Why They Like Trump

The political fray can be a dismal spectator sport. Many of the participants appear to be lifeless, craven, automatons. Donald Trump is different – at the very least he drives away more voters than he thrills. As the primary season begins to unfold it helpful understand why a sizable number of voters still passionately support Mr. Trump’s presidential ambitions.

• He is a new Republican: passionate about border security, willing to de-prioritize free trade if a larger goal is in view, and open to populist ideas on healthcare and infrastructure.

• His track record in office was at least average; he appointed some good judges, signed a few pieces of pleasing legislation, and the international scene was comparatively peaceful.

• He was (and still is) viewed as an outsider: four measly years of government experience only underscores this status.

• He has a big personality and is comfortable in front of crowds of all sizes. Many other politicians come across as contrived, robotic, or nervous; the former President is confident.

• He is willing to have a spirited verbal war with perceived foes, and he rarely (if ever) backs down.

• He is independently wealthy and his family doesn’t need dubious international business relationships to get rich.

• He frequently speaks in a casual fashion; his acerbic wit and politically incorrect commentary are endearing to his political family – much like a friendly older relative who is uncomfortably blunt.

The forgoing personal attributes represent Donald Trump’s political capital; unfortunately, his liabilities are equally substantial. Recent polling suggests that over 40% of Americans support efforts by Maine and Colorado to remove Donald Trump from their respective ballots. The former president is clearly vulnerable in the general election. Long term concerns likewise exist. Mr. Trump’s history, impetuous nature, and rude style could easily discourage younger voters from exploring controversial perspectives they associate Donald Trump.

Today, Mr. Trump’s ardent supporters see an intrepid warrior who is fighting for their future. These partisans are invested in a narrative: the former president will win in 2024, and then he will lay the ground work for an American rebirth. In this context Donald Trump represents an emotional plea for a better tomorrow.

The former president’s relative popularity has led detractors to employ hysterical rhetoric regarding the end of the country and it’s form of government. Hyperbole goes to 11 in an election year. American history is clear: past generations elected Presidents with a wide variety of moral problems, chief among them slave ownership. Yet even the evil institution of slavery was only able to delay this nation’s methodical march towards authentic freedom and equal justice under the law.

The cheerless reality is that the nation has begun the process of choosing our next leader, and at this late juncture a Republican alternative to Donald Trump is unlikely. Nikki Haley, his foremost challenger, combines an untoward affection for big-government solutions with a penchant for controversial opinions about American history. Meanwhile, the Democratic party’s deplorable social, economic, environmental, and international goals could harm the country for years to come. As a result, the vast majority of Americans will likely face a disagreeable choice: over-rip fish or sour milk. Some voters will refuse the choice altogether.

A democratic republic doesn’t need a hero – it needs ideals. And ideals are born from mature rumination, not clever pronouncements made in a demagogic speech. Interested Americans must address the present conundrum with reason; tough questions are in order, and unpleasant answers will demand responsible choices.

Hopefully the presidential melee of 2024 will lead to a renewal of America’s core ideals – personal liberty, balanced laws, a market-oriented economy, and decentralized political authority.

Border Questions

Occasionally a headline obscures a deeper question; this is certainly true when it comes to immigration policy in the US.

Conservative news outlets have reported that in the recent past visa-less Chinese migrants were vetted more stringently. If this is true, there is a rational explanation for the shift: some US ports of entry are overwhelmed, and current events in China suggest many Chinese nationals have a fair claim of asylum. Unfortunately, a change in vetting policy does not equate to a lower real-world national security risk. However, these reports side-step a larger problem: asylum eligibility.

Persecution in one’s native country is grounds for an asylum claim, while poverty and poor employment prospects do not qualify a person for asylum. As a result, many of the recent asylum requests at the United States’ southern border will be rejected. Hearings and appeals will lengthen the process, but eventually thousands of asylum seekers will receive an order to depart. Many individuals will choose to remain in the US unlawfully. Over time, a departure order combined with unlawful presence usually torpedoes an alien’s hopes of gaining permanent legal status in the US (i.e. a green card).

Nevertheless, a disturbing number of politicians appear content to let ineligible asylum seekers labor under the misapprehension that legal status in the US is only a few forms away. In the end, poor asylum seekers will be harmed, and the politicians will earn applause and votes for their “pro-immigrant” views. This result discomfits logic, and it leaves the cynical mind awash in questions.

Welcome to 2024.

Israel v. Hamas

Many westerners have been strangely supportive of the Palestinians in the months since Hamas attacked Israel. But why? Motivations differ, but many politically progressive westerners have adopted a simplistic worldview: oppressed native groups are everywhere struggling against their (often white) oppressors. This 19^th century analysis of world conflicts was never wholly sound, and time has eroded its interpretive usefulness. Moreover, the narrative (oppressor vs. oppressed) is wholly inadequate in this case: the Jewish people are not racist colonizers, and Palestinians are not fighting for independence in the traditional sense.

The state of Israel is a comparatively small country that is anchored to a region that is heavily populated with enemies; many individuals in the surrounding countries oppose Israel’s very existence. More importantly, the citizens of Israel are not colonists, but individuals and coreligionists who are returning from exile. Jewish political communities existed in the vicinity of Israel long before modern times; one famous Jewish revolt against Roman rule culminated in the year 73 C.E. It would be another 500 years before Islam (the religious philosophy behind Hamas) became a geopolitical force in the middle east.

Regrettably, Palestinian territorial aspirations have been marred by a century of hatred and unjustified violence. Moderate Palestinian leaders were assassinated by their extremist brethren within the last century. Less than 20 years ago (2006) Hamas’ political arm was popular enough to win an election in the Gaza Strip. Hamas then used violence to seize full control of the governing apparatus in Gaza. To this day Hamas appears to have remained fairly popular in the Gaza Strip – an unfortunate state of affairs since Hamas fervently opposes Israel’s right to exist.

Americans are frequently reminded that past generations supported the marginalization and repression of a wide variety of individuals. An enlightened and moral society cannot ignore such charges; Americans must surely learn from the grave mistakes of the past. The present conflict in the middle east must be evaluated by the same metric. Just as there was no justification for the KKK’s use of terrorism against their neighbors in the American south, there can be no justification for the terrorist attack Hamas perpetrated against Israel in October. If it is morally wrong for a conscientious person to link arms in solidarity with individuals who quietly support the KKK, it would likewise be wrong to stand in solidarity with Gazans who appear to quietly support Hamas.

Regrettably, this equation is complicated by Israel’s 20^th century return to the geopolitical scene. During World War I Great Britain voiced its support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, an area it eventually governed as a colonial power. However, Great Britain’s colonial mindset soon motivated them to limit Jewish settlement in the vicinity. By the late 1940’s America’s support for a modern nation of Israel was enough to bring the Jewish state into existence. Even so, the rebirth of Israel fails to justify the animosity of the peoples who populate the region. Gazan rage against Israel is no exception.

Decades ago, years before Hamas existed, Egypt agreed set aside its occupation of the Gaza Strip in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. This development surely embittered the residents of the Gaza Strip (many of whom were refugees from Israel). Even so, bitterness does not justify the periodic murder of innocent Jewish civilians in the name of independence.

Some westerners nonetheless accuse Israel of unlawfully occupying Palestinian land. The historical record raises thought provoking questions about this claim. In short, Israel’s geographic expansion has either been the result of defensive wars, or rational acts of preemptive military action. It barely needs to be noted that for hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of years territorial losses have been deemed an appropriate punishment for groups and counties that initiate or plot violence against their otherwise peaceful neighbors. Nevertheless, Israel largely abandoned its permanent civilian and military positions in the Gaza Strip more than 15 years ago. Israel instead chose to advance their national security goals by strictly controlling all land and sea ports of entry into this controversial area. The October terrorist attack on Israel – carried out from Gaza – proved Israel’s border-oriented strategy was rational.

Today Hamas has conqueror’s mindset. Hamas seeks hegemony over Israel and its land – an area where the ancient remnants of Jewish social and religious life are clearly visible. The earliest Islamic conquistadors would be proud. Yet many well-meaning westerners are confused, they believe the group with a colonial mindset is the victim, and they mistakenly think the victim is actually the perpetrator. This error is understandable. The middle east contains a confusing assemblage of autocrats, terrorists, religious fundamentalists, peace activists, and freedom lovers. And of course natural resources, territorial aspirations, political calculations, poverty, and ancient animosities only enhance the difficulty of correctly evaluating events in the middle east.

But let us be clear: terrorism is never justified. Israel was the victim of an unprovoked terrorist attack, the comparative severity of which Americans have never experienced. Israel’s subsequent efforts, flawed though they are, represent a legitimate national security exercise that is calculated to protect Israeli lives. In addition, Palestinians who support extremists like Hamas do not deserve allies or political support, they deserve our prayers. Prayers that they will one day decide to embrace peace and friendship with their Jewish neighbors.

Christmas: Joy or Thankfulness

Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people…in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

For many people Christmas is a season that demands the protection of a modern foxhole; warring family members and the harsh realities of a callous and unforgiving world are constantly trying to destroy our sense of serenity. Yet Christmas is so much more: the ultimate story of shame, selflessness, discipline, and heroism. In light of this amazing story, a Jewish story, we can all find authentic joy. Yet even if the original Christmas story seems like a old fashioned fairy tale, the vast majority of Americans still have a great deal to be thankful for – a country at peace, food (often too much of it), and some shelter. Millions of people around the world are not so lucky.

I hope each reader chooses the thankfulness that can lead to true joy – Merry Christmas!

A Modest Proposal

The buzz words are always the same – magazine capacity, assault weapons, body armor, background checks, waiting periods, and mental health. The policy recommendations are essentially identical after every mass shooting. Americans deserve more. Progressive politicians are clearly focused on protecting Americans of all ages, but their regulatory proposals are far too modest. On a daily basis Americans die because key federal laws are either nonexistent or lax. The following Modest Proposals will enhance the safety of everyone in the United States.

First, America needs an environmentally sustainable speed limit nationwide. The average American does not need a car with a high capacity for speed; forty-five MPH is perfectly fine. Countless lives will be saved each year: lower speeds will result in fewer highway fatalities. Of course government officials, law enforcement officers, and members of the military will be allowed to utilize faster vehicles so they can guarantee public safety.

Second, high proof alcohol should be prohibited nationwide. Americans do not need alcoholic beverage that can rapidly impair a person. Now is the time to make driving safer, intimate relationships stronger, and childhoods happier. Politicians simply need to break free from the special interest groups that profit from the alcoholic beverages that have a high capacity to harm innocent people every day.

Third, federal politicians need to enact common sense health legislation. The average US citizen does not need to consume unhealthy foods with a high capacity for generating negative health outcomes. Foods with a high sugar and sodium content should be subject to a stiff federal excise tax. In addition, the federal government should create a program to register and track the body fat index of all adults in the United States. The public health crisis is obvious: multinational food corporations must put human lives ahead of corporate profits.

Lest any doubts persist the foregoing recommendations were a form of satire – a series of ridiculous proposals designed to reveal the hollow nature of the policies advocated by many local, state, and federal leaders. Each day Americans suffer unintentional complications and death from car accidents, alcohol poisoning, and diabetes. Yet elected leaders only offer pious remarks and moral indignation after the latest mass shooting. Perhaps the reason lies in the details: a politician’s level of engagement depends on the cultural expression that could get eviscerated. If the freedom in view is incredibly important to the politician or their voters, it is safe. On the other hand, a politician can easily support new restrictions on a cultural practice that is enjoyed by a faceless stereotype who lives far away.

Look At the Culture

“The biggest point I wanted to make was one I am still making: Hollywood is more important than Washington. It can’t be over stated how important this message is: pop culture matters”

This bog is not the place for book reviews: generic life endeavors and the occasional blog post regularly fill the time that cultivated humans devote to reading and self-improvement. Nevertheless, a book occasionally gets the flip-through treatment. Such is the case with Righteous Indignation, by Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012). The book is not ground-breaking, but it deserves a few comments.

The book is an assemblage of anecdotes and personal observations that introduce Andrew Breitbart and his ideas about limited-government activism. Written more than a decade ago, the book appears to be an oblique critique of the conservative social and political establishment. From the 1970’s through the early 2000‘s most conservatives embraced apple pie activism – an organized effort to identify and elect wholesome, obedient, patriotic, conservative lawmakers. Mr. Breitbart saw the world differently. He believed the modern political arena was a metaphorical cage fight. Said differently, parliamentary rules, congressional show-votes, and photo ops were less important than Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

Mr. Breitbart offered a few practical tips for engaging in the modern political fray.

1. Don’t be afraid to go into enemy territory

2. Expose the left for who they are in their own words

3. Be open about your secrets

4. Don’t let the Complex use its PC lexicon to characterize you and shape the narrative

5. Control your own story – don’t let the Complex do it

6. Ubiquity is key

7. Engage in the social arena

8. Don’t pretend to know more than you do

9. Don’t let them pretend to know more than they do

10. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon

11. Don’t let them get away with ignoring their own rules

12. Truth isn’t mean – it’s truth

13. Believe in the audacity of hope

Mr. Breitbart also casually explored the roots of the modern progressive movement. During that endeavor he pointed out that the concept of correct thinking was embraced by Chinese dictator Mao Tse-tung. The dictator expressed his ideas in the following manner.

Generally speaking, those [ideas] that succeed are correct and those that fail are incorrect, and this is especially true of man’s struggle with nature. In social struggle, the forces representing the advanced class sometimes suffer defeat not because their ideas are incorrect, but because, in the balance of forces engaged in struggle, they are not as powerful for the time being as the forces of reaction…

It is therefore necessary to educate our comrades in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge, so that they can orientate their thinking correctly, become good at investigation and study and at summing up experience, overcome difficulties, commit fewer mistakes, do their work better…

In other words, Correct Thinking leads to preferred actions, and individual actions move society in the direction of the desired outcome. In our present social context pseudo-progressive activists are determined to advance their brand of politically correct thinking throughout American society. Economic, social, political, environmental, cultural, and geopolitical ideas that advance progressive goals are automatically deemed correct. Freedom, family, autonomy, artistry and safety are secondary concerns.

A decade of social and cultural evolution has reinforced the logic of Andrew Breitbart’s focus on popular culture. Progressive government officials (elected an unelected) have changed the national debate by watering niche ideas and values that were already present in the soil of American culture. As a result, freedom loving Americans must carefully survey the social, cultural and political field before them. Tactless, uncreative, bland candidates will not win long-term political battles in a closely divided democratic society; potential allies will be repulsed. Instead, the advocates of freedom must tactfully and creatively address the powerful cultural sensibilities of open-minded voters.

Independence Day: Freedom Symbolized

Written metaphors are a clever exercise in realism – the printed word impregnated with symbolism.

As we enjoy the festivities often associated with Independence Day all Americans should take a moment to reflect on the pleasant aspects of life in America.

Residents of America are likely to be wealthier than millions of our fellow creatures who live elsewhere; violent groups don’t torture large swaths of the country; our form of government has generally been quite stable; state and local law enforcement officers are now generally reputable; and our justice system usually comes to the correct conclusion.

Yet freedom is America’s greatest strength. The Constitution and Bill of Rights bans government encroachment on the freedom to hold controversial opinions, write divisive works, believe peculiar religious dogmas, and live in unusual ways. Even possible criminals are protected from abuse by the government! Moreover, most Americans can still own a wide variety of firearms and bladed instruments without needless government intrusion; millions of law-abiding individuals around the world are not so lucky.

Independence Day celebrations should certainly involve family and friends – but they should also remind us of the historical attitudes and circumstances that have given this holiday its symbolism. As the day gives way to night hopefully a local fireworks display will provide an excellent visual example of the freedoms so many of us take for granted.

DeSantis Detonates?

The modern presidential nomination process is an extended horse race: each candidate is trying identify his or her lane, and then up-shift at the right moment. Therefore politicians routinely cast themselves as an aggressive standard bearer for their party. Even Mitt Romney once claimed to be “severely conservative.”

Days ago the Ron DeSantis camp, already beset by mediocre polling data, attempted to solidify the candidate’s ideological lane in a bustling Republican field. Unfortunately, he only succeeded in moving his campaign one step closer to implosion. The ad in question featured a decidedly masculine tone, and its content highlighted various political fights related to the nexus between culture and politics, particularly sexuality and sexual identity.

Potentially flammable political ads – if they are handled deftly – can be beneficial; the ad in question resembled the work of an inexperienced finger painter. The outcome has been predictable: center-right gay and transgender Americans have been highly critical (and not without cause); these Americans are now even less likely to see Governor DeSantis as a viable candidate for president. As a result, the Democrat party has a better chance of capturing the White House in 2024 than it did a month ago.

Conservative and liberty-oriented primary voters, regardless of their sexual identity, must quickly sift through the alternative candidates; the first primary will be here in a jiffy, and neither Donald Trump nor Ron DeSantis appear particularly electable.

If – America’s Future

America is in serious trouble. The country is not facing difficult times because of inflation, Donald Trump, President Biden, the January 6^th committee, disputed elections, social injustice, Russian aggression, or the recent debt ceiling debate. These ingredients are just symptoms of a bigger problem.

Many voters have a hyperactive daily life that is seeped in political apathy. As a result they rarely focus on the nuances of government or the long-term direction of the country. Instead, they cast robotic votes during primary season, and then repeat the process again on election day. Many politicians happily exploit this state of affairs: they paper-over substantial problems, dodge thorny issues, employ outlandish rhetoric, and generally act like caddish party hacks. This cynical behavior is rewarded by America’s troubling numerical reality.

Most elected leaders can win elections by only appealing to their voters. In the average state or congressional district almost 2/3 of voting age citizens don’t matter: half of the citizens will not vote, and a sizable portion of the voting citizens will support one of the other candidates. Thus an individual who is running for office can promise a new vision, but then support the same old party leaders in congress; they can advocate less partisanship, but then rarely work with the other party on serious issues; they can sell change, but conveniently ignore the niche appeal of their ideas. Political double standards flourish because a candidate’s only real opponent is the flawed candidate put forward by the other major party. Since most congressional districts and states lean toward a particular political party, and individual voters usually prefer the devil they know, elections regularly result in the continuation of outworn policies. These policies are frequently carried out by the same old hands.

Unfortunately America is also fraught with internal disagreement. Perhaps 10 years ago the Economist opined that “Republicans and Democrats do not even begin to agree on what America’s most serious problems are, let alone on how to deal with them.” Time has not neutered the truth of this statement. Americans are sharply divided on abortion, immigration, firearms, gender identity, law enforcement, climate change policy, election reform, and federal spending priorities. Political parties have exploited these differences for the purposes of fundraising and electoral success. Media enterprises have likewise harnessed factional disagreements to increase their profits.

America is beset with myopic moralizing – the practice of oversimplifying a problem and then fixating on an exclusionary, dogmatic, explanation or solution. This is a decidedly unhealthy practice. Citizens and elected leaders should not casually set aside the real-world concerns that generate fiery ideological friction. Nuance is an essential element of sound public policy.

The American experiment is premised on the idea that humans have a natural right to peaceably hold almost any opinion; this freedom has stoked centuries of healthy debate. However, a sharp difference of opinions can also operate to separate individuals along factional lines. This problem has plagued religious communities (and countries) for centuries.

Over two hundred years ago a critic of the newly proposed Constitution argued that “the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and inhabitants” naturally created a “dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies.” The author predicted these internal differences would not produce national happiness, but rather create “a house divided against itself.” In addition, he warned his readers that “the science of government will become intricate and perplexed, and too mysterious for you to understand and observe.” The end result would be the gradual centralization of governing power at the national level.

Over time the foregoing prediction has slowly become America’s reality. The United States has a beguilingly simple choice. Either citizens can try to find the humanity in their neighbors, and then embrace personal liberty, equal justice, and decentralized governing authority. Or Americans can pursue an ideological and social war that promotes hate, fear, disunity, and the subtle tyranny of the majority.

Hopefully sincere Americans will cast aside their apathy, engage in good faith discussions, and choose the path of thoughtful, freedom-oriented citizenship. Only then will America reinvigorate firm limits on federal authority while simultaneously forcing government officials to abandon the foolishness of recent decades.

They Stepped In It

First rate public relations blunders are hard to miss. Recently Presidential hopefuls Ron DeSantis and Mike Pence stepped in the political poo by advocating a return to the past. Both men want to remove the name “Fort Liberty” from an iconic Army base in North Carolina; they want to recycle the base’s former name, Fort Bragg.

Unfortunately, General Braxton Bragg was not above reproach: he directly benefited from the forced labor of the human beings who toiled under his watchful eye. Mr. Bragg lived well because anti-liberty policies in Louisiana attempted to legitimize the practice of slavery. And then as a Confederate general he fought, at least in part, to uphold the horrible system that provided him with an easy life.

Both Mr. Pence and Mr. DeSantis missed an enormous opportunity, and then stabbed their presidential hopes in the metaphorical chest. A presidential campaign must keep up with the times or risk failure. If the base needs a new name (Fort Liberty is a fine name), it should be named Fort Carney. A base named after William Carney would surely be memorable – if only because of the great lengths to which he went to protect the American flag.

Times change, but many politicians still struggle to understand a critical life lesson: watch where you step.