Saturday, January 30, 2016

Election Fatigue Continued

At this point it seems to me that there are three eternal candidates for the position of Emperor of the US.  Thankfully they aren't leading armies, nor do I think they would be able to correctly identify an army - or at least their own army - so we will leave that aside as something that needn't be worried about.  What I really want to do is to consider the character of the candidates as I see it so far and try to see to what degree they fit with the temper of the electorate.

1. Hillary.  I don't understand why she hasn't given up yet, but she certainly has her supporters.  At a restaurant a few days ago a young man was heard praising her as the best candidate to his son because of her vast "experience".  Certainly I can agree that she has plenty of experience.  But then again, so does an old tigress who stumbles into an unguarded flock of sheep.  El Chapo would be a serious candidate for the "experience" category, as would Ghengis Khan.  My impression so far is that Hillary has gone through life never doing anything in an honest and legal manner if dishonest and illegal option that accomplished the same end were available.  After all, doing things honestly and legally is boring.  The adrenaline rush comes with pushing the limits of illegality, while success in dishonesty puffs up the ego like nothing else.  Thus, for much of America she is truly the ultimate candidate:  We know the system is out to get us and we must do everything possible to get what we want.  This includes the older angry feminist lobby, but somehow it seems to includes a broader part of America, as the young man's praise for Hillary testifies.

2. Bernie.  There is a large portion of America that deem themselves to be "progressives", which is to say that they want to move forward to something like the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, or maybe the Paris Commune.  They fully approve of all the policies of the government in Venezuela, but disavow all of the consequences.  Given that the large majority of the filthy rich are Democrats who are regular guests at the White House, they suspect that the perennial attacks on the rich by the Obama/Hillary sorts are, um, not fully sincere. Then along came Bernie with a purer message of revenge against the "rich", who was not at the same time clearly tainted by the rich.  For the gullible progressives, this is a message so attractive that its time has clearly come.  Even though Bernie is almost a fossil, his supporters tend to be younger sorts who have not yet understood that to be successful in raging against the rich, you must engage in pay-to-play with the rich.

3. Trump.  I doubt that anyone understands Trump, including his mother.  But we can make a few observations.  It has been said that Trump has embraced every possible political and non-political opinion, together with their negations, if you look long enough through time.  This guarantees that he will offend Leftists, RINOs, conservatives, atheists, agnostics, and religious fanatics.  Since Leftists always scream the loudest, this has certainly perked up my ears.  Can it really be that there is a candidate out there who dares to offend Leftists?  But then Trump's "tough leader" mentality comes in and he dishes out the rhetoric in return at anyone who picks a fight with him.  It is certainly effective if no one can fight back.  At this point I suspect there are a number of corrupt lawyers and judges who are salivating at the prospect of bringing him under control.  What seems to me to be the important feature in linking Trump to the voters is Syncretistic Fundamentalism.  This is the belief that not only can we embrace mutually opposite opinions, but we must loudly do this and take it to an extreme.  Yes, America is Free Market, and a curse on anyone who says otherwise.  But we are also Socialist and Communist with the same degree of certainty.  We are passionate about being the most free people who have ever lived.  Yet we have more laws than the rest of the world combined and the list is growing exponentially, which is proof of our greatness as well.  Obama may have remarked about "False Choices", but Trump has taken the ideology of "no false choices" to an entirely new level.

So my conclusion is that Trump is really the right leader for America, because Syncretistic Fundamentalism is an all pervasive ideology in contemporary America, embraced by the left, the right, the middle, the conservatives, the liberals, the living and the dead.  Hillary and Bernie may do well to a degree, but they will always be niche candidates.  To lead America as America collectively wants to be led, we need Trump.


Rummuser said...

As I write this the IOWA results are in and Trump is the loser to Cruz. For the democrats the field is still a close race for Bernie and Hilary.

It does not affect me one way or the other, but I find the whole process quite interesting and people like Trump and Sarah Palin bring a lot of huymour to the process.

At the end of it all, democracy wins. Or does it?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is in India just now and I quote from an interview that appeared in this morning's paper!

Trump seems to symbolise intolerance.

No. Look at what he said about Mexico -`they send us their prisoners and they keep their good people'.But it was overblown. It's true though that his idea was stupid. The second thing he said `let us stop Muslims from coming until we figure out' and the word `until we figure out' was not picked up in the media. The idea may be stupid but the point is that he is misrepresented. So the press prices itself out of the market in a way by not presenting Trump's ideas in full. From the beginning I have been saying that the press is in denial over Trump. I will prefer to have (Trump) in Washington than Hillary
Why not Hillary?

It is about nepotism. She represents crony capitalism at its worst. (Bill) Clinton is the reverse Modi. Clinton is someone who loves money. You go as President and you make money by talking. That's not on. You have to get used to the idea of having Donald Trump in the White House. Someone who has come from the outside. Modi is an outsider to the system too... he comes and crashes it. Trump will do exactly the same. He said: `I don't owe lobbyists a penny'.

Looney said...

My view on Democracy follows the classical Greeks: It will eventually commit suicide as liberty is only understood to mean licentiousness. There is also the secular-atheist forces which fight incessantly for the belief that the government is obligated to promote destructive behavior in society in order to prove that we aren't a Christian theocracy.

Your commentator Taleb seems to be pretty accurate. The left has a long history of demonizing their political opponents, so their demonizing of Trump is largely due to their fear of him. Hillary has the additional problem that all of the dozen or so scandals of the Clinton presidency (+Benghazi) were Hillary scandals, with the sole exception of the blue dress!

Ursula said...

Your post made me smile. Not least because you are the most intriguing blogger I have encountered. Half the time I suspect you are actually making fun of everything and everyone, not least your readers. With you I feel my intelligence being tested all the way, till it [my intelligence] finds its natural limits. At which point, not defeated but with tail on half mast, I retreat to the cave.

Anyway, let's just stick with face value. It is, naturally, refreshing to hear an American (not least one from Silicon Valley) speak so candidly. I declare my hand. I like the Clintons. Both of them. Imagine Hillary got in - we'll have Bill back. And anyway, Looney, please do trust me on this one: Looks are important. Both the Clintons are "lookers". You don't tire of them. Not that I "watch" the news, but still. Trump? Trump is a disgrace. Forget politics and embarrassing himself when he opens his mouth. He looks awful. What you want in politics, not least a democracy, is people with charisma. JFK - for all we know - might have been a .... par excellence yet, by golly, he was a statesman. He had stature. Like Adenauer did. And Brand and Helmut Schmidt. And the French. And Thatcher. And Hitler.Mussolini being a footnote on my history book shelf - not least, to my father's chagrin, one of my nephews (his grandson) being christened Benito.

And then there is Putin. Who knows his inner workings. But a STATESman he is.

Please do not discard me. Yet.


Looney said...

Dear U,

Not sure what to make of all that. My working theory is that all people have roughly the same intelligence. Speaking for myself, what I have in excess in one area of the brain is made up for with a short fall in other parts. God is just. Since Jean and I both worked at physics labs, we can testify that this is a wide spread phenomenon.

But I think U have a point with the Clintons: Bill's expert management will be needed for the interns, which Hillary will no doubt encourage. The White House florist will be framed for a crime she didn't do, and the White House IT services will be subcontracted to China's intelligence agencies in exchange for a small contribution to the Clinton charity. This will provide endless hours of entertainment on the news channels. My main hope is that Hillary will pick Monica Lewinsky as her running mate, but we will need to see how this develops.

As for discarding, I turned down a UK visit in May due to schedule conflicts. But you are still on my "must visit" list!

Max Coutinho said...

Hi Looney,

1. I agree with every single word you said on Ms Clinton.

2. Bernie is a dangerous man. Did you read about his thesis on how women fantasise about being gang-raped? That allied to his socialist views exposes him as a dangerous leader. But given the fact that his supporters are college young people who perhaps share the same beliefs on rape...

3. oh comments.

G-d Help the United States of America.


Have a blessed weekend

Looney said...

Howdy Max,

Hoping you are having a restful Shabbat!

Don't know much about Bernie, but what you describe sounds vaguely like Marx's notion of common ownership of women. Being a "progressive" meant some sort of pre-prehistoric tribal view where the women were owned in common by all the males. Then the alpha male system came along and took them all the women as his exclusive property, and a later vile capitalist society developed where each male held a female as his private possession. Although Marxian notions would reverse the order of this. There might be a few other male-female relationship models out there, but I don't think any of them exist in the Marxist theological universe. Unfortunately I know some women who are enamored with Bernie.

Have you pondered much Exodus 32? I tend to think that leaders usually adapt to the desires of the people.

Max Coutinho said...


I did have a restful Shabbat, indeed. Thank you.

I didn't know much about Bernie Sanders either, and when I tried to I came across very weird information. Here's one of the pieces I stumbled upon

Your description of Marx's notion of common ownership of women is just about right. I was discussing that same thing last Friday with a person who experienced the same under the Marxist-Socialist regime led by the Mozambican Liberation Front (FRELIMO) since they gained independence in 1975; and she described exactly the same thing (she was wondering how come young people today, especially women who call themselves feminists, claim to be socialist or communist - the answer is simple, they never experienced it in the flesh).

Looney, I ponder on Exodus 32 everyday (when I look at society, when I look at my Jewish leftist brothers and sisters). Leaders who adapt to the desires of people are not leaders, are puppets.

שבוע טוב, חבר

Delirious said...

I saw a short video clip where they asked Sanders supporters to describe Hillary in one word. It was a little frightening, but telling, that many of them couldn't understand the directions.
I don't know if I can stick to one word, but here is my take in as few of words as possible.
Bernie: socialist with an entitlement mentality
Hillary: dishonest washed up, feminist wannabe
Trump: narcissitic, but no pushover

My favorite is Marco Rubio, but I think he has been largely overlooked by most Americans. But I will vote for whichever Republican nominee is chosen. I lived through the split vote with Ross Perot. I'd rather live with eccentric Trump than live through another Clinton dynasty, or see Sanders turn our country socialist.

Looney said...

@Delirious, if I choose to vote, it will probably be for Trump. Not that I like him in any way, but simply because that I am convinced that the Democrat party's principle objective is to turn America into a Sodomite Theocracy so that they can send as many people off to the eternal Hell as possible. Now if only Trump weren't so tongue tied ...