I thought presidential candidate Donald Trump sounded a little more serious and less bombastic or something in an interview I caught part of, which I guess was part of one of those Sunday-morning talk shows.
(But of course with Trump it’s always situational.)
He was telling the interviewer that yeah he could be “politically correct” and not say some of the outrageous-sounding or incendiary stuff he spouts but then he would be boring and no one would listen.
As I am sure you have heard him say already many times, he claims that he says what is on everyone’s mind but at the same time what politicians and even every-day citizens don’t care to admit or are afraid to address.
Well to some degree, but he needlessly goes overboard and maligns innocent people, such as south-of-the border migrants who are trying to survive or improve their lot for themselves and their families.
And while we are rightly afraid of terrorists who proclaim they do what they do in the name of Islam, many of us would not say ban all Muslims from the country. Now I personally would say certainly under the circumstances, what with the so-called Islamic extremists, common sense says we have to at least take extra precautions when admitting newly-arrived Muslims into the nation.
And for that matter, if terror recruitment is being done in mosques that activity would not fall under First Amendment protection and would have to be dealt with. A touchy area that would require tact (something Trump usually lacks).
Simply arbitrarily banning a whole religion or ethnicity or race is wrong.
We have the history of Nazi Germany persecuting Jews (murdering some 6 million). We have our own history of rounding up good, hardworking, loyal American citizens of Japanese ancestry in World War II and forcing them into camps and causing them to lose their property. And of course for years we banned Chinese and other Asians from entering the country.
But Trump says that he is more interested in facing problems head on and getting people to talk about the issue rather than being politically correct, and he claims that before he brought up certain issues no one would dare speak of them.
No doubt since trump often comes across like he would be a strongman dictator-type, the interviewer asked what he thought of President Obama’s use of executive orders. And he asked Trump if he himself would utilize executive orders. Trump seemed to play it both ways. On the one hand he said he believed in the president working with congress,”making deals” I think he said, as one would expect the real estate mogul to talk. But anyway, Trump also commented that “certainly there is a lot of precedent” for executive orders. He did not elaborate, if that needs elaboration. And then he said the “beautiful thing” about executive orders is that they can be rescinded (so he could simply rescind any Obama orders if he were elected).
I also read a piece by a political observer who wrote that Trump appeals to people like the “Reagan Democrats”. And he said that many who are drawn to Trump don’t really follow politics for the most part but they are fed up with the present state of affairs and what the mainstream offers.
And it was said that if these disaffected people vote in the primaries (often they would either not vote at all or only in the general election) then the GOP cannot afford to bash Trump because without the vote of the Trump voters (even eventually for another GOP contender) the party cannot win the general election.
But really all I am trying to say is that Trump is outrageous by character, but in this thing he may be just being extremely deft at getting free publicity and creating a groundswell that his competitors cannot overcome.
It will be interesting to me to see if all or enough of those people who supposedly support Trump, and who may have not paid much attention to current events, will actually show up at the polls.
On the Democratic side you have a much less extreme and much more polite, but at the same time spirited Bernie Sanders, who also seeks to appeal to those who feel disaffected or heretofore not part of the process.
My gut feeling is that if Trump faces Hillary Clinton, Clinton prevails. But if Trump faces Sanders, well, it would seem Trump might well take it. Many who would not normally be inclined to vote for Trump (he being too extreme, too brash, down right scary) would be even more dubious voting for an avowed socialist who might want to change the order of things (even though I think he tries to explain that his brand of socialism works within our familiar democratic process).
But I feel we really need an alternative to Hillary (the Clintons are sleazy, let’s face it) and an alternative to Trump, who is more of a showman than a statesman, and who could do a lot of harm real quickly in international relations.
Both political parties have seemingly really failed the ranks of the public at large. And that has created the chaos we now see.
The public at large has to some extent brought all of this upon itself by its indifference to the political process.
Also as bad as party politics can be, we need united parties and office holders who work within their parties to forge consensus and good legislation and who work with opposing parties to hammer out compromises but ones that are good for all the people, not just the privileged few.
Yeah compromises, or as Trump would say: