Obviously President Trump after the most triumphant week for him and a more than miserable week for those who hate him, is a highly divisive and polarizing figure. I think everyone can agree on that.
However, his success with rank and file Americans, especially those who the world would not consider the elite, is phenomenal. He is a blue-collar billionaire and appeals especially to the Championship Wrestling crowd in the pejorative sense. These are the deplorables that the democrat leaders despise, one reason why they are losing their battle with Trump.
But his persona reminds me of a conversation I had with an African-American co-worker around 1973 at Macy's (Davison's) where we worked in Augusta. Somehow we got on the topic of prejudice and racism and she told me she had voted for Lester Maddox as governor of Georgia. And that she would vote for Governor George Wallace of Alabama for president.
I was shocked, to say the least as both were segregationists and in the most vile ways. Later they experience political conversions and worked closely with African-Americans when in office.
But this is what she said. I trust them, because what you see is what you get. They aren't phonies.
I think the same thing can be said by half the nation about President Trump. What you see is what you get. He's not a phony. That's why they like him. He's not your typical politician.
29 comments:
You NAILED it Father.
In your previous post about Trump (the one with 52 replies), I wanted to add this, but I was so sick of Anonymous' endless "last word" entrees, I decided to leave it alone.
Well, you opened the door.
Conservative or liberal, Trump is a lot of stuff, much of it, admittedly unsavory, but he is real.
Sorry, but Hillary Clinton comes off like a complete phony. She ALWAYS has.
You can list virtually every unpresidential thing Trump has ever said, every untruthful statement, every way he falls short and every disgusting thing he has said. Fine. He's still REAL. That's what won my vote. And you can call me all the names you like or tell me how stupid you think I am, I WILL vote for him again, if nobody kills him. There is something special about Trump for this current epoch.
Political Correctness be damned.
Yes, Trump is real. Real adultery, real narcissism, real vulgarity, real vindictiveness, real braggadocio, real dishonesty, real indifference, etc.
Real fidelity in marriage is not political correctness.
Real empathy is not political correctness.
Real decorum is not political correctness.
Real benevolence is not political correctness.
Real humility is not political correctness.
Real honesty is not political correctness.
You vote for Trump because you LIKE his real negative attributes. Like a moth to a flame, you are seduced by the malevolence you perceive in him.
Thanks for confirming my thesis. What you see is what you get. There's nothing phony about the truth concerning Trump and about 99% of Americans are like him even if they appear holy, virtuous and sanctimonious.
And thank you for confirming my hypothesis that people LIKE and VOTE FOR Trump because they like is extreme lack of virtue.
Call me seduced, call me what you like. I had the choice of a phony person feigning virtue and patriotism (Hillary Clinton) or a real-life person who, albeit something of a horse's-ass at least told the truth about what was wrong with America and the world. I still do not regret my choice. Frankly, I think you can't stand it that your self-righteous indignation isn't convincing any of us.
Finally, I would have voted for worse than Trump if the candidate was committed to ending abortion.
If you think America is going to turn around and get better as long as we keep ignoring our legal genocide, then good luck with your benevolent, honest, humble, faithful, empathetic, decorous Democratic candidates (whoever they are?).
I find Angelo Codevilla’s perspective on Trump’s rise to power interesting. From a 2019 article in American Greatness.
“Americans were seeking desperately to shake off the uniform, bipartisan, progressive class that rules the country unaccountably—a class including most of the bureaucracies of federal and state governments, the judiciary, the educational establishment, the media, as well as major corporate officials that had separated itself socially, morally, and politically from the rest of society. It’s a class that affirms its superior worth by endlessly humiliating other Americans, people who feel good about themselves by deploring, hating, and hurting those they deem their inferiors.”
Codevilla wrote a book in 2010 (predating Trump’s election): “The Ruling Class (How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do about it)”
Joe, you don't escape Anonymous-the-Troll. You can run, but you can't hide. None of the attributes he lists as 'real' apply to Hillary (except perhaps for the first - she left the adultery bit to Bill, presumably because he was better at it).
Father, you are right inasmuch as most of us have our own hypocritical side and there is an aura of phoniness to most "virtue signaling" behavior--including the self-righteous indignation of some people posting here who are so offended by Trump.
I can live with that and I am fine with Anonymous voting for his "faithful", "empathetic", "decorous", "benevolent", "humble" and "honest" Democratic candidate, especially the one that is pro-life. Good luck finding him or her (or it).
A@6:49pm show me a pro life Democrat and then we can talk about a virtuous politician.
"None of the attributes he lists as 'real' apply to Hillary (except perhaps for the first - she left the adultery bit to Bill, presumably because he was better at it)."
None apply to Trump either. Which is why I conclude that people who support Trump are pleased with and supportive of the vices and malevolence that is part and parcel of him.
"Frankly, I think you can't stand it that your self-righteous indignation isn't convincing any of us."
No, it's not that I can't stand it. I can stand it, but it leaves me scratching my head as to why someone who notes the evident and consistent faults in Trump is called "self-righteous."
Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more." Was he being self-righteous?
"Americans were seeking desperately to shake off the uniform, bipartisan, progressive class that rules the country unaccountably..."
There is complete accountability for senators every six years and for Members of Congress every two years. The idea that our elected leaders are unaccountable is 100% false. Americans can "shake off" any leader they find unacceptable every time there is an election.
"It’s a class that affirms its superior worth by endlessly humiliating other Americans, people who feel good about themselves by deploring, hating, and hurting those they deem their inferiors.”
Yet again, "hurting those [he] Trump deems his inferiors" is a daily experience for the President. He attempts to defame the Speaker of the house by claiming falsely that she broke a law by tearing in half her copy of the State of the union address. (She didn't break any law, but being truthful and/or factual is not Trump's long suit.) He, like a third grader at recess, calls his opponents "ugly" names, at every opportunity. Having praised the leaders of our military on numerous occasions, Trump turned on them in a fit of self-aggrandizement, "President Donald Trump blasted top military officials as “losers” and “a bunch of dopes and babies"..." (Military Times, January 17, 2020) And this from a man who faked bone spurs in order to avoid being drafted.
People vote for Trump because they like his malevolence.
"People vote for Trump because they like his malevolence."
Therein lies the great flaw in your argument.
You presume to know how millions of Americans think or WHAT they think. The motivations for voting for a candidate are as varied as one's motivations for buying one car brand instead of another.
Look, Americans have turned against each other like rabid dogs because of this last election. Ultimately, what is missing is basic human respect--I am not talking about the respect shown or not shown by the candidates--I am talking about the respect citizens show each other.
I voted for Trump. No apologies. You can try to get in my brain as much as you like, but I've found that mind-readers fail more often than not.
I do not like it that some people, even people I like and respect voted for H. Clinton. However, I've had to reach this conclusion and it is the only one that give me any peace: I try to believe that most Americans voted for the person they sincerely believed would be best for the country. I may not like or respect their candidate, but I have to respect the integrity of the individual and their right to choose their candidate. And I leave it at that. I have not chastised one person for voting for Hillary Clinton, even though I dislike her intensely. Why can't Anonymous show us the same courtesy?
Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more." Was he being self-righteous?
No. He was the son of God.
However, when WE purport to make such judgments, we had better be sure to judge the sin and love the sinner.
Most of us are self-righteous hypocrites to one degree or another...except for the lucky few who are perfect.
Anonymous clown forgets that almost every Democratic president had similar attributes. He's hilarious.
Joe, I haven't shown you any discourtesy at all. I have challenged your position as you have challenged mine.
Why is it that, in doing so, I am discourteous, but, in doing the same thing, you are not?
I have not chastised anyone for their vote, but I have tried to understand the motivation. "He's real" or "He's not politically correct" are, it seems to me, extremely poor reasons for choosing a person for office. A voter has every right to make those his/her criteria, but I have every right to say that that is inadequate in the extreme.
I hope that you are at peace as I am. I hope that every voter chooses a candidate that he/she thinks is best for the office, as I do.
No one can get into anyone's mind - well, maybe or maybe not. Folks here regularly think that they can get into other people's mind every time a discussion of political candidates comes up. Anyone who voted for a Democrat is, we are told, in favor of abortion. It isn't true, but that's what people CLAIM, being quite convinced they can get into the minds of voters for Democratic candidates.
We know that evil is seductive. We've all experienced it and we have all, sadly, rejected grace and given in to it. But the seduction, the draw of evil is not limited to individuals. Mob violence is a prime example. Crowds can be manipulated by the evil in others. Jesus, with great wisdom and understanding of what goes on in peoples' minds, said to the crowd, "Let the ONE among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at here."
One lesson our Republic can take from this period of history is that we should seek elected officials for their capabilities for the tasks at hand and not as moral examples. Certainly the person should understand the limits not only of Law, human as well as divine, and be sensitive to the social expectations of that era. But there is no need for an elected official to embrace morale standard beyond respect for it. Americans are blessed with an obsession for competitive sports. In that nearly bloodless arena we almost daily see favourite players fall short and execute badly; and we quickly reach the conclusion that a change in that position is needed. In this modern era we have little to choose from for our political leaders that can, in any objective sense, withstand more than a single term in office without collecting more fouls than goals. As an egalitarian society we should have the same standards for our presidents as our ditch diggers. Lifelong tenure should be a very rare thing.
In the case of the current president, I believe a significant appeal to the population is, in fact, his obnoxious attitude toward a government that behaves at least as badly and abusively as he does, but much more actual violence and disregard. He is acting the fool in a classical sense; saying to our betters what we are to afraid to say for ourselves.
"Show me a pro-life Democrat."
OK, you got it---Governor John Belle Edwards of Louisiana.
You might as well say, "Show me an endangered species destined for certain extinction!"
I am not sure whether Maddox ever experienced a "political conversion". I don't recall him ever regretting turning away black customers from his restaurant, the "Pickrick", back in 1964, even displaying a pistol while doing so. His behavior at the MLK funeral in April 1968 was an embarrassment, stationing state troopers around the State Capitol and authorizing them to shoot if necessary. Blacks were not fooled by Maddox, as in the 1961 mayoral race here in Atlanta, they voted overwhelmingly, maybe 95 percent, for Ivan Allen Jr. Maddox in 1966 won the Democratic primary and general election (well, technically the Legislature elected him when no one got a majority) largely on the rural vote, much as Brian Kemp did 52 years later. But the day is coming when the rural vote that elected the Talmadges, Marvin Griffin and Lester Maddox no longer suffices, much as we see today in Virginia.
Anonymous seems to be "agrarian-phobic" and "pre-judging" folks who live in non-urban areas. This is horribly offensive to persons with an enlightened sensitivity to harmful and hurtful ideas.
Dan says "Anonymous seems to be agrarian-phobic,,," Uh, no Dan. But it must be horribly offensive for you to hear that Maddox ran a segregationist campaign in 1966 against the more liberal Ellis Arnall, and his victory was largely based in rural Georgia. In 1964, a lot of rural Georgia (and some urban areas) turned against Lyndon Johnson after passage of the civil rights act, Georgia having not previously voted Republican for president since the 1870s. It must also be "horribly offensive" to you that (not so) good ol Gene Talmadge said he did not need the votes of counties with streetcars---and he did not under the county unit system. I guess criticism of the Atlanta area is as old as the day is long, and while I am not happy with the more liberal trend up here, it is a reality that cannot be denied.
"Later they experience political conversions and worked closely with African-Americans when in office."
Not Maddox
From the Georgia Encyclopedia: "Constitutionally unable to succeed himself as governor in the 1971 election, Maddox ran for and became the state's lieutenant governor. During his term he often found himself at odds with his political rival, Governor Jimmy Carter. He unsuccessfully ran again for governor against George Busbee in 1974 and in several elections thereafter. Maddox also ran for president of the United States as an independent in 1976. Returning to private life, Maddox operated a furniture store and a variety of other enterprises, none of which proved as successful as the Pickrick. Toward the end of his life, Maddox expressed few regrets and made no apologies for his segregationist beliefs or any of his other political stances."
https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/lester-maddox-1915-2003
What you fail to comprehend about Maddox, Wallace and Trump, each corrupt in their own ways, is that they all let it hang out while accomplishing some good. You fail to comment on my Black co worker who voted for Maddox and would support Wallace, warts and all, because what you see is what you get. The same can be said for Trump, warts and all, what you see is what you get.
You fail too, in acknowledging that every democrat presidential candidate, no matter how virtuous they present themselves support the genocide of babies prior to their birth and some all the way to 9 months and immediately after birth which is homicide, murder. No amount of virtue makes them better than Trump. Trump is pro life and will support the legal rights for the unborn, legal protection.
Bee here:
Fr. McD said at February 10, 2020 at 5:58 AM, "A@6:49pm show me a pro life Democrat and then we can talk about a virtuous politician."
I don't know if he's virtuous in all regards, but Dan Lipinski is a US House Representative who is a pro-life Democrat. And they have all but told him he is not welcome in the Democratic Party, that there is no room for the likes of him.
That's not my district, so I don't vote for him or know what else he supports, but he showed up at the Chicago March for Life this year, as he does in past years.
I love how somehow the qualifications for our government leaders seem to be what we actually expect, but really don't get, from our clerical leaders: virtue.
Nowadays, since no one wants to attack Trump on his policies, including his foreign policy, and how he leads the country, they smear him on his personal qualities.
When I work for a company, my boss may be a jerk, but as long as he is honest and runs the company well, that is less of a problem.
Catholics who are ready to condemn Trump and disqualify him from office based on his personality and outward persona ought to be reminded of Jesus' words, "You see the speck in your brother's eye, but cannot see the beam in your own. You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and they you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
I like the actions Trump is taking as CEO of this country. I try not to see or listen to his non-related pronouncements. I have no use for the political policies, including the foreign policy of the Left.
As for clerics who endorse one or the other political leader, I think it would be best if they would stick to preaching the Gospel as the Church Fathers taught it. That would be more than enough help for someone decide who do vote for.
God bless.
Bee
I also failed to mention the execution of Marie Antoinette, the invention of dynamite, the Damnation of Faust, and the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes.
Why? Because none of those things have anything whatsoever to do with the erroneous comment you made about Maddox's "political conversion."
And yes, people like you, it seems, are quite content to vote for a person who is open about his adultery, his lack of integrity, his multiple bankruptcies, his desire to grab a married woman's p***y, his philandering, his diversion of funds from a charity he and his children operated to pay personal business expenses, his vindictive actions, his utter lack of loyalty to those who work for him, and his fake tan.
What you see is what you want - and that's what you and others voted for.
The irony of the black co-worker saying she would have voted for either Wallace or Maddox is that if either politician had had their way, blacks probably would not have been allowed to vote. Wallace was governor during the Birmingham church bombing of 1963 and the voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965---at that time, LOL for blacks trying to register especially in rural Alabama. Rural Georgia also remained a difficult place for blacks to vote until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (barriers were far less, if they existed at all, in the more urban areas---the black vote for instance was critical to the election of Atlanta Mayor Ivan Allen over Lester Maddox in 1961). To his credit, Wallace did make amends for his segregationist rhetoric years later, but I don't recall Maddox doing so.
I fail to understand the logic of the following exchanges on this blog.
A points out a number of positive attributes lacking in Donald Trump.
B claims that most of them were also lacking in Hillary Clinton.
A responds by saying they are equally lacking in Trump (which merely reiterates his first point).
A comes to the conclusion that those who vote for Trump do so because they admire his negative attributes.
Given that Donald and Hillary share a number of negative attributes, those who voted for Hillary must, by the same logic, admire her negative attributes.
The fact that those who voted for Hillary and those who voted for Trump might have done so despite, not because of, the negative attributes of either, has no place in A's twisted logic.
However, demonizing one's political opponents is the first step towards eliminating them. Anonymous has more in common with Stalin and Hitler than he would care to admit.
"The fact that those who voted for Hillary and those who voted for Trump might have done so despite, not because of, the negative attributes of either, has no place in A's twisted logic."
Nor, in the erroneous logic of many here, is there the possibility that a person can vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights without agreeing with or supporting that position.
I wonder how you managed to overlook or miss that little tidbit all these years. (I really don't wonder. I am being sarcastic.)
"Given that Donald and Hillary share a number of negative attributes, those who voted for Hillary must, by the same logic, admire her negative attributes."
No, it is not "necessarily" the case. Some may vote for a candidate in spite of that person's failings. Others may vote for a candidate because of that person's failings. They like braggadocio, they like demeaning talk about women, they like someone who acts like a third grader on the playground, they like and admire men who philander and lie for sport. They like, by their own admission, that he is "not like" other candidates or politicians.
Oh, and do keep playing the Hitler card. It's one of your endearing qualities.
I think the Democrat party which is so egregiously pro-abortion until the very last moments of pregnancy and now immediately after birth want legal killing of a child is an unjust organization that Catholics must be banned from joining, like the KKK, Masons and other hate groups that promote intrinsic evil.
Do you think that? Well, isn't that special!
Post a Comment