Why are We Letting Anyone In?


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Many in the UK have been outraged (and often simultaneously amused) this past week by the arrival on our shores of a batch of Calais asylum seekers billed as unaccompanied ‘children’, yet who are in appearance seemingly well over the age of 20. As bizarre and brazen (and obvious) as the fraud appears to be, I think this outrage somehow misses the point. The bigger scandal – and the one worth focussing one’s anger on – is that asylum seekers are being allowed into Britain at all.

What obligation does Britain have – legally or morally – to those refugees (if they are indeed refugees) stationed in the safe, democratic nation of France? None is the answer, and no-one can (or has even attempted to) reasonably argue otherwise.

As opponents of asylum fraud are right to consistently point out, a central principle (even if not a law) holds that refugees should settle in the first available safe haven they come across that is willing and able to accommodate them. To illustrate this idea with reference to Syria, a refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Turkey has no right to demand entry into Greece. A refugee from ISIS-controlled territory who has been accepted into Lebanon has no right to demand entry into Cyprus, and so on. If the purpose of emigration is, as stated, to avoid violence, war or persecution, then only in the first accommodating nation can asylum be rightfully claimed. Should the refugee flee from one safe haven to another, that is called migration and no country is duty bound to facilitate it.

This isn’t a very difficult principle to understand – and, to be sure, most ordinary folk do understand it, which is partly why the Calais Jungle infants have been so poorly and unsympathetically received.

Now, I am an Islamophobe – no doubt about that. I despise the Islamic religion with a white-hot passion. I’m also not over-keen on the adherents of the Islamic religion. Nevertheless, I am, like the reader will be, a moral person, or at the very least someone with a moral sense. We do have an obligation as human beings to ensure that the innocent do not suffer any preventable evil. 

To help the Syrian people, Donald Trump has endorsed a workable and perfectly logical initiative. Allied forces, he says, should carve out a safe-zone in Syria into which the innocent can flee while the conflict burns itself out. This would not be difficult to achieve. Though Assad and ISIS would inevitably object to the idea, both forces have been so degraded that neither is capable of mounting an effective resistance.

Turkey, rich in manpower and arms, must be told to do the work on the ground or face expulsion from NATO. The Gulf States, especially Saudi Arabia, must be made to cough up the money to support the campaign or face a year-long suspension of Western arms sales. This is the solution. Let’s pursue it.

As for the Calais ‘children’, Britain and the West are under no rightful obligation to take in anyone. No asylum seeker, not one, whether from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan or the Congo, should be allowed to settle here. And we have every right to expect our government to prevent them from doing so.


Perfectionland: Notes on Nihon


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I wasn’t in Japan for long – only five days – but it was enough to appreciate the essence of the place. The country, as I had expected to discover, is a marvel; remarkable, thrilling, inspiring and blessed with so many natural advantages that it leaves one feeling furiously envious. The people I met were beautiful and ultra-civilised – if also slightly robotic. The climate was milder than I expected (having previously visited unbearably humid South Korea). The natural environment (and especially the trees) I found dazzlingly attractive. And though I am not a ‘weeaboo’ by any stretch of the imagination, I did come away with a newfound appreciation for manga and J-Pop (especially the bizarre girl-group AKB48 – seriously look them up).

I have, of course, always understood the Western fetish for East Asia and for Japan in particular. The appeal of homogenous, orderly and affluent societies to those stranded in multiculturalised urban jungles is perfectly obvious. Japan is a dream of faultlessness; a magical perfectionland, where the girls are thin and pretty, the IQs are through the roof and crime and disorder are almost entirely absent. Who could fail to be attracted to that?

It is revealing that many of the leading luminaries of the Western far-right have had personal experience of Japan. The current leader of the white nationalist British National Party (BNP) Adam Walker, for example, spent many years  there teaching English to children. Jared Taylor, leader of the neo-segregationist website American Renaissance, also spent many years living in the country and speaks the language fluently. This makes a lot of sense to me.

A Western citizen exposed to Japan for a considerable period of time will inevitably come to resent the fact that his or her own country has gone down such a different, self-destructive path. Why can’t England be like Japan? Why can’t London be like Tokyo? Exposure to Japan can by itself turn a liberal into a reactionary.

Of course, there is no new shift in policy available to us that can make England into Japan or London into Tokyo, and any effort to bring such changes about will be a failure (and a bloody one at that). This is because Japan has dodged the bullet of decline for reasons that are inherently Japanese.

First, Japan has always been insular. Indeed, prior to the Meiji restoration, Japan maintained the strictest policy of cultural isolation in human history, even at times forbidding its citizenry the right to leave the archipelago on pain of death. Second, Japanese people are, on average, smarter than Europeans by two to three IQ points. This is not an insignificant difference and it has real-world consequences. Finally, Japanese men have lower levels of testosterone than Europeans, meaning that libertinism, crimes of aggression (and increasingly even reproduction) are much rarer there than in other parts of the world.

Given that Europeans cannot become Japanese simply by changing national policy, those who (like Jared Taylor and Adam Walker) dream of importing Japanese advantages into the West are sadly deluded. The best we can do is envy them quietly and try not to get too depressed.


Ann Coulter: “In Trump We Trust”


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The beautiful and tack-sharp Ann Coulter continues to rise in my estimation. Here, the long-legged conservative goddess discusses her latest book “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome”.


Lily Allen’s Shocking Naivety


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lily Allen

I quite like the pop singer Lily Allen. Not her music, you understand, just her. She is roughly the same age as me and I have always found her pleasantly, if also unconventionally, attractive.

Now, with such irrelevant information out of the way, I must say I was stunned, though not surprised, by the news that Allen had been reduced to apologising for her country during a visit to the notorious Calais ‘Jungle’ migrant camp last week.

In case you’ve yet to hear of this incident, Allen, faced with a war-weary Afghan teenager, declared that she was ashamed of Britain for not letting in the teeming hordes currently massed (illegally) on France’s Northern coast, making these remarks through a veil of tears and tear-dampened blonde hair. Later, in conversation with the British press, Allen remarked (presumably seriously) that she would even be prepared to have a refugee stay with her at her personal residence in England.

The UK backlash against Allen’s remarks has been predictably harsh. In the right-leaning papers, critics have lined up to pour cold water on Allen’s dippy sentiments, as well as to explain that the singer knows little to nothing about the realities of the Calais crisis and its multiple backgrounds.

“(Allen) was merely repeating the canards of her arty liberal chums” Zoe Strimpel wrote in the Telegraph “who – despite never venturing outside their own intellectual and social cosmos – are sure that everyone who doesn’t see the world as they do, and especially anyone who voted for Brexit, is a bigoted fool. To reduce the web of direness behind the ongoing migration surge to a simple matter of Western culpability is plainly idiotic. It shows painfully limited understanding of the catalogue of political and human horrors that predated, and indeed motivated, Western intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq…And to weepily lay the situation in Calais purely at Britain’s door was a severe misfiring of sentimentality. Crying in the face of human suffering is one thing. But crying on national TV while telling the audience that their country – merely by trying to control its borders – is cruelly causing the misery of innocents is quite another.”

Personally, I was less struck by Ms Allen’s weak grasp of the political-economic background of the migrant crisis than with her shocking naivety in relation to the religion of Islam and the nature of those currently attempting to force their way into the British Isles. For a young, beautiful Englishwoman such as Allen to offer to take in young (almost always male) Muslim refugees displays a terrifying disregard for her own safety. Can you imagine (do you even need to imagine) what would happen if Allen allowed a 16-20 year old Afghan male to move into her personal residence? True, we cannot say for sure, but I don’t believe it is bigoted of me to speculate that sexual advances would almost be made by the new arrival – and that, should they be rebuffed, sexual violence might well follow.

What will it take for our best and brightest to understand that they are being conned by the lowest elements in the human species? What will it take for Western women to understand that the weeping masses huddled in tents along the French coast are not like the Jews who fled Nazi Germany; that they are rather wolves imitating sheep; devils imitating angels? What will it take?

Several commenters under the articles reporting Allen’s comments in Calais have delighted in speculating the fate that would await her should she follow through on her deranged offer of sanctuary. I don’t believe we should be so cold-hearted. Allen is a good person. She has simply fallen victim to a dangerous lie peddled by a negligent, dishonest media. The blame, should Allen’s words inspire some young girl to expose herself to danger, lies ultimately with them.


In Praise of South Park


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


I was thirteen years old when the adult animation South Park premiered on UK television. I remember the kids at school being immensely excited by it, a feeling to which I quickly succumbed myself. It seemed altogether new, even revolutionary. To our childish minds, the obscenity and scatological humour of the first season was ingenious, interesting, bold. It was like the Simpsons, but for bad people, those who find humour in darkness and the depraved.

It took me only a couple of years to become bored of South Park’s provocative style. Upon leaving school, I suddenly seemed to find that jokes about excrement and boobies were no longer novel or amusing. Without any taboos left to break South Park lost much of its power and appeal.

When I recently returned to watching the series (upon the recommendation of friends), I was pleased to discover that the show has changed considerably since my high school days. The humour, characterisation and mission of the series has matured and evolved into something intelligent and even vital. It seems South Park is these days less concerned with flatulence and breasts (although both of these remain features) than with political and cultural criticism, particularly of the faux-liberal and regressive Leftist worldview so exhaustively advertised and endorsed by other sitcoms and satires.

Uniquely among shows of its kind, South Park has pursued of late an admirably consistent libertarian rationalism; one that could be hardly any more different from the hypocritical conformity of rival programs like Family Guy and The Simpsons. Against convention, the show has ridiculed the mob-mentality of political correctness, the lethal denial of Islamic aggression, and the damaging excesses of environmentalist and egalitarian dogmatism.

So impressive has this radicalism become, in fact, that a real-world political tendency has been attributed to the show’s influence. The phrase ‘South Park Republican’ is now well understood and defined in circles of political commentary. The phrase denotes those who, while they are opposed to the more absurd and outdated aspects of social conservatism (such as blind opposition to gay rights, marijuana use and open sexuality), nevertheless believe that the right isn’t wrong about the economic and ideological fundamentals – for example, the fact that Western World is superior and infinitely preferable to the Third World, that capitalism is superior and infinitely preferable to communism, and that ‘racism’ – as a word and concept – is largely empty of meaning and routinely abused for cynical political gain.

Unsurprisingly, South Park’s approach has not passed without controversy. On numerous occasions the cartoon has been roundly condemned by journalists and network executives alike for overstepping the boundaries of the acceptable. Perhaps most famous of these occasions concerned the episode ‘Cartoon Wars’, which featured (or intended to feature) an animated caricature of the Prophet Muhammad alongside renderings of other religious figures such as Jesus and Buddha. Despite the plot of the episode being relatively benign toward the Islamic Prophet (or at least no more mocking or malicious than toward the other featured characters), Comedy Central (the company behind the show) declined to air the episode without the condition that Muhammad be completely obscured behind a black rectangle.

It doesn’t really matter that South Park ‘lost’ in that instance. Their attempt at religious satire exposed a very real hypocrisy in the liberal media. We are better off for them having tried.

I believe South Park’s willingness to fill in the gaps left by more politically correct shows like Family Guy is almost certainly the reason for its continued success. In a world where sacred cows are too often left unbutchered, bravery of this kind will always be worthy of praise and attention.


Trump’s Best Speech (So Far)


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ICYMI, this was Trump’s best speech of the campaign so far. He placed his candidacy in the broader historical moment, justifying the extraordinary nature of his platform.


Trump and the Tape


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


As regular visitors to this blog will be aware, I have written in support of the candidacy of Donald J Trump ever since he announced his run back in 2015. In the intervening period, the myriad accusations and denigrations offered by the mainstream media have done little or nothing to diminish this support. I have found that the Republican has been treated grotesquely unfairly by the press and most – if not all – of the arguments against his election have been based in soft, muddy ground.

However, I am not a fanatic, nor a devotee. Trump is not my God and my enthusiasm is conditional. I have always been prepared to criticise him in the face of troubling evidence. And troubling new evidence – about his character and judgement – has now arrived.

To go over the basics, Trump’s campaign was dealt a terrible blow on Friday with the release by the (pro-Clinton) Washington Post of video/audio tape depicting the Republican nominee making crass and idiotic remarks about the fairer sex. Here is a transcript of the most controversial parts:

Trump: I moved on her, actually. You know, she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.

Billy Bush: Whoa.

Bush: I did try and fuck her. She was married.

Bush: That’s huge news.

Trump: I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping… She wanted to get some furniture. I said, “I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.” I took her out furniture — I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

…Trump: I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Billy Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

To be clear from the start, these comments shouldn’t mean anything politically. They were not made openly (that is, publically) and nor were they made by a man contemporaneously engaged in a political campaign (the comments are from 2005). However, there is no respect paid to ‘shoulds’ in politics and certainly not in this Alice-in-Wonderland election. The comments do matter, therefore, and will make a political impression. They are already being seen as a window into Trump’s character, into who he really is behind the spray-on tan and oratorical polish. It hasn’t been quite enough to say that Trump was joking, or that the comments merely represent the kind of ‘locker room talk’ all men engage in away from the earshot of women. Trump is not running to be the president of a student fraternity. He is running to be leader of the free world.

Still from the tape depicting Trump with TV personality Billy Bush in 2005

Still from the tape depicting Trump with TV personality Billy Bush in 2005

Trump’s remarks are also offensive to his own base in a way his previous remarks have not been. As Avik Roy put it in Forbes magazine – “Few Republican lawmakers have Muslim relatives. Few Republican lawmakers are of Mexican heritage. Few Republican lawmakers have faced discrimination based on the colour of their skin. But all of them have white female relatives. And therefore, when Trump talks about grabbing white women by the genitals, they can directly relate.”

But does the tape spell the end for Trump’s chances of election? That is the million dollar question being relentlessly repeated by every media outlet this (Sunday) afternoon. The answer surely depends on what happens tonight in St Louis, Missouri. How will Trump deal with the tape at the debate? Will he deal with it at all, or ignore it (and hope that his opponent ignores it, too)?

Personally, I think it is vital that he does deal with it – and quickly and decisively enough that the rest of the debate is left clear for a debate on policy. Whatever the first question put to Trump is, he should politely request an opportunity to first make a brief and heartfelt apology (in addition to the inadequate one already issued) to the nation and women in particular for his reported indiscretions.

He should most definitely not attempt to get even by going after Clinton’s past family issues, since this will only invite retaliation against his own rather dubious marital record. The priority must be to return the centre-point of gravity to policy and ideology.

America is still a majority-Christian country, one that emphasises the value and importance of forgiveness and being ‘born again’. If Trump is to get out of this quagmire alive, he will need to convince the believing section of society in particular that his sense of shame is real and sincere. This cannot be achieved with surface gestures, but only with spontaneous and heartfelt emotion. Put simply, Trump will need to apologise and mean it.

It’s not just you. I also sense a real injustice as to how all this is playing out. I still believe that Trump has been the victim of massively disproportionate media opprobrium this past nine months. He has invited much of this, but certainly not all of it. The shabbiness and murky dishonesty of Hillary Clinton has been hardly mentioned in any of the major newspapers or television networks (with the exception of Fox News), while even the tiniest of blemishes upon Trump’s record has been magnified to the highest possible definition. This simply isn’t fair. The odds are stacked in one corner’s favour.

It is worth reminding ourselves what exactly is at stake in this election, lest all this irrelevant nonsense lead us to forget it. We (the West) are a glittering civilisation at war with barbaric filth. We are being challenged violently by people who would force us to regress centuries in science, women’s rights and economic and philosophical clarity. Yes, Trump is goonish, unrefined and often stupid. But he is also strong, unrelenting and brave. Even if he is about to implode, we need not be ashamed at having put our faith in him.


About the Debate (and the Weather)


, , , , , , , , , ,


Given that the British weather is currently rapid-cycling through all four seasons on an hourly basis, I’ve unsurprisingly contracted a bug of some kind. I intended to write a lengthy analysis of the debate last Monday, but instead I’ll just offer some brief reaction.

I do not believe that Trump’s performance was nearly as dire as the media is making out. True, it wasn’t great – and yes, he needs to improve significantly before the next contest – but it most certainly was not the ‘meltdown’ or ‘suicide’ described in the liberal press.

Clinton was more polished and prepared, but not more convincing than her opponent. Trump’s answers, though often rambled through snarled lips, were direct and from the hip. Clinton’s responses were soulless, word-perfect, opinion-column sound-bites. I know which form of persuasion I prefer.

Despite this, we in the Trump camp must be honest with ourselves. If The Donald conducts the next two debates in the same manner as he conducted the first, he will lose and lose badly. The week following the encounter at Hofstra has seen Clinton rise several points in national and state polls, whereas, prior to the debate, the gap between the candidates had been steadily narrowing. This is not encouraging and the matter must be seriously addressed by Trump’s advisors.

There are rumours, as yet unsubstantiated, that former UKIP leader Nigel Farage is flying to America to help the Republican nominee in his preparation for the second debate on October 9th. I hope devoutly that this is true. Farage is a quite formidable orator, almost invincible in direct political combat. Trump would do well to heed his counsel.


The Case Against Clinton


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


So… today (transatlantic time difference notwithstanding) is the day. The first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take place tonight in New York. I can hardly wait. This is, as I said in my post last week, the most important debate of our era. It will greatly influence, if not decide, the course of America’s future. Should Trump exceed the low expectations people have of him, the chances of his winning a majority in November will be massively enhanced. Should he make a fool of himself, his chances will sink very low indeed. This would be thrilling if it wasn’t also so nerve-wracking.

Anyway – to mark this momentous occasion, I will present here fifteen of the strongest (in my estimation) objections to a Clinton presidency. If Trump is to triumph at the debate tonight, he will need to focus on these points above all others.

1. She refuses to name the enemy.

Like President Obama, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to the use the term ‘radical Islam’ when discussing terrorism in general and ISIS in particular. Contrary to what the mainstream media suggests, this is really no trifling matter. The phrase ‘radical Islam’ is itself a watered down and liberal framing of the problem (a more honest commentator would just say ‘Islam’). For Clinton to stop short of going even this far shows that she is either unwilling or unable to recognise (and thus deal with) the biggest challenge facing the civilised world.

2. She is dripping with other people’s money.

Unlike Donald Trump, who has largely funded his campaign out of his own pocket, Hillary Clinton has received hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. The individuals and organisations who have stumped up this money will have done so for a reason. What has she promised them? We simply don’t know. And that is a problem.

3. She is arguably unfit to lead.

No-one knows for certain the true condition of Hillary Clinton’s health. Though many on the internet have busily speculated, the facts remain, for now, obscured behind a haze of spin and denial. According to Clinton herself, she is more than physically able to govern and has sought to prove this by, among other things, opening a jar of pickles. The episode in which the Democrat nominee ‘overheated’ and was left unable to walk properly following a 9/11 commemoration event says otherwise.

4. She has no clear agenda.

Donald Trump, for all his faults, has been admirably candid about which direction he plans to take the country in upon winning the general election. His opponent is a very different story. Never in the last fifty years has a vaguer agenda been offered by a major presidential candidate than that which is now advertised by Hillary Rodham Clinton. So undeniable is this shortcoming that even the Democrat’s most die-hard supporters have elected to focus their campaigning almost exclusively on the weaknesses in Trump’s manifesto. Rarely has any solid, clear, feasible policy been set out either by Clinton herself or by those affiliated with her campaign. This strongly suggests to me that Clinton has a secret, under-the-table agenda, written up, in large part, by her donors (see point 2).

5. She is underwhelming.

Hillary Clinton has virtually no charm at all. This much is evident from the meagre crowds the nominee has managed to draw at her lacklustre ‘rallies’ over the past few months. Even during the primary season, the nominee was totally outclassed and outperformed by her very able and inspiring opponent Bernie Sanders, to whom many millions of Democrat voters remain attached. This matters because, as president, Clinton will be responsible not only for the smooth running of the economy and public sector, but also for rallying the troops against America’s enemies and picking the country up after terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Does anyone really believe she is up to this?

6. She is a throwback.

Hillary Clinton’s political views, if indeed she has any, were brewed in the same pot as her husband’s. While I am too young to recall Bill Clinton’s administration with any clarity, I have read widely enough to discern that in terms of foreign policy, national security and immigration (the three major issues of this election), his regime was close to hopeless. Hillary Clinton has not once sought to distance herself from her husband’s record. She has not stated any meaningful disagreement with his agenda, and from this it is very fair to infer that she offers more of the same.

7. She is a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton’s main career outside of politics is law, the traditionally favoured occupation of the political mountebank. Other examples of law-graduates-turned-politicians include Barack Obama and Tony Blair. I don’t think I need to say anymore.

8. She is coastal and out of touch with America’s heartland.

The secret of Donald Trump’s success is not, as the media alleges, his star-power and celebrity connections. It is his ability to connect and convincingly communicate with the denizens of America’s ‘flown-over’ country, AKA the heartland. Though Clinton has attempted during her campaign to touch upon the issues affecting this blighted region, her appeals have fallen on deaf ears. She is simply too coastal and too urban to be taken seriously when discussing the opiate epidemic or the decline of manufacturing. Trump, on the other hand, has, via his business dealings, genuine credentials on the meat and potatoes issues facing rural and impoverished communities.

9. She has ties with some of the worst regimes on the planet.

The Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s pet project, has received and given support from and to some of the worst governments in the world. These include (but are not limited to) Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. While North Korea has yet to be explicitly embraced by the foundation, you would be a fool to rule it out entirely.

10. She is arrogant.

Hillary Clinton believes she deserves to win simply on the strength of her being a woman. This is a monumentally arrogant and presumptuous mindset to display at a time of real political strife and uncertainty.

11. She is a threat to the 2nd Amendment.

Hillary Clinton is not a pro-gun candidate. Indeed, on this matter, she is arguably more problematic for the advocates of private gun ownership than Barack Obama has been.

12. She is humourless.

Even the most vociferous and committed of Donald Trump’s critics acknowledge that the Republican possesses a sense of humour, a layer of humanity beneath his political sheen. At his rallies and in media interviews, the New Yorker has consistently displayed an ability to take matters lightly where appropriate (and yes, occasionally where inappropriate also). Hillary Clinton, by unpleasant contrast, is businesslike to the point of sociopathy.

13. She believes climate change is a more immediate threat than ISIS.

Not much elaboration is required on this point. I will only say that while climate change may or may not be a crisis in need of addressing, ISIS clearly represents (in the view of any reasonable person) the most pressing and urgent short-term threat to the stability of America and the greater modern world.

14. She is conventional on healthcare.

I tend to disagree with most right-wingers on the issue of healthcare provision. I support (and am immensely grateful for) the free treatment offered by the UK National Health Service. Though I imagine the idea might prove unpopular in the short term, I believe that America should strive to institute a similar system. Healthcare is no different – in my view – from the fire and police services. One should fund them with taxes, not private finance.

Hillary Clinton, as she has never sought to deny, is happily wedded to the set-up known unofficially as Obamacare – a wretched and ill-thought-out jungle of bureaucracy that has led, directly or indirectly, to thousands of job losses. Against this, Donald Trump, quite refreshingly for a Republican, has said many nice things about the British and Canadian health systems. If the New Yorker is able to shift conservative opinion on this, America would profit greatly. Clinton, like many of Trump’s foes in the GOP, offers only conventional and misguided thinking.

15. She is Hillary Clinton.


Justifying the Extraordinary: Trump and the Debates


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In seven days time the first of four presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will take place in Hempstead, New York State. It is probably fair to say that no such debate has been as hotly anticipated in recent memory as this one now is. The debate marks the biggest test Donald Trump has faced since the launch of his candidacy for the Republican nomination back in 2015. It represents a vital trial of the New Yorker’s presidential character, professionalism and natural wit.

Hillary Clinton, now lagging behind Trump in many national polls, will be placing a lot of her hopes on the debates. Unlike Trump, the Democrat is a natural when it comes to conventional political combat. She – and her team – will be hoping (and expecting) Trump to be suffocated by the polite constraints of traditional procedure and to show his unease by lashing out wildly at Clinton’s character, appearance, dress sense, femininity, etc. Put simply, they hope and expect Trump to suffer a meltdown.

Whilst I would love to say that Clinton’s strategy is unrealistic, I cannot, as it is perfectly feasible. Trump’s Achilles heel, as he has proven time and time again, is his volcanic and unpredictable personality, his tendency to hit back after every real or perceived slight with much greater force and immaturity than is required or appropriate. All Clinton has to do in these contests is provoke that kind of reaction. All she has to do is poke the tiger until it growls.

This is the most obvious and likely strategy for Hillary to pursue, but there are other possibilities open to her. The rabidly pro-Clinton Washington Post made the following suggestions for their preferred candidate: “Take (Trump) up on his word. He said he “regrets” certain things. Invite him to apologize to Judge Gonzalo Curiel or the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan… Another tactic is to press him on empty and unintelligible answers. Trump rarely completes a sentence or can articulate any level of detail about his proposals. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and CNN’s Dana Bash tag-teamed, forcing Trump to explain what was in his health-care plan, it became patently obvious that he had a whole lot of nothing to offer. She can certainly take a page from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s book (used against Rubio) in pointing out that Trump repeats the same platitudes. Tell us, Donald, what’s your plan to reduce crime in Chicago? Have you ever sat down with law enforcement?… There are oodles of issues (such as the nuclear triad) about which Trump knows nothing. Challenge him to spell out his stance on net neutrality, the South China Sea and student loans. In other cases — the minimum wage, repayment of U.S. debt and immigration, of course — he has been all over the lot. Force him to pick a position and explain why he has said the opposite.”

The first presidential debate will be held at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

The first presidential debate will be held at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York

Trump’s strategy for the debates is less clear at this point in time. When asked about his intended approach, the Republican has wisely dodged the question, explaining that he would prefer to not give anything away to the opposition prior to the event. We can thus only speculate.

I have a inkling that Trump’s strategy will hinge on portraying Clinton, as he has done all through his campaign so far, as ‘crooked’, dishonest, corrupt and in the pocket of the financial elite; an image he will then contrast with his own man-of-the-people persona.

The email scandal will undoubtedly be raised repeatedly, with Trump going off track and questioning Clinton directly about the thousands of inexplicably deleted messages. He will also link these questions to the issue of the Clinton Foundation and its highly suspicious ties to foreign leaders (including foreign and Islamic dictators).

The Clinton Foundation is coming under intense scrutiny

The Clinton Foundation is coming under intense scrutiny for its ties to foreign regimes

This approach will carry Trump some of the way, but not all of it. He will need to have more strings to his bow prepared if he is to the win the debate outright.

To arrive at the best strategy for winning the debates, Trump would do best to look at what has carried him through the process thus far. I would say that, more than anything else, it is his credentials relating to the Islamist threat that have won over the hearts of patriotic American voters (including true liberals and Democrats). His positions on ISIS, Muslim immigration, Syrian refugee policy and other connected issues have been wildly popular with a broad cross-section of American society. Pushing hard on Clinton’s weakness on Islamism will pave the way for a very important ideological touchdown.

It is possible that in the days that remain before the November election there will be another Islamist atrocity somewhere in the world, perhaps even in the Western World*. This will serve as a timely reminder of how extraordinary the problems we (as a civilisation) face really are, and thus how inappropriate it would be to elect an ordinary candidate to solve them.

ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State

ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State

The Islamist challenge is so total and grave that all other issues melt under its heat. Trump and his team must realise this fact and base their approach on it. Sure, there are problems with the American economy which require ironing out; sure, illegal immigration from Mexico is undermining American sovereignty and nationhood; sure, the trade deficit with China is growing at an alarming rate.  But none of these issues are new or so extraordinary as to justify the American electorate taking a risk on a provocative and unconventional candidate (and that, undoubtedly, is what Trump is). Trump’s presidency is so unique and strange a prospect that he must build an equally strange and unique context in which it will seem appropriate and necessary. The only way he can achieve this, in my opinion, is with reference to the Islamist threat.

At the debates, Trump must be specific about how he will deal with this extraordinary issue. Soundbites, however popular they may be, should be avoided. It simply isn’t enough to say things like “We need to get tough and we need to get smart.” This is so vague as to be meaningless. Trump must map out a strategy for pulverising Islamism, demolishing it so severely that it will not dare raise its evil head for decades to come.

*Today, as I write, debris is once again being cleaned up from the streets of a Western city. In Manhattan, NYC, two bombs have exploded, injuring almost thirty innocent civilians. Meanwhile, in the peaceful, Scandinavian-American State of Minnesota, eight people have been stabbed at a shopping mall, the attacker allegedly interrogating potential victims as to their religious beliefs prior to attacking them.

These are indeed extraordinary times. They require an extraordinary leader. Next week in New York, Donald Trump would do best not to try and make himself seem ordinary, but rather embrace his uniqueness, tying it to the uniqueness of the times in which we find ourselves.