The Article About Trump Nobody Would Publish
An editor's note at Quillette, where it finally landed:
This article was rejected by 45 different magazines, periodicals, and journals across the political spectrum: Far left, left, center, unaffiliated, right, far right, and libertarian.
James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian write at Quillette:
Trump is a monstrous choice for president. Monstrous. He's a demagogue with a clear bent to authoritarianism. He's completely politically inexperienced and has no clear idea what constitutes successful, appropriate, or even legal behavior for an elected official. He has repeatedly proven himself to be virtually incoherent on foreign policy, economics, diplomacy, and the military. His only true assets are self-promotion, juvenile tweets, and belittling his enemies. He's barely qualified to be president of anything, especially anything with a military. It goes without saying, then, that essentially no one in their right mind should want him as President of the United States of America. The problem, however, is that America is no longer in its right mind. Major political cancers are driving it to madness.But what would happen should Trump get elected? On the Right, President Trump would force the GOP to completely reorganize--and fast. It would compel them to abandon their devastating pitch to the extreme right. The Republican Party would have to get back on the rails, and do so quickly, to reclaim a stable position in American politics. On the Left, the existence of the greatest impossible dread imaginable, of President Trump, would rouse sleepy mainline liberals from their dogmatic slumber. It would force them to turn sharply away from the excesses of its screeching, reality-denying, uncompromising and authoritarian fringe that provided much of Trump's thrust in the first place.
...The United States is a carefully constructed democratic republic with divided powers, and a terrible president, while coming at a serious cost, will prove limited in the scope of his capabilities. Congress is very unlikely to back much of what Trump proposes, for instance, and they just spent eight years demonstrating that if only half of our elected legislators have such a mind, they can grind American politics largely to a halt. Even if he is able to unduly pressure Congress, Trump would still have the Supreme Court to reckon with, and it would rarely go in his favor even were he able to stack the deck slightly to his favor by placing a few justices. Some in the US Military have already indicated that it is unlikely to follow his orders as Commander in Chief, if they are unconscionable or outright war crimes (a concept that Trump, in all his bluster, clearly doesn't understand). In all likelihood, the force of the laws and traditions of the United States will be strong enough to render Trump largely impotent as president.
Is it a risky bet? Absolutely. A Trump presidency cannot be seen in a more flattering light than an attempt to drink a little chemo, get sick, and kill a handful of political cancers at once. Is it flirtation with fire? Yes. The whole gambit rests upon the horror of a Trump presidency creating a political backlash that repairs our most damaged institutions. Are we going to vote for Trump? No. No one should. What we've written constitutes the only reasonable case for supporting Trump, and it's weak. That there's even such an argument to be made, though, tells us a great deal about what's going wrong in our society.
via @CathyYoung63
Build that 2,000-mile physical fence on the Mexican border. Without it, nothing else -- nothing else -- will matter ever again.
Lastango at June 5, 2016 11:06 PM
I'da rejected the piece as well... It's too presumptuously lefty.
...By which I mean insufficiently humble. Now, all sane men and quite a few crackpots have devised new ways to despise the short-fingered vulgarian in the last year, and most of us will continue this scholarship as our summer begins in earnest. Trump sux.
But the explosion of support this guy has received in last year has been absolutely stunning, and completely unforeseen except by a tiny number of observers... And not necessarily the most learned ones. The rest of us have failed in our observation of our fellows.
However you feel about him, the first and best posture to this phenomenon should be humility... Because if you HAD know there was this kind of potential in so many American skulls even twelve months ago, you'd have been leading a different life than the one you're in... However you feel about him.
If your response today is to affirm social distance from this change in American character, or to demonstrate intellectual elevation from it, you're fucking it up.
Crid at June 5, 2016 11:55 PM
I still maintain that Donald Trump, if elected, would be the best President to take office this century.
Then again, so would Donald Duck. We got through Dubya and (so far) Obama; I think we'll manage to survive Trump.
Rex Little at June 6, 2016 12:29 AM
Here's Elizabeth Warren advocating for violence against Trump supporters:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkN2TUuXEAAIYOu.jpg
Yet it is Trump who is the monster. Right.
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 4:24 AM
The Dem is totally corrupt, but Trump is the problem? Trump could be the second worst eligible candidate in the country, and he's probably my 12th choice out of the original 16 Reps, but he's getting my vote. There is no option for none of the above, try again.
MarkD at June 6, 2016 5:50 AM
What MarkD said. It is a choice between two options. He sucks less than the alternative. It is as simple as that.
Ben at June 6, 2016 5:53 AM
If Trump is chemo, then Clinton is rat poison. And Sanders would be anti freeze
Also to all the liberals aghast at a border fence, why dont you protest the section that was already built, UNDER Bill Clinton across liberal California's border
lujlp at June 6, 2016 6:20 AM
Yeah, I see why it was rejected too. The point is lost in the hyperventilating, screaming-from-the-rafters writing. Other writers have already made the same point, while managing to sound a lot saner in the process. You can make the point that Trump lacks foreign policy and military experience without saying that the military will refuse to obey Trump's orders. That's preposterous.
I keep seeing this meme that Trump is a stupid person whose support comes from stupid people. That's an inside-the-Beltway conceit if ever there was one. Trump didn't get where he is by being stupid. That doesn't mean he is qualified to be President. But dismissing him and all of his support as ignorant is an intellectual cop-out.
(Hillary isn't stupid either. She's not "the smartest woman in the world", but she isn't stupid.)
Cousin Dave at June 6, 2016 7:06 AM
(Hillary isn't stupid either. She's not "the smartest woman in the world", but she isn't stupid.)
Cousin Dave at June 6, 2016 7:06 AM
What Hillary is; is bought and paid for by a bunch of sleazy special interests, government employee unions, and malevolent foreign governments.
Bernie is just the crazy college drop out, that hung around for a few extra semesters on his soapbox in the student union screaming about the unfairness of capitalism, and licking Noam Chomsky's boots.
I'll take Trump in a heartbeat over those other two choices.
Isab at June 6, 2016 7:27 AM
This "article" is an opinion piece and opinion pieces, especially from unknown authors or authors not in a publication's usual stable of editorialists, get rejected all the time. Peter Boghossian is an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University. James A. Lindsay is harder to find on Google. Both are avowed atheists and atheism activists. They're not modern day Cassandras, revealing truth to the unbelieving masses. They're not laying bare the matrix. That's not why their "article" was rejected.
On top of the obscurity of the authors, the piece itself is weak.
Their predictions are leftist fantasies. Trump will somehow awaken the sleeping giant that is American liberalism and force the GOP to abandon the fundamentalist social conservatives (the very same religious types against which these atheism activists rail) in order to remain relevant to their projected emerging leftist mainstream.
Articles like this start from the position that Hillary Clinton is a political moderate with no downsides and that the GOP is hopelessly out of touch (despite consistently winning governorships and a Congressional majority). That Hillary somehow represents the political mainstream of America and has no skeletons in her closet worthy of examination. Trump then by default becomes the outlier, the awful choice, the harbinger of America's descent into madness.
In reality, Hillary's ethical and criminal lapses make her at least as frightening a choice as he is. Perhaps more so, as despite all his weaknesses, he worked within a framework of laws while she actively sought to violate the frameworks defining her operating theaters and authority - repeatedly. So, the articles default position of Hillary good, Trump bad is naive at best, deliberately deceptive at worst.
Trump is an impulsive vulgarian (to borrow the term from Crid). His business model started with being the facilitator between parties in real estate deals. He made money using other people's money. He branched out into branding, putting his name on the buildings whose financing he was arranging. His branding skills were successful and led him, in a fit of hubris, to believe he could brand anything. So, he branched out into businesses about which he knew nothing, airlines, education, consumer packaged goods, food, apparel, etc. Most of those non-real-estate business ventures are either treading water or long in the grave.
The problem is that Trump's business model of branding himself won't work in the Oval Office. A president must have a consistent political philosophy (beyond, "it'll be yuge") and an ability to conceive and guide policy through a tortuous process with the help of legislative allies.
A presidential candidate is often required to show a different personality in the election process. George HW Bush was a vicious campaigner, but a moderately-tempered politician once in office. His son, too. Often candidates say vicious things about each other in a campaign and then work together as if they were lifelong friends. George HW Bush and Bill Clinton said hateful things about each other but later cemented a solid partnership and friendship chairing tsunami relief efforts in 2005.
Let's hope that candidate Trump is a very different person than president Trump. The presidency will require a different Donald Trump than the one that has strode the political stage so far. It remains to be seen whether that Donald Trump can emerge.
Conan the Grammarian at June 6, 2016 7:37 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/5/irs-reveals-list-of-tea-party-groups-targeted-for-/
When you shit on the peaceful people trying to work within the system, don't be shocked when they've had enough and the next guy isn't so nice.
Shtetl G at June 6, 2016 8:21 AM
"I'll take Trump in a heartbeat over those other two choices. "
No doubt. I'm just saying, don't underestimate the opposition.
Cousin Dave at June 6, 2016 9:57 AM
"I'll take Trump in a heartbeat over those other two choices. "
No doubt. I'm just saying, don't underestimate the opposition.
Cousin Dave at June 6, 2016 9:57 AM
My estimation of the competition has no impact on the vote or the election. I am a single voter in the least populated state in the country, and believe Trump will win here in a landslide.
What happens in Virginia with Clinton buddy Terry McCalliffe adding 200 thousand felons to the voter roles with a stroke or a pen, is beyond my ability to influence.
Best hope, they are all indicted before November.
Isab at June 6, 2016 10:50 AM
Annnnnnnnnnnnnd here we go......
You Trumpistas-- I gotta know. Given the magnitude of you enthusiasm for this transparently incompetent and corrupt businessman, we have to ask:
Are you sending checks? Can he be trusted with campaign donations?
Because you're going to be trusting him with a lot more than that.
Speak freely. Amy will be transcribing your answers and will publish them in a PDF on the morning of November 9th.
Crid at June 6, 2016 11:09 AM
C'mon, tell the truth... 'Cause we're living in a world of fools.
Crid at June 6, 2016 11:18 AM
Of course it was rejected. It's a terrible article. What I get from this is largely gloom and doom pronouncements.
Basically, it's 'This is what will happen with a Trump presidency.' And this prompts the question, "How do you know?"
Well, he never really gets there. So, his proof is simply, 'Because I said so.'
At the risk of sounding like a famous punchline, he says that like it's a bad thing.
Patrick at June 6, 2016 11:18 AM
"You Trumpistas-- I gotta know. Given the magnitude of you enthusiasm for this transparently incompetent and corrupt businessman, we have to ask:"
Don't mistake total loathing for the alternatives, as any sort of enthusiasm fo Trump.
And I think this is the election cycle that will prove once and for all, that money can't always buy the presidency, at least money in the form of traditional media market advertising.
Look what it did for Jeb Bush.
I haven't supported any candidate with cash donations since John McCain showed me how pointless it was to support a candidate who was basically socialist lite.
Mitt Romey doubled down on McCains failed election tactics, and it got us four more years of President Clueless.
Most Americans are fed up. Trump was my last choice of the Republican candidates, although it was almost a tie with spineless Kasich.
But I know how government is structured and how the two party system works. Like him or loathe him, in my mind Trump is the least bad alternative of our remaining choices.
I'll probably just send my money to the NRA. At least they send me hats. :-)
Isab at June 6, 2016 11:41 AM
> Don't mistake total loathing
> for the alternatives, as any
> sort of enthusiasm fo Trump.
Well, a vote for Trump is an expression of enthusiasm. So, as Robin, Maurice and Barry once put it, I rilly need to learn....
Crid at June 6, 2016 12:34 PM
Trump says the flaming-asshole garbage in public that seasoned politicians only say in front of their people. He's no more or less of a power-monger than any of these shmoes. He just doesn't have a filter.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 6, 2016 12:35 PM
Well, a vote for Trump is an expression of enthusiasm. So, as Robin, Maurice and Barry once put it, I rilly need to learn....
Crid at June 6, 2016 12:34 PM
You know Crid, as Gog says, Trump deserves some brownie points for saying in public what the other candidates only say in private.
People are sick to death of totalitarian political correctness, and the way it now seems to run both our government and all the colleges and universities.
And...Fine, you describe a vote as *enthusiasm*. I describe it as being between a rock, and a hard place, with a resigned recognition that politics is a team sport.
I also admit to a certain Schadenfreude watching the old school media working themselves into a frenzy over Trump's cult of personality after drinking the Obama koolaid for nine years.
Isab at June 6, 2016 1:23 PM
"Given the magnitude of you enthusiasm for this transparently incompetent and corrupt businessman..."
There is no enthusiasm for Trump per se. Voting for Trump is an act of electoral bomb-throwing. I freely admit that. But there's a citadel that needs assaulting. Talking to them nicely and having tea with them hasn't worked. Stronger measures are required.
Cousin Dave at June 6, 2016 1:31 PM
Does that translate as "no contribution"?
There are cross-tabulated intersectional considerations of "into the frying pan" vis-a-vis "where your mouth is."
You come to me on a summer breeze....
Crid at June 6, 2016 1:36 PM
I may not feel the need to make a direct monetary contribution, but Crid, I must thank you for yours.
When you joined the NRA, you contributed to him, although indirectly.
Right now the idiot press is ginning up more votes fro Trump than my paltry dollars ever could.
A few more pictures of Mexican flag wavers in near riot in San Jose, will deliver a couple of million votes that might have otherwise stayed home.
It will be even better for Trump when it happens at both the democratic and republican conventions.
The dems may be on their way to a contested convention with a lot of the sore losers of that battle sitting out the general election.
Isab at June 6, 2016 2:15 PM
SO Indirectly that it doesn't count: No, contribution to the NRA is not the same as a contribution to Trump.
(By the way, I was promised a pocketknife! Where's my fucking pocketknife???)
Crid at June 6, 2016 2:21 PM
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2016/02/donald-trump-is-the-beta-test-of-a-cure-for-the-revolt-of-the-elites.html
Oh, and Crid, here is your answer, I think.
Isab at June 6, 2016 2:22 PM
Hope you get the knife.
My *gift* for a lifetime membership was some ridiculous DVD called Women on Target. (A basic shooting instructional video directed at women)
I don't think they bothered to check their Camp Perry entry list before insulting me with that damned video.
Isab at June 6, 2016 2:29 PM
Consider this.
Crid at June 6, 2016 2:45 PM
"My *gift* for a lifetime membership was some ridiculous DVD called Women on Target. "
I'm guessing you don't own one of these, then.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 6, 2016 2:51 PM
I don't have to consider which candidate is the lesser of two evils.
I have already made a determination about which party is the lesser of two evils.
At least the press will hold a Republican president accountable,
Voting has nothing to do with morality. It is strictly for me, a cost benefit calculation.
Also if Hillary Clinton gets away with using the Secretary of States office to funnel money from foreign governments to the Clinton foundation, and in fact is actually rewarded for it, with the presidency, the rule of law is gone.
I'm pretty sure at this point, if she looks weak enough, Obama will throw her under the bus, but I have been wrong before.
Isab at June 6, 2016 3:02 PM
> incompetent
So someone who has built a billion dollar empire, been a reality tv star, had several best selling books, and won a Republican primary is incompetent?
Seriously, Art of the Deal came out in 1987 and is #204 on the Amazon best selling list. This was a side project for Trump while he ran a multi-million dollar business. Amy writes full time and I don't think her books have ever risen to #204.
> corrupt businessman
Willing to wager money on who gets indicted first: Clinton on Trump? Amy can hold funds in escrow....
> enthusiasm
Yes. Really all he has to do to succeed is to build a wall and deport all illegals. Just doing that would likely get him re-elected.
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 3:03 PM
I love the absurdity of a fucking wall. It's one of those hilarious obsessions people have that make me chuckle.
I'm sure the cartels won't build a tunnel. Nah.
Ppen at June 6, 2016 4:07 PM
This may be the most distasteful election ever, exceeding Obama v. McCain by a large margin. McCain was an opportunistic liberal Republican and Obama was an untested socialist-leaning lefty but at least they both offered some redeeming features. McCain was a war hero with a long record in the Senate. Obama offered ideas that excited his liberal base and a band-aid for post civil rights guilt. Neither Trump nor Clinton offer a "but at least" (as in "I don't like him/her but at least....").
A vote for a third party in this election is a wasted vote. While the Johnson-Weld ticket is appealing with Johnson a fiscally conservative libertarian and Weld a fiscally conservative / socially liberal former governor of a liberal state, it has no chance to win.
The Libertarian Party will most likely be happy with a solid showing, gambling that such a showing will mean a greater impact on future elections, but if the convention was any indication, the party will fail to capitalize on any benefits from a strong showing versus Trump and Hillary and return to its cartoon roots and party base of politically nascent 12-year-olds.
It's time we face the fact that the choice in this election is Trump or Clinton, gasbag or crook, bloviating amateur or avaricious mercenary, incompetence or incompetence. We need to honestly evaluate each candidate and elect the one that will do the least harm.
Conan the Grammarian at June 6, 2016 4:13 PM
"So someone who has built a billion dollar empire, been a reality tv star, had several best selling books, and won a Republican primary is incompetent?"
If I am going to admire anyone for those traits it's going to be Kim Kardashian damn it. Her daddy's money was only upper middle class and she managed to turn a porno tape into an $85 million dollar empire without any bankruptcies.
#YeezyforPresident
Ppen at June 6, 2016 4:35 PM
> I'm sure the cartels won't build a tunnel. Nah.
I'm sure they will, just like Hamas does in the Gaza strip. That doesn't mean that Israel's border walls aren't helpful. They keep building more, and building them higher.
Just because something is not a 100% perfect solution, does not mean it is useless.
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 5:09 PM
> So someone who has built a
> billion dollar empire
You are pathetically deceived.
There are almost certainly better investors visiting Amy's blog, and reading these words, than Donald Trump. He lives in a shadow of the wealth given to him by family.
...But I strongly doubt the figures in that tweet.
Cuban doubts he's a billionaire at all:
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:10 PM
Tim O'Brien is similarly unimpressed:
And O'Brien knows a thing or two about Trump's calculations of his own wealth, having been sued for challenging them:
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:12 PM
You know what's ridiculous? People on this website, who primarily lean Republican, spend more energy fighting Trump than they do fighting Clinton
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 5:12 PM
Trumps corporations have filed for Chapter 11 four times. Cosh presents the irony, and CBS offers some specifics:
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:14 PM
A more exhaustive, incomplete listing of Trump's failure is here. If the man has a discernable principle grander than his personal interests, we haven't seen it.
You seem impressed by the fact that Trump's books do well on Amazon, as if that were the point of writing one. (I'm not: A lot of shitty books sell well.) But you don't seem to have read them, quoted them, or even described illuminating passages within them. I could probably find a book reviewer I trust who was assigned to review them —presumably as punishment for looking down the blouse of his editor's wife at the company party— but would not expect a happy report. You don't care. You don't care what he said in the books, you just trust him when he said he knew how to write. You probably shouldn't do that.
As noted above, being better than Hilary is not a compelling reason to vote for him.
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:16 PM
An accusation of "ridiculousness" from you might even have a tartly pleasant sting... But I only "lean" towards libertarian conservatism, never towards Republicans. Fuck 'em.
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:18 PM
> Cuban doubts he's a billionaire at all:
You quote him as an authority, but just today he said:
"Perhaps Donald Trump is a billionaire after all, entrepreneur and billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said Monday"
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mark-cuban-trump-wealth-223934
So is he lying now, or was he lying then? Why would you choose to believe him over other people?
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 5:23 PM
> never towards Republicans. Fuck 'em
At least we agree on something...
Snoopy at June 6, 2016 5:25 PM
The Washington Post breaks down the myth and reality of Trump's business acumen.
Conan the Grammarian at June 6, 2016 5:37 PM
> So is he lying now, or was
> he lying then?
Why would you assume he was being dishonest in either case? Why couldn't his opinion have changed as he discussed it with others?
I think Trump supporters admire Trump for carrying his 8th-grader's ethos all the way through adult life: The ones I've met have done so as well. Assuming that any change or difference of opinion means that someone is "lying" is just such a maneuver.
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:55 PM
And I'd give some credence to Cuban (if not quite calling him an "authority") because, as a billionaire himself, he knows something about how accounting works in his tier of wealth.
Wanna look at those other links, too? Go ahead.
Crid at June 6, 2016 5:57 PM
"Just because something is not a 100% perfect solution, does not mean it is useless."
I'm supposed to believe the people in charge of our borders can muster up the brain cells to create and maintain a wall that keeps out actual self-made billionaires who are providing goods Americans want?
Ppen at June 6, 2016 6:18 PM
I love the absurdity of a fucking wall.
And yet liberal Californians built one, and shunted most of their drug trafficking into Arizona
lujlp at June 6, 2016 6:52 PM
In all the ranting and ravings about Trump, I am still waiting for one coherent argument why 4 more years of a democratic administration headed by someone like Hillary Clinton would be better for this country.
Isab at June 6, 2016 7:16 PM
"shunted most of their drug trafficking into Arizona"
What's your source? Everything I've read says California is still the hub for drug trafficking. Riverside County being the hub for the Sinaloa cartel.
Ppen at June 6, 2016 7:35 PM
Cousin Dave: I keep seeing this meme that Trump is a stupid person whose support comes from stupid people.
Trump's supporters -- and I'm talking about people who love the guy, not people who would be voting for him because they curiously perceive Clinton to be worse -- aren't stupid. They are like religious people who elevate belief over reason. Trump is their messiah who is going to lead them to the promised land.
JD at June 6, 2016 10:55 PM
☑ JD at June 6, 2016 10:55 PM
Crid at June 6, 2016 11:07 PM
"In all the ranting and ravings about Trump, I am still waiting for one coherent argument why 4 more years of a democratic administration headed by someone like Hillary Clinton would be better for this country. "
She has a much thicker skin for one. Consider all the flack Hillary receives on a daily basis and how she keeps her cool. Compare that to Trump's hysterical rage at the most mild criticism. I'd hate to see Trump's reaction to some foreign leader's insults.
JoJo at June 7, 2016 6:30 AM
"If I am going to admire anyone for those traits it's going to be Kim Kardashian damn it. Her daddy's money was only upper middle class and she managed to turn a porno tape into an $85 million dollar empire without any bankruptcies. "
This does bring about a strange sort of respect. In a way, she's the follow-on to Chuck Barris, who made his fortune in the 1970s off of one basic insight: some people will do absolutely anything to get on television. His shows were the prototypes for all of today's "reality" shows.
Cousin Dave at June 7, 2016 7:06 AM
Hillary Clinton is so corrupt that she'll make Richard Nixon look like an archangel. If she wins in 2016, I honestly don't know if there will be a meaningful election in 2020.
Cousin Dave at June 7, 2016 7:08 AM
> She has a much thicker skin for one.
Did it ever occur to you that she weren't such a dishonest, exploitative little filthbot, that she wouldn't *have* to "take flak"? Her entire adult like is essential a criminal enterprise of subterfuges grand and petty.
And Americans admire her. I'll never understand it. You must be turning the page every time anyone writes about her.
Crid at June 7, 2016 7:32 AM
While I share the average Trump / Sanders voter's frustration at a government that has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the idea of the "consent of the governed," I'll approach the election with a rational and analytical frame of mind.
I perceive Clinton, at this point, to be marginally worse than Trump, no "curiously" about it.
As president, Trump would be constrained by both parties in Congress, reminiscent of what the function of Congress was originally designed to be. Clinton would, like Obama, have carte blanche from the Democrats in Congress. Unlike Obama, she'll know how to use it.
Trump's fragile ego would cause immediate and in-the-open problems in his dealings with foreign leaders. Clinton's hidden machinations worry me. She flat out sold her influence as Secretary of State through back-door channels like the Clinton Foundation and Bill's speaking fees. What will she sell as president?
Trump owns his policies, flawed though they are. In a crunch, Hillary panics. She promised to appoint Bill to handle the economy. She knows he's better-liked than she is. And she resents it.
When she gets desperate for votes, she starts proposing grandiose schemes designed to sway the low-information voter into thinking he'll be getting more than an bitter elderly socialist with no patience for those who disagree with her.
In reality, both parties have dropped the ball and given us terrible presidential timber. Headline-getting candidates, but terrible potential presidents.
Which one is more likely to establish a dictatorship? Hard to say.
Trump is a demagogue who would love nothing better than a cult of personality centered around himself. He can't perceive how that would lead to anything but "the best."
Clinton, like Nixon, has always wanted to be widely popular and is resentful that she isn't (and Bill is). She's filled with bitterness that she's married to an idiot like Bill and that her career hasn't led her to the heights of public acclamation and esteem. But she'll show them. Her enemies will get their due, at her hands. Those who doubted her will get their comeuppance. And their little dogs, too.
Your use of "flak" seems to imply that the criticism is unwarranted. She deserves the lion's share of it. She chose to ignore and willfully violate the rules.
She keeps her cool in public because her eyes are on the prize, the presidency. And, unfortunately for her, she's constrained by a different set of rules than Trump is. If she, a woman, wants to be president, she needs to project an unflappable public persona, even if in private, she's the diva dictator from hell screeching at her terrified minions, as documented in Inside the White House, Crisis of Character, The Residence, and myriad other books and articles on the subject.
Trump, on the other hand, knows exactly what image he's projecting. He's a fly by the seat of his pants cartoon man of action. And, unlike Hillary, he's calmer and more rational in private. Trump's public persona is selling. Or, at least it sold during the nomination process. The election is a different arena and Hillary's made-up preternaturally calm elder persona may sell better in that venue.
She failed to put away a no-name freshman senator in the last election and in this one she's failed to put away a raving socialist crackpot who makes your crazy conspiracy theory spouting Uncle Carl look rational. Trump, on the other hand, decisively put away several candidates who were better candidates than he could ever hope to be and is closing on her. The FBI is dogging her trail. Obama wants her out. Joe Biden wants back in. She's in trouble and she knows it. Watch for that calm public persona to crack a bit down the road.
I wouldn't trust either one of them to cat sit for me and we're about to give one of them the nuclear keys.
Conan the Grammarian at June 7, 2016 7:47 AM
I've seen this point made today: Since Trump doesn't have a built-in constituency anywhere, in order to govern he would have to put together a coalition of some sort. The author speculated that this might consist of some combination of establishment Republicans, Tea Partiers, some union members, and some moderate Democrats. That might all be a bit optimistic, but the point was, Trump will have to negotiate with several different support bases in order to get anything done, and that will tend to temper his ambitions. (Assuming he doesn't want to be regarded as a completely failed President.)
Hillary, on the other hand, has access to political muscle such that she doesn't have to negotiate or compromise. She can enforce her will. The Washington cronies and the media will all back her, and the Sanders youth leftists will fall in line as soon as they realize what the situation is, and have a few trinkets thrown their way. Nothing will constrain her.
Cousin Dave at June 7, 2016 1:19 PM
What's your source?
DOJ, FBI, Californias politicians, AZ stats on seized drugs
lujlp at June 8, 2016 8:26 AM
Link it.
Ppen at June 9, 2016 6:02 AM
Leave a comment