How I Went from Trump Curious to Anti-Trump

I figure I owe an explanation, in case anyone cares.

I'll just note that John Nolte has now laid out the facts and witness reports in the Fields incident.

Now, Nolte has been an indefatigueable defender of Trump.

I don't think he wanted to do this -- I think he wants Trump to succeed, and I think he wants Trump to do all the right things to succeed.

I think he felt he had to do this, because Trump had embarrassed him into doing it. To preserve his own self-respect, he had to do this.

The other day a friend asked me why I was posting negative stuff on Trump. I told him, basically, that everyone has their threshold of embarrassment. I can mock the Upper Middle Class Respectable set for having what I think is a way-too-high sensitivity to embarrassment -- usually one strongly shaped by leftwing PC codes --but everyone has their own level.

It's embarrassing, to me, that at this late date Trump can only sputter about "getting rid of the lines" at a debate when asked about his health care plan.

It's embarrassing, to me personally, when I'm is repeatedly confronted with the fact that Trump still seems to not know the contents of the Sessions Immigration Plan on his own website -- the whole reason I even began to be "Trump Curious," as I term it.

If a plan could be nominated for president, I'd vote for the Sessions Immigration Plan.

It's personally embarrassing to discover that Trump is nearly entirely unaware of the only reason I entertained supporting him.

I've said it a hundred times: People will not vote for, nor support, something they feel reduces their own sense of self-worth. Or which brings shame upon them.

This business can be ignored or spun as "no big deal, so what, a white girl got bruises," but around the country, more and more people are probably going to find out that Trump keeps exceeding their own Personal Embarrassment Threshold.

There is no way to prove what I'm about to say. But for those mystified as to how someone could go from Trump Curious to Trump Opposed, here it is:

You can read Trump in two different ways. You can see his bluster and lack of any policy knowledge as refreshing. You can see his hyperpersonal style and enormous ego as somehow "authentic."

On the other hand, you can see a guy who's entire life is devoted to persuading people to get into business with him. A salesman, trying to make a sale. And you can start to see that the salesman really has no interest in his actual product, and no real intent to abide by the terms of the contract. A salesman who is just willing to say whatever he needs you to say to sign the dotted line -- and who will decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to abide by those contract terms, should they become inconvenient later.

The thing is, while I can't make anyone see this way, I can tell you I went from being a Type 1 person to a Type 2 person. I would waver between these views of Trump, but then eventually I was won to the Type 2 way of seeing things, and now that I see it, I can't not see it.

So that's what happened with me. Now, when people talk about the Wall and stuff to me, I just sort of shrug -- I have no real sense Trump intends to do any of that. It's a sales pitch, he's saying what he thinks what I want to hear, but after I sign the contract, he'll observe it as he deems fit.

And I sense he craves popularity, so I sense he'll do the things that increase his popularity. The wall's controversial, and I don't see him being able to give a compelling case for it to make it popular.

Oh, he'll make some desultory efforts. Like his desultory efforts to even read Sessions' Immigration Plan.

And then he'll just abandon it, as he's abandoned many of his ventures.

People keep saying he's a fighter, but what is fighting for? Is he actually spending any time to make a convincing case on immigration?

Or is he just fighting for himself?

The fact that Trump can't be bowed by pressure is a good thing, generally, and I get why that's an attractive thing that fills people with hopefulness about him.

But there's a downside of that, too. While people might like a politician who can't be pressured by liberals and hostile opponents, I think they'd also prefer someone who can be pressured by they themselves, and by allies.

I guess it's a package deal -- someone who just doesn't care about other people's opinions inevitably also doesn't care about yours.

How to Spot a Phony: kathysayso writes:

I prefer Cruz, but will be forever and forever grateful to Trump for making illegal immigration a topic none of the other politicians can easily sweep under the rug now.

I responded:

i would echo that, but i would add that there really is a very convincing case to be made on this point that would change minds. David Frum makes it; Mark Krikorian makes it; MB Dougherty makes it; Mickey Kaus makes it; Tucker Carlson may one day make it.

Trump isn't making it.

I think if someone's passionate about a thing, they show that passion by their interest. I know Frum's big on this because he keeps writing about it. Dougherty and Kaus and Krikorian too.

Trump obviously hasn't bothered to read the stuff by these guys to deliver a really persuasive case for it.

That suggests to me he's not that interested.

I read most articles on this subject. I know I'm interested because I do the things that one expects from someone who's interested.

Trump doesn't seem to do the most basic things associated with someone who's actually interested in the topic. He slapped Sessions' immigraiton plan up on his website, and then immediately and repeatedly contradicted the Sessions' plan's points about the abuse of the H1-B system and the need to get that under control.

A guy who's interested in classic cars knows a lot about classic cars. It's not work-- it's something that he just finds pleasurable to know about.

Why is Trump so lacking in knowledge about his signature issue?

posted by Ace at 04:51 PM

| Access Comments