Good article. I, and I think most of Donald Trump's honest foes, will agree wholeheartedly (or at least hoof heartedly*) that he does not deserve the vitriol directed at him by the media and the left. The guy has great enemies.
But good enemies are not enough. Trump is the Bill O'Reilly of candidates. O'Reilly is frequently right, has a great enemies list, and attracts criticism he has not earned. But neither can be trusted to advance liberty and rationalism or to temper their zeal when on the wrong side.
Therefore, I avoid being counted in either's domain. They can perform their entertainment functions with just a bit of my ire. But a serious candidacy cannot be tolerated.
I expected you to pounce on the author's connection of "uncorrupted capitalism" to Donald Trump. If that is really what Trump stands for, sign me up. In fact, I somewhat relish the prospect of a Trump v. Sanders general election contest. The "socialist" versus the "businessman." Ayn Rand, rise from the dead and call your office.
The author seems to suffer no delusions, saying "we don't really know" about Trump. "He could be a charlatan" or "he could be a candidate for Mount Rushmore." Trump hasn't faithfully articulated principled free-market solutions to the nation's many problems, but he is clearly right in saying that the governing class has failed.
But Donald Trump, her target, is right that the elected officials have failed; the system has failed. For decades it would not deal with illegal immigration, abortion, wealth disparity, campaign financing, a contemporary definition of the national interest, entitlement reform, the shredding of the Bill of Rights in the fascistic criminal-justice system, or the requirements of fiscal responsibility. Now the country faces a shambles less deadly and threatening than those that greeted the incoming presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon, but more daunting than those that greeted any other inductee to that great office, except, perhaps, George Washington. It is a challenge to put Donald Trump in the category of those presidents just named, but he is the only serious candidate who is describing the crisis in its rightful terms, even if he has exaggerated on some points and been less precise on others than the country would wish and has a right to expect.
"Can not be tolerated"?
I used to feel that way, but as the Donald continues his wave I've changed my mind. If he wins the nomination, I won't even put a yard sign up, but I will vote for him.
Dan Henninger wrote today that Trump isn't leading in the polls, a popular revolt against 25 years of Political Correctness is leading in the polls. Trump merely happens to be the loudest and most frequent voice for this revolt. Ben Carson was the first, but Trump knows more about marketing.
Last night my heroine told Sean Hannity [4:56] "When I tell voters that it's time, citizens, to take our country back, and a professional politician isn't gonna be able to do it, and a guy who's a celebrity but has no plan isn't gonna do it either, they're listening."
Well, I hope her "plan" includes better marketing for her version of the PC Revolt.
@Terri: I am warming up to The Donald. I shan't say "Can not be tolerated," but I am presently undecided. (Hop up a few posts for my dream four-way race scenario. It nearly destroyed this great nation in 1824, whaddaya say we try it again?)
The question is less "can I vote for Trump?" The question is [melodrama alert!] "do I want to stay with a party that would nominate him?" All my libertarian and public-choice-theorist friends laugh at my quaint belief in advancing liberty through the ballot box and the the GOP. If my party nominates Mister Trump, I do not know if it remains my party.
Brother jk, I wonder if it might offer you any consolation at all to replace the words "Donald Trump" with "Political Correctness Revolutionary?"
Politics is a strange realm, wherein necessary medicine is often packaged in distasteful vessels.
I found another interesting opinion piece on the present maelstrom. Being better informed on Presidential history, perhaps you'll get more out of it than I did.
Great article. It happens that I loves me some "Mudcat." He used to be a regular fixture on cable news but I don't think the Democratic party can abide by his existence. I surely feel for the few non-loonies remaining in the party. Hell, on a good day, I might vote for Jim Webb; he was very good in that first debate.
Replacing Trump with an abstract instantiation of his good points? That might work. And it's not like his current principles will last any longer than his old ones.
Smoot-Hawley rides again.