. Even if the thoughts and intellectuals were in some way objectively wrong, someone was thinking. Reagan's efforts to appeal to the public included real, dignified leadership, not just stunts and childishness. Reagan could show respect for his opponents.

Trump can't.

Wasn't Reagan the one who used the "southern strategy" to win? And while he showed a more civil side, that only helped to make that strain of racism acceptable. And now people like Trump do away with the pretend and say that openly. There is a direct line from "welfare queens" to "raping mexicans".

[Thanas]

Reagan may not have been great by any or all of these metrics, but he was adequate. Even if I have good reason to think his policies were wrong, they were not completely insane. Reagan's policies were generally based on serious, thoughtful decision-making processes by a variety of people, who included a considerable fraction of the nation's intellectuals. Even if the thoughts and intellectuals were in some way objectively wrong, someone was thinking. Reagan's efforts to appeal to the public included real, dignified leadership, not just stunts and childishness. Reagan could show respect for his opponents.

Ah, the Reagan myth in full force. Reagan sure showed a lot of thinking and dignified leadership in his presidency, like the Iran-Contra affair, where he openly defied congress and made a mockery of its investigative authority.

[Simon_Jester]

Wasn't Reagan the one who used the "southern strategy" to win? And while he showed a more civil side, that only helped to make that strain of racism acceptable. And now people like Trump do away with the pretend and say that openly. There is a direct line from "welfare queens" to "raping mexicans".

The 'southern strategy' was pioneered by Nixon in 1968, not Reagan in 1980. Reagan pursued it, but to a less blatant extent.

Was it contemptible? I think so.

Was it inconsistent with him even trying to run a real presidency, as opposed to a circus? I don't think so. Other presidents and heads of state throughout history have done similarly bad things.

Let me make a very basic disclaimer: I do not think the Reagan administration was good. Not good for the US, not good for the world. Not good for American politics- you're not wrong to say that Reagan's stereotyping of 'welfare queens' helped to sink the Republican Party into the swamp it now occupies.

But all I'm even claiming here is that the Reagan administration was not a farce. Reagan, for all his many many, MANY faults and errors, was at least minimally capable of taking situations seriously, showing respect for opposition leaders, being able to cooperate with those opposition leaders, and of responding in a quasi-sentient way to emergencies.

Thus, electing Reagan was a mistake, but at some minimal level he was an actual president, not just a clown hired to impersonate a president.

Trump, by contrast, is a clown.

Ah, the Reagan myth in full force. Reagan sure showed a lot of thinking and dignified leadership in his presidency, like the Iran-Contra affair, where he openly defied congress and made a mockery of its investigative authority.

Reagan personally showed very little thinking, but he did listen to a number of other people who had done more thinking than he himself was capable of. Granted those other people were wrong and a lot of what they did was bad for America.

But again, this isn't about whether policy decisions were right or wrong. It's about the basic structure of the presidency, about whether the president at least tries to do his job in roughly the appropriate ways, as opposed to doing ridiculous and farcical things on par with appointing a horse as first consul*.

In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan defied Congress, which was wrong and set terrible precedents and I for one would have seen no problem with the idea of him having been impeached on that basis. But, again, he at least managed to do these bad and stupid things in a way mostly consistent with the dignity of his office, and so far as possible consistent with not calling his congressional opponents a bunch of rats or anything similarly inappropriate.

Whereas if you put Trump in the same situation, I honestly would not be surprised if he reacted by dropping his trousers and mooning Congress. He's an attention whore.

Thus, my argument is that as a president, Trump would be even more inferior than Reagan, though that is difficult to imagine from the point of view of a country whose government is sane.

If THAT qualifies as 'Reagan myth' I'm astounded...
______________

*Regardless of whether Caligula had any intention of actually doing that, it makes a good example.

[Irbis]

For all of Iran-Contra and the crapshoots that happen during any given presidency, Reagan did have a legitimate presidency.

I am sorry, I don't consider poisoning the whole planet by 'greed is good, deregulate' mentality as shining success. Then, you have him (as you pointed out) illegally support genocidal right wingers all over the world, illegally invaded several countries, created Taliban, and give jumpstart to USA being corrupted by cancer of colossal military-industrial complex spending more than the rest of the world combined. All while ballooning US debt.

Even as Governor of California he was petty scum who, let me quote, wanted "to send the welfare bums back to work" (as if I heard Trump), sent armed squads then national guard against student protest, applauding two deaths ("If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."), gutted environment protection as both governor and president, allowed clear-cutting of ancient forests, and laughed at both acid rain and lead in fuel problems.

He, finally, was McCarthy's bootlicking crony, handing House Un-American Activities Committee lists of people to be purged, and aided Hoover's FBI in witch hunts by becoming full time informant. He had blood of people like Jean Seberg on his hands long before he entered politics.

What part of the above strikes you as legitimate, exactly?

Reagan, at least, had a measure of dignity. As long as politicians show some dignity and refrain from childishly mocking their opponents, then there are limits to how far they can fall apart even if they're wrong about policy issues.

Dignity? He had only as much dignity as he could fake by acting. He was the clown who joked about delegalizing Soviet Union and launching all missiles on TV. He also authored Able Archer 83, operation that looked so close to what NATO would do to launch sudden first strike, without any warning, that Soviets raised all units to Defcon 1 equivalent. All it would take during these two critical periods to launch full scale nuclear war would be something like freak meteorite strike or military communication failure.

Does that strike you as someone who ever bothers to think about possible consequences of what he yaps about?

It's like, you can say Eisenhower was 'right' and Reagan was 'wrong,' but both of them were willing to play the political game by the rules.

Eisenhower, despite being Republican, authored the quote on bullets being theft from children. Reagan applauded said theft and shat over and poisoned global politics for decades. Judge deeds, not appearances.

Trump is peeing on the rules while mooning everyone in the country that isn't a Trump supporter... and about a quarter of the Republican base loves it, because they've been conditioned to love it.

He only says publicly what Reagan did. And, frankly, insanity aside, Trump probably is far better qualified for president, what with not being actor but running huge organization for decades.

As for working with opposition, you mean the one that could be cowed by threat of being declared un-American commie and faced with civil death? On top of decades of anti-red propaganda? GOP tries to do it today as well, by declaring liberals and democrats crypto-ISIS muslims, but alas, they didn't have yet time to rise enough jingoistic fever yet and a lot more people sees how laughable it is.

Had Reagan had Super-PAC, you can bet Jimmy Carter would be branded weak bribed un-American commie, but alas, as I said, USA still had some remnants from less insane era back then.

Reagan may not have been great by any or all of these metrics, but he was adequate. Even if I have good reason to think his policies were wrong, they were not completely insane. Reagan's policies were generally based on serious, thoughtful decision-making processes by a variety of people, who included a considerable fraction of the nation's intellectuals.

The serious, thoughtful decision-making processes being the product of religiously fanatical anti-communists, corporation bought shills, or fanatically ideological free marketers? "Better dead than red"? "State always bad"? In IT sciences, we have term for that: GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Thanas]

But again, this isn't about whether policy decisions were right or wrong. It's about the basic structure of the presidency, about whether the president
at least tries to do his job in roughly the appropriate ways, as opposed to doing ridiculous and farcical things on par with appointing a horse as first consul*.

dignitas =/= modern dignity.

In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan defied Congress, which was wrong and set terrible precedents and I for one would have seen no problem with the idea of him having been impeached on that basis. But, again, he at least managed to do these bad and stupid things in a way mostly consistent with the dignity of his office, and so far as possible consistent with not calling his congressional opponents a bunch of rats or anything similarly inappropriate.

So your argument is that Reagan did horrible things but at least he did them with dignity, whereas Trump would do horrible things without dignity. But why is Reagan supposed to have had any dignity, be it personal or ex officio? What were the dignified acts he performed? Do they outweigh the many undignified things he said and did?

[Broomstick]

Had Reagan had Super-PAC, you can bet Jimmy Carter would be branded weak bribed un-American commie, but alas, as I said, USA still had some remnants from less insane era back then.

Carter won because:

1) Nixon had tainted the Republicans and
2) Gerald Ford was never elected president, which made a lot of people nervous at the time.

That particular election pretty much anyone the Democrats fielded was going to get elected.

[Broomstick]

In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan defied Congress, which was wrong and set terrible precedents and I for one would have seen no problem with the idea of him having been impeached on that basis. But, again, he at least managed to do these bad and stupid things in a way mostly consistent with the dignity of his office, and so far as possible consistent with not calling his congressional opponents a bunch of rats or anything similarly inappropriate.

So your argument is that Reagan did horrible things but at least he did them with dignity, whereas Trump would do horrible things without dignity. But why is Reagan supposed to have had any dignity, be it personal or ex officio? What were the dignified acts he performed? Do they outweigh the many undignified things he said and did?

Reagan acted like a president, and to that extent he did a good job... but then, he was an actor by trade. Maybe not a great actor, but an actor nonetheless. That doesn't mean he was a good president, an adequate president, and for damn sure he broke the law and got away with it, more's the pity.

[Channel72]

Honestly, I love Trump.

He's like, God's gift to America: poetic justice incarnate sent from above to the Republican Party.

He's literally giving the Republican party a taste of their own medicine. He can say whatever he wants, and it doesn't matter because he has unlimited funding.

And yeah, he is a clown. He even looks like a clown. Except he's pretty much a physical embodiment of the 21st century Republican Party. And it's hilarious because the Republican Establishment, you know, all the "serious" Republicans like the Bush family, et. al., are embarrassed by him. And of course, they have to pretend to be "offended" over his remarks about McCain, even though the Bush family pretty much dragged McCain through the mud back in 2000.

Of course, Trump lacks that Southern/small-town folksiness that a lot of the "crazy base" likes... but I guess he makes up for it by being an in-your-face asshole who hates Mexicans, which is even better.

Anyway, I hope he loses the primary, runs as an Independent, and splits the conservative vote so that Hillary wins in a landslide.

[Borgholio]

Anyway, I hope he loses the primary, runs as an Independent, and splits the conservative vote so that Hillary wins in a landslide.

That's the most likely outcome IMO. If he wins the GOP primary (somehow), then he'll lose big time to whoever the Democrats field. If he loses the primary and runs as independent, he will be the third party candidate from hell. He'll get enough of the crazies that the GOP can't win enough electoral votes on their own, and that results in a Democrat victory.

[SCRawl]

I'm curious to see what kind of apparatus Trump has behind his bid. If he were to run as an independent, does he have a serious chance of getting on all the ballots? Ross Perot did, or was very close to it, but he was a much more serious candidate than Trump, with some serious policy ideas. Frankly, I have trouble believing that this is all about Trump actually wanting to be POTUS.

[Eternal_Freedom]

On the matter of electoral votes with a genuine 3rd party running, do you need an actual majority or just more than the other guys?

As an outside observer, if the "Trump runs as 3rd party and splits the GOP" outcome occurs, I'm very interested in what the result woudl be for US politics afterwards. Woudl we get a genuine 3rd party from the GOP split? Or would we get the GOP cleaning itself of the more insane elements and reformatting itself?

[Thanas]

We would get the Democrats abandoning most of their ideals and becoming even more like the GOP in the name of consensus, like they did after Obama's landslide victory.

[SCRawl]

On the matter of electoral votes with a genuine 3rd party running, do you need an actual majority or just more than the other guys?

As an outside observer, if the "Trump runs as 3rd party and splits the GOP" outcome occurs, I'm very interested in what the result woudl be for US politics afterwards. Woudl we get a genuine 3rd party from the GOP split? Or would we get the GOP cleaning itself of the more insane elements and reformatting itself?

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency or the Vice Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President and/or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. In such a situation, the House chooses one of the top three presidential electoral vote-winners as the President, while the Senate chooses one of the top two vice presidential electoral vote-winners as Vice President.

[Welf]

On the matter of electoral votes with a genuine 3rd party running, do you need an actual majority or just more than the other guys?

As an outside observer, if the "Trump runs as 3rd party and splits the GOP" outcome occurs, I'm very interested in what the result woudl be for US politics afterwards. Woudl we get a genuine 3rd party from the GOP split? Or would we get the GOP cleaning itself of the more insane elements and reformatting itself?

The US has a electoral system that effectively only allows two parties to exist, so there wouldn't be a third party. More likely the GOP will try to reintegrate the crazies by shifting even more to the right. If they find a good issue, like crimes and drugs in the 70s-90s they will move the centre of US politics even more to the right.

[Metahive]

Shifting more to the right leaves them with an ever shrinking electoral base because they're leaving more of the middle ground to the democrats. What kind of people does the Republican Party represent right now? White, gun-crazy, luddite, reactionary, macho, christian fundamentalist, racist and big-business worshiping authoritarians. If they don't want to drive their voter-suppression antics to the point of actually introducing Prussia's old three-class voting system (which gave wealthier people more voting power), they'll have to reach out or become completely irrelevant.

[Welf]

This is the fun thing about the US electoral system, you don't need to win a majority, you only need a majority in a majority of the states and electoral districts. In the UK the conservatives managed to get a majority with 36,8% of the votes. It is more important for them to keep their base in certain districts than to get a mandate from the broader populace. With a harcore group of fanatic followers it is also easier to manipulate election outcomes with gerrymandering.
Take for example gun control. A wast majority of Americans support a certain amount of control. But if a politicians tries to implement that, he is defeated at the voting booths because gun right proponents care more about it and vote against it.
It's also interesting to see that while they don't outright try to implement a class election system, they do try to disenfranchise minority.
Also, if you find a good social issue, you can rewrite what the Beltway thinks. Think about how in 2010 Obama decided to pivot the reduction of debt, when ordinary Americans were concerned about their jobs and their mortgages. Or how the German administrations since 1998 dismantled the social state and took part in wars even if the people hated it. Politicians lost elections, but with the permanent propaganda in the media Germany became step by step a less and less social country.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Hmm...I do remember reading an article demonstrating you can win the Electoral College vote with only ~22% of the popular vote, though that does require winning something like thirty states by exactly one vote.

[Simon_Jester]

Time presses me and I have an urgent appointment, so there is literally no more time for me to extend this post to reply to others.

But again, this isn't about whether policy decisions were right or wrong. It's about the basic structure of the presidency, about whether the president
at least tries to do his job in roughly the appropriate ways, as opposed to doing ridiculous and farcical things on par with appointing a horse as first consul*.

dignitas =/= modern dignity.

Fortunately, I am not attempting to invoke the Roman sense of dignitas as such.

The point is that there are acts which are ridiculous, farcical, and disrespectful of the institution you're dealing with. Talking about making a horse first consul is disrespectful to the office of the first consul, an institution of Roman politics.

Interrupting the president during addresses to Congress, or willfully supporting false, misleading, and unsubstantiated rumors intended to trick the gullible into thinking he is not a lawful candidate for public office, are disrespectful to various institutions of American politics.

The exact ways in which this is disrespectful depend on the structure of Roman or American culture, which are of course very different. But the analogy is limited to 'disrespectful to important offices of ____ politics.' The point here is that Trump is constantly, incessantly disrespecting various offices and individuals in our political system. This calls into question his ability to function as president if he (God forbid) wins the election. It is unlikely he'd be able to function on even the minimal, bungling level that Reagan did, let alone on the level of a competent president.

In the Iran-Contra affair, Reagan defied Congress, which was wrong and set terrible precedents and I for one would have seen no problem with the idea of him having been impeached on that basis. But, again, he at least managed to do these bad and stupid things in a way mostly consistent with the dignity of his office, and so far as possible consistent with not calling his congressional opponents a bunch of rats or anything similarly inappropriate.

So your argument is that Reagan did horrible things but at least he did them with dignity, whereas Trump would do horrible things without dignity. But why is Reagan supposed to have had any dignity, be it personal or ex officio? What were the dignified acts he performed? Do they outweigh the many undignified things he said and did?

Just to clarify the structure of your argument, and to determine whether it is only about dignity, or also about other things...

Personal and ex officio dignity are only two of multiple components in play here. Others, which I have explicitly mentioned before, include:

-The ability to (consistently) address opposition figures with respect, which contributes to...
-The ability to compromise with opposition figures, which assists in...
-Coming up with competent or semi-competent responses to crisis situations demanding an urgent and, frankly, not-very-partisan response (e.g. national disasters, direct attacks by foreign powers, and so on).

Now, to be clear, are you conceding that Reagan exhibited these other things, whereas Trump's ability to do so is in question?

Or were you planning to dispute these points at some later time, presumably by arguing that Reagan did not exhibit the traits in question?