Trump Thread

[tomarin]

There are different ideas about what “populism” is. To elites, it’s a dirty word, bespeaking some authoritarian personality throwing coins to howling hordes of the unwashed, to induce them to smash the imported tea sets of their 'betters".

Another view of it is to actually attempt to better the conditions of ordinary people, and the more ordinary the better, regardless whether they have good manners or educations, and to actively engage and enlist such people politically. With this view, I have no problem.

In the interests of full disclosure, my parents greatly admired Harry Truman and spoke well of him all their lives, despite his often crude expressions and blunt ways. As a Missourian, raised in the light of that point of view, I might be too quick to appreciate such characters.

I think Truman was a good president, as far as I know. I appreciate his “Show-Me-State” character; I don’t know much about his crude expressions, but Nixon also could be crude in private but I don’t think that made him a bad president necessarily.

My working definition of populism is it’s a form of political posturing on behalf of ‘the people’ which masks nefarious deeds and motives and is opposed to true democracy. I think the founding fathers were anti-populist to a large extent.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think Truman was a good president, as far as I know. I appreciate his “Show-Me-State” character; I don’t know much about his crude expressions, but Nixon also could be crude in private but I don’t think that made him a bad president necessarily.

My working definition of populism is it’s a form of political posturing on behalf of ‘the people’ which masks nefarious deeds and motives and is opposed to true democracy. I think the founding fathers were anti-populist to a large extent.

This is interesting - little bit of a contrast to Trump on the ‘tolerance front’ at least as we see unfolding in his rallies:

Civil rights
The Chicago Defender announces Executive Order 9980 and Executive Order 9981.
Further information: President’s Committee on Civil Rights

A 1947 report by the Truman administration titled To Secure These Rights presented a detailed ten-point agenda of civil rights reforms. In February 1948, the president submitted a civil rights agenda to Congress that proposed creating several federal offices devoted to issues such as voting rights and fair employment practices.[172] This provoked a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats in the runup to the national nominating convention, but Truman refused to compromise, saying: “My forebears were Confederates … but my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten.”[173] Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, desegregating and requiring equal opportunity in the Armed Forces.[174] After several years of planning, recommendations and revisions between Truman, the Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity and the various branches of the military, Army units became racially integrated.[175]

Another executive order, also in 1948, made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race. A third, in 1951, established the Committee on Government Contract Compliance (CGCC). This committee ensured that defense contractors did not discriminate because of race.[176][177]

How many times was he divorced and remarried? Didn’t see anything.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

 

[Ridgerunner]

And let’s not be fooled into thinking that Trump stands for conservative or even Republican values or virtues. This is why the National Review is so opposed to him.

It pains me to disagree with my dear friend Ridgerunner but I feel like Trump has much more in common with Cesar Chavez than Harry Truman.

Well, to be honest with you, I think there are aspects of Cesar Chavez to admire. Not Hugo Chavez, but Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers who sought fair wages for farm laborers. (and who, incidentally, strongly opposed illegal immigration because growers used them to undercut better-paid native-born and legal Hispanic farm workers.)

I like National Review and its people. Met W.F. Buckley personally once. But let’s face it, those guys are educational and cultural elite types. Their conservatism is ideological; well-founded, well-reasoned, brilliantly expressed, but ideological. Like Buckley, they didn’t grow up bucking bales or picking strawberries for school money. Since I did grow up the latter way, perhaps I can be forgiven for not having the manners, tastes or intellectual brilliance of the National Review folks or perhaps a due appreciation for those attributes.

But there are a whole lot more of me in this country than there are of them. And while I appreciate their intellectual rigor and well-turned phrases, they’re a thin patina on a largely conservative majority who are every bit as deserving of respect as they are notwithstanding a certain lack of polish. But for a large base of people who would rather see a dirt track race than a steeplechase and wouldn’t know Chateau Petrus from Petri Tokay (Mis en boutailles au Kansas City ) the Nat Rev folks would have no one to talk to but each other.

 

[slMike]

…his supporters appear to be ***mostly low-income, under-educated white men ***(not all of them; I know some of his supporters don’t meet that criteria).

Are you a thread disrupter? If not, that was quite the condescending post.

Need I remind you that Christ was born in a cave, laid in a trough and worshipped by non-educated sheepherders who were told where they could find Him by angels sent from God. Both Christ and the shepherds were low income. All were white, though that is insignificant.

Money, social status or race won’t get you character much less holiness. As a lifetime blue collar, high school educated white male who has worked and associated with all, I can testify to snobbery, hate etc. from people of all social, educational, racial, religious and financial backgrounds.

Brother/sister, you may need to examine yourself.

Mike

 

[Path_Finder]

I think Truman was a good president, as far as I know. I appreciate his “Show-Me-State” character; I don’t know much about his crude expressions, but Nixon also could be crude in private but I don’t think that made him a bad president necessarily.

My working definition of populism is it’s a form of political posturing on behalf of ‘the people’ which masks nefarious deeds and motives and is opposed to true democracy. I think the founding fathers were anti-populist to a large extent.

I have heard President George W. Bush called a populist, I think FDR might be called that as well.

Apparently, the “New Deal” is loosely called populism: content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1906802_1906838_1908686,00.html

Bush jr. as Populist: npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2011/02/28/134024533/sing-out-mr-president-george-w-bushs-populist-simplicity

And to me, the most famous American populist politician was Huey Long, Kingfish, Gov. of Louisiana.

Teddy Roosevelt for his time, seems to be considered “progressive” but would not be by today’s standards; so how does one define a label.

 

[tomarin]

I have heard President George W. Bush called a populist, I think FDR might be called that as well.

Apparently, the “New Deal” is loosely called populism: content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1906802_1906838_1908686,00.html

Bush jr. as Populist: npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2011/02/28/134024533/sing-out-mr-president-george-w-bushs-populist-simplicity

And to me, the most famous American populist politician was Huey Long, Kingfish, Gov. of Louisiana.

Teddy Roosevelt for his time, seems to be considered “progressive” but would not be by today’s standards; so how does one define a label.

Populism can have a negative, positive or neutral meaning. Teddy Roosevelt was called a progressive because of his association with the ‘progressive’ movement which is something a bit different from the current meaning, I think. I’d say the older meaning of progressive had a closer relationship to ‘scientific’ or ‘rational’.

Speaking of Roosevelt I heard an analogy made by Doris Kearns Goodwin this morning on the radio between Roosevelt and Trump, because of Roosevelt’s running as a third party candidate when he couldn’t secure the Republican nomination, which then split the vote between Roosevelt and Taft. She was opining that that was what Trump would probably do if he didn’t get the nomination, run as a third party candidate.

 

[tomarin]

Well, to be honest with you, I think there are aspects of Cesar Chavez to admire. Not Hugo Chavez, but Cesar Chavez, founder of the United Farm Workers who sought fair wages for farm laborers. (and who, incidentally, strongly opposed illegal immigration because growers used them to undercut better-paid native-born and legal Hispanic farm workers.)

I like National Review and its people. Met W.F. Buckley personally once. But let’s face it, those guys are educational and cultural elite types. Their conservatism is ideological; well-founded, well-reasoned, brilliantly expressed, but ideological. Like Buckley, they didn’t grow up bucking bales or picking strawberries for school money. Since I did grow up the latter way, perhaps I can be forgiven for not having the manners, tastes or intellectual brilliance of the National Review folks or perhaps a due appreciation for those attributes.

But there are a whole lot more of me in this country than there are of them. And while I appreciate their intellectual rigor and well-turned phrases, they’re a thin patina on a largely conservative majority who are every bit as deserving of respect as they are notwithstanding a certain lack of polish. But for a large base of people who would rather see a dirt track race than a steeplechase and wouldn’t know Chateau Petrus from Petri Tokay (Mis en boutailles au Kansas City ) the Nat Rev folks would have no one to talk to but each other.

I meant Hugo Chavez; my apologies.

I’m not a cultural elitist in the sense that I think the people you’re talking about have less value than the National Review people because they’re allegedly less sophisticated; I just don’t see Trump’s actual policies aligning in any way with actual conservative principles. I don’t think the kind of economic protectionism he’s espousing is particularly conservative, for example. It’s more redolent of Peron than Reagan (although I can see it’s appeal among ordinary people).

 

[Tomdstone]

I think Truman was a good president, as far as I know.

I don’t. I think he was the worst president the US ever had because he set a precedent to using the atomic bomb in war. IMHO, the use of the atomic bomb is immoral since it inevitably results in the horrible deaths of innocent civilians and children. Some children will die instantly, other children will die a slow and incredibly painful death by radiation poisoning.

 

[Peter_J]

Shawn King posted some videos this week from a black man that attended a Trump rally as an observer (he wasn’t protesting). When Trump brought up Obama there were people yelling “F— that N-----!”. When Trump mentioned the wall, a young man yelled “F— the Be—rs!”. I swear it looked like a white power rally and felt evil. I would be terrified of being in that crowd and I’m white. The man who made the video was eventually kicked out for being a “protester” (read: black man).

I am positive that Trump has seen the video because he would be stupid to not be following Shawn King as he has been on a very anti-Trump kick for a while now. Trump has said nothing to distance himself from the White Supremacists that seem very vocal about their support for him.

Please think rationally about this man before voting for him. He is by far the least Christian candidate I’ve ever seen run and that includes Bernie!!

I completely agree, but we also have to think carefully about what we say about him. We’ve seen already that the potential for a Trump-as-victim narrative is huge.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Populism can have a negative, positive or neutral meaning. Teddy Roosevelt was called a progressive because of his association with the ‘progressive’ movement which is something a bit different from the current meaning, I think. I’d say the older meaning of progressive had a closer relationship to ‘scientific’ or ‘rational’.

Speaking of Roosevelt I heard an analogy made by Doris Kearns Goodwin this morning on the radio between Roosevelt and Trump, because of Roosevelt’s running as a third party candidate when he couldn’t secure the Republican nomination, which then split the vote between Roosevelt and Taft. She was opining that that was what Trump would probably do if he didn’t get the nomination, run as a third party candidate.

I do not, for a minute, think Trump will run third party. In my opinion, that was his “push back” tool against Priebus (sp?) and the “party potentates”. it wasn’t as effective as it might have been, but it did work to the degree that some of those folks are now just posturing about a “brokered convention”.

One needs to keep in mind that Trump is a businessman. Businessmen might bluff, but they don’t readily go out and spend a lot of money on ventures they know are fruitless. Trump won’t run third party any more than he would buy into an oil well venture in Southwest Missouri (no oil here).

 

[on_the_hill]

That could equally be claimed about the Democratic Party.

It’s true of all political parties. They could nominate a bowl of lasagne if they wanted to.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t. I think he was the worst president the US ever had because he set a precedent to using the atomic bomb in war. IMHO, the use of the atomic bomb is immoral since it inevitably results in the horrible deaths of innocent civilians and children. Some children will die instantly, other children will die a slow and incredibly painful death by radiation poisoning.

The fire bombing of Tokyo was a lot worse. And nobody really knew what radiation would do back then. You’re probably too young to remember the days when every shoe store had an x-ray machine you would stick your feet into to see if the shoes fit. A novelty that has since been banned and the old machines disposed of as toxic waste.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Conservatives pin hopes on convention fight to stop Donald Trump
cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/donald-trump-hill-republicans-conservatives/index.html

Interesting. Glad to hear these talks are underway.

---

nationalreview.com/article/432888/donald-trump-hegel-sartre-explain-trump-rise
This is a good, if somewhat unnecessarily elite, analysis of Trump’s appeal - it is largely emotional. Most of his supporters are not actually suffering that much economically or because of immigration, etc. The complaints are largely abstract, melding into an overwhelming feeling of dissatisfaction, anger. It is primarily a cultural thing (as was Obama for a different demographic). Those that are left behind by the politically correct dogma and progressive legislation of the Obama administration, the dominance of progressive thinking in education, business, law, media, etc. It is important to remember this when approaching this demographic and discussing Trump. Because of the numeric limitation of this demographic, it is hard to see this playing well in the general. But don’t expect to convince a Trumper of that, right? It is a highly personal cause, projected onto Trump.

 

[Path_Finder]

Are you a thread disrupter? If not, that was quite the condescending post.

Need I remind you that Christ was born in a cave, laid in a trough and worshipped by non-educated sheepherders who were told where they could find Him by angels sent from God. Both Christ and the shepherds were low income. All were white, though that is insignificant.

Money, social status or race won’t get you character much less holiness. As a lifetime blue collar, high school educated white male who has worked and associated with all, I can testify to snobbery, hate etc. from people of all social, educational, racial, religious and financial backgrounds.

Brother/sister, you may need to examine yourself.

Mike

Can one imagine if one said that about some other group of persons.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t. I think he was the worst president the US ever had because he set a precedent to using the atomic bomb in war. IMHO, the use of the atomic bomb is immoral since it inevitably results in the horrible deaths of innocent civilians and children. Some children will die instantly, other children will die a slow and incredibly painful death by radiation poisoning.

A lengthy and protracted land invasion would have surely killed a lot more civilians including children, many of whom had vowed to fight the U.S. forces to the death and some of whom certainly meant it.

 

[queenofheartscv]

I don’t. I think he was the worst president the US ever had because he set a precedent to using the atomic bomb in war. IMHO, the use of the atomic bomb is immoral since it inevitably results in the horrible deaths of innocent civilians and children. Some children will die instantly, other children will die a slow and incredibly painful death by radiation poisoning.

Do you know how many Chinese civilians were brutally killed by Japan and how many more they would kill if not stopped? From what I understand the Japanese army refused to surrender unless utterly debilitated. They would fight until their breath and commit suicide before thinking about surrender. They were also using their own civilian life as last-resort defense.

I know this is a controversial topic and a definitive judgment is really difficult.

 

[Tomdstone]

The fire bombing of Tokyo was a lot worse.

My sources say that 100,000 people died in the firebombing of Tokyo. Five months later,
140,000 people died some right away, some later, in the bombing of hiroshima.
80,000 people died in the bombing of Nagasaki.
By setting a bad precedent and a justification for dropping the atomic bomb, Truman made the world a more dangerous place as other countries or jihadists can point to a similar justification for their use of the atomic bomb in a war. They can argue that they can save lives by killing thousands of children. They can argue that they don’t want to hurt anyone, they just want to promote peace and end the war by killing millions of people.

 

[queenofheartscv]

Path_Finder:
That’s a nice essay. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Path_Finder]

This is quite a bit off from the theme of Donald Trump’s candidacy

 

[grotto]

The fire bombing of Tokyo was a lot worse. And nobody really knew what radiation would do back then. You’re probably too young to remember the days when every shoe store had an x-ray machine you would stick your feet into to see if the shoes fit. A novelty that has since been banned and the old machines disposed of as toxic waste.

---

One of the great memories of my childhood! Would run into the shoe store and get on the machine quick (so they wouldn’t get to throw you out ) Peek at your feet - wiggle your toes, and run back out. Those were the days!