Count Me as Never Trump

There are many reasons to dislike Donald Trump as a candidate.  And as much as I would like to focus on his policies, whatever they really are, I have to take a moment to rehearse some of the more egregious personal attacks that in my mind reveal the utter lack of character necessary for the leader of this nation.

There is a reason I find this exercise necessary.   Politics has gotten ugly in the age of Alinsky.   His “Rules for Radicals” suggests as a legitimate strategy the practice of isolating individuals as figureheads and then demonizing them with lies and ridicule.  It forces them to waste time responding to charges that ultimately have no defense and distracts the rank and file from real issues.  It has been a tactic of the left for years and one I find utterly opposed to the practice of democracy. 

So to see Donald Trump and his minions using such ugly, immoral and unprincipled tactics and using them successfully means that the right side of the political spectrum has sunk to the same gutter as the thugs of the left.  What good is “winning” the Republican nomination if one utterly shreds any principles that once were a normative part of a civilized society built on self-government?  (More)

Trump has managed to insult just about everyone, to the delight of his supporters who want him to fight back against political correctness and media bias.   The problem is that what Trump routinely does is not merely politically incorrect – it is crass, vulgar and repugnant.  And worse as a supposed recent convert to conservatism, Trump betrays his self-proclaimed conversion by trashing fellow conservatives. 

His supporters will defend this by saying “he does what he has to do to win”.  And as Donald constantly reminds us, he is a winner who wins by being the best winner at winning that there is.  I’ll admit, there was a time I smiled a bit when Donald tweaked some liberal reporter or “told it like it is” rather than dancing around with PC jargon.   But there came a point where I said “I can’t support this guy.  Supporting this guy means selling my soul.”  

Here’s a sampling:

Megan Kelly

At an early debate, Trump was asked about his view of women.   Moderator Megyn Kelly noted that he had used words like “pig” and “slut” to describe women in the past.  Are such slurs appropriate for a man seeking the highest office?  Trump responded with a joke about Rosie O’Donnell, but this was the beginning of an ongoing battle with Kelly, where Trump continually singled her out as if no other journalist had dared to ask him a tough question, or no other should.  After the debate, one Trump rant included a veiled reference to her cycle “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever.”  That should have been enough to drop Trump significantly as a candidate, but instead he piled it on as his supporters cheered.  He referred to her as 'Highly overrated & crazy” on Twitter, cancelled a debate appearance that she was to moderate and generally made her the focal point of every negative thing that any media outlet might say about him.

If one were to follow Alinsky tactics, it is an effective strategy (morality and ethics aside) to “pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it”.   Megyn Kelly became the de facto representation of the biased media out to get Donald.  Soon Fox News in general was the enemy, only later would certain talk show hosts at FOX seemingly become mere readers of Trump talking points.

Let’s be clear.  This was intimidation.   This was sending a message.  This was personal, character assassination where "in war, the end can justify almost any means" (Alinsky).  Whether it was Megyn Kelly or some other reporter is irrelevant.  This was thuggery in pursuit of “winning”.   And to a certain degree it has worked, because Trump’s supporters have allowed it to work. 

Carly Fiorina

Megyn was a suitable target as a stand in for the media to bully them into submission, but she was not the only woman to be treated by Trump in a way no woman in a civilized world should be treated.   Rather than attempt to take Carly Fiorina on issue by issue, a battle he would have lost badly, Trump used a tactic that was again boorish and this time probably not all that effective.  His tactic with opponents has been to attach a negative label to them to dismiss them in the eyes of supporters and the unsuspecting.  

Of Fiorina "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" and "I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?” This goes to the heart of Megyn Kelly’s original question – whether Trump has a misogynist attitude toward women.  Fiorina took it in stride and probably gained a fair amount of sympathy over the matter.   But the tactic was both habitual and intentional.  To plant a seed of negativity in the mind of the voter – “this person is not attractive enough to win…” and thus bypass any need to engage a smarter, more prepared candidate on policy. 

  

Ben Carson 
But Trump did not limit his name-calling to women. Ben Carson was an early front runner based on his soft spoken decency and values based approaches to policy questions. In an autobiography, he had recounted a troubled childhood that included a bad temper and violent outbursts, something plenty of young men deal with and which Carson overcame. It was a testimony of honesty and humility and the power of grace. For Trump it was an opening for character assassination.

Speaking of Carson’s autobiography, Trump opined, “It’s in the book that he’s got a pathological temper. That’s a big problem because you don’t cure that…” which would be bad, but the next bit was unconscionable. Trump made a fabricated connection to child abuse. “As an example: child molesting. You don’t cure these people. You don’t cure a child molester. There’s no cure for it. Pathological, there’s no cure for that.”

The effect was to slap a label on Carson as someone who is “unstable”.   Of all the candidates in the race, none was less deserving of such a sickening smear.   Carson likely faded for other reasons, but Trump’s gutter level methods of “winning” were starting to demean even the worst of political excess.

  

Heidi Cruz

After most of the field dropped out, Ted Cruz became Trump’s primary rival.  An odd minor ad from a PAC gave Trump another opening for belligerent misogyny and shame labeling.  Years earlier, in an aborted run for President, Trump’s third wife and fashion model Melania had posed for GQ in a variety of provocative states of undress.  One photo had her handcuffed naked on a fur rug aboard Trump’s private jet.   Back then the photo spread was all in good fun as far as Trump was concerned, good publicity for his campaign.  One of the photo captions in the magazine referred to Melania as a possible future first lady.  

When a PAC that supported Cruz reproduced the photo and the “First Lady” caption in a way that suggested a first lady as sex toy might not go over well in Mormon Utah, Trump went on the attack.  Suddenly the pictures he had previously endorsed and celebrated were a personal attack on him.  He falsely charged that Ted Cruz was behind the ad (a libelous charge of illegality that was never supported) but then went after Cruz’ wife Heidi.  “Lyin' Ted Cruz just used a picture of Melania from a G.Q. shoot in his ad. Be careful, Lyin' Ted, or I will spill the beans on your wife!”

Exactly what “beans” he was threatening to spill are unclear, but this has to be called what it is – a threat on another candidate’s family.  This is the stuff of mafioso lore.  Shortly thereafter Trump showed his complete lack of morals and class by tweeting a flattering picture of his own Melania next to a very unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz, proving Trump had no intention of living by rules he insisted others follow.   Amoral, crass, bullying, thuggery. 

How anyone in the the conservative movement or Republican party can overlook this sort of behavior is beyond me.   Trump should have been finished.  But there was more.

  

Scott Walker

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was at one time a favorite for the Presidential nomination.  As a conservative governor in a Democratic state, he had taken on a bad economy, public debt, fought against public Unions whose clout was one of the sources of the Wisconsin budget problems, and won.  When there was an attempt at a recall, he won again.  Then he was re-elected.   Leftist thugs had camped out in the state capitol and prolonged protests of Walker and he remained steadfast.   In the end, he balanced the budget, made Wisconsin a competitive state that was drawing business to it’s growing economy from neighboring states like Illinois.  His success is what made him a potential candidate for president.  Trump brags about winning constantly.   Walker proved he could win.

One of the most contentious issues had to do with the public schools and teachers unions.  Walker’s initiative allowed school districts to break free of the insurance monopoly that the Unions had forged, saving millions on health care costs.  But Trump took the union line that somehow Walker had gutted the schools.   Worse, he claimed Walker should have raised taxes. 

While campaigning in Wisconsin, Trump regurgitated the false talking points of the left.   “Wisconsin’s doing terribly…First of all it’s in turmoil. The roads are a disaster because they don’t have any money to rebuild them. They’re borrowing money like crazy. They projected a $1 Billion surplus and it turns out to be a deficit of $2.2 billion deficit.”

And the deficit charge was untrue.  A projected $2.2 billion deficit was in play in 2014, but state law requires the budget to be balanced and there never was an actual deficit.  When a radio host called Trump on the lie, he blamed a magazine.  

Ted Cruz won Wisconsin.  Trump’s tactics failed in this case.  But I have to ask, what conservative would support a candidate who opposes the success of a conservative governor?  Worse, what conservative would support a candidate who lies about the success of a conservative governor?

  

Lying about Colorado

Once the loss in Wisconsin sunk in, Trump realized he had to deal with Ted Cruz.   As usual, the method he would use involved slapping a demeaning label the enemy and telling baldfaced lies to support it, something Trump’s supporters seem quite happy to accept if not condone.  Every state in the union has different rules for awarding presidential delegates to the Republican Convention.  Some states award delegates proportionally based on a primary.  Some award all delegates to the winner.  Some use Caucuses. 

Colorado in years past had used a primary that was essentially a “straw poll”.  It was not binding.   The delegates were selected with the poll in mind, but selected by regional caucuses.   Because of some shenanigans in an earlier contest, and because of the cost, the state cancelled the straw poll for this election cycle, something everyone should have known going in.  The straw poll was unbinding and the real “vote” was in the caucuses, so cancelling the straw poll would have had practically no effect. 

Ted Cruz sent his well organized political machine into Colorado and lobbied for delegates hard.  In the end he walked away with the mother lode.   Trump’s team was disorganized and seemingly caught off guard.   But the Alinsky strategy would have its effect in the aftermath.

Trump accused Cruz and the Republican establishment of stealing, not from him, but from the voters.  "The people of Colorado had their vote taken away from them by the phony politicians," Trump tweeted. "Biggest story in politics. This will not be allowed!" 

Of course this is a complete falsehood.   No votes were stolen.  No rules were changed at the last minute.  Trump and his people knew, or should have known, that winning in Colorado meant campaigning at the caucus level.   Cruz did absolutely nothing but what any candidate should have done, what Trump should have done.   Yet Trump’s narrative of disenfranchising voters became the talking point on countless media outlets and left the impression that Cruz was doing something dishonest and that the system was rigged.  Rush Limbaugh claimed it was a brilliant strategy and in may have dampened any momentum Cruz might have had in New York and other eastern states.

By this time my mind had already been made up about Donald Trump.

Blaming Bush for 9-11

Prior to Wisconsin and Colorada, Trump made a statement that for me was the very last straw.  In debating with Jeb Bush as foreign policy and terrorism came up, Trump went full Michael Moore.

“The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign. Remember that," he said to Bush.  Later he doubled down, "The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush.”

Liberals have been bashing GW Bush for so many years with false charges, outright lies and a fair amount of covering of their own tracks.   Bush had been in office less than a year, and any mistakes and missed signals about terror attacks on our soil were due to intelligence failures that began well before Bush’s election.  Clinton era management of intelligence agencies had set up walls between agencies that prevented communication.  Even so, the only people to blame for 9-11 are the terrorists.  This smear of a former president along the lines of the worst left wing fever dreams convinced me Trump is as far removed from Presidential material as anyone.  9-11 was one of the most gut wrenching events in the history of this country and to use it as a political hammer to beat down an opponent, particularly with unreasonable and false claims, is contemptible.

Why is Trump Still Here?
I know now that much of Trump’s support comes from the “Alternative right” a loose collection of younger political geeks who are primarily devoted to restoring “white European” ideals, delineating differences between the races, isolationism and questioning constitutional democracy itself.  Their presence unfortunately gives legitimacy to the charge that Trump himself is a racist and will certainly hurt him in the general election.  But at least I understand why that fringe group supports him. 

What I do not understand is how anyone who claims to be a conservative in the general flow of that conservatism once associated to Ronald Reagan or the Party once associated to Abraham Lincoln can ever support a candidate as unethical, uncouth, narcissistic, crass and opposed to many of the ideals of conservatism itself as Donald Trump.   The evangelical pastors and leaders who have embraced and endorsed him have done a tremendous disservice to their constituents.  

But I can only speak for myself at this point.   Because I live in a state that will almost certainly go to the Democrats, my vote really won’t mean much in November.   I will say that I will never in a million years vote for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.   But I have to say I will not soil myself by voting for Donald Trump either.  For the first time since I have been old enough to vote, I may stay home.