I wish I came upon the idea for the title to this blog after having made some kind of clever connection between Trump and the gold with which he brands himself. Truth be told, the blog name just occurred to me, and, when I went back and reminded myself what Rumpelstiltskin was about, I sheepishly backed into the gold thing. I know I'm not the first one to have coined this little play on the title to the old fairy tale, but I like it, and I'm going with it.
Anyway, onto some thoughts as we head into Iowa.
OK, so I get it. If I support Trump, I'm a simple-minded, hoodwinked idiot. Well, maybe simple-minded and hoodwinked - but I'm just not sure that I'm such a complete idiot. With my intellect being challenged at every turn, and my self-confidence in doubt, I feel that it seems incumbent on me to review, even if for my own sanity, how I could possibly think that Mr. Trump's candidacy is a good thing. While maybe many in polite society seem to be acknowledging that there's some fun going on (politics aside, it surely would seem that he's generating a fair amount of fun), few of them seem to think that what's going on is actually . . . good.
For years, so many of us have been yearning for politicians who are willing to say what they really think . . . for politicians who think the same things that non-politicians think . . . for politicians that don't speak in code. Well, be careful for what you wish, and say hello to Donald Trump.
On almost everything, people seem to be saying that they don't like the words he's saying, while simultaneously acknowledging that there's some truth in there somewhere. On the face of it, much of what he's saying may indeed be hard to follow. But is the background message as bad as it seems? If the message forms a foundation for debate, with details to follow, is there value there? Maybe. So let's dissect this thing on a point-by-point basis.
First, immigration. This was the thing that ushered in the controversy surrounding Trump's tone. He focused using intemperate words on Mexicans, on illegal entry and on other illegal behavior. But what underlies the message? There is the fact that there are many illegal immigrants who are Mexican. There is the rule of law, and the law, by hypothesis, does prohibit illegal immigration. And there is the undoubted reality that some of the people entering the country are doing illegal things here. The resulting debate focuses on how important or unimportant these considerations are and what we should do about them. Hmm.
Next, a proposed ban on Muslim immigration and a jaundiced focus on the Muslims that are already here. This may well be where Mr. Trump's most hurt himself. But what underlies the message? There is the fact that much international violence is propagated by purported Muslims. There is the fact that the Muslim credo, in contrast to the credos of many other religions, has a distinctly political slant. There is messaging that some have viewed as violent, bigoted and intolerant that is woven into a number of basic Muslim precepts. And there has been and will continue to be the real risk of continuing death and mayhem in the United States and other countries around the world. The resulting debate focuses on just what we do about that. Hmm.
There's also railing against other countries, notably China, regarding trade, with protectionist threats on full display. There are many arguments, both political and economic, against such a tack. But is the way in which certain members of the global economy are competing really fair or reasonable? Putting specifics aside for the moment, should something be done about it? Hmm.
As to his lack of true conservatism - that's bad? He doesn't like what Bush II did in Iraq. He doesn't like the favorable tax treatment of carried interests. He's all over the lot on the abortion issue, gun control, Social Security and health care. He respects and apparently will be able to work with Putin. I thought that we've become upset with a stratified two-party system that inexorably pushes candidates to dogmatic extremism. And so now we have a front-running candidate with a set of views that don't consistently align with extremes. This is a bad thing? Darned if you do, darned if you don't?
And what of those bemoaning political correctness and those bemoaning the rise of Fox. Could they take some time out of their day to marvel at what Mr. Trump is accomplishing on those fronts? Could a little balance and honesty be in order? Maybe some credit where credit is due?
As to his language and tone, maybe that's just a little bit refreshing. If he jokes about women, he's disqualified? Maybe the world could lighten up a bit. Sure there's a point at which language can be downright hurtful, but there's also a point where people need to be able to take a joke. One need only look to Ivanka to see the kind of woman he raises. She comes from a man who fundamentally disrespects women? Maybe - but maybe not.
Taking a step back for a moment, I would suggest that it seems pretty clear that, at a minimum, he's framing the issues. And they're good issues. Maybe every extreme and intemperate solution to these issues that he's proposing won't be and shouldn't be the ultimate result. Maybe there will be other action deriving from reflection, consultation and compromise. Maybe that's not so bad.
Which brings us back to a core message from Mr. Trump - I'll deal. Ted Cruz wondered whether what Republicans want is someone who's interested in cutting deals with the Democrats. Well of course that's what Republicans should want! Reagan and Clinton were masterful at building bridges and finding common ground. They got things done, in Reagan's case with a lean to the right and in Clinton's case with a lean to the left. Now, it seems like everyone bemoans Beltway gridlock. Republicans should indeed hope for someone right- (as opposed to left-) minded that can get some kind of an agenda through this now-fractured process. If that starts with staking out extreme positions and then moving towards the middle, then so be it.
The sign of a successful compromise is that neither side gets everything that's sought - that neither side is 100% happy. That's what makes the world go 'round. Are Mr. Trump's utterances all sufficiently measured? Are they all thought through with panache and style. It wouldn't seem so. Does that mean that everyone that thinks there's some "there" there is an boorish unthinking oaf? I'm not so sure.
Before finishing up, I do want to weigh in with one prediction. I don't know if Trump beats Clinton. I think it's a close one, but I don't know who wins. I will say this, however - if Bernie Sanders really somehow gets a head of steam, and if the Democrats are unsuccessful at begging (at that point, begging!) Joe Biden to get into the race, Trump will, I think, win this thing by acclimation. I'm not saying that as an anti-Sanders rant or otherwise with any particular ax to grind; I'm just getting an early-in-the-day prediction out there. I acknowledge that the whole Trump-Sanders scenario still seems quite unlikely, but it's worth noting that every element of that scenario was probably widely viewed as being in the realm of all-but-impossible only several months ago.
We're in for quite a ride here, and it's all only just starting. All of us morons and idiots that find something positive about what's going on - I guess we'll just have to try to keep up with all of the fair-minded geniuses who seem to have it all figured out.
