I've explained in past essays an earlier political watershed moment: the rejection of the SCOTUS nomination of Robert Bork. (It's ironic that years later, as my perspective became more libertarian, I would grow to reject certain things like his conclusion that the ninth amendment was an ink blot on the Constitution.) What was clear to me is that Bork was a brilliant jurist, as qualified as any person who has ever been, before and since. The Democrats and even some liberal Republicans politicized the nomination and in fact SCOTUS itself; this is what I saw as a corruption of our republic. I myself had long admired rigor and integrity; there's a saying in basketball: you can't teach height. Similarly you can't teach judicial brilliance, and there is no doubt Bork would be a compelling leader on the court. "Chief Justice Warren Burger called Bork the most effective counsel to appear before the court during his tenure.."
My folks never really talked politics. I knew my maternal grandfather, a mom-and-pop grocer, was a registered Republican, but after he retired (my uncle is a priest, and my mom a military wife; my grand-uncle, his partner, had no dependents), the store went out of business, and I believe a pub now occupies the spot in east Fall River, he told me he got one of social security's biggest checks. It struck me curious that a conservative took pride in cashing a government check. Of course, he had also saved privately for his retirement. My uncle has been very conservative but we never really talked politics. My mom is more of a social conservative (in particular, she doesn't like the ACLU's stand on the separation of Church and State, e.g., things like taking down crosses, removing the Ten Commandments.)
I think when you grow up as a military brat, you tend to be somewhat conservative. But I couldn't tell you my Dad's views, but my best guess is more of a blue-collar Democrat. I do recall being obsessed with the impeachment hearings of Nixon. My folks were not at all interested, but I remember one night I was watching late in the evening, and my folks kept telling me to turn it off and go to sleep and I kept telling them another 5 minutes. All of a sudden the power cut off. (My Dad went into the circuit breaker closet.)
Now I came from a lower middle class family on a tight budget, no money to help out for college; although a scholarship took care of most of the tuition, I had to work and/or take a small loan out to pay for room and board, books, incidental expenses, etc. My political fiscal conservatism was a reflection of my personal/family budgeting. The first (and only) reason I identified with Jimmy Carter was his stance favoring zero-based budgeting (meaning everything in the budget was on the table and had to be justified). There wasn't a snowball's chance in hell ZBB would ever pass a Dem-controlled Congress, but I didn't know that.
Ironically, I never took an undergrad economics course; I did come across Marx and others during a social philosophy course. I had been seriously considering going into the seminary as a candidate for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Being in a typical "progressive" university, I more readily identified with the goal of legislation rather its implementation. (In our salad days, weren't we all just a little naive?) I really didn't analyze issues in a cost-benefit manner, unintended consequences, that government involvement might exacerbate the situation in a counterproductive manner, that the private economy and charity might address the need better, faster, and cheaper, that government rules and regulations not only warped markets, but deterred competition and innovation.
I had gotten involved getting involved with minor volunteer work during the 1976 campaign. Texas did go Carter (barely), the last time the Democrats won the top of the ticket. I even reached out to my relatives; my cousin wrote that I had convinced my paternal grandmother to go out and vote Carter. (Of course, Massachusetts has been a fairly reliable blue state (except I believe for Reagan and Eisenhower) since Coolidge swept every county from his home state in 1924.) The failure of the Carter Presidency disillusioned me from future active participation in politics. (I remember getting carsick as a young boy, probably when we were moving to Florida, and I attributed it to the animal crackers I had eaten; I've never eaten them since.) In my last gasp of politics, I stood for Ted Kennedy at the 1980 Texas caucuses, which was more anti-Carter with a touch of nostalgia for the Kennedy dynasty.
I would soon evolve to a more comprehensive and consistent conservatism as I started on my MBA part-time that fall, including my first of 2 economics courses. There was nothing particularly ideological about my macroeconomics course; I don't think any of the UH professors ever uttered anything political; if anything, my marketing professor cautioned that I was coming across as too strident. I had started to question what I saw an expanding government empire and questionably effective social policies. At the same time I was reluctant to join the "country club" GOP. All my life the Dems had controlled the House and/or the Senate, I realized that the Dems were increasingly being dominated by the "progressives" I loathed, but I felt at the time I had more influence inside vs. outside the party.
Until the Bork nomination. The fact that Kennedy, the same politician I had stood for just a few years earlier, was one of the ringleaders behind the Bork defeat was not lost upon me, and I switched party affiliations. I was never into the GOP per se; I have not worked for or contributed to it; I was never inspired by it, but it served a useful purpose in stopping the "progressives" on health care and other unsustainable initiatives.
But just as my 1980 economics course was an inflection point during the years of my Democratic registration, I had become increasingly disenchanted with the GOP's sacred cow of the defense budget and neo-con foreign policy. I think after 9/11 I gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt over Iraq intervention, but it was clear they hadn't thought some things through like the local government withering away, the sectarian differences and minority rights in a new government, etc
There were two major points which led me to question neo-con policy (no, not Ron Paul). The first was Woodward's "The War Within". The second was how Obama dithered on the Afghanistan surge decision and basically split the difference on the lowest-staffed, highest-risk option.
The Trump campaign, however, I see a challenge to the American republican form of government. In a very deep field of experienced governors and some exceptional senators, the unlikeliest populist in the field, an unprincipled thin-skinned, intemperate celebrity billionaire with no regard for civility has seemingly touched into a sweet spot of populist discontent, starting with anti-immigrant rhetoric. There is absolutely no logic to any of this. There are a lot of issues to worry about with big government run amok, with suboptimal growth, a regulatory regime, over $100T in national debt and unfunded liabilities. Immigrants have nothing to do with any of this, but they are often scapegoated in a tough economy.
In normal times, Trump's uncivil behavior with the POW hero John McCain, FNC star anchor Megyn Kelly, and others would be more than enough to kill his candidacy.
In normal times, Trump's flip-flops on positions like immigration reform (his signature issue no less!), abortion, and nationalized health care, his past contributions to and public support to the Clintons would be more than fatal to his candidacy.
In normal times, Trump's status as a multi-billionaire, his cronyism, and business bankruptcies would make him an easy target for the general election. (Does anyone really believe Trump's idea of a political favor is Hillary Clinton attending his wedding? Who knows what gems from Trump's long celebrity are waiting to surface (remember Christine O'Donnell and the witch kerfuffle?))
In normal times, Trump's status in polls of losing 10 points or more to the likely Dem nominee Hillary Clinton would make his candidacy a non-starter.
The issue I have isn't so much with Trump as with his followers; his Teflon candidacy boggles my imagination. This seems to remind me of how Rome degenerated from the republic to the dictatorship. It looks like the cultists are tired of the seeming insecurity of our typically divided federal government--and want an authoritarian who claims that he can fill that void in leadership and expertise, which appeals to these voters.
The real solution is devolvement of centralized government, not someone who promises to "make it better". If the GOP nominates Trump, not only will I not vote for him, but for the second time I'll abandon my nominal party registration.
