A long, long time ago in 2012, there was a real estate developer named Donald J. Trump who lambasted Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for losing the election with his "crazy" and "maniacal" talk of promising to create conditions so miserable for unauthorized immigrants that they would "self deport." What did Romney say that was so bad? That he would crackdown on employers who hired illegals. "It sounded as bad as it was," said the developer. "He lost all of the Latino vote ... He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."
Fast forward four years, and the same developer realized that, actually, the problem with Romney's "crazy" and "maniacal" plan was that it was not crazy and maniacal enough. Stirring the racial pot, he found, could pull out just enough votes from the bottom of the barrel to win an election and become president. It might sink his party in the long run, but it would work for nowNow I disagree with Trump's original analysis of the 2012 race. Oh, be clear: I definitely think Romney's morally repulsive, un-American immigration policy hurt him. And it was unnecessary--because the peak of unauthorized visitors was in 2007, and there was a net outflow during the interim years as jobs were hard to find in recessionary America. But I felt that Romney had missed a golden opportunity to position himself against the Bush/Obama record of unsustainable spending and deficits and international interventions.
What I saw was a deliberately manipulative, unprincipled man seeking power and willing to do and say whatever it took to get there. He had no shot at the Democratic nomination but the GOP side was weak and vulnerable to an unconventional candidacy. Unlike most of his opponents he didn't have a voting record to defend; he was a well-known celebrity; he was a master at self-promotion, he knew most right-wing political activists were one-issue (anti-immigration). He positioned himself as the only person who knew how to create jobs (never the mind running his core businesses into bankruptcy 6 times, which I believe is a record).
To those in the cult of Trump, none of his contradictions mattered:
- Far from this myth he was not part of the swamp, he was a real estate developer who depended on political connections, which included contributions to politicians, basically part of the cost of doing business. A telling example was the way he resorted to eminent domain when his attempts to buy out Vera Coking's home to make room to limousine parking at his casino. (The seizure was below Trump's offer; Trump simply defends himself noting that the appellate court eventually overruled the seizure ) Trump gave contributions to gain access to politicos, even bragged out about using his leverage to get Hillary Clinton to attend his most recent wedding. During the campaign he actually tried to argue that he had bought out his opponents. One notable example is Rand Paul participates in a Central American charity providing free eye surgery (Paul is a certified eye surgeon). Trump sent a small check to the charity but disingenuously pretended at a GOP debate that it was a political contribution. More to the point, even if one did buy into Trump's implication that his opponents were corrupt for contributing less than 1% of campaign financing, it's a double edged sword: it's like a john pointing fingers at a whore he agreed to pay. How was Trump any less of a political whore? He was not above the law; he used money to influence government to accommodate him or his businesses, not under the rule of law but around it.
- Almost no one (except me,to the best of my knowledge) made an issue of the fact that 10 years ago Trump was a registered Democrat and backed first Hillary Clinton and then Obama. Trump changed parties more often since 1998 than most people I've ever know, including myself. This is not like Reagan who gave a keynote speech for Goldwater in 1964, wrote a syndicated political opinion column during the 1970's, and won election in 1980. There was no political epiphany beyond Trump's political ambition.
One particularly annoying talking points from Trumpkins is that somehow, because Trump is wealthy, he's incorruptible. They make much of the fact Trump has agreed to donate his salary, as if somehow that's supposed to impress me. A Trumpkin female cousin who has since defriended me on Facebook said I wouldn't turn down a $400K job. I might, depending on circumstances; I've never gotten that kind of offer, but, e.g., in 1994 I turned down a $15K raise to return to academia (which at the time was highly significant). I can tell you now I would turn down any offer to work in California. If we are talking the Presidency, we are talking free room and board (which Trump is not reimbursing), a generous expense account. and a travel budget, not to mention a 6-digit pension for life. For example, Trump has by some accounts spent millions in taxpayer-paid travel, more than Obama, so Trump's charity isn't reimbursing the taxpayer for any Trump expense, while he's claiming full credit for his political gimmick.
Would I turn down a salary if I were President? First of all, it's never going to happen. But I'm a guy who has routinely been a tightwad when it comes to business travel expenses. I recall the Santa Clara CEO's secretary saying I was authorized to charge $200/night at a local hotel, but I commuted to a $43/night Extended Stay in Morgan Hill. I found a Chicago-SF roundtrip for under $500. I rented subcompact cars. I charged for groceries vs. restaurant meals. I've personally cooked over 90% of my meals. So I can't tell you what changes I'm make living in the White House, but I wouldn't need a chef to cook my grass-fed burger on a Foreman grill.
Do I think Trump is "heroic" for not taking his salary? No. To a billionaire, you make more in interest on your assets than you would earn as President. It's not the first time a wealthy politician gave up his salary. I think Romney and Bloomberg did it years ago. Not to mention most members of Congress were millionaires in the last assessment I saw. So this populist bullshit stuff isn't relevant: aren't they just as incorruptible as Trump allegedly is? And don't forget--Trump had no public sector track record.
But let's point out that almost anything Trump makes has an impact on his businesses and property (including international businesses). How can you argue that he is selfless when anything he does, touches his own wealth? Most people, including me, don't have international investments. He should be held to a higher level of scrutiny precisely for his wealth.
There are 2 incidents on Twitter which annoyed me enough that provoked this rant. First, there was Mark Sanford's renomination loss to a Trumpkin over the past week. He was part of the liberty caucus, one of the good guys. This Trumpkin replied,"This guy is part of the swamp." We pro-liberty folks seek the liberation of all people from the domination of the State. The State is the swamp, and Trump is the biggest part of it.
The second was a Trumpkin who said I was part of the Establishment. Oh, get a grip on reality. I can count the pro-liberty people in Congress on less than 2 hands. Almost none of our proposals ever come up for a vote. These morons just think everyone not with Trump is the Establishment. Let's point out I never gave money to Hillary Clinton, but Trump did.
