January 21, 2016

The coming cascade of smart, educated people embracing Trump.

"It troubles me that there can't be a serious discussion about immigration issues because people are afraid of being called racist. People are afraid of being called a bigot. And I think one of the things that people like about Donald Trump — those who like him — is that he's going ahead and saying it, and it's creating a kind of inoculation against something people have feared so much, which is being called a bigot. It's just too effective to call people bigots, and a lot of people are very intimidated and silenced and don't even want to talk about certain issues because they don't want to be called that. So I think part of his popularity is: He goes there, he says it, he takes the hit, and it still works for him. So that's a kind of a liberating change in the discourse."

I say, beginning this clip from a video dialogue I recorded on Monday with Glenn Loury:



Glenn agrees with me, says Trump is not doing "dog whistle racism," and proceeds, eventually, to endorse the Trump idea "You either have a country or you don't" and that "if you don't control your border, you don't have a country." (Which Glenn even punctuates with "Duh.")

Glenn goes so far that I eventually prod him with "I think you're a Donald Trump supporter." He doesn't deny it. He even laughs as if it's his secret that I've uncovered. I then propose the theory that there are many people who are intimidated and silenced about being Trump supporters. They don't want to identify with a group that's reputed to be uneducated and dumb. They're afraid of looking like a racist. I predict a cascade when people who've been silent realize that they can say it out loud: "There could be this breakthrough, where a whole lot of people you wouldn't expect would suddenly start saying they were for Donald Trump."

I invite Glenn to start the cascade. If Glenn is for Trump — how liberating! Again, he doesn't reject the idea. He's smiling and seems excited at the idea. He's excited about the political science idea of a cascade. He'd like to research it and write about it and get credit for spotting it. He exhibits so much delight that he abruptly says "I think I should stop talking."

And I say: "I think you're delighted by the possibility of embracing Donald Trump." He says: "I'm excited and amused by the possibility."

IN THE COMMENTS: Glenn Loury writes:
I just want to clarify something. I AM NOT A (CLOSETED) DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER!! I said as much during my conversation with Ann Althouse (listen to the whole thing.) Yes, I agreed with Ann that I don't see Trump's positions as dog-whistle politics meant to appeal to racists. And, I also agreed that some of Trump's formulations had a commonsense appeal ("you don't have a country without controlling its borders"; or, "friends and relatives of homegrown terrorists probably know something, and should tell what they know"...) But, while I do view the spectacle of Trump being the Republican nominee with a certain excitement and amusement, the chance I would ever vote for him is zero. As things now stand, I'm supporting Hilary ...
I respond:
Hi, Glenn. Thanks for commenting.

Of course, if you were closeted, you'd say you were not.

In any case, you decline the opportunity to live on the crest of the cascade, but it will be a more comfortable place soon, and the interesting question is why you didn't confront me about whether I am a closeted Trump supporter.

94 comments:

David Hampton said...

With open borders we have no country. That does not a bigot make. That separates the so-called bigot from those living in a fools paradise.

AprilApple said...

As we watch European nations fall under the steam roller of unchecked illegal immigration and the river of "refugees" flooding into small towns, we see what is next for us. Watching the inevitable terror, groping and gang rape - in the next breath we hear the mass Euro media are hiding it, minimizing it. (*as we think *wow*, the Euro media- worse than our media!*) They are lying and covering it up because they are cowards. Politically correct cowards parlayed by fear & the big names: "bigot/racist". Nothing worse.
It is time to smash that paradigm before it turns into a global warming ice sheet.

Anthony said...

Sanders versus Trump

THIS IS HOW AMERICA DIES.

Paul said...

I always chuckle when I see comments here and elsewhere prefaced with "I'm no Trump supporter but". It is exactly the type of virtue signalling people use to distance themselves from an association with someone or something they consider declasse even though secretly they are attracted to it.

I agree with the idea of a possible impending cascade (and the consequent landslide Trump victory).

traditionalguy said...

Happy days are here again. Happiness is strong and intelligent leadership.

Tank said...

Anthony said...

Sanders versus Trump

THIS IS HOW AMERICA DIES.


A country that elects Zero twice is pretty much dead already.

Dead country walking.

Could be two countries soon. Or three.

Tank said...

Paul said...

I always chuckle when I see comments here and elsewhere prefaced with "I'm no Trump supporter but". It is exactly the type of virtue signalling people use to distance themselves from an association with someone or something they consider declasse even though secretly they are attracted to it.


Actually, there are good reasons for this kind of position. It's natural for many of us to be pleased with much of what Trump does (and he has all the right enemies), but then he supports ethanol in Iowa, the worst kind of crony capitalism and pandering possible. It's almost like ... exactly what we want to get rid of.

As I've said before, Repubs and Conservatives can support him, but if he gets elected he'll drive us crazy half the time. Certainly, he's the choice over the Clinton Crime Syndicate or Crazy Uncle Bernie.

rehajm said...

He even laughs as if it's his secret that I've uncovered.

From and/or for the Scott Adams fans...

It’s a tell for persuasion. You laugh at Trump because you feel the persuasion, on a subconscious level, and not because anything was especially funny.

rhhardin said...

Cavell writes somewhere that once somebody finds the right words, they then come forth forcefully.

Original Mike said...

"Glenn agrees with me, says Trump is not doing "dog whistle racism," "

Accusing people of dog whistle racism is one of the strategies that lefties use to call people bigots.

Cornfed said...

"I always chuckle when I see comments here and elsewhere prefaced with "I'm no Trump supporter but". It is exactly the type of virtue signalling people use to distance themselves from an association with someone or something they consider declasse even though secretly they are attracted to it."

I'm no Trump supporter, but... Heh! I'm not secretly attracted to it, I'm openly attracted to it. I love his political incorrectness, and how he is able to get away with, and therefore legitimize, saying things that others, for some reason, cannot.

But I'm not virtue signalling. I'm really not a Trump supporter. I think he would likely be a poor president. Further, how on earth can any conservative support a guy who up until recently held positions that would get any other Republican laughed out of the race? He's donated to Hillary Clinton, for God's sake! How is it possible to overlook stuff like this? Trumpsters really ought to be more careful what they're wishing for. If Trump is our next prez, and I think there's a good chance he might be, there will be some serious buyer's remorse around here.

traditionalguy said...

Loury also seems to be attracted to Trump's short sentences convey intelligent thoughts in a few words. Duh!

Virgil Hilts said...

"While I would not want to admit to being a Trump supporter, it would be less embarrassing than having to admit to voting for Obama twice." The new line I am trying out at work.

traditionalguy said...

In 1960 the Conservatives and the GOP insiders also despised the witty speech coming from a guy whose intelligence level sacred them. But JFK won it and was so intelligent that they finally had to shoot him.

Trump better be getting him a security Detail with superior intelligence. The DAVOS crowd are expressing a fear of Trump.

chickelit said...

Trump should pepper his speeches with "that's who we really are" to counteract the left's "that's not who we are."

Scott Somerville said...

I don't know if I'm part of the cascade, but there's certainly a "pre-cascade" of people (like me) saying, "I HAD said that I would vote for Hillary over Trump, but now I'm thinking about writing in Ann Althouse." Which is to say... my initial reaction to Trump was that he was such a dangerous demagogue that I had to do whatever it takes to save the country from him. Now I'm beginning to think he's appealing to Jacksonian voters in the good old Know-Nothing way, but that he's not more "un-American" than a $20 bill.

Paul said...

I think many people fail to distinguish between the go along to get along NYC businessman Trump and the presidential candidate Trump. Things he said or did to pragmatically further the aims of the former will no longer be useful to further the aims of the latter.

This is the difference between a pragmatic problem solver and a rigid ideologue. Naturally those with a penchant for rigid ideological thinking can't figure this out and assume he won't govern as a conservative republican. I think he will though to the degree necessary to solve the problem at hand, which works for me.

EDH said...

The devil is in the details, and many conservatives are by no means sure about Trump on all the policy details.

Broadly speaking, though, I think the rational calculation for the center-right voter is that if Trump wins he will be checked by a Republican congress and vice versa.

After all, if nothing else Trump is a deal maker.

Trump will supply the backbone and the Republicans in congress will establish the boundaries along the path.

Moreover, the belief is those congressional boundaries will be strongest where established by the populist wing of the Republican party rather than an establishment in full retreat.

I think a trust in that kind of populist center-right outcome is the predicate for the Trump center-right cascade across the spectrum of income, educational attainment and demographics.

grackle said...

He's donated to Hillary Clinton, for God's sake!

While he was amassing his billions he donated to politicians in both parties. From a business point of view it would have been stupid not to. And Trump ain’t stupid. But keep trying to prevent the cascade; it’s fun to watch.

Cornfed said...

Grackle, I'm not trying to prevent anything. He's not my first choice, but if he's the GOP nom, I'll definitely give him my vote in the general over any Democrat. And yes, I get the whole pragmatism thing. Trump ain't stupid, and neither are the rest of us. But Conservatives who hate the go-along-to-get-along RINOs and who have been screaming for a "true" conservative are now lining up behind a guy who is anything but. It's mystifying. Broadly speaking, Trump's appeal is not hard to understand. But when it comes to the hard core conservative base, i don't get it.

Brando said...

"Broadly speaking, though, I think the rational calculation for the center-right voter is that if Trump wins he will be checked by a Republican congress and vice versa."

I think that's right. Let's assume the Dems nominate Hillary and late fall a major scandal erupts (e.g., indicted by DOJ) and econ numbers are released showing recession, so Trump gets elected. I think he'll revert back to the moderate Republican he always was, and triangulate with Congress on a number of issues to keep his distance. On immigration, he'll push for a budget for an improved wall, order DHS to step up deportations, and in the meantime uncover a "study" showing illegal immigration has been reduced, voila, declare victory. We'll basically have gridlock on every major issue, but he'll declare the problem solved on some shaky basis that enables him to declare we're winning. If he's lucky, the recession will have ended in his first term and he can take credit for that too (hey, worked for Obama).

Jim said...

Trump is speaking to Americans. Not to certain tribes, or niche groups. That is why so many people who would never vote for republicans will vote for Trump.
Enough to win elections? Who really knows at this point. But it is refreshing to hear someone speak to the country, as a whole.
I don't think he has the usual group of handlers, image consultants and so on.

grackle said...

he supports ethanol in Iowa, the worst kind of crony capitalism and pandering possible. It's almost like ... exactly what we want to get rid of.

What worries me about Cruz, who is Trump’s chief opponent in Iowa, is Cruz’s policy of a value-added tax(VAT). That kind of tax is insidious because it hides the taxes a consumer pays for products. It’s a major tax feature of the socialist regimes in Europe where citizens cheating on their taxes is endemic and part of the culture.

A VAT is a tax ostensibly on the corporations that sell products. For instance, by the time a European buys an automobile the automobile has already been taxed several times. All the consumer is aware of is that he is paying a high price for the automobile. The corporations like it because it allows them to defer all or part of the taxes to the consumer by simply raising the price of a product, thereby forcing the consumer to in effect pay the corporation’s tax. The politician like it because it is a stealthy way to raise taxes. If we ever allow a VAT into our tax system in the USA we’ll never get rid of it.

And not only does Cruz propose a VAT, he compounds the felony by trying to hide that fact by calling it a “Business Flat Tax.”

http://tinyurl.com/q4y5b64

http://tinyurl.com/jd84fh9

Brando said...

Some of us simply don't worry about being called racists, because we aren't racist. Let the racialists try pushing that nonsense as a way of ending discussion--don't let them goad you one way or another. Discuss whether your policies and positions make sense or are correct, and let the racialists wander out of the conversation.

chickelit said...

grackle quoted...He's donated to Hillary Clinton, for God's sake!

And I've voted for Dem/liberals in the past as have many others. Whoever wrote the quote needs to get off the ideological high horse.

Brando said...

"What worries me about Cruz, who is Trump’s chief opponent in Iowa, is Cruz’s policy of a value-added tax(VAT). That kind of tax is insidious because it hides the taxes a consumer pays for products. It’s a major tax feature of the socialist regimes in Europe where citizens cheating on their taxes is endemic and part of the culture."

I've heard this, but is there some way to implement the VAT so that its true cost is visible to the consumer (the way sales tax is)? Because if so, this is a good way to replace or reduce the income tax so that there is less discouragement of income. Alternatively, a national sales tax could replace some part of the payroll tax (though of course like with any tax reform, someone will find it unfair--such as fixed income retirees who don't pay the payroll tax but would pay the sales tax).

To me the bigger problem with all such taxes (and particularly income taxes) is how much it is used not for fairly raising revenue but for trying to subsidize behavior.

RichardJohnson said...

traditionalguy
In 1960 the Conservatives and the GOP insiders also despised the witty speech coming from a guy whose intelligence level sacred them. But JFK won it and was so intelligent that they finally had to shoot him.

Except that the person who shot JFK was an ex-Marine who defected to the USSR. How many conservatives defect to the USSSR? After his foray to Real Existing Socialism and his return to Real Existing Capitalism in the US, Lee Harvey Oswald took a potshot at a right winger, retired Major General Edwin Walker.

JFK did have a wit, as shown by his repartee at press conferences. However, he did very little of the actual work on Profiles in Courage. Ted Sorenson did most of the writing. The Politics of Deception: JFK's Secret Decisions on Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Cuba demolishes the JFK myth rather effectively.

Richard Nixon may have had the charisma of a dead fish, and the ethics of a Daley ward heeler, but stupid he was not. Nixon didn't need a ghostwriter for his books. Those who listened to the Kennedy-Nixon debates on radio generally concluded that Nixon won the debates. It was JFK's better TV presence that won him the debates.

Your comment is risible.

Gusty Winds said...

Cornfed said...Further, how on earth can any conservative support a guy who up until recently held positions that would get any other Republican laughed out of the race?

Let's see. Bush 41 gave us higher taxes and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and a broken campaign promise that the Dems used to beat him over the head and put the Clintons in power. Bush 43 gave us Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and entitlement expansion for the Baby Boomers. The current leadership has done nothing to halt Obama, and they capitulate to big business on illegal immigration in order to exploit these people for low wages. In the last 20 years where have any of these people held tight to conservative principles?

That's why guys like Jeb! are the ones being laughed out of the race.

grimson said...

The "smart, educated people" may not embrace Trump, but they will start seriously considering the idea of voting for him instead of dismissing that idea as absurd.

themightypuck said...

"You either have a country or you don't" and that "if you don't control your border, you don't have a country."

This isn't very controversial. Even Sanders agrees and said so explicitly in an interview with Ezra Klein. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0

exhelodrvr1 said...

If they voted for Obama, they can't be THAT smart!

Che Dolf said...

Althouse - It troubles me that there can't be a serious discussion about immigration issues because people are afraid of being called racist.

Then stop posturing and engage in the discussion. If you can't screw up the courage to offer more than a meta comment about his effect on the topic, why even bother?

Rusty said...

Why can't you ever record a dialog with Amanda or garage or even better ARM? It would be educational and entertaining.

Freeman Hunt said...

I talked to two Democrats yesterday. They were shocked that Trump might be the nominee, but there was also no way they were going to vote for the utterly corrupt Hillary. I threw out Scott Adams's idea of Trump's wildness being his negotiation strategy: throw out something you'll trade off to set the field. Hmm. Also, all agreed that Trump couldn't possibly be so wild in reality because all of his kids seem to have turned out so well. Hmm. One Democrat pointed out that Trump being crazy was an impossibility given his business; no one would deal with him if he were crazy. Hmm again.

I think you're right. It's coming.

Original Mike said...

"To me the bigger problem with all such taxes (and particularly income taxes) is how much it is used not for fairly raising revenue but for trying to subsidize behavior."

Exactly. It's an adjunct to regulation. I'd support a VAT if they eliminate (not merely reduce) the income tax.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

This is a great post, Althouse. Thanks. A Trump candidacy will open up that Overton window and have us discuss issues that for a long time we haven't discussed. Or been allowed to discuss by elite opinion.

Such as: Does a country, does the US have the right to take into consideration whether its ethos, it's national culture will be harmed or damaged by an influx of people who will fundamentally transform that ethos? Can we consider where a immigrant comes when deciding whether we can allow him or her to come here? What does controlling a border mean? Is it more than just a geographic control?

It hasn't been possible to even raise such an issue. A Trump candidacy - something I've loathed - will certainly raise questions like this. I'm not sure Trump is the person we want raising them; but raise them he will.

Anglelyne said...

Cornfed: Further, how on earth can any conservative support a guy who up until recently held positions that would get any other Republican laughed out of the race? He's donated to Hillary Clinton, for God's sake! How is it possible to overlook stuff like this?

How on earth can anyone who hasn't been living in an underground bunker for the last decade, with nothing but a subscription to National Review to inform his understanding of what's going on in the world, not know the answer to those questions?

Anyway, the niche for gormless incredulity about "conservatives not prioritizing the standard conservo-issues in their choice of candidate this election cycle" has already been filled in this commenting ecosystem. No need to waste your energies typing out these flabbergasted inquiries; posters like Brando and jr565 have reliably posted and re-posted and re-re-posted them in every Trump-themed thread for the last several months.


If Trump is our next prez, and I think there's a good chance he might be...

Ya think so? The nominee, yeah, but is there much polling data out there indicating a strong chance in the general? Jus' askin', I really don't know.


...there will be some serious buyer's remorse around here.

I don't see much in the way of Trump enthusiasm around here (aside from the understandable pleasure taken in watching him drive the usual suspects off the deep end). No great expectations, no "serious remorse". Like Tank, I fully expect Trump to drive me crazy at least half the time, if he's elected. No, a good deal more than half the time.

But I also fully expect any of the other candidates to drive me to despair. I won't be the least bit shocked if Trump turns out to be utterly full of shit on the issues that have highest priority for me, and that are making him popular. I know that the other guys are, at best, useless on those issues. At worst, God help us. Trump would pretty much have to pull off his mask and reveal his lizard head for me to remorsefully wail, "oh if I'd only I'd listened and voted for the Real Conservative(tm) on the slate!".

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Just a comment on this:
"JFK did have a wit, as shown by his repartee at press conferences. However, he did very little of the actual work on Profiles in Courage. Ted Sorenson did most of the writing. The Politics of Deception: JFK's Secret Decisions on Vietnam, Civil Rights, and Cuba demolishes the JFK myth rather effectively."

You're right about Profiles but JFK showed more than wit at his press conferences. He showed a command of facts on issues that was very impressive. True, it was the pre-Vietnam/pre-Watergate press and it was a far softer one than we have to day. But he still showed that he was more than just a witty charming man.

Here are transcripts of all of his press conferences: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/Press-Conferences.aspx

He would take 30+ questions on a range of issues and be in control of all of them.

furious_a said...

Accusing people of dog whistle racism...

As I say to my lefty friends: if you hear dog whistles, doesn't that make you a dog?

Triangle Man said...

It troubles me that there can't be a serious discussion about immigration issues because people are afraid of being called racist.


What serious proposals related to immigration issues have lead to the person being called racist? If it's not dog whistle racism to propose a blanket exclusion of muslims, then at least Trump should answer for the attraction that this proposal has for racists. How is this different from your challenge to Federalists over the appeal that states' rights has historically had to racists?

Che Dolf said...

Cornfed - ...how on earth can any conservative support a guy who up until recently held positions that would get any other Republican laughed out of the race?

Nationalists want to change immigration policy that is turning the American majority in a minority. Classical liberals think race, ethnicity, culture, and religion don't matter, so they approve of mass immigration as long as it's legal. I'm not sure who "conservatives" are, but I bet they fall into one of those two camps. Nationalists obviously prefer Trump to the other GOP candidates.

Thorley Winston said...

I always chuckle when I see comments here and elsewhere prefaced with "I'm no Trump supporter but". It is exactly the type of virtue signalling people use to distance themselves from an association with someone or something they consider declasse even though secretly they are attracted to it.

Or maybe it’s just that people who don’t actually support Donald Trump want to discuss an aspect of an issue that was raised by or somehow associated with him feel the need to start with the disclaimer “I’m no Trump supporter” in order to try to put or keep the focus on the issue rather than on Trump.

Ann Althouse said...

"I HAD said that I would vote for Hillary over Trump, but now I'm thinking about writing in Ann Althouse."

If elected, I promise to still blog every single day, including days of major crisis.

Paddy O said...

Trump definitely doesn't stay within the normal boundaries of supporters. In the commentary about him, it seems there's a certain group of people who think he's being straightforward and honest in his policy statements and a group of people who thinks he's pandering to the crowds and is really a Democrat. What's interesting is that he has a lot of detractors and a lot of supporters in both of those categories.

The idea that what is done is going to be different than what is now said was a big selling point for Obama (our host mentioned this). But Obama tended to stay well within the usual partisan boundaries. Trump attracts the true believers and the political gnostics (who possess the "hidden" knowledge about Trump). Creates a lot of crossover appeal and crossover revulsion.

Paul said...

"Or maybe it’s just that people who don’t actually support Donald Trump want to discuss an aspect of an issue that was raised by or somehow associated with him feel the need to start with the disclaimer “I’m no Trump supporter” in order to try to put or keep the focus on the issue rather than on Trump."

Or maybe someone with the made-for-Hollywood-name-of-a-stuck-up-elitist Thorley Winston could only react with disdain towards a fundamentally blue collar guy with gaudy tastes and blond East European trophy wives.

It's really all about class distinction isn't it?

David said...

I'm well educated. I used to be seen as smart but now I'm not so sure what smart is. I like Trump but still can't quite take that last step in supporting him, but I don't see anyone else to support. Maybe Rubio but he talks too fast and lies about his shoes. I think I am a barometer. Barometers aren't smart. They just record the pressure.

Bruce Hayden said...

One thing to keep in mind here is that a lot of Democrats are waking up to the reality that they are not going to have a viable candidate for the Presidency. No one who could win in that party could do a credible job of running the country. We are talking a woman who has engaged in public corruption for maybe 40 years, making many millions for her family through her working as Sec. of State and was found yesterday to have had “special access programs” (SAP) information on her personal email server. This is apparently above Top Secret, and was potentially visible to our greatest enemies, as a result. All so that she would be immune from FOIA requests. And, then there is her only real competitor, a dour old man, who is an unreconstructed socialist, promising almost $20 trillion in new goodies. His management experience seems to have been managing the Senate office of one of the smallest states, both by number of residents and geographically. And, of course, here includes Benghazi, as well as the many millions that her family and her family's foundation raked in from her working as Sec. of State. Plus, of course, the lives (often of women) she ruined to keep her and her husband in power. Neither makes that good of a candidate, and would make an even worse President.

The thing about Trump is that he really would probably do a better job as President than either of the two Democrats, or, esp. Barak Obama. Not only does he have a business degree fr0m one of the top business schools in the country, he has spent 40 or so years in management at some level or another. And, yes, having both a graduate business degree and a law degree, I can safely say that a business degree provides far better training than does a law degree for that sort of political office. From my point of view, it is far better for the business people to hire the attorneys, than the other way around, and that is probably a good part of why our national debt essentially doubled over Obama's time in office, while providing minimal help to our unemployment problem. I don't think the American public is going to want either of these two people running this country.

The other thing, I think, is that most everyone has been affected by the political correctness that has been forced upon us. Even a lot of pretty left wing Democrats realize that the President's immigration policies are bad for this country. And, that the supposed campus rape problem is almost completely bogus. Etc. Being forcibly prevented from talking about such doesn't make them go away as problems, but rather, just ratchets up the pressure.

RichardJohnson said...

Steve M. Galbraith

You're right about Profiles but JFK showed more than wit at his press conferences.He showed a command of facts on issues that was very impressive.

Thanks for the press conference link. It's a shame that we don't see that in press conferences nowadays.
The topic of JFK's press conferences reminds me of the press conference segment at the beginning of Vaughn Meador's First Family Second Album. At 3:40 there is some repartee that is worth remembering.

There's a lady reporter whose questions haunt me
Like the Asian plague
Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gents
Here is Mrs. Craig.
I'd like to ask a question.I don't want you to get sore.
Will Rockefeller be President in 1964?
If I were living in New York, he'd be my candidate
It's the only way I know to get him
Out of New York state.


Given JFK's wit, I find it plausible that had the real JFK encountered such a question, he could have given a similar reply. JFK supporters loved the First Family albums, but the assassination put an end to Vaughn Meador's gold mine.

Paul said...

It's been mentioned before but Scott Adams blog is a great place to go to understand Trump's success by those who are so flummoxed by it. Here Scott talks about his talent stack:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137749295801/trumps-talent-stack-systems-versus-goals

David said...

Paul, I don't think Trump is blue collar in the least. But he actually relates to people of all kinds. He's emphatic in several senses of the word. Hilary talks her game about the middle class and blue collar and blacks but her empathy is phony. Or comes across as phony. Trump is one of these guys who can get alone with anyone, if they let him.

Anglelyne said...

Steven M. Galbraith: It hasn't been possible to even raise such an issue. A Trump candidacy - something I've loathed - will certainly raise questions like this. I'm not sure Trump is the person we want raising them; but raise them he will.

And who is this hypothetical person you want raising them? That's the whole problem, SMG. In the current climate (and by the current climate, I mean the last half-century), anyone raising them automatically becomes the "the kind of person we don't want raising them". The very act of raising those questions discredits the speaker.

(What kind of Nazi thinks that the U.S. has (had) a rooted, historically-evolved national culture, and isn't just a set of political abstractions - that somehow are not only able to survive endless massive immigrational upheavel, but actually require endless massive immigrational upheavel, optimally from the most diverse and at-odds populations available, to survive, thrive, and keep the U.S. "what it really is". So you think the latter is crazy talk, Hitler-boy?)

If you want them raised at all, you need someone with the means and the brass to be able to tell the cultural enforcers to stuff it. That means someone who doesn't have to worry about losing his livelihood or having his career destroyed. Sad, but that's where we are.

Funny how we manage not to be ashamed to the depths of our souls that we've allowed our nation to come to such a pass, but are embarrassed by Trump.

Bruce Hayden said...

"I'm no Trump supporter but". It is exactly the type of virtue signalling people use to distance themselves from an association with someone or something they consider declasse even though secretly they are attracted to it.

I do like this new word set: "virtue signaling". We see so much of it, and, now, we have a phrase for it. Another place you see this a lot is in dealing with the anthropogenic global climate warming/climate change scam. Pretty much everyone who doesn't have good enough scientific credentials to be able to stand on their own two feet in combating the scam use some sort of virtual signaling before making their attacks on it. And, yes, whenever we talk about LBGTxyz issues, we have to do some virtue signaling before attacking such. Before you can say that you don't think that gay parents are, on average, worse than straight parents, you have to point out that you aren't anti-gay, have a lot of gay friends, etc. All in all, a useful term/concept.

Paddy O said...

"a fundamentally blue collar guy with gaudy tastes and blond East European trophy wives."

How is it within the realm of possibility to view Trump as "blue-collar"? He has gaudy tastes and East European trophy wives, but he's the son of a millionaire. Has he ever worked a blue-collar job in his life?

From Wikipedia: "A native of New York City, he is the son of Fred Trump, who inspired him to enter real estate development. Trump worked for his father's firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, while studying business at Wharton, and joined the company in 1968 upon graduation. In 1971, he was given control of the company, and renamed it "The Trump Organization". He has since built a number of hotels, golf courses, and other properties in Manhattan and other global cities, many of which bear his name."

He isn't blue collar in the least. But he does reflect a lot of blue-collar aspirations in his lifestyle. And he's a great salesman so he gets people to think he's one of them, and to take a test-drive, no money down.


Paddy O said...

"we have to do some virtue signaling before attacking such."

NTTAWWT

Bob Boyd said...

"If elected, I promise to still blog every single day, including days of major crisis."

Campaign promises.....

Paul said...

"Paul, I don't think Trump is blue collar in the least."

Culturally he is, regardless of his wealth. Strip away the fame and trappings, put him in a bar talking to an average Joe and he would come across as blue collar as can be. His speech, his tastes, his mannerisms...none of these would be appropriate amongst the elites or intelligentsia, but would fit in perfectly at the backyard barbeque of a Brooklyn cop or construction worker.

RichardJohnson said...

Paul
Or maybe someone with the made-for-Hollywood-name-of-a-stuck-up-elitist Thorley Winston could only react with disdain towards a fundamentally blue collar guy with gaudy tastes and blond East European trophy wives.It's really all about class distinction isn't it?


All about class distinction? Methinks not. For example, I don't support the ethanol subsidy, but Trump does. I support Trump's bringing up the subject of immigration and his unapologetic attacks on the politically correct who claim that if you don't support unlimited immigration you are a bigot. Trump replies- sez who? Good for him.

Time was when there wasn't as much of a gap between blue collar and elite political beliefs as there is today. For example, blue collar guys served in WW2, but so did elitist progeny like George HW Bush and JFK. Like Trump, JFK could relate to blue collar guys. [George HW Bush was not as charismatic as JFK.]

I agree with Thorley Winston.

Regarding the "gaudy tastes" of Donald Trump- an accurate assessment- I am reminded of someone making the point that Trump's gaudy tastes resemble those of nouveau riche black hip hop artists. Definitely not like old money WASPs.

mccullough said...

Trump isn't a snob. He likes people as individuals, not as abstractions. He has gone out of his way to help people who are different than him. He's not religious or partisan so the usual stuff doesn't get in his way when interacting with people. He's insecure and self-centered but in a normal way. He's not pious or self righteous like so many politicians and leaders.

Paul said...

"All about class distinction? Methinks not. For example, I don't support the ethanol subsidy, but Trump does."

So what? I don't support it either but it's small potatoes compared to immigration. There will always be some policy differences with any candidate and supporter. The larger point is all the people calling him a buffoon, or an unserious clown, etc., are basically signalling that he is declasse. That's why the elites loathe him with such passion.

Paddy O said...

"So what? I don't support it either but it's small potatoes..."

The only reason to support it is to pander to the supposed entrenched interests in Iowa. So, that suggests something about Trump in distinction with Cruz.

Original Mike said...

"There will always be some policy differences with any candidate and supporter."

Trump's support of ethanol is not a "policy". It's a noxious bribe.

grackle said...

I've heard this, but is there some way to implement the VAT so that its true cost is visible to the consumer (the way sales tax is)?.

Sure, for instance you could place a price tag on every product that lists the actual taxes already levied on the product. For many products that list would be longer than your arm. But you and me know they’re not going to do that, right? Show me an example of a VAT ever being set up that way.

Readers, remember this: They always try to hide the VAT behind a euphemism. They never want to call it what it is: A value-added tax. They want to sneak it in while we’re not looking. Their subterfuge proves my point.

Cruz is no capitalist, except in the crony sense. Just another way to get tight with the big donors, who are usually wealthy business moguls who stand to benefit greatly if a VAT is put in place – probably forever. It’s just too tempting for politicians and big business alike. Too much of an unending gravy train. Show me an example of a VAT ever being repealed. It’s the herpes of the various systems of taxation. Once you get it it’s yours forever.

Anglelyne said...

Paddy O:

The only reason to support it is to pander to the supposed entrenched interests in Iowa.

Yup.


So, that suggests something about Trump in distinction with Cruz.

Yes, that they pander to different entrenched interests.

Some people draw the line at, say, supporting stupid wasteful agricultural subsidies, whereas other people are more concerned about, say, facilitating the H-1B racket. YMMV.

Paul said...

"Trump's support of ethanol is not a "policy". It's a noxious bribe."

One man's noxious bribe is another's move to win the Iowa caucus in order to help secure the nomination in order to help win the White House in order to wrest America back from the edge of destruction. If it's not too late.

All the conservative purist ideologues in high dudgeon mode have about as much pull on me as they do the voting public in general which is to say not very damn much.

Laura said...

Define "smart" and "educated." Three months as a hotel maid may have been just as valuable if not more so than many of my college courses.

As my father observed, the janitor often knows who is accessing the office where the votes are kept and doing so outside business hours.
And the plumber knows the significance of lead pipes.

The politician knows when to leak the story to a scandal hungry press to hurt an opponent. Public servants clean up their messes.

mark abrams said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw

Original Mike said...

"All the conservative purist ideologues in high dudgeon mode have about as much pull on me as they do the voting public in general which is to say not very damn much."

Our ethanol "policy" is not a small thing. It's hugely destructive to the environment (both crop lands and global warming (if you believe in that)), it raises food prices, it's corrosive to our engines, and it costs us money.

Michael K said...

"He isn't blue collar in the least. But he does reflect a lot of blue-collar aspirations in his lifestyle. And he's a great salesman so he gets people to think he's one of them, and to take a test-drive, no money down. "

He says things that a lot of people like me, and I have several degrees (Three I think) but come from a modest background, like. The immigration thing, illegal and Muslim, is a huge issue that has been bubbling along under the surface for years.

Reagan tried to solve it with amnesty plus a stop to new illegals. It didn't work so we know better now.

The Muslim thing is so obvious that it should have everyone upset but we have these fake elites who know the Muslims won't get past their bodyguards, although Tom Clancy knew better, and they are just virtue signaling. The term is getting popular because it is accurate.

The "whiteness Studies" nonsense is an acknowledgment that "The Bell Curve" was correct about IQ. The white left is guilty and virtue signaling again, so it will make those poor dumb blacks feel better by agreeing that the reason they can't pass algebra is racism.

Trump promises a way to get past that foolishness. Maybe he won't deliver but Obama promised a lot too.

Listen, I donated to Romney and did what little I could. It is wide open now.

Real American said...

Trump supporters are not ideologically conservative, but more culturally conservative. They hate PC. They hate being called bigots just because they have more traditional values or support the police and military, or God forbid - disagree with Obama. They hate the social justice crybullies. They also hate illegals coming here and causing problems. They hate terrorists and don't want them imported here. They want the rule of law upheld. They want America to be victorious abroad, not constantly apologizing and being humiliated. They love this country and hate seeing it destroyed by loser politicians. These are the people that Obama and the leftards that run his party hate. They are rightfully pissed off at both parties and their establishments for working together to screw over regular people - not Ivy League grads or Wall St. cronies - but real people from real America. Most of all they hate this idea that every single thing you do must involve some political calculation. That kind of life is horrid and Trump embodies the ideal that you can say whatever the hell you want and someone doesn't like it, then too fucking bad. Sometimes the truth hurts, so get over yourself, loser. That's very appealing in this hyper-PC age.

Original Mike said...

"As my father observed, the janitor often knows who is accessing the office where the votes are kept and doing so outside business hours."

It was the janitor who brought to me the letter, written by my new Dept. Chair to the Dean, that sought to get rid of me. Turns out, the janitor read the trash, and he and I were good buddies because we were the only two there late, night after night. In the end, I got tenure and the chair was booted (not because of me, he was a secretive, conniving ass who generated enemies much bigger than me).

Jupiter said...

Brando said...
"Some of us simply don't worry about being called racists, because we aren't racist."

I get a little tired of people claiming they aren't racist. What the Hell does that mean? You don't believe in genetics? You don't think IQ tests measure anything important? The only people on Earth who even apologize for being racist are white people. Everyone else is casually and unapologetically racist, and with good reason. Racial differences are obvious and important.

james conrad said...

GOOD DISCUSSION! i enjoyed listening

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I can't love Trump.

First I rooted for Scott Walker. When he took a dive I backed Fiorina. Hell the candidate I really want is Mitt Romney, but these are such things as dreams are made of.

As I said, I'll vote for Trump if he's the nominee. I believe it's your duty as a voter to decide which is the least awful candidate, and pull the handle.

It's possible Trump could be an effective president. I think there's something to his deal-making prowess, a skill any president needs. I just don't think he has any principles, either in his personal behavior, or when it comes to protecting my individual rights.

William said...

If some genetic engineer were to design a candidate to offend an intellectual's sensibilities, he couldn't do better than Donald Trump. Not only is the man a capitalist, he's a real estate developer. With the possible exception of oil executives, there is no more depraved way of making a living than by developing real estate. Did you ever see pictures of Trump's homes? Gilt everywhere. He puts gilt on the gold furnishings. Very crass. And his various wives. Not one of them likely to do settlement work and carry on in the tradition of Eleanor Roosevelt.....I wouldn't vote for Trump simply because he's so offensive to our intellectuals, but one must admit it's a temptation.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Bob Boyd said...
"If elected, I promise to still blog every single day, including days of major crisis."

Campaign promises.....


Meade will be made Secretary of the Federal Department of Presidential Blogging. Thousands of bureaucrats will each produce a quota of pixels per day. I'm hoping for a sinecure in the Cruel Neutrality Division.

Freeman Hunt said...

I am sympatico with everything Tyrone wrote at 1:01.

TBlakely said...

The problem with Trump is that he has a rather ego-maniacal bent, more so than your average politician, and if he succeeds in becoming president how will he react to set backs? Some of his points are well made but I suspect he's saying them to get traction rather than really believing in them. Then there is the issue that he isn't a conservative at all. Many of his stated core beliefs are in direct confrontation with conservative values.

However, given all that he would make a far, far better president than the current occupant or the two decrepit far left Democrat contenders. Admittedly that's faint praise since a random person out of the phone book would make a better president than those two clowns.

hombre said...

Narcissist succeeds narcissist. What could go wrong?

Original Mike said...

"Narcissist succeeds narcissist. What could go wrong?"

Yeah, I've watched this show for seven years and I'm really tired of it.

Micha Elyi said...

"If it's not dog whistle racism to propose a blanket exclusion of muslims..."--Triangle Man

Now hear this: "muslims" aren't a race.

"...then at least Trump should answer for the attraction that this proposal has for racists."

Nice try at sneaking in your accusation but you aren't fooling the people around here, you ol' dog you. By the way, Hitler was a vegetarian and liked dogs. Thinks about what that means about all the people who like you. Heh.

Pat said...

We have had borders since the beginning of the country. We also had open immigration up until the early 1900s. Was the USA not a country in 1850, or 1900?

The problem with immigration is that we do not have enough legal immigration, not that we have too much illegal immigration.

Some Person said...

Steve Galbraith: "You're right about Profiles but JFK showed more than wit at his press conferences. He showed a command of facts on issues that was very impressive."

No. JFK -- God rest his soul -- was as intellectually slow as successful politicians come.

JFK could not remember the difference between monetary and fiscal policy or between his Sec of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed. He liked to remind himself that "Martin" -- his Fed Chairman -- handled "monetary" policy because they both started with "M."

JFK got Bs and Cs at Harvard at a time when the Harvard student body was not nearly so bright as it would later become. His HS grades were "poor" and he would be lucky to get into a decent state university today.

If JFK had an impressive "command of facts" as President, it was for the first time in his life.

virgil xenophon said...

What Paul@10:46AM, Michael K@12:06PM, Real American@12:09PM, and Jupiter@12:24PM said!

Paul said...

"Our ethanol "policy" is not a small thing. It's hugely destructive to the environment (both crop lands and global warming (if you believe in that)), it raises food prices, it's corrosive to our engines, and it costs us money."

I'm sorry but the amount of money it costs is piddling in the scheme of things. I'm not at all convinced of the huge environmental destruction of growing corn and don't believe in AGW even a little. My Lexus has 245k miles on it and runs like new. I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees here. I'd like to see the ethanol subsidy terminated too but it's so far down on the list of potential catastrophes that obsessing over it shows a serious lack of perspective at the very least.

Paul said...

"Narcissist succeeds narcissist. What could go wrong?"

The difference between the two men is stark. One has true narcissistic personality disorder, is cold and pathologically incapable of empathy, and is fundamentally insecure.

The other is boisterous, prone to braggadocio and quick to take offense, but actually a warm, funny individual well liked by people who know him.

To conflate the two shows poor or bigoted thinking.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

No. JFK -- God rest his soul -- was as intellectually slow as successful politicians come.

Please, read his press conferences:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/Press-Conferences.aspx

The man was 42/43 at the time not a woman chasing college student. Two different men (didn't have to chase them among other things; they were brought to him).

Was he an intellectual? No. But I challenge you to read those press conferences where he would take 30-40 questions and give substantive responses and say he was a lightweight.

Glenn Loury said...

I just want to clarify something. I AM NOT A (CLOSETED) DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER!! I said as much during my conversation with Ann Althouse (listen to the whole thing.) Yes, I agreed with Ann that I don't see Trump's positions as dog-whistle politics meant to appeal to racists. And, I also agreed that some of Trump's formulations had a commonsense appeal ("you don't have a country without controlling its borders"; or, "friends and relatives of homegrown terrorists probably know something, and should tell what they know"...) But, while I do view the spectacle of Trump being the Republican nominee with a certain excitement and amusement, the chance I would ever vote for him is zero. As things now stand, I'm supporting Hilary ...

Paddy O said...

Glenn, thanks for stopping by with your clarification. It provoked a good conversation in the thread, but the main point was about you and that question has been answered.

n.n said...

The anti-native politics is bigoted, but only if you acknowledge individual dignity as a moral axiom, and object to the human and civil rights violations rationalized by the quasi-religious/moral pro-choice doctrine, including selective-child policy, class diversity schemes, politically correct congruences, etc. And, of course, ignore the cause(s) of mass emigration, refugee crises, etc. Then, and only then, is anti-native politics an indicator of positive progress.

Ann Althouse said...

Hi, Glenn. Thanks for commenting.

Of course, if you were closeted, you'd say you were not.

In any case, you decline the opportunity to live on the crest of the cascade, but it will be a more comfortable place soon, and the interesting question is why you didn't confront me about whether I am a closeted Trump supporter.

Anglelyne said...

Pat: We have had borders since the beginning of the country. We also had open immigration up until the early 1900s. Was the USA not a country in 1850, or 1900?

That we had completely open immigration until c. 1900 is a myth. We had periods of large scale immigration when the country was expanding across a continent, overwhelmingly composed of people from the same civilizational and religious roots as the founding stock, joining a confident, dominant majority culture, and there was no welfare state. There were restrictions on entry (including racially discriminatory restrictions), and people who didn't make the grade were turned out.

Even under these conditions, as close to "ideal" for mass immigration as possible, these massive inflows were a threat to social peace and national unity, hence the forty-year shutdown starting in the '20s. So yeah, the US "was a country" in those years because 1) conditions favored positive, or at least not irremediably destructive, results from high levels of immigration, and 2) measures were taken to prevent those nation-wrecking negative effects, in the form of shutting the gate, when these conditions changed.

The problem with immigration is that we do not have enough legal immigration, not that we have too much illegal immigration.

That's a matter of opinion. I'd say our corrupt and dysfunctional legal immigration needs a serious overhaul, too, including the sheer numbers allowed in. A million + per year, every year, year after year, is too many.

Christoban said...

"We also had open immigration up until the early 1900s"

No, we didn't. People who immigrated could do so in much larger numbers, but they HAD to do so through legal channels, be registered, and become citizens.

moonistea said...

Christoban i'm pretty sure that all those people from Ireland, Italy, Poland,etc
(people who are often the grandparent's of the people here) who filled ocean liners had very few hurdles to jump through. They did however experience a lot of ill treatment and vitriolic bias. This should prove an interesting read for Trump supporters:
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/the-trump-familys-troubled-migrant-past-donalds-grandfather-was-an-illegal-migrant-and-trojan-horse/?utm_source=im&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rawstory

The idea that we can't have an open and reasonable discussion about immigration is a red herring that biased, xenophobic people make to excuse the intense anger and antipathy they feel towards non-white immigrants. An excellent proof of this fact is that that Trump wants to build a wall to keep out Mexicans out at the same times he thinks we should increase European immigration. Ask yourselves if it concerns you when people from England or Germany overstay their visas and thus become illegal immigrants? Would you advocate going door to door to find them and kicking them out of the country?

There's a reason why white supremacist organizations are coming out in full support of Trump, in particular with robo-calls.

The ideas about immigration that Trump has expressed are the definition of xenophobia and/or racism i.e. preference for one type of people over others. If those are your feelings then just admit it. Bias, bigotry, racism; these are words with exact definitions and if you fit into those definitions then just own it and stop playing all these semantic games and acting like you're being oppressed by all those terrible liberals. Donald Trump is playing into the false sense of victimhood that white people feel about their loss of privilege.

It is part of the flasehood that we are under a regime of political correctness that bars conservatives from expressing themselves. Hello people, Fox News has a bigger audience than CNN and MSNBC combined. Talk radio is completely dominated by conseratives and the internet is full of conservative websites. Where's the supposed censorship of conservative ideas and values? Yet this is endlessly complained about with a straight face on the most succesful cable news channel in America

I challenge the commenters on this blog to thoughtfully refute what I'm saying beyond the usual "well he's a liberal, he's biased, etc., etc."

moonistea said...

To Anglelyne,

Yeah the immigration practices we had were often racist and even then the Klu Klux Klan rose to it's highest levels of membership in the 1920's primarily for their desire to exclude Catholics from America.

They were only a threat to national unity because some of the previous, mainly Western European immigrants couldn't except them into the fold.

When Californians felt that there were too many Chinese for comfort we banned them. Various exclusion of immigrants was not necessarily the result of high minded ideals.
Basically the first immigrants who came here, who pushed Native Americans to the frontiers by dishonoring treaties, were often unwilling to even accept other Europeans. Now Europeans band together in defense of the racial makeup of the country to oppose people who are of different races from coming here.
The dirty little secret that no one seems to understand is that 1. if we had a magic wand to send every non-white immigrant out of the country, things would come to a halt. Food prices would sky rocket, hotel rates would go through the roof and countless other industries would collapse or the price of their products/services would spiral out of control. and 2. We are going to fall below replacement birth rates and will actually require more immigration in the future to take care of the aging populations by increasing the working population.