Part 3/7 of this series on the primary candidates
- What is there to love? Donald Trump is charming, and though I disapprove of him, I want him to like me. How does he do that? Like everyone else, I appreciate the absence of political correctness. And I love that he’s bringing back the word “classy”.
- What is there to hate? The childish insults wouldn’t fly so well for our diplomatic relationships with other countries. Telling people what they want to hear without bothering to share any actual plans does not make America great again. Unless just repeating that phrase will actually do the work. In which case, we’re halfway there.
- What is there to fear? I fear The People than The Donald, should he become president. Trump is now a serious contender for the nomination and the presidency, and has established a cult of personality. Yet he appears scant on actual qualifications. It’s like the president we have now. The only people who really dislike Obama are those who oppose him on policy grounds. Everyone else is sort of tepid about him, and in 2008 and 2012, they voted for him because he was charming. Similarly, the far ends of the spectrum are horrified by the idea of a Trump presidency. Everyone who is moderate, disaffected, votes on less popular issues, or is just uninterested will vote for him because he’s charming. They might go along with anything, because he’s charming. He could easily slip into demagoguery.
- What does it mean if he wins? Who is most frightened of a Trump presidency? The mainstream media and the Establishment: their considerable power is at stake. Why is the media lashing out so frantically? Because they usually choose our presidents. Once they decide on one candidate, they write creative headlines about the other contenders, like “Candidate X Campaign in Downward Spiral” or “Public No Longer Believes Candidate Y is Viable”. We assume it’s true and act accordingly, so it becomes true. That’s a lot of power, and it’s failing with Trump. Bad news for the Establishment too – the whole Establishment (Democrats and Republicans) – because it means most people would rather take a wild gamble on someone with no relevant experience than rely on one more insider of either party.