Trying to understand the Trump candidacy, Part 3

Hi, Marion (faithful reader!),

I’m way up in the cheap seats. Here are some jottings from what I’ve seen since I last wrote

Recent buzz:

– The suggestion that Sarah Palin should be gang raped draws silence from feminist groups. So? One thing that has become pretty obvious is that feminism was only ever about free abortion on demand and preferential hiring for women. And now that they have them, feminism is about protecting them.

Marion, as you know, it’s hard to get many feminists to speak out even against honour killings or FGM, never mind to denounce the suggestion that women politicians should be intimidated by the threat of rape. Expect worse weather in this region, I fear.

– Oh, and the so-far-uncensored Ann Coulter observed recently, “Republicans used to be appalled by guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons. Now they are guttersnipe, lying political operators like the Clintons.”

Ann rarely misses the point, but here I fear she has. The problem isn’t that they are guttersnipe, lying politicians. It’s that they no longer represent the Americans who are asked to vote for them. They actually despise their base. Even a guttersnipe might help you sometime, might even grudgingly respect you. But … not that lot, not ever. The Dems are in much better shape because they like and understand their base, who just want to be looked after by Nanny.

Oh and you asked about the Panama Papers: The recent discovery of the Papers simplifies the overall political picture because they show clearly that global elites will work against their own countries in pursuit of their goals as a class.

Essentially, citizens of those countries who choose to listen to establishment political parties in light of that knowledge have made a moral choice for which they can be held accountable.

By the way, do you suppose that anyone who thinks about it really believes that the leaders the Panama Papers brought to light were the only ones doing it?

The development of such a ruling class — akin to the intermarried royal families of Europe centuries ago — is an outcome of globalization. Countries that wish to retain democratic traditions must check out of the globalization that is now under way. Most of the world isn’t democratic and, fatuities dismissed, isn’t even trying to be.

But that brings us back to Hill Clinton, doesn’t it? Recently, I was hearing still more buzz that the e-mail trail shows that Clinton knew perfectly well that the fatal attack on the US embassy in Benghazi was not the result of an amateur video, as she claimed.

But so? Hill’s voters should be voting for welfare, as their jobs are being exported or automated, and non-citizen competition is there to stay. That embassy road kill is incidental, and lying is merely what Hill must do when people appear not to understand that fact.

On reflection, many Americans—to save face—must pretend that criminality and corruption in the highest offices is still something they can afford to care about. But if they could, Clinton wouldn’t be a candidate for President at all, would she?

Speaking of Clinton and those who probably should vote for her, some claim that Americans spend more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined.

So what are the implications of reducing the proportion of income tax payers relative to the adult population? Not necessarily what we might think.

Such taxpayers have a certain type of power over government. It may well be in the progressive government’s interests to raise money from them in other ways. Sales taxes, sin taxes, onerous demands for compliance with government policy, and fines, among other levies, have the advantage that they don’t empower the people paying them.

And when income tax payers decline in proportion to the population, they are also easier to scapegoat for general failures. Progressives always need plenty of scapegoats.

Back soon!

See also: Trying to understand the Trump candidacy Part 1

Trying to understand the Trump candidacy Part 2

Share