I suppose I should admit that I'm as obsessed with Trump as any of his followers. This morning the Post has run a piece by Sheldon Adelson endorsing Trump. In it he writes,
I’ve spent time talking to Donald Trump. Do I agree with him on every issue? No. But it’s unlikely that any American agrees with his or her preferred candidate on every issue.
Sheldon Adelson's endorsement does nothing for me. He's one casino owner endorsing another casino owner. One could talk about the morality of the casino as a business model, or his endorsement of a nuclear detonation to get the attention of the Iranians in the negotiation of the "nuclear deal," which he put forward, then retracted claiming it was merely a metaphor for "actions speak louder than words." Not unlike Trump, he switched party allegiance, and seems quite willing to say outlandish, frightening, repugnant things, then back away without any contrition. In other words, Sheldon Adelson's endorsement is the anti-endorsement, another call to resist the donald.
Here's the fundamental question -- how can one agree or disagree with Trump on an issue? Trump is nothing if not protean. Consider, for example, his stance on abortion. What exactly is his position? Consider, as another example, his stance on banning Muslims. If you watch the videos of Trump announcing the position, and read the statements now, you'd think he was retreating from a radical position he had once held as a college student, not something he said, forcefully, to cheers, just a couple months before. What exactly is his position? Consider, for example, his tax returns. Is he, or is he not, going to release them? Again, Trump is nothing if not protean.
He has been called out on this, repeatedly, time and again, redundantly, by the Post and others who continue, time and again, to award him four pinocchios for his statements. Yesterday, in an editorial I cannot find, a writer for the Post lamented his lamentable lack of clarity and ideological position. I wrote a response to it. Sometimes, I just can't help myself -- so I DO have some empathy for Trump's need to tweet. My response went something like this:
Trump's position, I believe, has been clear all along. To use his own word, he is "unpredictable." In an almost paradoxical way, he does have an unambiguous ideology, his unpredictability, which he demonstrates repeatedly. Paul Ryan cannot "come together" with Trump. Paul Ryan is an ideologue. He has a set of positions which can be examined and understood. One can mostly accept or reject those positions centered on one's understanding of their potential effects. Hillary Clinton too is an ideologue, or perhaps more precisely, a policy wonk. She has a set of positions which can be examined and understood. One can mostly accept or reject those positions centered on one's understanding of their potential effects. I choose to reject Ryan, accept Hillary, based NOT on their personalities, but the direction promised in their positions, though I do not honestly believe Hillary would not make much of a difference. If Ryan is waiting for Trump to arrive at a set of ideas or positions around which the republican party can be united, he will wait forever, and he should. Trump asks that we support him, not as a democrat, only marginally as a republican, but as Trump himself. He offers, not a platform, certainly not a party platform, but no more, no less than Trump himself in all his glorious Trumpness.
In other words, he is the ultimate post-modern self-reflective ideologue for the age of the selfie, the ultimate Kardashian-like "celebrity because I am a celebrity" candidate, the ultimate "reality show" contestant for the be-all, end-all of "reality shows." It is, perhaps, ironic that many of the "reality shows" ask the American populace to vote for their "favorites" to produce an ephemeral winner, and so many do. Voting on the next "American Idol" has morphed into the next "American President," and it is just expected that we will lavish on Trump, in all his Trumpness, the idolatry he believes he so justly deserves and make him the next president. It is discouraging and disheartening that anyone has voted for Trump, anyone at all, but it shouldn't be surprising. Trump is not playing the political game, but as we have known all along, the "reality show" game, and watching carries with it a sort of morbid fascination -- a can't look, but can't look away obsession -- in part because no one believes, really believes, the stakes are as high as they are. It's just a "reality show."
No comments:
Post a Comment