Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

In defense of walls – where human security is rooted

May 16, 2016

The wall that Donald Trump talks about to keep out illegal immigrants and the ridicule that it attracts has become a political football in the US presidential election. Barack Obama talks about no good coming from any wall. Yet, he also talks about increasing the height of the wall around the White House. “Knocking down walls” is a phrase loved by the shallow of mind and is supposed to always be a good thing. But it is the building of walls which has provided the fundamental human security – and privacy – which in turn has enabled human development.

The demonisation of walls is dishonourable and puerile.

Human security is rooted in and depends upon the building of walls. Whereas the control of fire is what distinguishes the species of homo, it is the building of walls which is one of the distinguishing features of homo sapiens. The origins of wall building probably go back to the very origins of AMH (anatomically modern humans) and that that takes us back at least 100,000 years.

Probably the very first walls, in the very first human enclosures, were boundary barriers. Initially there were probably nothing more than sticks and stones piled together to keep unwanted predators out. They enabled settlements. Without walls there would probably be no roofs. They developed in sophistication and in use of materials to keep unwanted weather out.

And the rest is history.

Without the security that walls provide there would be no settlements. Without boundary walls, cities would not have developed. Without settlements the agricultural revolution would not have taken place. Without cities and the specialisation they allow (and require), specialised buildings would not have appeared. Human technological and social development would not have occurred in the manner that it has. Walls were originally to keep unwanted things out. It was only later that they came to be used to keep things in.

Section of Hadrians wall near Carlisle

Section of Hadrians wall near Carlisle

In history walls have provided more “good” than “bad”.

The oldest walls found in existence so far are those of the temple of Gobekli Tepe in Urfa, southeast Turkey which date to 11,500 years ago. City walls, which became common for purposes of defense, are first seen around the city of Jericho (now in the West Bank) around the 10th century BCE and the Sumerian city of Uruk which was founded somewhat later (though both cities lay claim to the honor of `first city in the world’). The walls of Uruk were thought to have been built by the great king Gilgamesh upon which he inscribed his heroic deeds which formed the basis for the later epic he is most famous for. 


 

Trump does not need the GOP as much as they need him

May 11, 2016

Reuters’ rolling poll on the Trump/Clinton battle now becomes something to monitor. It is still early days, but the Reuters’ poll suggests that things are much closer than the headlines in the US media over the last few days. I begin to think that many of the stories in the liberal/left media are more wishful thinking rather than any real understanding. In fact, nobody still quite understands why Trump is riding as high as he is. Trump seems to be within 1 percentage point of Clinton rather than the tens of percentage points difference that some were quoting just a week ago.

RR 10 May

RR 10 May

I see no reason to change my opinion that this is an anti-establishment wave where the content of what Trump has to say is less important than how “anti-establishment” he is perceived to be. And that perception is directly related to how many establishment figures (including the media) are attacking him. Headlines against Trump in the Washington Post or Huffington Post or NYT are just as effective as attack speeches by GOP establishment figures in solidifying his support.

Chaos within the GOP is not necessarily a bad thing for Trump. In fact, visible opposition from establishment Republicans is probably a good thing for him. The GOP needs a Trump to rally around to keep the Party relevant, much more than Trump needs establishment GOP support to woo the electors.

For the Democrats Sanders is riding the same anti-establishment wave, and not a left-leaning socialist wave that some assume. There is very little chance for him to displace Hillary Clinton, but she has also misread the mood. She has been moving   to the left to try and steal Sanders’ thunder but traditional “left” and “right” are not drivers. Just moving to the left in policy terms will not serve her and will not remove the stigma of being “establishment” to her bones.

The rejection of “establishment” is showing signs of being a global phenomenon. Anti-establishment views are helping candidates from both the left and the right all across the globe (Greece for the left, Philippines for the right …). It is the perception of offering a “new way” which challenges old, “politically correct” platitudes, which is, I think, the dominating driver.

2016 could be the Year of the Mavericks.


 

Why Trump couldn’t win – but did

May 6, 2016

I have made this point before. Attacking Trump head on only fuels his anti-establishment support. It is only by occupying the ground he occupies that some of his support can be captured.

Attacking Trump – from any direction – only seems to strengthen his support. That suggests that his support is coming from those who feel that their fears are completely unrepresented by any of the other candidates. The 2016 election is dominated, I think,  by the avoidance of worst fears and not by the meeting of aspirations.  It could well be that nobody will be able to take away from Trump’s support unless they can articulate the same disdain for establishment politics and political correctness that he does and address the worst fears that exist.

The current headlines in the US media are now about how and why Clinton will trounce Trump. It all sounds exactly like the reasons given over the last year for why Trump couldn’t win the Republican nomination. Some of it – especially in the left leaning media – HuffingtonPost, Slate, Politico and Washington Post – are more like wishful thinking rather than analysis. They have not learned from their past mistakes and still haven’t understood the strength of the anti-establishment wave. Bernie Sanders is the only other candidate from either party who has begun to understand the mood abroad. To take away the “politically incorrect” territory from Donald Trump may be beyond Hillary Clinton.

My prediction for November is that Clinton support is more likely to collapse than that Trump’s campaign will implode. And therefore I will not be at all surprised at a very close run election and even if Trump wins.

I started compiling some of the articles since June 2015 which explained why Trump was not going to win the Republican nomination, but I found this had already been done by Moon of Alabama.

Pundits Knew It Early On – Trump Could Not Win The Nomination

And of course the reality is

Kasich Dropping Out Of Presidential Race; Donald Trump Assured GOP Nomination – NPR, May 4 2016


 

Donald Trump has to choose a woman and Hillary Clinton cannot

April 30, 2016

As the Republicans begin to accept, albeit reluctantly, that Donald Trump is going to be their candidate and as it becomes clear that Sanders has been eliminated, the choice of possible running-mates is coming to the fore.

It is pretty obvious to me that Hillary Clinton cannot chose a woman as her Vice Presidential pick. To be elected as the first woman President is already a risk. To have another woman as her running mate as well would be going over the top. She would risk alienating all the patriarchal minorities she is going to depend upon. A two-woman ticket, in the US of today, would almost certainly lose. It would be far too risky and Clinton just does not take risks.

Second, and more importantly, Clinton cannot afford, and will not tolerate, another woman who takes the feminist spotlight away from herself. Clinton’s feminist credentials are rather weak. She needs the comparison when juxtaposed with a man to get up to be just passable. Any woman she chose as her VP would almost certainly have stronger feminist credentials and would hog the feminist limelight. Clinton’s ego would not, could not, intentionally allow her to accept a position in the shadow of someone else.

Clinton needs to project an image of strength and resolve (which she does not naturally do). For this she requires a man as her running mate. She needs him to be perceived as being strong but subservient to her. In fact, all her closest advisors need to be men for the image of her strength to be enhanced. Not unlike how Indira Gandhi or Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher chose in their heydays.

Just as Hillary Clinton has no choice but to avoid a female running mate, Donald Trump is, I think, forced to have a woman as his. His weakest support is with women and that support is necessary. But interestingly he needs an intelligent, feminine – rather than a feminist – partner. I merely observe that “intelligent and feminine” always trumps “feminist” (no pun intended) and even overrules “attractive”. A “feminine” female never needs to fight all the battles that a feminist does. “Feminine” always makes “feminist” look envious. She will need a track record for “smartness” and pragmatism. She will therefore have to be an experienced politician but feminine enough to eclipse Hillary Clinton. She will have to be feminine enough to make the feminist attacks seem like sour grapes or just envious “whining”. Trump has a track record of appointing women to high positions in his business empire and the voters will need to be reminded of that.

Ted Cruz has announced Carly Fiorina as his VP pick, but it seems a desperate bid for publicity against a rampant Trump. Fiorina herself would not qualify to be a Trump running mate. Sarah Palin’s name has been mentioned but I suspect she carries too much baggage. Condoleezza Rice has also been mentioned but she carries even more baggage. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley (nee Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and of Sikh origin) is not impossible and neither is Cathy Rodgers, a five-term Republican congresswoman. Susana Martinez is the Governor of New Mexico and in addition to being intelligent and feminine is also of Hispanic origin. Joni Kay Ernst is the junior Senator from Iowa and a combat veteran who has seen service in Iraq.

Trumps Picks

My guess would be that whoever he picks, in addition to being intelligent, feminine and with a track record in politics, will also probably represent an “immigrant” constituency. Which would take Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez to the top of the possible list.


 

Major disconnect between record votes for, and media opposition to, Trump

April 27, 2016

There are very few (if any) media outlets which support Donald Trump’s candidacy. Most are quite scathing about him. Yet he seems to be getting more Republican votes than any other candidate ever has. With the numbers actually turning out for Trump, it is impossible that many of his supporters are not also consumers of the media denigrating him. The media, every time they attack Trump, are also saying that all his supporters are imbeciles.

This is only a reminder of the basic truth that the media are not representative of anything other than themselves. Which raises the question whether having a one-sided and unrepresentative representation of the population – as is apparent with the media and the US electorate – enhances or degrades democracy? But Trump’s successes in the face of virulent media opposition demonstrates a disconnect of massive proportions between the US electorate and their media.

trump voters

Politico:

With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot.

Trump surged to 9.9 million votes, according to totals that include Tuesday’s preliminary results across the northeast and could rise further as the final votes are counted. That’s already more than 100,000 more than Romney earned in the entire 2012 primary season and tens of thousands more than John McCain earned in 2008.

Trump is certain to pass McCain’s total next week in Indiana, but more importantly, he’s positioned to easily pass the modern record-holder George W. Bush — who collected 10.8 million votes in 2000.

That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever.

In an email to POLITICO, University of Minnesota political science professor (and Smart Politics blogger) Eric Ostermeier noted that only eight candidates have won more than 7.5 million Republican primary votes since the advent of the modern primary and caucus system. Ronald Reagan won about 7.7 million votes in 1980, the fewest other than George W. Bush’s 7.6 million in 2004, when he didn’t face a primary challenge.

George H. W. Bush clocked in at 8.2 million votes in 1988 and 9.2 million in 1992, while Bob Dole earned 8.4 million in 1996.

I am more than a little cynical about the media. So I suspect that we shall see them beginning to start backing away from their vicious opposition to Trump as his chances of becoming the Republican nominee increase. That should be by June this year. We shall then see them even beginning to become mild supporters by about September or October. It is a little too risky for any media outlet to openly court IRS investigations under a future President Trump. After all, there is not a single media outlet without reported losses. And all those “apparent losses” are always a tax offset for the owning entity.


 

Obama opposition to Trump could increase the anti-establishment wave in his favour

March 17, 2016

My theory is that Trump has activated and is riding an anti-establishment wave. Whenever an establishment figure (politician or main stream media) comes out against Trump, it increases the anti-establishment support for him. Therefore – my theory says – the only way to defeat Trump is by taking his ground away from him, not by attacking him from an establishment position. So Sanders, in my opinion, would have had a better chance against Trump. Hillary Clinton is the epitome of establishment.

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Obama image: Sean Gallup-Getty

Now it is reported that Obama and his advisors are strategizing against Trump and will likely come out, not just in favour of Clinton, but aggressively against Trump. Firstly there can hardly be a more establishment figure than the POTUS. Secondly, Obama and strategy don’t really go together. He will likely over-analyse the problem and try to make rational arguments against Trump. Which would be futile. It will be far too easy for Trump to counter-attack after Obama’s strategic and tactical fiascos in Syria against Putin. That added to Hillary Clinton’s own Benghazi fiasco will just be playing in to Trump’s narrative.

Washington Post: ….. President Obama is plunging into the campaign fray, not only to help Democrats retain the White House but in defense of his own legacy in a political climate dominated by Trump. ………

….. Obama and his top aides have been strategizing for weeks about how they can reprise his successful 2008 and 2012 approaches to help elect a Democrat to replace him. And out of concern that a Republican president in 2017 — either Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — would weaken or reverse some of his landmark policies, Obama and his surrogates have started making the case that it is essential for the GOP to be defeated in November.

Assuming it becomes a Clinton / Trump election, Clinton would be far better off with Obama being silent. She does not need his support to become a visible confirmation that she is the establishment candidate. Obama being openly and vocally against Trump will only cement the anti-establishment wave behind Trump. It could even convert the wave into a tsunami.


 

The “Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” effect could take Trump all the way

March 3, 2016

The US Presidential election is getting to be extremely entertaining and well beyond my expectations. It looks like it is going to be Trump (85%) versus Hillary (98%) in November. An additional and quite unexpected source of entertainment has emerged as Republicans become contortionists to escape from their previous criticisms of Trump and find a convoluted way to align themselves behind him.

(I note also that many of Trump’s critics in Europe are beginning to realise that it might not be very healthy to be too loud in their criticism and disdain of somebody who could be the next President of the US. The Pope has already backtracked. Some Scottish Nationalists are also becoming intellectual contortionists.)

The Republican “elite” are in abject disarray it seems (but they have been in disarray ever since the Tea Party gained ground). As an opposition they have been pathetic. Even with a resounding majority in the House their establishment chinless wonders (guess who I mean?), have been remarkably ineffective.  “Stop Trump” is their new game, but they can’t. They can – possibly – dislodge him from being the GOP nominee but then he goes independent and then the GOP disintegrates.

For a Trump – Clinton battle in November, all conventional thinking is going to be of little use. The play-book for that game does not yet exist. It will be written from now on. It would, I think, be quite wrong to assume that the Trump then (in the mind’s eye of the electorate) will be the Trump we see now. It will be the perceptions he creates from now on, not those he has created so far, which will turn out to be decisive. Trump is turning out to be a rather smart – and clever – operator, in a clown’s clothing. He is becoming the champion of common sense and seems immune to attacks from “liberal McCarthyism” and from the tyrants of “political correctness”.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump easily. Her grass-roots organisation and the “Clinton brand” would, it is thought, rally the hordes to her cause and Trump would be wiped away. But I think conventional wisdom will turn out to be conventional folly in such a battle. Even on the feminism front, Clinton does not appear to have any decisive edge over Trump’s over the top support of being “feminine” (as opposed to feminism), which is sexist only to the most ardent of feminists. Clinton versus Trump will not be about ideologies but will be a battle of perceptions engendered and the emotions that are aroused. Clinton versus Trump will be black-and-white TV versus colour, it will be Blackberry versus the iphone, it will be – put simply – boring but known versus exciting if unknown. Normally unknown would be frightening – but not if the status quo is even more hopeless.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a Clinton – Trump match-up, Clinton will defeat herself. Boring but known has its attractions when things are going well and the voter wants the status quo to be maintained. But for an electorate wanting “change” there will be little enthusiasm for Hillary. She projects the antithesis of “change”. She represents the worst of the establishment entrenched in their towers of elitism. Even adopting some of Bernie Sanders’ socialist ideas does not lift her up from “boring”. Obama promised “change” and “hope” and delivered neither. “American values” which made America “great” seem to have been diluted by too many years of wishy-washy liberalism.

“Oh God! Anybody but Hillary” and an anti-establishment tsunami could make Donald Trump President of the United States.

Trump and Brexit are both manifestations of a “class revolution”

February 27, 2016

Glen Reynolds makes the case of anti-establishment, anti-elite revolution being the driver behind both the Trump wave in the US and the surge for BREXIT in the UK. He has a point.

In America, Donald Trump — who many of the experts thought had no chance — is dominating the polls. In Britain, meanwhile, much of the public seems to be mobilizing in favor of exiting the troubled European Union — a British Exit, or Brexit.

Writing in The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill puts this down to a class revolt on both sides of the Atlantic. And he’s right as far as he goes, but I think there’s more than just a class revolt. I think there’s also a developing preference cascade. O’Neill writes: “In both Middle America and Middle England, among both rednecks and chavs, voters who have had more than they can stomach of being patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated as diseased bodies to be corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged are now putting their hope into a different kind of politics. And the entitled Third Way brigade, schooled to rule, believing themselves possessed of a technocratic expertise that trumps the little people’s vulgar political convictions, are not happy. Not one bit.”

Well, that’s certainly true. Both America and Britain have developed a ruling class that is increasingly insular and removed from — and contemptuous of — the people it deigns to rule. The ruled are now returning the contempt.

I think this is certainly partially correct. Every attack on Trump has contained a large degree of intellectual contempt, and every such attack has only increased his support. Now we may be seeing signs that the establishment is going to have to get off their superior backsides and treat with the contemptible. Similarly Cameron is being reduced to telling the UK electorate that he knows best what is best for them. He is treating the BREXIT supporters also with a contempt which is now back-firing. I expect that he, too, will have to come of his high horse. It does not help him that the bottom line is the EU will make their real concessions only after the UK votes – if they do – for a BREXIT. So far they have tried to fob him off with cosmetic changes.

This trend is visible across other parts of Europe as well and it has been brought to a head by the refugee/immigration issue. It has become the habit for the establishment, ruling elite to be contemptuous of the far right and in many cases, of avoiding debate with them. Just talking to the disaffected right has been seen as being beneath their interest. That disaffection has now spread to the middle ground and I expect that every election in Europe in the near future will be dominated by an anti-establishment wave.

Political correctness is taken as the child of the establishment elite and has therefore become the target of this new class revolution.


 

Increasing attacks from “establishment” media only feed support for Trump

January 23, 2016

The National Review, Weekly Standard, Red State are among the Republican, “establishment” media. They are supposed to be among the heavyweights in forming and reflecting Republican opinion. All of them have now come out against Donald Trump. Of course all the more liberal media (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Boston Globe, Politico …) came out heavily against Trump some time ago. The left-wing media (HuffPo, New Yorker, Slate …) went so far as first dismissing Trump, then trying to laugh him off but are now all reporting him -albeit reluctantly – as the embodiment of all that is “bad”. (I discount the brainless part of the US media represented by CNN and NBC and Fox News).

When the left and liberal media attacked Trump, it seemed to energise his Republican supporters. No establishment figure has appeared to be the white knight for the Republicans. As Trump’s support has survived and thrived, the Republican “establishment” media have become increasingly agitated. Initially they were quite circumspect in their criticisms but have now started a concerted attack on Trump.

But the curious thing is that even the attacks from the Republican side of the “establishment” seem to feed Trump’s support.

Reuters rolling poll 22nd January

Reuters rolling poll 22nd January

Attacking Trump – from any direction – only seems to strengthen his support. That suggests that his support is coming from those who feel that their fears are completely unrepresented by any of the other candidates. The 2016 election is dominated, I think,  by the avoidance of worst fears and not by the meeting of aspirations.  It could well be that nobody will be able to take away from Trump’s support unless they can articulate the same disdain for establishment politics and political correctness that he does and address the worst fears that exist.

If no Republican is prepared to take away the ground he stands on, by occupying the same ground, then Trump could well be the Republican nominee. And if the Democratic candidate also ignores the ground he stands on, the result could be a very close run thing.

Obama’s goodbye elevates Trump

January 13, 2016

I didn’t stay up to watch Obama’s final State of the Union address live, but have just read the transcript and a few reports.

It was a goodbye speech. He came in hope and leaves still counselling hope. Though the country’s economic position is inevitably better now than it was in 2009 in the valley of the financial crash, he leaves, as I perceive, a country with a much higher level of fears than of hope.

I was a little surprised that he attacked Trump (though not by name) as much as he did. I suspect that being elevated to the level of being the subject of a State of the Union address, by a sitting President, can only benefit Trump. Especially as Trump was being written off as not worthy of any consideration, of any kind, just a few months ago. His playing down of the monsters of Al Qaida and ISIS, born of twisted interpretations of Islam, but nurtured largely by US policy (including Obama’s), also fuels Trump’s narrative.

Obama has not lived up to the expectations that his own rhetoric had engendered. “Yes, we can” has morphed to “Well, we could have”.

History may remember Obama, vaguely, for his Syrian misadventures. He may even be remembered as having attempted to introduce universal health care. History may also record that his tenure was characterised by an aversion to risk and some paralysis-by-analysis. But he will primarily be remembered as having been the first half-black President of the US and of having served for 8 years, but without special distinction.

A passing grade then for the speech, a C+ and maybe even a B-, but not much more.