Like a lot of observers at the time, I thought Trump had no real policy agenda to define his campaign beyond a vague pro-America sentiment and a withering disdain for the political establishments of both major parties. I thought his political inexperience was a liability, that his penchant for insulting his opponents would turn voters off, and that the GOP had missed an opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton by nominating someone else—anyone, really, besides Trump.
But it turned out Trump was the best candidate to beat Clinton because Clinton embodied nearly everything voters had come to hate about America’s political class: the falsity, the naked hypocrisy, the barely disguised disdain for ordinary people. For all his obvious faults, Trump wasn’t a professional politician, had no record to defend, and was unconstrained by the conventions of ordinary political rhetoric. He was uniquely positioned to call out and exploit Clinton’s faults and shortcomings, and expose the contradictions at the heart of the Democratic Party.
For Republican voters, Trump offered the promise of something different from the seemingly endless pattern of politicians who promised one thing and did another, especially on immigration and free trade. For decades, incessant Republican boasting about “securing the border” never actually secured the border as mass illegal immigration continued apace. Expressions of sympathy for the American working class never produced policies that might actually help the working class. Trump zeroed in on these things, and his message resonated because it was true (and still is).
Trump is the Constantine of the United States--history will show if he is Constantine I, saving the American system under a new unifying vision, or rather Constantine XI, presiding over his realm's final destruction in a valiant albeit fruitless struggle.
I really don't understand how people could have thought Trump had an ill-defined policy agenda. It was quite clear for over a year what he wanted to do. Secure the border, fix our trade policy, bring jobs back to America, and get us out of foreign interventions. Rebuild our military, and get the economy back to booming. He said this over and over and over again for many months. And people still were claiming he didn't have any real policy positions. It was infuriating then to have to keep hammering this to those who were constantly using it as a reason to not support Trump.
I agree; those who consider his policy objectives "ill-defined" tend, in my experience, to be beholden to the standard "uniparty" policy doublespeak. Trump said what he wanted to do, explained how it would benefit Americans, did it, and then showed how it had provided the benefits he'd promised. For those used to a Bushian "This is what you want; this is what you get instead" program, that must seem baffling.
Not "for many months," it was for many YEARS. His interviews are still up on YT in which he's been saying the same thing. Now, he's doing what he had been saying for YEARS what needed to be done.
What I meant was for many months prior to his election in 2016. Which was based on the article talking about how the author didn't think Trump had any real policy positions in 2015/2016 and how wrong he was.
The absolute implosion of the supposedly-conservative media continues to be both appalling and baffling to me. I can't imagine who they think their audience will be going forward, unless it's an ever-dwindling pool of equally deluded financial backers.
Like a lot of observers at the time, I thought Trump had no real policy agenda to define his campaign beyond a vague pro-America sentiment and a withering disdain for the political establishments of both major parties. I thought his political inexperience was a liability, that his penchant for insulting his opponents would turn voters off, and that the GOP had missed an opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton by nominating someone else—anyone, really, besides Trump.
But it turned out Trump was the best candidate to beat Clinton because Clinton embodied nearly everything voters had come to hate about America’s political class: the falsity, the naked hypocrisy, the barely disguised disdain for ordinary people. For all his obvious faults, Trump wasn’t a professional politician, had no record to defend, and was unconstrained by the conventions of ordinary political rhetoric. He was uniquely positioned to call out and exploit Clinton’s faults and shortcomings, and expose the contradictions at the heart of the Democratic Party.
For Republican voters, Trump offered the promise of something different from the seemingly endless pattern of politicians who promised one thing and did another, especially on immigration and free trade. For decades, incessant Republican boasting about “securing the border” never actually secured the border as mass illegal immigration continued apace. Expressions of sympathy for the American working class never produced policies that might actually help the working class. Trump zeroed in on these things, and his message resonated because it was true (and still is).
Very well written comment, mightyclaw. Very insightful.
Thanks very much, but I was directly quoting the article. ;-)
There was a reason America was great once... and by going back to those roots Trump will only make it greater
Trump is the Constantine of the United States--history will show if he is Constantine I, saving the American system under a new unifying vision, or rather Constantine XI, presiding over his realm's final destruction in a valiant albeit fruitless struggle.
I really don't understand how people could have thought Trump had an ill-defined policy agenda. It was quite clear for over a year what he wanted to do. Secure the border, fix our trade policy, bring jobs back to America, and get us out of foreign interventions. Rebuild our military, and get the economy back to booming. He said this over and over and over again for many months. And people still were claiming he didn't have any real policy positions. It was infuriating then to have to keep hammering this to those who were constantly using it as a reason to not support Trump.
I agree; those who consider his policy objectives "ill-defined" tend, in my experience, to be beholden to the standard "uniparty" policy doublespeak. Trump said what he wanted to do, explained how it would benefit Americans, did it, and then showed how it had provided the benefits he'd promised. For those used to a Bushian "This is what you want; this is what you get instead" program, that must seem baffling.
Not "for many months," it was for many YEARS. His interviews are still up on YT in which he's been saying the same thing. Now, he's doing what he had been saying for YEARS what needed to be done.
What I meant was for many months prior to his election in 2016. Which was based on the article talking about how the author didn't think Trump had any real policy positions in 2015/2016 and how wrong he was.
The absolute implosion of the supposedly-conservative media continues to be both appalling and baffling to me. I can't imagine who they think their audience will be going forward, unless it's an ever-dwindling pool of equally deluded financial backers.