Entries in MassPoliticsProfs by Jerold Duquette
Donald Trump’s first speech to Congress last night was full of “good optics.” Trump’s effort to make Americans forget that he had, only hours earlier, blamed the military commanders for the death of Navy Seal William “Ryan” Owens was hailed by Liberal commentator Van Jones as the moment when Trump “became President of the United States.” WOW! I say, the moment Van Jones declared Trump has become the P.O.T.U.S. is the moment when optics finally and totally eclipsed substance in American politics.
America may be approaching a collision point with constitutional change that requires an approach not unlike the nation’s first such collision point arrived at in 1787 when the failure of the national government to maintain order, protect property, and provide public goods collided with an insurmountable amendment procedure. Republicans have long fancied themselves the great defenders of the Constitution. They may have succeeded in making that pretention a reality in 2016. Unfortunately, they may have done so in a way that will seriously hamper their capacity to be successful defenders.
If you are standing with a person holding a sign that reads “America
Love It or Leave It,” YOU ARE NOT STANDING UP FOR THE IDEALS REPRESENTED BY THE
AMERICAN FLAG!!!
American Catholics, left, right, and center, practice their faith with flexible
interpretations of core doctrine that are only made more complicated by the
thorough integration of Protestant theological assumptions into American
political thought and culture. American
Catholics are “cafeteria
Catholics” who confront immorality the way Supreme Court Justice Potter
Stewart famously confronted the question of what constitutes pornography.
Craven and ham-fisted efforts to twist these popular approaches to the practice
of Catholicism into prima facie evidence of hypocrisy or bigotry do a disservice
to our national political conversation and contribute mightily to the dumbing
down of American politics.
Donald Trump’s candidacy is (ironically enough) “A DISASTER” for religious conservatives because it exposes their “ends justify the means” morality, though to say that it reveals their hypocrisy is, frankly, both too easy and not particularly useful. What it exposes is their policy rationality. What it exposes is the reason why it has been quite rational of them to use manufactured “character” and personal “values” issues to muddy the public opinion waters in order to advance anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-science public policy proposals. Hardline social/cultural conservatives support policies that have become political poison in American national politics.
Whether you are a benign revolutionary whose heart is in the right place (Sanders), or an ignorant blowhard on a vanity joy ride (Trump), there is no route to success in the Democratic nomination process for those without command of the details because the party faithful know what they want from government and how to get it.
Weighing in on the debate about Hillary Clinton’s “controversial” characterization of Trump supporters, the New York Times editorial board argues that presidential candidates have become too intellectually cozy with their biggest financial supporters; that they have spent too much time with them and been unduly influenced by their worldviews. This is hardly a controversial thesis, however, the Times’ spin here really should be.
The
reality is that Trump will lose on Election Day because he cannot deliver on
any of his claims and promises, which makes it impossible to organize and execute
a traditional campaign ground game. He is counting on voters choosing him for
the same reason I bought the “Dean
Martin’s Celebrity Roasts” DVDs a few years back; drowsiness and nostalgia.