I really do not like Donald Trump. I don’t like his style, I don’t like his way of speaking, I don’t like or agree with ninety percent of what he says, I don’t like his vulgarity, I don’t like the few coherent things he has said about what he intends to do, I don’t like his combative attacks on anyone he feels has crossed him, I don’t like the dim glimmerings of policy—foreign or domestic—that he has hinted at, and I especially don’t like the fact that some of what he says he intends to do simply doesn’t make sense at any level (high tariffs on air conditioners made in Mexico aren’t going to help an already struggling middleclass, and a concrete wall across the border would have unimaginably negative effects on various threatened species that have travel corridors across our southern border, including the jaguar that my friend, rancher Warner Glenn, first documented on American soil back in 1996).
But I understand why the Trumpster has resonated with a large number of people, including, in a very few cases, me. His appeal lies in the fact that he speaks about issues the way guys sitting around over a beer or two too many might speak, in politically incorrect terms that are neither especially intelligent nor insightful, but that express the (pick one or all) fear, discontent, anger, sorrow so many of us feel about the way the country is going under Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is so politically correct he can’t even say the words “Islamic terrorism.” Trump’s appeal, in short, is his willingness, as he might put it, to call a spade a fucking shovel.
That willingness to speak bluntly or crudely, the way guys might sitting around over a beer, may be refreshing, but it’s not enough to make me vote for him. Nor would I vote for him simply because he is the lesser of two evils, a loose cannon whose primary appeal is that he is an unknown political outsider running against the ultimate political insider who is all too well known: think of Whitewater; Travelgate; Wall Street speaking fees; the Rose law firm lies; the Marc Rich pardon; dodging bullets at Sarajevo; leaving the White House broke; the disgraceful Benghazi scandal; trashing the victims of her husband’s peccadillos; the ongoing and ever growing email scandal; the quid pro quo of enormous speaking fees to Bill in exchange for her influence on foreign policy decisions as Secretary of State; her contempt for both the first—the first!—and second amendments… The list goes on and on. None of that alone is enough to make me vote for the Trumpster.
There are, however, two things that will make me vote for the Trumpster.
The first is the radical left’s attempt to silence him. Remember your history. Hitler’s rise to power was facilitated by his organization known as the “brown shirts,” the Sturmabteilung, thugs who went around beating up anyone who disagreed with the Hitler. In much the same way, the people who prevent or disrupt the speaking of anyone they disagree with on college campuses (an extraordinary, inconsistent and incoherent list that ranges from rightwing commentators to accomplished military officers to victims of radical Islam, or—apparently—anyone who makes radical left-wing college students actually think) are now using violence to prevent the Trumpster from spouting his weird, vague, and sometimes poorly thought-out ideas about making America great again. But exactly who are those people? In San Jose, some were wearing T-shirts supporting the communist party. Some of those who tore up an American flag (a moronic tactic calculated to undermine whatever validity they might have had) were carrying Mexican flags. Some were carrying professionally made signs with the Service Employees International Union logo, a left-leaning Democratic organization that spent $28 million dollars supporting Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, and $70 million dollars supporting him and other Democrats in 2012. Some protestors were photographed by the Washington Post laying down their Gloria La Riva (socialist party candidate) signs to burn Make America Great hats. And some of the protestors, according to ABC news, simply kept their hands free to flash gang-affiliated hand-signs.
I find that mindless mob willingness to stifle the First Amendment right of free speech far more terrifying than anything the Trumpster has ever said. Hillary has already made clear that she intends to try to curtail the First Amendment when it comes to political expression, specifically in regard to the “Citizens United” ruling. (Her stated objection to the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision is that it allowed “a right-wing organization [to] attack me,” a slightly egocentric point of view.) For the record, the pertinent sentence in the court’s majority decision reads: “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” Hillary has also stated that both the first and second amendments should be subject to “reasonable regulation.” “Reasonable regulation?” Are the Trumpster’s opponents taking a cue from Hillary to enforce their idea of “reasonable regulation?” It would be interesting to know precisely what regulation Hillary finds “reasonable” for the First Amendment beyond people disagreeing with her. She has also stated, to George Stephanopoulos, in regard to the Second Amendment, that, “…if it is a Constitutional right, then it, like every other Constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation.” [Emphasis mine.] If that statement doesn’t terrify you, then you would have felt right at home with Hitler’s Sturmabteilung. There are already far too many parallels between Hillary and the radical left protestors for me to want to find out what her idea of “reasonable regulation” is of any of my rights.
The other reason why I will vote for the Trumpster is best expressed by the recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which states: “There is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Of the eleven judge panel, five were appointed by former president Bill Clinton, one by Lyndon Johnson, and one by Barack Hussein Obama. In other words, I will vote for the Trumpster because—to quote Barack Hussein Obama—“elections have consequences,” and the ability to appoint judges is one of those consequences.