The Responsibility of Trump Voters

It is absolutely true that Republican Party leaders paved the way for Donald Trump by failing to grasp and attend to the great unhappiness of a broad swath of the GOP electorate.  Principally, many felt they had been betrayed by leadership promises that the party take-over of the House and Senate in 2010 and 2014 would bring conservative change to Washington.  It did not.  So the “led” disowned the leadership. 

Donald Trump has been chosen to fill the void.

The GOP nominee is a crude, crass man whose Republican credentials are highly suspect and who seems incapable of delivering a consistent, coherent message unless glued to a teleprompter.

For that circumstance, GOP voters also are to blame.  Yes, the conservative rage is understandable – the failure of leadership to explain why change appeared not to have occurred – and there are good reasons -  is inexcusable.  Yet anger does not excuse irresponsibility.

Rage and anger usually subside when emotions cool, and common sense comes to the fore.

Like many other observers, The Sensible Conservative assumed that such a process would assert itself long before the primary season was over.  It seemed inconceivable that Donald Trump, so prone to calling others names and obviously uninformed on public policy matters, would be deemed an appropriate nominee for the Republican Party.

 

I was wrong.

One can explain what happened by noting that GOP voters are so disgusted with Washington that they simply wanted change and didn’t care who brought it about.  That lack of concern of what policy that change agent would follow or character he would display is illustrated by reports that some Sanders’ supporters have switched to Trump and that if Trump had not prevailed many of his backers would have gone over to the socialist senator.

But that is irresponsible.  In a democracy, the citizens choose their leaders.  They have a duty to do so with care. 

Having an extended temper tantrum will not do. 

Did not the children following the Pied Piper over the cliff bear responsibility for their fate? 

History Ignored – the Undying Appeal of Socialism

Why, why, why... does socialism still attract supporters?  How come there’s not a widely-supported presidential candidate pushing mercantilism or a barter system for the American economy?  Certainly the latter two were outdated centuries ago and the first one has been a consistent failure across millennia.

But it’s news to some that socialist Venezuela is in financial crisis with inflation sky high and widespread shortages of consumer necessities.  And yet, young Americans by the millions have been attracted to Sen. Bernie Sanders, a proclaimed socialist.

In its essence, socialism demands equality of results.  By contrast, the free enterprise system (capitalism) offers equal opportunity.  Karl Marx, in the Communist Manifesto, put the socialist position quite succinctly:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

There is an understandable appeal to this prescription.  After all, that sounds so nice… but it’s not consistent with human nature.  Where is the incentive for those with “ability” to use it for the benefit of those in “need”?  Of course, in some perfect world (like Utopia) people would act as socialists would want – sort of like “one for all and all for one”.  This hope has guided cooperative communities and kibbutzim around the world.  But they uniformly fail.  Human nature is the reason. 

Some participants may be altruistic for a while, giving without getting, for the good of the community.  However, others will certainly do more taking than giving, generating resentment from others.  Thus the idealism which was the motivating factor in the initial organization of the group begins to weaken as the result of jealousy, anger, laziness and myriad negative aspects of human nature.

So what happens?  Seemingly, nobody works hard without appropriate rewards.  The economy falters.  There is an equality that comes to pass – poverty is shared by all.  This is the reality of socialism.  With this perspective, the late Bernie-mania doesn’t seem so amusing.

Note:  There is a common tendency on the right to treat Marx’s economic prescriptions set forth in his tome “Das Kapital” as inseparable from doctrines of the twentieth century’s Marxist/Leninist/totalitarian/communist states.  That is a distortion.  Marx envisioned that inevitably communism would supplant all other economic systems as a matter of historical certainty. Lenin realized that people must be compelled or killed to bring about a system contrary to their self-interest.  Marx was naïve.  Lenin and his ideological heirs were not. 

Dropping Judicial Robes -- Justice Ginsburg Bares Her Political Views

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently announced her disapproval of Donald Trump, generating strong criticism from both conservatives and liberals.  Both sides were being disingenuous. 

 

Justice Ginsburg, on the High Court since 1993, has consistently been on the left side of the bench.  Did anyone really think that, in her secret heart, she was a conservative masquerading as a liberal?  

Her candor, in an interview with the New York Times, was expanded a few days later when she expressed her opinion on further decisions she hoped the Supreme Court would issue.  That only intensified the criticism, causing the Justice to apologize for revealing her views on policy matters as well as electoral preferences.     

Honesty is usually heralded -- but not when it undercuts a favorite myth.

Judges, from the municipal level to the U.S. Supreme Court, take an oath to be fair and impartial in the performance of their judicial duties.  They are not obligated to erase from their minds previously-held political views or biases.  But the myth is that they keep such opinions locked away when acting as judges.

As a practical matter, politics and policies are rarely involved in what most judges do.  Accordingly, judges are generally impartial in the matters before them since they have no stake (moral or political) in the outcome.  The questions usually to be decided deal with whether a party met its "burden of proof" and whether existing law is being properly applied.  

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is on a different level.  Of course, it also deals with the mundane, non-controversial areas of legal interpretation.  But policy disputes involving different political and social perspectives are common.  How the U.S. Constitution is "understood" determines outcomes.  The political perspective of a Justice is usually a more accurate predictor of his or her vote than is sound legal reasoning.

A cynic would say that most policy disputes are resolved by choosing one side and casting about for the most persuasive arguments available to support the decision already made.  It is hard to believe otherwise, for instance, in the case of Chief Justice Roberts upholding Obamacare, or the Court's "discovery" of the right to abortion (Roe v Wade) nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

Yet the legal community strives mightily to uphold the illusion of impartiality in all judicial activities.  Justice Ginsburg, shall we say, has not been supportive of those endeavors.

It's really not so much the biases she possesses.  It's rather that she'd disclose them.  An "appearance" of impropriety is almost as serious as actual prejudice.  

Why is that considered to be important?  Because from a societal perspective, it is essential that the public believes that American courts offer justice.  Cynicism is not conducive to social cohesion.

Justice would be viewed as a sham concept if judges are seen as merely hiding their biases and prejudices like the Wizard of Oz concealed by a curtain.

Why the Term “Radical Islamic Terrorism” Matters

The president was quite emotional recently – something he rarely displays – talking about why using the phrase is not a good idea.  First, Obama noted, it doesn’t matter what one calls terrorist enemies – they are targeted for death regardless of the label affixed to them.  Second, he insisted, calling the foe “radical Islamists” is viewed by the world as indicting an entire religion and offends erstwhile allies who consider themselves “moderate Muslims”.

The first contention is superficially true.  But failing to specify the nature of the enemy confuses would-be allies abroad and, more importantly, the American public.  Whom, after all, are we fighting?  That confusion, understandably, saps support for the effort.  If the President’s view is muddled, how can Americans be expected to fully support a battle against unnamed opponents?

It is an axiom of warfare that knowing one’s enemy is critical to defeating it.  In this case, the foe is guided by a radical ideology rooted in ancient Muslim thought.  Its aim is to kill or intimidate those everywhere who are perceived to stand in the way of the establishment of a world-wide caliphate.  Our enemy is not some amorphous non-creed which engages in random, pointless slaughter.

 

Secondly, it is silly – and insulting to non-radical followers of Islam – to suggest that “the world” cannot – and does not – distinguish between an attack on Radical Islamist Terrorism and the Muslim religion practiced by most believers.  Of course, they do.  Interestingly, President Obama’s failure to make the distinction might even feed the perception - certainly held by some already – that the Muslim faith is the enemy.  Why else won’t America’s top leader single out a segment of self-identified Islamist believers and instead leave the impression that the religion’s entire flock is responsible?

Note:  Another source of confusion is the name of the most prominent proponent of radical Islam.  Is it ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), as most commentators term it, or is it ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) as the Administration insists on calling it?

Why does the White House (including the president) refuse to use the more common label?  For the casual observer, the impression is left that there are two separate terror groups.  Are they both enemies?  Is the White House targeting one but not the other?

The Democratic Convention, Briefly Noted

The hope of Hillary Clinton that the recent Philadelphia gathering would lead to a kinder, more trusting view of her by the American public will soon be dashed by opinion polls.

 The Democratic nominee, on convention eve, was viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy by two-thirds of all voters. There may well be a blip downward post-convention, but such effects rarely last and certainly will not for her.

 Hillary Clinton's character defects are too well known and are embedded in the public's consciousness.

 It's not as if Americans don't know who she is. Her reputation preceded her to Philadelphia.