Liberal leaders’ ill preparation of their voters should be cause enough for suspicion. Ongoing disappointment is one of the best-kept secret evils of the two-party system. If Liberal leaders truly cared so much for their voters as their never ending empathy implies, they would have made sure that Liberal voters were ready for the inevitable losses associated with bipolar politics. But, they didn’t. Why?
Ill preparation from Liberal leaders isn’t the biggest cause for question.
The Republican compromisers in Congress over-reached. For decades, they have condescended and lectured their voters on “why having a majority means they must lose”. They didn’t seem to realize that, while Left-wing voters were sissified and setup for dismay this past election, Right-wing voters were strengthened and beat into confidence. As Tolkein writes of Morgoth, “his cunning overreached his aim; his words touched too deep, and awoke a fire more fierce than he designed.” Had the Republican Congress not passed so many Liberal laws on the Bush agenda–stiff FDA rules, the added bureaucracy of DHS, Common Core and centralized education, the Patriot Act, to name a few–the Religious Right would have gladly accepted his brother as the likely-to-lose nominee.
But, this raises the deeper question that Liberal voters also are just now considering: Why do Republican politicians, ostensibly controlled by so-called “Big Wall St. Money”, vote for Liberal ideas against the will of their voters? Wouldn’t that indicate that the so-called “Big Wall St. Money” wants Liberal things to happen? Given the evidence in plain sight, Liberal voters have every reason to question their own political talking points because those points all agree with “Big Wall St. Money”. It’s only a matter of time before they finish mourning their first failure and realize what they already knew.
Today’s news is that Trump passed Hillary at the LA Times’ poll. This week could be about as evenly divided as America may ever be concerning Trump.
Liberal logic against Trump seems to be generally about as complex as, “He is ridiculous because he just is.” This does not mean that Liberal critics of Trump are not thinking or can’t formulate logical explanations of their ideas. Rather, it seems that, to them, Trump opposes all their ideologies for self-evident reasons. Of course. No one would disagree that Trump “just seems ridiculous” by all Liberal standards. Asking Liberals to provide reasons for their view of Trump would be like asking a fashion expert to deduce the rational for concluding that someone’s clothes don’t match; you either see it or you don’t. The back-and-forth between “Trumpists” and Libs isn’t unusual, though a little more entertaining this election cycle.
But, the unusual critique of Trump comes from closer to his own base: Conservatives.
Symphony cannot find a substance-based explanation from Conservatives who distrust Trump. The only Right Wing explanations seem hypothetical, demographic-based, and inductive. “He walks among the rich. Therefore he will act like a crony capitalist in government,” goes the general reason for suspicion.
Conservatives usually base their beliefs on proven history, not untested ideology. In logic, Conservatives prefer to be deductive, not inductive. Conservatives generally act more understanding of wealthier classes. So, it seems strange for an inductive theory based on class-focused stereotypologies to move Conservatives so. But, it does. They find their reasons for distrusting Trump quite compelling.
Given history, why shouldn’t they?
Americans believe that Hillary’s sale of her country for personal and financial gain is just normal. They look at Obama dumping cash on Iran like a “drug dealer in chief”. They see Bush having willfully played the “Sunday morning” card to get elected; they felt fooled. Accordingly, many people believe that Trump should and will attempt any and all of the same. They believe this without any further evidence than the past has already presented.
But, Trumpists also cite the past, specifically in Trump’s portfolio.
Trump’s track record says he will be good. If he can’t build something, it will be the first time. If he lets someone else’s money control him—even someone who won’t miss a billion dollars—it would be the first time. If the overall treasury he manages ends in sell-off bankruptcy, it will be the first time. If his opponents gain an advantage and defeat him, it will be the first time. If his projects are filled with “$20,000 hammers”, it will be the first time. If he doesn’t fire incompetent people who would make things worse, it will be the first time. If his enemies don’t make some sort of peaceful compromise with him, it will be the first time.
But, his Conservative doubters don’t see those “first times” as well as they see other “first times”…
If a politician isn’t controlled by big money, it will be the first time. If a president makes peace with his enemies, it would be the first time since Reagan and Gorbachev. If government projects don’t see costs bloated by pork cronyism, it will be the first time. If incompetent people get fired swiftly, it will be the first time. If “faith and switch” doesn’t exploit Sunday morning voters, it will be the first time—though Grudem and Dobson may have spoiled that already, but at least it isn’t coming from the candidate himself, for the first time.
Perhaps things have just been too bad and too difficult for just too long. If Trump wins, no matter what happens, there will be a lot of “first times”. And, in these times of so many firsts, a lot of people don’t know what they should think.