Who Is Donald Trump And What Does He Stand For?
Depends on the moment.
Andrew Sullivan chronicles this perfectly at NYMag:
Every day, the incoherence deepens: He's going to cover "everyone," but he's going to push 24 million people off their health insurance. He's going to wipe out the debt, but his tax cuts and spending spree will add trillions to it. He's never going to intervene in Syria, but he just did. He's going to get Mexico to pay for a big, beautiful wall, but he isn't. China is a currency manipulator, but it isn't. The media is the enemy of the people, but he is on the phone with them every five minutes and can't stop watching CNN and reading the New York Times. He's going to be a tightwad with taxpayers' money, unlike Obama, but his personal travel expenses are on track to be eight times more than his predecessor's. He's going to work relentlessly for the American people but he spends half his days watching cable news. We've got to be "very, very tough" in foreign affairs, but when he sees dead babies on TV, he immediately calls General Mattis and lobs 59 Tomahawk missiles. He has a secret plan to defeat ISIS, but pursues Obama's strategy instead. He is for the "forgotten men and women" of America, but his tax plan -- which is itself changing all the time -- benefits the superrich and depends on removing health insurance for the working poor. He wants to be friends with Russia, but he doesn't. He's going to challenge China's policy on Taiwan, but he isn't. He is against crony capitalism, but he is for it. He's going to keep the focus on America, but just upped the ante in Yemen and Afghanistan. He's a deal-maker, but he cannot make deals even with his own party. He's a great manager, but his White House is consumed with in-fighting and he cannot staff his own administration. He's a populist who stacks his cabinet with Goldman Sachs alums. He's going to pressure China to take on North Korea, but "after listening for ten minutes" to China's dictator, he changes his mind.
...What on earth is the point of trying to understand him when there is nothing to understand? Calling him a liar is true enough, but liars have some cognitive grip on reality, and he doesn't. Liars remember what they have said before. His brain is a neural Etch A Sketch. He doesn't speak, we realize; he emits random noises. He refuses to take responsibility for anything. He can accuse his predecessor and Obama's national security adviser of crimes, and provide no evidence for either. He has no strategy beyond the next 24 hours, no guiding philosophy, no politics, no consistency at all -- just whatever makes him feel good about himself this second. He therefore believes whatever bizarre nonfact he can instantly cook up in his addled head, or whatever the last person who spoke to him said. He makes Chauncey Gardiner look like Abraham Lincoln. Occam's razor points us to the obvious: He has absolutely no idea what he's doing. Which is reassuring and still terrifying all at once.
Of course, the last to admit anything even coming close to resembling an inconsistency in the man are those who voted for him. At least, many of those.
The Libertarians have a few years to get their shit together. Is it still too much to ask that they -- when there's greater opportunity than ever to elect a Libertarian -- put forth a candidate with both a personality and a clue?