Trump’s Presidential Dynasty

One thing that I hope could be a palliative for the Republican/conservative/independent anti-Trumpers is that Trump is not a movement man. He merely reflects a highly emotional movement.

By that, I mean that there is no person following Trump. There is no coherent “Trumpism” movement or “Trumpist” philosophy (whatever that might be). There are no junior Trumps that will be running down-ticket in 2016. Trump is the one and only Trumpist. There is no Octavian. When he’s defeated or serves his presidential term(s), there will be no Trump-like successor (that I can see).

Reagan headed a movement and while George H.W. Bush was not a Reaganaut, Reagan’s election was part of a tectonic shift in American politics. It isn’t as effective at the presidential level but it still percolates further down the ticket, with conservative Republicans picking up more and more offices at the state and local levels.

Trump is not like that.

On the other hand, a Hillary Clinton victory presages our further slide into socialist anarchy. Yes, once she moves on, she and her awfulness are gone but behind her are hoards of like-minded socialist Democrats looking to consolidate their power over America.

So anti-Trumpers, suck it up and vote for him knowing that once he’s moved on, there won’t be anyone else like him and we can get back to trying to elect movement-style conservatives or something similar. A ringing endorsement!

11 thoughts on “Trump’s Presidential Dynasty”

  1. I think the game’s over. Donald’s racist statements about Judge Curiel might not be the last straw for Republicans, but it will be his “47%” moment, the one that loses him the election, in the view of the general public.

    Like

    1. Mikey – the comments are not racist. “Mexican” or “Hispanic” is not a racial category. It’s ethnicity. They are, however, monumentally stupid, in my opinion. But we don’t know what the consequences of the comments will be. Trump’s proven able to avoid consequences before on idiotic statements. Neither candidate seems capable of being honest or decent but they are the two we are stuck with.
      I think Romney was right and the comment wasn’t his downfall (or self-fulfilling prophecy). Romney won the independent vote. Obama’s victory hinged exclusively on running up very large margins in a handful of urban districts.

      Like

    1. How exactly is Hillary Clinton a conservative? Seriously? Provide me with some positions wherein she might be mistaken for Reagan? How is she competent? She’s pretty much effed-up everything she’s touched. Sorry, but you are either a disingenuous troll or seriously delusional if you think she’s a “competent conservative.”

      Like

      1. Yes, I asked for proof that Hillary Clinton is a “competent conservative,” as you claimed. Whether I “red-baited” or not is immaterial. What is your evidence? I give you another shot at this before I put you down as lacking any evidence and merely being a troll.

        Like

      2. I’m not following your point? Look, I’m being straight with you. You made a point and I asked for proof.
        I suppose that you you think snark wins an argument. It doesn’t. Provide some evidence that Hillary Clinton is a “competent conservative.”

        Like

      3. I don’t have the patience for this kind of hypocrisy. You make assertions without evidence and yet demand evidence from others. You complain about my snark, but you produce nothing plenty of it yourself. No, you are not being straight with me. You clearly are not capable of it. Your whole game is childish in the extreme.

        Like

      4. You made the assertion that Hillary Clinton was a “competent conservative.” I asked for for your proof. Some policy positions, perhaps?
        You got called on it and can’t deliver. How is that childish? Hypocritical?
        Like a liberal, you blame others for your own failure.
        Don’t blame me.
        You are free to move on.

        Like

Leave a comment