The Case for Trump

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, arguments, arguments for trump, arguments in favour of Donald trump, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Coffee, debate, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, donald drumpf, Donald Trump, donald trump 2016 defending, drumpf, john oliver, make america great again, mitt, Mitt Romney, trump, trump 2016, trump 2020, trump drumpf, trump romney, trump twitter

The star of English comedian John Oliver (sorry for him, America) has been rising fast this past week, largely (or entirely) due to the viral success of his ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ routine, a 20 minute rant that has since been shared over 50 million times on facebook and viewed over 4 million times on YouTube.

The piece has been praised as “timely”, “politically explosive”, and “devastating”. Observers (mainly on the centre left) claim Oliver has ‘destroyed’ Trump’s credibility, if not his entire candidacy in one fell swoop. Is this true? No.

The majority of Oliver’s points in this clip are embellishments of points already made elsewhere, often with greater force and skill. Not one of them is valid. Few of them even have a cogency able to survive the deduction of humour. Let’s go through a few of them.

Oliver repeatedly notes that Donald Trump is unpredictable and has changed his political positions over time. This was likely intended to make Trump supporters question their favoured candidate’s authenticity. Like previous attempts to wound Trump’s reputation, this failed miserably. As Mr Trump himself has noted, Ronald Reagan – the untouchable giant of recent Republican history – shifted position on many important topics prior to settling on his widely adored Presidential agenda. So have many other great political figures. Though this defence is simple, it is also devastating. Why the hell can’t a man change his mind? Do figures on the left hold everyone to this rigorous account? If a right-winger goes to the left later in life, would they be so suspicious of his or her integrity? Of course not. The matter should thus be closed.

Another charge Oliver advanced in the Drumpf routine involves Trump’s claim that we should kill (or threaten to kill) the families of terrorists in order to make them play ball. Trump’s rationale on this matter (almost always excluded from the quote in reports) is that terrorists care about little outside of their own private universe. They are obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice the lives of random Muslims for their eschatological cause. They are also obviously, demonstrably willing to sacrifice their own lives, which they view as intolerable spiritual encumbrances obstructing entry into a garden of olives and virgins. It is rational – whatever else it is – for Trump to float the idea that these brutes may care about their families, if about anything at all.

I don’t believe for a moment that Mr Trump would order US airmen to bomb the houses of innocent people. It is more likely that his comments were meant as an argument for intensive bombing – which might result in the deaths of innocents.  This is a crucial distinction; one the media should be more careful to add when they raise the issue.

Oliver’s argument that Trump is a bad businessman is both untrue and completely irrelevant. Trump is obviously a very successful man, worth  – even according to the estimates of his enemies – over 8 billion dollars. Though the son of a wealthy businessman, Trump was supplied with a comparatively tiny loan by his father which he has since multiplied consistently with no outside help. Turning a small amount of money into a huge amount is no small art. If you don’t believe me, try turning $1000 into $80,000. If it was easy, everyone would have a tower.

As I say, Trump’s financial history is not only fake but irrelevant. Trump is not running as a businessman. He is running as a patriot. Even if Trump Steaks or Trump University did fall flat, why would this have anything to say about the billionaire’s competence as a leader? It could even be said to recommend him further. The world economy is like a violent sea. Its current tosses big and small ships alike. Every vessel, however expertly designed, is at risk. What matters most is not the occasional random, unforeseeable shock of fortune, but the staying afloat. Trump has absorbed great turbulence over his life and still managed to survive and flourish beyond it. Experience like that cannot be bought.

The only original conceit of the Drumpf routine is Oliver’s genuinely penetrating insight that ‘Trump’ rhymes in the unconscious mind with ‘luxury’, ‘quality’, ‘exclusive’ and other aspirational nouns and adjectives. Ordinary folk, Oliver explained, instinctively associated names with the qualities their bearers are famous for. Tiger Woods, for a different example, brings to mind victory, health, Black achievement and sporting excellence. You are substantially more likely to buy a product with the name Tiger Woods emblazoned on it than one emblazoned with the name of Vanilla Ice or George Zimmerman. Similarly, in politics – a choice of product like any other – we are naturally drawn to individuals based on positive associations. Trump is wealth. Trump is success, luxury and New York. Trump is a five star hotel on the top floor of the capitalist universe. People find this very difficult to refuse.

But does this observation make choosing Trump for President any less rational? No, it doesn’t. Trump is not only admired for subliminal reasons, but for fully rational, real-world advantages. He is (as he is absolutely right to remind us) the only self-funded candidate. This matters a great deal, much more than Trump’s detractors are willing to admit. Marco Rubio, his articulate speaking aside, is a bought and paid-for puppet of the Republican establishment. His manifesto is ghost-written by wealthy donors who are completely unaccountable to – and disinterested in – the general public. The American people are no longer willing to accept this callous type of flyover politics; the politics of ‘we know what is good for you because we have degrees and you don’t’. 

If Oliver’s routine was a serious attempt to cripple Trump and take him out of the game then it has surely failed. Trump’s polling figures are as high as ever. Not one of the tycoon’s rivals appears able to mount a consequential challenge. Super Tuesday was a splendorous triumph for The Donald. He won states in the north and in the south, perplexing analysts who had long called these for Rubio and Cruz respectively.

Although (surprisingly) Oliver didn’t dwell on it too heavily, we must also address here the idea that Trump is somehow a ‘racist’ or a ‘White Nationalist’. Of all the slurs directed at him, this is by far the most frequent and potentially effective. Where is the evidence?

Some might immediately point to the comments the candidate made about Muslims – namely, his lightening-rod suggestion that the US bar foreign Muslims for a temporary period on security grounds. This proposal has been wildly criticised by all and sundry, but is it racist? No, obviously not. As the world should be tired of hearing by now, Islam is not a race. Muslims are not a biological family. To propose their exclusion is no more racist than proposing the exclusion of Mormons. There are White Muslims, Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turkic Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Indonesian and Malaysian and African Muslims. Under Trump’s policy, all will be subject to the same measure, whereas Christian Arabs, Atheist Turks or Buddhist Malaysians will not be. Bottom line – race is irrelevant.

Trump’s attitudes to Mexicans and Blacks are also far from troubling. As regards the former, the billionaire has famously called for the deportation of 11 million illegal migrants. While sensational to an unreliable and skittish media, this isn’t even a policy shift. It is the enforcement of an existing law. It should be no more controversial than to propose the enforcement of parking legislation. Trump is not opposed to Mexican Americans legally resident in the United States. To the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the ‘spirit’ of the Mexican people and highlighted his determination to improve living standards and job opportunities for the Latin and Hispanic community.

Trump’s anti-immigration posture is for the benefit of all working Americans, with no distinction made of race, religion or class. It is a policy that should be welcomed by the Right and Left alike. Illegal immigration devalues the native labour force and undercuts the wages and expectations of American workers. It isn’t fair. It isn’t right. It cannot be tolerated.

Donald Trump is an opportunity that will not come again. He is a one-off: unscripted, un-bought, willing to fight for real-world advantages and speak up against real-world injustice, strong enough to resist the fury of a whipped up media class, patriotic enough to risk a personal fortune to enter politics – this is far from the ordinary. Should he be rejected, something amazing will have been squandered; something historic will have been rejected, and for no greater reason than a queasy fear of the novel and the real.

Trump’s manifesto is the red pill, the uncomfortable jerk that awakens the comfortably numb out of their demon-haunted repose. Trump will redefine American politics, smash the cross-party liberal consensus and reintroduce essential ideas into a pacified and muddled American consciousness. The ‘conservatives’ who are bulking at the prospect of his presidency never were conservatives to begin with. The liars are being separated from the truth. The cards are being laid on the table.

Will you stand with him?

D, LDN

Defining the ‘West’

Tags

America, America 911, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, English Defence League, Facebook, Islam and the West, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, west and east, west vs east, western definition, Western world

In the course of an online discussion last Tuesday, I was asked a deceptively simple-sounding question that has since plagued my thinking. After offering an argument for the inherent superiority of the ‘West’, my competitor stumped me by requesting that I “define ‘the West'” – that is, explain what it actually consists of.

Having had a few days to ponder an answer, during which I have been staring intensely at google maps and rifling through the pages of Wikipedia, I have come up with a list of countries I consider ‘Western’. I must add beforehand the obvious point that ‘West’ and ‘Western’ in this context have no geographic meaning, but rather imply certain standards of civilisation, such as secularism, gender equality, liberal capitalism and a free press. Here then is my answer – presented in no particular order:

Great Britain and all the countries of the EU
Liberal commonwealth nations (such as Jamaica, Trinidad etc..)
The United States
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
India*
Japan
South Korea
Taiwan (Republic of China)
Brazil
Argentina
Chile
Uruguay
Mexico
South Africa
Armenia
Israel

*It should be noted that India has an anti-democratic caste system, with different categories recorded by government. This must change if India is to maintain its Western character.

Now, a lot of people would say I’m being far too generous with this list. When such people think of ‘The West’, they think of things like influence, affluence, cleanliness and order, as well as the basic civilizational standards mentioned above. I understand what these people mean and would agree that there exists a ‘core’ inside of the West, without which the whole ‘Western’ construct would begin to fragment or collapse. This core is simply the Anglosphere, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Such nations are not merely of the West, but its original authors.

Needless to say, no Islamic country comes close to membership of this marvellous club. And I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

D, LDN.

American Übermensch: Donald Trump’s Thrilling Confidence

Tags

America 911, American Liberty, Art of the deal, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Civilisation, CNN, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2016, Donald Trump could win, Donald Trump NBC, donald trump speech, donald trump wiki, Envy, Fox News, New York, Philosophy, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Riches, trump speech, United States

So, Donald Trump, the brash celebrity billionaire and star of TV’s ‘The Apprentice’ has dramatically announced a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Cue hysteria. Cue mob humour. Cue intellectual laziness.

I understand how conventional it is to laugh at Trump; at his braggadocio, his squirrelly hair and material emphasis. He is clearly someone who enjoys the media spotlight and who often speaks with the media in mind. But away from the quirks in his character, it cannot be denied that Trump, via his achievements and lived philosophy, also personifies America at its most unapologetic, creative, tough-minded and independent.

He is a throw-back in that regard; the living relic of an era – fast being lost – in which the United States was the country to imitate if you wanted your own to succeed. It was an era of unipolar domination, whether on the economic, cultural or military plain. It was the era in which most of the skyscrapers you see on the dazzling Manhattan skyline were constructed, when the bridges were built (on budget and on time), and when the US army considered concepts like ‘retreat’ and ‘failure’ to be eccentricities unique to Europe.

I believe this American spirit still survives, in pockets and enclaves, but the condition of America in general is increasingly tenuous. Toxic issues are beginning to develop in the marrow of American life; issues that if left without treatment, could prove lethal to its long-term prospects.

Trump announced his bid for presidency this week with a resounding rally held in his Manhattan skyscraper ‘Trump Tower’. The fallout would last for days. Here are some of the more ‘provocative’ statements emphasised by the press:

On immigration  – “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

On jobs – “Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don’t believe the 5.6. Don’t believe it… That’s right. A lot of people… can’t get jobs. They can’t get jobs, because there are no jobs, because China has our jobs and Mexico has our jobs. They all have jobs.”

On health-care reform – “We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare… Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent, and deductibles are through the roof. You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it, because the deductibles are so high, it’s virtually useless. It’s virtually useless. It is a disaster.”

Shortly after these comments were made, left-leaning cable channels set about presenting them as stand-alone bigotries, considerably more extreme and stupid seeming than in their original context. The television network NBC responded quickly by severing all ties with Trump, accompanied by the retail giant Macy’s, hair-product brand Farouk Systems, and the Latino TV networks Univsion, Televisa and Ora TV.

I won’t deny that the comment about Mexican rapists was lazy and ill-advised. There doesn’t seem to be a problem with sexual violence in Mexican communities more serious than in others. But outside of these unfortunate snippets (incidentally, I don’t share the Republican anxiety over subsidised health-care either), I found the speech rather inspiring.

Trump offered his audience an honest, easy to understand diagnosis of real and important maladies. His remarks about the pathetic failings of the Iraqi ‘military’ were dead on the nail. His comments about China’s cynical devaluation of its currency were timely and brave. His stated willingness to protect Israel should comfort the hearts of besieged democrats around the world.

But more than anything, it was Trump’s call for a ‘cheer-leading’ President who can resurrect the attitude of exceptionalism that truly impressed me. As I have written perhaps too many times before, positivity and the “Let’s Win!” spirit is not only useful on the football field or basketball court. It is the same attitude that destroyed the Empire of Japan and liquidised Iraqi divisions in Kuwait. It is the attitude that built the Hoover Dam, and which drives the world economy.

Trump understands this. He understands the psychological basis of American strength, that this strength is not derived from virtue alone, but from arrogance, determination and unilateralism too.

Despite my enthusiasm, I am soberly aware that a Trump administration is as unlikely Caitlyn Jenner birthing triplets. Impossible, of course, but perhaps not wholly undesirable.

D, LDN.

India Will Not Be a Superpower.

Tags

American Decline, Armies, China Vs America, Defend the modern world, Demographics of the Future, India, India vs China, Indian, Indian Superpower, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Nuclear Weapons, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

It has long been standard practice among foreign policy experts to include into future projections the potential influences of an ‘Indian Superpower’.

Behind this logic lies a demographic determinism which, broadly applied, also promotes the highly fertile nations of Brazil, South Africa and Nigeria to a similar hypothetical prowess later in the century. To put the logic at its most simple:

Big population + stability = China.

Anyone with a less politically-correct mind will of course (correctly) discount the potential of Nigeria or South Africa gaining a seat at the top (economic, political or military) table any time soon. Some however might understandably find the prospect of India ascending to such a rank rather more feasible.

After all, India is due to become the most populous country in the world in a matter of years. The territory of India is large, diverse, and in a geo-strategically important position. The military of India is huge and well-equipped by EU and American exporters. The country is also the world’s largest democracy, with guaranteed representation for all faiths, genders and political persuasions. This status as a democratic counterweight to the rise of Chinese autocracy in Asia may further tighten Delhi’s ties with Washington and secure generous terms of alliance with America long into the future.

It is a strong case then, I concede, and I’ve little doubt most policy-makers will continue to believe it. But I also have a diminishing sense of doubt that they are wrong.

After the population issue is discarded, India has very little in common with its rapidly ascending Northern neighbor. In fact, the differences, considered closely, couldn’t be more stark.

For whatever reason this may be, China has industrialized at a rate that has left India scrambling in the dust. Chinese cities have shifted in just a few decades from semi-rural wastelands to New-York-grade metropolises, complete with financial districts, subways, lightening fast overground train networks and first-class infrastructures. Even the wealthiest and most important Indian cities like Delhi and Mumbai have nothing on a myriad of internationally unknown Chinese urban centres. Comparing Delhi to the prefecture level city of Chongchinq for example, is equivalent to comparing Bogota to Chicago. The distance in modernity, infrastructure and appearance couldn’t be more starkly presented.

In terms of Cultural sophistication (provided we take the West as the standard to measure against) India lags even further behind their Northern counterparts. China, under the dictats of its (albeit heavily qualified) ‘Communism’ has outlawed many tribal practices that only fifty years ago were considered the norm. India however, under the much lighter reforming hand of democracy, has yet to abandon many of its most antique oppressions. Women in India (from all religious backgrounds) are routinely married not by love and choice, but by considerations of caste and family standing.

Should the women in question flee into more modern practices, then honor killing is not unheard of even in large, middle class cities like Bangalore or Chennai.

If rape rates are an adequate measure of cultural misogyny, India is also far behind the expectations of the modern idea. Sexual assault is a horribly common occurrence in India, and this has become especially notorious of late as the ‘Delhi gang-rape’ scandal hit headlines across the world.

As to explanations for the endemic violence against women, the Guardian reported that some consider it “a consequence of the efforts of a growing number of women, even in remote areas, to claim basic freedoms denied for centuries.. ” while “…Others point to India’s acute gender imbalance, tenacious caste system and entrenched patriarchal culture. Conservatives have blamed “western influences”, women’s clothing and even fast food.

“Informal village courts run by local male elders, such as that which ordered this most recent attack, are common across much of rural India and are frequently responsible for inflicting cruel, sometimes lethal, punishments for supposed social transgressions such as marrying without their prior consent. Such courts also frequently oblige relatives to take violent action to restore the “honour” of a community.”

Despite what we might automatically (and given the situation in neighbouring Pakistan, justifiably) assume, those involved are not all Muslims, but Sikhs and Hindus too.

India is also weakened by that very diversity. The country is a very recently woven patchwork of historically divided religious communes, many of which have come to violent confrontation in just the past few decades. Though it might be said that China is equally afflicted by division (Tibetans, Uygurs etc…) – such cleavages are there managed by an efficiently centralized, undemocratic regime. Parliamentary Democracy (like that which governs India) is much less suited to holding religiously or ethnically divided countries together (for comparison, I give you the cases of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Lebanon). China’s authoritarianism also serves to manage the fallout from economic inequality, an increasing problem on both sides of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

In conclusion, although India will certainly become more economically important as the 21st century progresses, an Indian Superpower is a most unlikely prospect.

D, LDN.