- Trump is a front man, but he's not a political philosopher. He's less concerned about underlying theories and more concerned about what might work. For all his faults, he understands that governing is the job, but he's willing, even eager to delegate much of the day-to-day work to subordinates. Many of his subordinates are excellent; they are the ones who the MSM doesn't discuss much.
- Every Democrat in the race wants to rule, not govern. They all have, to varying degrees, a political philosophy and a particular approach to communicating that philosophy, but every one of them wants to rule.
That's the choice. It's been the choice for a while now, but at this point the differences couldn't be more stark.
9 comments:
I've always said that Trump is first and foremost a problem-solver. Thank Heaven. Democrats don't want to solve problems and have no tolerance for those who do.
The best distinction I have heard is that the Democrats are cats, and Trump has the laser pointer.
what we are seeing is much what i was expecting/hoping to see when i voted for him.
he doesnt run Trump International, or whatever its called. he's the front man for it. he provides the vision, where he wants it to go and what he wants to be done... and hires the best he can find to make it happen... and fires at will those who are not getting it done.
he runs his Presidency the same way. as needs change, staff is replaced.
he's a bottom line type of guy.
and he's having the time of life doing it.
God bless him.
(the vision of cats vs a laser pointer is spot on, Jerry)
I agree with Gino and I do like the cat analogy as well.
Trump is continuing the processes he used to achieve his personal success and like Gino points out he is a bottom-line guy. If something is working he doesn't mess with it, if one of his subordinates disagrees with his approach he/she is gone.
"...but every one of them wants to rule." That has kind of been the mainstream political thought this century. It certainly was the operating principle with Obama and to a great extent with Bush/Cheney (or was it the other way around?).
he's not as autocratic as he seems. towers are built by listening to what engineers and architects have to say, and the two usually dont mix well.
one thing that is evident from the beginning, somebody is always there to reign in his impulses... that means he's listening to experts, and he's not afraid to surround himself with them. thats how towers are built.
I agree. Trump is just the face out in front. We can debate how that's being done, but there's no point to it. It is also why I say that he's done a good job of staying out of the way of the economy. The tariffs are another matter for another discussion, but other than that the best job on the economic front that a prez can do when it's humming is to let it alone.
I'm not sure that there are any of them that run on either side that don't want to rule. That level of success requires an awful lot of sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies that us here closer to somewhere towards the middle and bottom are lucky enough not to see or have to do. For a long time now the policies of both parties have been for a two class system of the rulers and the ruled. That's how the rest of the world is. It's pretty much how they're raised.
There's such a wide field. And a large degree of to what extreme they want to rule. When someone feels that they have to make that much change it takes a lot of rule in order to get there. Religion used to keep the masses in check in the US. It's lost a lot of it's sway. Now the options are government or business.
The state will be secular in their way of handling things. Business will be amoral in how they do it. Have we reached the size of a nation in population that requires authoritarianism? We're not quite as big as China, or India. We're larger than Russia, and they've been using that system for a long time now. China has as well.
Even if the nationalists had won the Chinese Civil War, they'd still be using the authoritarianism that was used before and after them. Do you prefer fascism or marxism? I'm going to go with the latter. I'd rather live in France than in 1950's Spain. We're also much larger, more diverse in land, resources, people, types of people than Marxist Nations in Europe. True Marxism hasn't been tried yet as countries in Europe have been the closest.
But the fact that we're made up of the rest of the world purging itself of the bottom half of it's population for the last five hundred years, I say that we hold off on that as long as we can. We're not going to be the first to get it right. There had to be a bloodbath for independence. One so that some parts of the population stopped owning other portions of the population and stopped using them as slave labor. The list goes on every single time that a group has wanted to be more equal to everyone else in the country. We have a dark past and bills come due. I just hope that it's not on my watch, and I'm glad that I didn't have any offspring.
I still agree with the story that this started as a publicity stunt. That was over four years ago. He can get credit for trying different ways. But if they show that they're not working they need to be altered as to how they're being handled. It's always going to be handled by a man that doesn't think that there's such a thing as bad press. That may not ever become easy to digest.
At the risk of revealing too much, I relate to Trump and think I understand him. He has been an observer, victim and collaborator with government for much of his life. He's now richer than Croesus, has about everything a man could want, and is at an age when he has to retire or find some other challenge. He is a natural problem solver and what bigger problem than the liberal-plagued USA? You notice he gives his Presidential salary to charity? Why would he do that? I don't think it's ego, I think it is a real desire to solve the problem and get something done. A liberal would say he's "giving back" but I think he sees it as being the best man for the job and so far, I think he's right.
True Marxism hasn't been tried yet as countries in Europe have been the closest.
Nope, it's been tried in every instance. Human nature being what it is, it fails, because you cannot force altruism. People are selfish and venal and provincial. Humans are humans, and any system of government that tries to alter the nature of humans is inevitably going to become a tyranny.
I think some distinctions, both theoretical and practical, need to be made. Marxism is socialism "on the way to" communism. True communism-- everybody pitching in for the common good, hasn't been tried except in early Roman Christian cells and a few old hippie communes. When bound by the common, strong faith (esp. Christian), it works for small, tight-knit groups. The minute the group becomes too large, or other opportunities present, it fails. Socialism-- ownership and dictatorship by "the State"-- has been tried many times and it always fails because those few at the top, while getting most of the goodies for themselves, cannot possibly be smart enough to manage millions of other human beings in their personal economic lives. The harder they try, the worse it becomes, aka Venezuela. It can be sustained only with a massive use of force and control. Humans are naturally out for themselves first and their family second, and that is what makes theoretical socialism (leading to communism) a wonderful social system but, practically, a terrible economic system. It is what makes capitalism the wonderful economic system that it is, but leaving something to be desired as a social system. Our forefathers had the right idea, of having just enough government to keep us from harming one another, as we sought personal economic freedom and gain. Now, we have a bunch of socialists thinking they can improve on that? FOOLS!
I can agree that humanity is the problem. And in, and with everything. Hopefully climate change isn't the answer to the problem.
Only Trump would know why he donates his salary to charity.
Venezuela was kind of a one trick pony. When OPEC drove up production, it drove prices down. Taking the economy of Venezuela down as it didn't have anything outside of a few other small sectors that weren't near enough to prop up the economy in that nation.
Post a Comment