Since the first August post on the Trump phenomenon, the name of the candidate has appeared in about seven TRF texts.
I have always argued that Trump's comparative advantage wasn't an illusion or a temporary fluke. It was a reflection of his being the main representative – and, among the candidates, often the only representative – of many important values, principles, and desires that many or most Americans actually believe but they're being constantly intimidated into hiding these beliefs.
Since August, the support for Trump has risen. These days, polls indicate that he may get 35 percent in the primaries, about 20 percentage points ahead of his strongest competitors. Hillary has tried to mock Trump but last night, she admitted that Trump was no longer "funny". Many leftists start to be terrified but the Republican establishment is terrified as well – the primaries will take place before the general elections, after all.
The Democratic Party has mostly produced a uniform mass of politicians who basically repeat the same PC stuff, although someone is more radical than others. It has been the Republican Party where some nontrivial and interesting schools of thought were born. Six years ago or so, the Republican Party has been challenged and re-energized within by the Tea Party Movement.
In some sense, the Tea Party has faded away – perhaps in correlation with the decrease of America's twin deficits and other things that were brutal during the economic downturn. However, the Republican Party continued to produce interesting characters with sometimes innovative ideas – or ideas that were not common in politics. Trump has very little to do with the Tea Party but he's another example of a genuine discussion and creativity that is taking place among the right-wingers.
Trump is not PC and his difference from most other candidates and other folks is rather significant. I would say that
Trump highlights the giant gap between the freedom and the people's control over their affairs that the Americans are supposed to have according to the U.S. Constitution and the American tradition – and that they can have – on one side; and the omnipresent restrictions, self-censorship, and reduction on the maneuvering room in ordinary lives as well as policymaking that the PC is imposing upon the American citizens – and in most cases, the people are binding and silencing themselves.He says these things simply because he's a free American and it seems natural that these ideas he says are right and important! The funny thing that over 300 million Americans haven't noticed is that they can say and do these things, too. Well, it's true that millions are insufficiently financially independent to behave as freely as Trump (because it would be a big trouble if they got fired etc.) – but there are surely tens of millions who are wealthy enough and could be much more free than they are. They live in the country of the free! And they may endorse all kinds of possible policies that may improve their lives and make them safer etc.
Trump is facing lots of opposition. Hillary and others are saying that he is dangerous. Some 400,000 Britons have signed a petition to ban him from the U.K. What you're not immediately told is that most of the signatories are actually Muslims – so they only help to prove Trump's point that Muslims may be dangerous once they are in. Also, after Trump has criticized the London police that it is afraid of doing its work at many places because they're terrified by Islam, the police has denounced Trump and praised Allah and Prophet Mohammed instead – Peace Be Upon Him. They have surely made Trump's point, too. :-)
Even Israel has told Trump that he was not welcome; Trump replied that he will visit Israel after he is elected the U.S. president.
But all this opposition is silly. It is a basically a neverending stream of childish, content-free personal attacks that don't reduce the weight of any Trump's observations and arguments. Such personal attacks may be "enough" in a totalitarian system where arguments don't matter and the leaders may find it nice that they can character assassinate anyone they want (and they are sort of guaranteed that most of the population will behave as if the libels were true). But what all these critics of Trump are missing is that the U.S. is ultimately controlled by the free citizens. And when you're lying to the face of these free citizens, such as the madam (New Hampshire representative) below, they will hate you and they will work hard to eliminate you from the public life.
Political correctness can only make their justified hatred towards you stronger! And you won't make it better by teaming up with other PC folks all over the "establishment" parties and media. The number of your PC soulmates may look high but during the elections, you may still be shown that all of your belong to a fringe group that has had an unnaturally enhanced power for several years, a power that will evaporate once hundreds of millions of voter tell you Go Away.
After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Trump proposed the complete ban on all new Muslim immigrants. One may agree or disagree but it's obvious that the percentage of the people in the U.S. who agree is comparable to 50%, to say the least, and any suggestion in recent years that the percentage is much lower because it's an "extreme" opinion was nothing else than a matter of a persistent and omnipresent left-wing propaganda and a symptom of a nearly complete detachment of the mainstream media and similar institutions from the public discourse.
This policy may be said to be a matter of common sense. If you observe some degree of repeated deadly hostility that comes from a certain nation or from a certain religious space, it may be a good idea to deduce consequences. When a bunch of Japanese aircraft, aircraft carriers, and battleships (etc.) attacked Pearl Harbor, America declared the war against the whole Japanese nation. Such a response was a case of a "collective guilt", too. But wars always follow this kind of a logic. They have to simply because certain bonds and common interests strengthen within each nation. And the ongoing tension between the West and the Islam is a (so far) lukewarm war, too. So it's rather natural and perhaps wise to make lukewarm "collective guilt" responses.
Some people may disagree with all these comments but they're stupid if they don't realize that many people agree with them and these people are ready to imprint this attitude into their voting patterns in a year. It's likely that most Republican voters basically agree with these conclusions. And while some people might be shocked, this message of Trump's surely resonates with millions of Democratic voters, too. It's a topic that isn't perfectly correlated with the left-right issues that have been discussed for years. It's a topic that was treated as a taboo for quite some time. So people couldn't have found out that they're on the same frequency with many Republicans (and with Trump's supporters).
If the majority of the voters agree with Trump and consider these topics and the style of politics good and important, he will become the president. Childish ways to mock him only show the stupidity and the lack of arguments among those who criticize Trump. And be sure that they're not only full-fledged leftists. Even Bill O'Reilly spreads ludicrous fairy-tales that Trump can't win the nomination (see a Trump-O'Reilly battle, too). And you may keep on listening to FoxNews and hear quite some stupid additional criticisms of Trump, too.
The lady named Leslie Marshall says that Trump is trampling upon the Judeo-Christian values of America by attempts to restrict the Muslim immigration. She must be joking. It surely sounds like a joke. A way to serve Judaism and Christianity in America is to allow the country to be Islamized, to help the propagation of fans of a religion whose key principle is to stab every Jew and Christian they encounter (which some of them don't do but some of them do)? This is quite an example of the female logic, although I guess that even to talk about the female logic is politically incorrect in the U.S.
Many people say that by restricting the Islamic immigration etc., America would violate some human rights or equality of the people or religions etc. All this whining is absolutely dumb for one reason: all these rights, equalities, and all similar principles only apply to the citizens. A nation simply cannot guarantee anything to "all people or intelligent observers on Earth or in the whole Universe". Such an ambitious goal would both transcend the abilities of America; and violate the sovereignty of all the other nations.
So before someone becomes a U.S. citizen, he or she may be treated very differently than the U.S. citizens. And he or she may be treated very differently than other non-citizens, too! And in a country ultimately governed by the people, the people – the current citizens – may collectively decide what's the right way to adjust all these knobs, what are the right immigration and other policies.
For years or decades, Americans – and other Westerners – have been intimidated into thinking that they can't say that they just despise Islam or they don't want Islam to spread in their country. But the truth – which has been overlooked by so many – is that this intimidation and political correctness has absolutely no basis in the U.S. Constitution, in the U.S. laws, in the tradition of the West, and in the principles that underlie our civilization. They surely have at least as much right to dislike Islam as others may hate Christianity or the free market.
Of course it is perfectly fine to despise a religion (or all religions). Of course it is totally OK for a citizen to support politicians and policies that want to reduce the immigration from some parts of the world. Of course it is totally OK for a politician to propose such laws, defend such laws, or approve such laws in the U.S. Congress. If someone has told you that "you shouldn't be saying such things", he was simply lying to you. You are absolutely free not only to say such things but behave according to them, too. Donald Trump is proving – and maybe, he will be proving – those statements of mine in quite some detail.
One may talk about "the right to enter the U.S." or "the right to become the U.S. citizen" but those are not basic human rights in any sense. A country may decide to grant such "rights" to some people; and not to grant such "rights" to others. These decisions may have very sensible reasons and there is nothing inhuman about those decisions. These "rights" are privileges, not anyone's duties. Before someone becomes the U.S. citizen, his "rights" in the U.S. differ from the "rights" of the citizens in many respects.
And even when one becomes a citizen, he's expected to obey the law which may "constrain" different people and different groups of people differently. You can't avoid it: Some laws are especially good for someone (and some groups) while others are especially bad for these people (and groups). For some other laws, the impact may be reversed. And it's not true that each subgroup of a nation finds the same percentage of the laws friendly (or hostile). The laws are supposed not to distinguish people according to their ethnicity or religion if it were the real criterion. However, they do lots of things that influence different ethnicities and especially religions differently because of the correlations between the ethnicities and religions on one side and other, "legitimate" features distinguishing the people on the other side.
For hygienic and many other reasons, an authority may decide to ban the swimming in some Islamic clothes (I don't know the names of all those things). You know, such a decision may primarily affect the Muslims but it is not a law that is designed with the purpose to "discriminate" against the Muslims. It is designed with the purpose of preventing pandemics and other (almost) religiously neutral things.
I found these Trump fans remarkably articulate and intelligent for "ordinary people".
I don't know whether Donald Trump will become the U.S. President. I can't even be sure that he really wants it. I can't even disprove the conspiracy theories that he has a secret pact with Hillary – although I intuitively feel that this conspiracy theory is nutty and unjustified by anything tangible. But by being himself, he is already helping to burst the giant bubble of political correctness. The people who told you that you can't say, think, or do certain politically incorrect things were not telling you the truth. Everyone, and not only Donald Trump, may ignore these untrue restrictions.
Whether the bubble of political correctness will burst completely will depend on the behavior of many people but it has already started to deflate and whether or not he is a perfect man, Donald Trump must be thanked for that.
Incidentally, Czech president Zeman has sometimes been called Czechia's answer to Trump. His approval rate was low throughout 2014 and early 2015 etc., because of his excessive expletives on the radio and other things. The Muslim issue has changed the numbers and his approval rate is around 70% now.