On Trump and Triangulation

While a few members of the GOP establishment (e.g., the Bush family; Mitt Romney) have conspicuously refused to endorse Trump, the predominant opinion appears to be that Trump is not a real Republican, but a kind of independent and unaccountable force of nature, like an earthquake or a tornado. He is their ally in the all-important battle against Hillary, so he has their support, but he is not one of them, and they bear no responsibility for him.  They are free to criticize him as they see fit and to pursue their own interests and ideology through the campaign.

The obvious rationale for this approach is that it protects the GOP brand–low taxes for the wealthy, “freedom,” etc.–in the likely event that Trump implodes. The logical problem with it, however, is that it ignores the wishes of the large proportion of GOP voters who clearly prefer swaggering government to limited government.

Will moderate swing voters buy into the idea that the GOP is actually Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and not Trump and the rank-and-file in congressional and state races?  If Trump should somehow prevail in November, will the congressional GOP leadership continue to treat him as an independent, or will the two forces unite?  These are extremely important questions, and no one will know the answer until after the election.

On Trump and Saddam

I’m going to half defend Trump here.  No, really:  hear me out.

Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator who invaded his neighbors for no good reason, oppressed the Shiites and Kurds, and basically killed people for sport.  No, the record shows that Trump didn’t oppose the invasion from the beginning, regardless of what he says today.  And no, the people Saddam butchered weren’t terrorists; that is a typical piece of Trump misinformation.  The real point, however, is that there weren’t any Iraqi terrorists for him to kill, which brings up two legitimate questions:

  1.  Would Iraq be a better place to live today if Saddam were still in power?
  2.  Would the world in general be a better place if the Iraq invasion had not occurred?

Here are my responses:

  1.  It depends on who you are.  If you’re a Shiite or a Kurd and you’re far from the action, you are clearly better off today than you were 15 years ago.  If you’re a Sunni, and you were good at keeping your head down and your mouth shut, Saddam wasn’t a huge problem, and you are living with IS and a Shiite majority today.  If you are a Sunni or a Shiite on the front lines of terrorism, you have far more freedom, less reliable electricity, and less security than you did before the invasion.  It’s definitely a mixed bag.
  2. While Saddam was dangerously unpredictable, he kept Iran in check, and IS would not exist today if he were still in power, since it relies heavily on military expertise and assets obtained as a result of the invasion.  On balance, I think you would have to say the world as a whole would be better off if the invasion had never occurred, and that doesn’t even factor in the horrific costs of the invasion itself to the US and to the Iraqi people.

So, while he was (as usual) wrong about the specifics, in my opinion, Trump got the bigger picture right.  I guess “truthful hyperbole” can actually contain some truth every now and then.  Considering the source, you could call it a germ of truth.

 

Trump Brings the Funk

             Buildin’ Up the Wall

When you think the world’s your oyster.

The establishment is finally beaten down.

This is only the beginning.

Gonna show those folks who think you’re just a clown.

 

Bashing Muslims; tweeting night and day.

Running crazy; that’s the only way.

 

So tonight

Gonna leave those old ideas up on the shelf

And just enjoy yourself.

Oooh

When the madness of the message gets to you.

Life ain’t so bad at all

When you’re buildin’ up the wall.

 

Parody of “Off the Wall” by Michael Jackson.