Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > On Donald Trump’s Campaign for the Republican Nomination: 5

On Donald Trump’s Campaign for the Republican Nomination: 5

In the previous post of this series, I put forth the theory that Trump’s primary goal is to win the republican nomination with the presidency being a distant secondary one. Having said that, it is clear that he would have a pretty decent chance at winning the presidency if he were to be the republican nominee.

But why do I think that Trump has a decent chance of winning the presidency? I mean.. he has still not put forth a single coherent plan for achieving anything he supposedly wants to achieve. Why do I think that his total lack of serious policy positions and commissioning of “studies” about the viability of his plans not affect his electability? How would he be able to win against supposedly “serious” and “competent” politicians such as Hillary Clinton?

Well.. it comes down to reality. In another previous post of this series, I pointed out that the terms of almost every single presidents in living memory have invariably turned out to be disastrous for everyone but the top 1% (or more precisely the top 0.1%). The ones that turned out less disastrous (2nd term of both Reagan and Clinton) did so because of factors beyond their control. In other words, there is no correlation between the supposed “experience” or “capability” of professional politicians and their actual performance- as far as the 99% or 99.9% are concerned.

But it gets worse. See.. Lyndon B. Johnson (or LBJ) was the last american president who was actually able to implement a significant percentage of his election promises- and his presidency ended in early 1969, which is now almost half a century ago. Since then, no president has been able (or willing) to fulfill even a significant percentage of their pre-election promises to the electorate. Think about it.. did Richard Nixon fulfill even a small minority of his pre-election promises? What about Jimmy Carter? What about Reagan? What about Bush 41? What about Bill Clinton? What about Bush 43? What about Obama?

My point is that, based on their post-election performance, every single president since LBJ could be considered an incompetent liar. Even worse.. they have shown themselves to be incapable of implementing even their most feasible and rational-sounding plans. A significant part of the electorate has therefore learnt to tune out anything that sounds like carefully written pre-election promises or plans. The ongoing loss of public faith in credentialed “experts” consequent to their exposure as greedy charlatans further potentiates the general loss of faith in political promises.

Trump seems to have grasped this dissonance and its peculiar correlation to authenticity. It is therefore very likely that his unwillingness to put forth detailed pre-election plans and proposals is part of a general strategy of appearing more authentic than his rivals. Even his very brief and sketchy public papers on issues such as immigration, guns and taxes are part of this strategy. The guy has a pretty good feel for how much (or how little) most voters actually care about the actual contents of long policy papers.

Trump is simply using the massive political dissonance that has built up over the last half century against the very type of people who created, and have benefited from, it by turning their own bullshit and lies against themselves.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. October 2, 2015 at 3:31 am

    Trump is much better in addressing the real problems and needs of people. Everybody knows that politicians are liars – some more, some less. What we are missing is authenticity – someone who is not so “serious” but true. Trump is a winner who has proved that over and over again. Americans love winners and they despise losers. That is in den DNA of the USA and it’s peolple and whoever thinks he could change people into something else is acting very “Unamericanly”. Hillary is not a winner, she has lost too many times in her life to be authentic, when it comes to that.

    from freedompowerandwealth.com

    That delusional mindset starts to cause problems when your lucky streak runs out, as is now the case for white americans.

  2. shiningtime
    October 4, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    I don’t care who wins the election. America is like a runaway train. It will take a massive force to move the nation in a new perhaps more sustainable direction. Trump can insult people all he wants, it doesn’t change anything. We are still $18 trillion in debt with no idea how to make even a dent in it. You have a nation of 300 million people full of factions that incredibly hostile to each other. I mean this thing is barely being held together. So, Mr. Trump can talk all he wants. Doesn’t change anything

  3. Ed
    October 5, 2015 at 8:06 am

    I have to agree with shiningtime, though I’ve been enjoying these posts.

    I’m in my mid 40s and have seen this before with Perot (92) and Dean (04). The establishment is pretty good at dealing with these guys, and with Trump in particular I get the impression this is a marketing exercise for his later business ventures. My guess is that he drops out before the New Hampshire primary, but if not there are plenty of opportunities to force him out, all the way up to the convention.

    • Atlanta Man
      October 5, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      The only reason I disagree with your Perot comparison is because America is far different now than it was in1992. The “reality televisionation” of America has rendered it amenable to a Trump kind of politician, plus the Internet has destroyed the press/politician/television monopoly on image building. The only thing that can stop Trump from becoming the Republican nominee is vote tampering during the primaries (like they did to Ron Paul, he won New Hamshire the vote was rigged). The only thing that will stop Trump from winning the Presidency if nominated is Bernie Sanders, Trump would crush Hillary Bernie would at least stand a chance.

  4. October 13, 2015 at 10:16 pm

    hey advipoops, here’s an empowered feminist womyn for ya…

  5. Ian
    July 27, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    I think Nixon fulfilled a decent amount of his, frankly, if we solely talk about the first term. For all the bloody missteps and domestic upheavals, we did eventually get out of Vietnam with Saigon still standing and US FP credibility (at the expense of domestic peace, something we might have needed more… conflicting feelings on that on my part, though, because the USA for all its faults might be keeping the world from blowing up) relatively intact, which was not a trivial feat when you consider the hand Nixon was dealt in Vietnam both on the ground and with his enemies in Hanoi. Nixon ended the draft, as promised. The world was a much more safe place thanks to some of Nixon’s other foreign policy measures, particularly given that the USSR was then at nuclear parity, thus the “age of negotiations” was, for a brief while before Watergate, a reality.

    At home, law and order (or at least Tricky’s definition of it, which to be fair to him, the majority of Americans above a certain age in 1969 agreed with anyway) was upheld at home. A general crackdown on the hard left and hippies was underway. Race relations had somewhat stabilized and the cities weren’t burning every summer by the 70s. Though Nixon failed to appoint a Southerner to the SCOTUS as he all but explicitly promised to Southerners, he did appoint constructionist conservatives-Burger, Rehnquist, etc-as he promised in his campaign to put a cap on the changes of the Warren Court. As jaw-droppingly cynical as the decision to impose wage and price controls was, it did fulfill the goal of “no recession” for the purposes of the 1972 election.

    In short, the majority of Americans felt a lot safer, happier, and better off in 1972 than in 1968, and those who didn’t were usually the types of people whose opinions Nixon could not have cared less about. That’s part of why Watergate hurt so much, and why Nixon screwed the pooch so badly: people thought things were finally going back to normal, or at least as close as it could get after the 60s. All over something so unnecessary. But, perhaps it was fated to be that way given Nixon’s personality flaws and the circumstances of the times. In a way, it was contrapasso.

  1. October 31, 2015 at 5:15 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: