Is Trump Really That Stupid?

 

Donald Trump is insecure as a person in so many ways.  An example is his denigration of his opponents.  By doing so, he assures himself that he is better than they are.  After all, he tells himself, he must be more intelligent since he succeeds where they don’t.

So, Trump holds a rally in Georgia and decides to use that forum to attack the very popular state governor Brian Kemp for his failure to assist in the effort to overturn the election results of 2020.

Is Trump really that stupid?

Georgia is one of those swing states whose support is vital to Trump’s victory in November.  Gov. Kemp has pledged his support.  That endorsement in valuable since the governor has a high approval rating.

Obviously, the smart move by Trump would have been to praise – not pummel – the governor.  To let “bygones be bygones” is beyond his capacity however… That observation brings us back to Trump’s insecurities.  The former president almost always speaks in terms of exaggeration and hyperbole.  Thus, the stupidity displayed in Georgia brings into question his own intelligence level since his self-assessment rates it highly.

Democrats Avoid Chance to Slam Anti-Semitism

 

The consensus among most liberal politicians and media commentators was that Gov. Shapiro of Pennsylvania was the obvious and best possible  pick as the VP running mate for Comley Harris. He was considered relatively moderate (by liberal standards), a popular leader and likely to attract more support for the ticket in his home state. But he was Jewish and pro-Israel. That apparently generated resistance to his candidacy among  young voters and members of the left-wing.

They were wrong.

The reasoning behind the choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is unclear. "Good vibes", whatever that means, has been suggested by many. The fact that he was not Jewish is not cited as an explanation. Given the apparent opposition among the far left and young, that may or may not have been an explanation for the political decision. Unfortunately, the Harris campaign ill-served the country regardless of the preselection considerations.

Choosing Gov. Shapiro would have been a clear declaration of opposition to anti-Semitism. Sure, those of that bias would be angry and that reaction would have had negative political consequences. But the net electoral effect might have been – in Pennsylvania anyway – positive.

But forget the political (if possible) for a moment. He would have been the right choice for the Democrats. It would have been a message to the country that a Jew should be treated no differently than any other American. That truth would survive the election results. Implicitly stating it would have been a credit to the Democratic Party.

The fact that Gov. Shapiro was not named certainly doesn't prove the presence of anti-Semitic considerations. But it does leave open speculation – and thoughts of conspiracy – for just such things.

The Democrats did indeed blow their chance to make a clear statement for the country and possibly benefit politically.

Are These the Worst of Times?

 

Older people – and I acknowledge my status with few regrets – have long deplored the ways of younger generations. I certainly remember the disapproval of elders for the young when I was in that category.

When I suggest – as I do – that these are the worst of times for American society and its politics, I recognize that I may simply be displaying  generational displeasure.

 I think not. 

Good times are here when we feel happy together about national successes (WWII victory) or united in sorrow (9/11) but determined to mend.  We stand as one people.

Bad times are present when major forces within threaten to tear us asunder.

As old as I am (hint - I've been following, and been active in, politics since I was a teenager, some 50 years ago), I objectively report that these times are the worst I've seen.  We don’t get along

We Americans are not only at each other's throats, we are losing respect for our country, viewing the other side as in control. This seems comparable to the rhetoric and passions of the Vietnam era of the 1960s.  But those subsided with the US withdrawal. The period was seen by most as an aberration from more civil times. 

And then the Internet landed on the general scene.

Civility began to slide again. Language was particularly crude, obscene and vulgar because of the anonymity of the exchange.  Eventually, giving offense seemingly became the object online.   Hiding the sender’s identity no longer seemed necessary (speak your mind!).  The vile exchanges, if anything, only increased. 

It is a truism that society leads the way and the political class adopts society’s mores. Thus, in 2024, politicians both male and female utter out loud obscenities which were previously considered unacceptable even when used in private [remember the disapproval of Richard Nixon's recording tapes which merited the label "explicative deleted"?]. 

This change is well illustrated by Nancy Mace, a young conservative Republican Congresswoman from South Carolina, who spews obscenities on live TV. (The genteel South is no more?)

Such conduct would have been strongly condemned not that many years ago as violations of good manners and social mores (why give needless offense?) enforced by the broad society. 

Not anymore. Our society's response is relativistic – who are we to judge?

Those of us who believe that standards of decorum should be in force for the good of society, that's who.

Words convey emotions and attitude. Hostile words often lead to angry responses and hostile reactions.  Is violence, including assassination efforts, a surprising consequence?

And we wonder why so many of us hate the other side. 

These are the worst of times.