Donald Trump Isn't Incoherent, Just Delusional

So, speaking as one who follows a lot of anti-Trump accounts, a frequent comment is that Trump is totally incoherent.

I don't agree. Yes, he tends to ramble. Trump has always tended to ramble, so that is nothing new. And it is a mistake to overstate Trump's incoherence. If you follow closely, it is not too difficult to discern what Trump is saying.

In fact, Trump opponents should keep the Biden debate in mind. Not only was it Biden who sounded completely incoherent in the debate, but Trump proved that he still has enough discipline to sound reasonably sane. That is a suggestion that is nutty rantings are largely an act put on for the Party faithful who like them, that he is able to turn off when they are not welcome.

The problem is not Trump's rambling style -- it is still possible to follow his train of thought. Nor his seeming nuttiness. He can turn that on and off as called for.

The real problem is the content of Trump's speeches. Namely he appears to sincerely believe things that have no basis in reality. We are in danger of electing a completely delusional President. Let's look at some examples.

Hannibal Lector

Yes, it is weird to keep talking about, "The late, great Hannibal Lector." However, his meaning is clear enough. When Trump raises Hannibal Lector, it is always in the context of illegal immigration. He says that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions and insane asylums on the US. He then says that an insane asylum is a mental institution on steroids, the sort of place that held Hannibal Lector.* The point is clear enough. Trump is claiming that hoards of Hannibal Lectors are being unleashed on the US.

None of this has any basis whatever in reality. Yes, there are more people coming into this country than we can process and we really do need better border control. There is room to debate how many people we should admit in an orderly fashion, but then need to get control and make admission orderly is clear. But there is no evidence whatever that other countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions on us, or that crime is reaching unprecedented heights in the US (it isn't) even as it falls everywhere else. And the suggestion that there are hoard and hoards of people as violent and dangerous as Hannibal Lector pouring across our border is just plain nuts.

Sharks and Electrocution



Go ahead and listen to his rant on sharks. Yes, it wanders some, but the point is clear enough. Trump is saying that government is forcing the replacement of gasoline boats with electric boats, and that electric boats are impractical because they will sink under the weight of the battery and the boat owner will have a choice between electrocution and being eaten by sharks!

Of course, this has no basis in fact. Gas boats are still being manufactured. Electric boats exist. They have actually been around since the 1880's. Serious comparisons exist between electric and gas boats. The general consensus -- electric boats are quieter, cleaner, and lower maintenance. Gas boats are more powerful. Most consumers opt for power. Nor is there much danger of electrocution unless you are between the terminals. In short, Trump's rant is rambling but comprehensible. It also has no basis in reality.

My suggestion -- electric boat owners should take Kamala for a cruise and Trump to join them. He will either have to accept and be shown up as a liar or decline and be shown up as a coward.

Child Care

Trump's opponents are having fun with his "jumbled' answer, but, again, the meaning is clear:  

But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country. Because I have to say with child care – I want to stay with child care – but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just – that I just told you about.

In other words, he thinks that his tariffs will generate so much revenue that they will easily pay for any childcare shortages.  Once again, this is completely divorced from reality.  First of all, Trump refuses to understand that a tariff is simply an import tax which raises the prices of imports and therefore pinches people's budgets.  Nor are they the cash cow that Trump believes.  Kevin Drum has an estimate that if Trump puts a 20% tax on all imports and imports to not shrink as a result net revenues would be about $600 billion -- a third of our current deficit.

Of course, the goal of these tariffs is to reduce imports.  Trump appears to believe that if we reduce imports enough, it would spur enough growth to pay for everything and possibly even to create a post-scarcity economy.  Needless to say, that is completely insane.

Look, the debate is coming up on Tuesday.  Trump is pulling ahead.  I hope Harris is able to show Trump up for just how seriously out of touch with reality he is.  I hope his behavior drives the message home to voters just how dangerous he is.

But the fact is, Trump is a better debater than we like to think.  There are advantages to a debater who is completely untethered by the facts.

____________________________________________
*Many Trump opponents have suggested that he is confusing political asylum with an insane asylum. I have no idea on that one.

The Real Meaning of "When They Go Low We Go High"

 A lot of people have mocked Michelle Obama for saying, "When they go low, we go high."  This has been dismissed as hopelessly naive and utopian.  Indeed, Michelle has been accused of not following her own advice at the Democratic Convention.

I am not convinced.  There is another way of understanding the remark.  Most people seem to assume that there are three possible responses to attack ads, all of them bad.

The first is to ignore the attack as beneath response.  That has the disadvantage of looking like an admission that the accusation is true, or why are you letting it go unanswered.

The second is to deny the accusation.  The problem, of course, is that that only serves to amplify it.  That is the point behind the apocryphal story that Lyndon Johnson wanted to accuse his opponent of committing unspeakable acts with farm animals, just to force him to deny it.

The third alternative is to hit back, hard.  This is the one usually seen as the most effective -- when they go low, we go lower.  It is effective -- the reason there is so much attack advertising in politics is that it works. The result is the both campaigns compete to go lower and lower.  The one who goes lowest usually wins, but the overall result is to make voters despise both candidates and reinforce cynicism about the whole process.

I think that what Michelle Obama is saying is that there is a fourth alternative, a sort of political jiujitsu that turns the attacker's attack back on himself.  Ronald Reagan perfectly exemplified the technique when he responded to attempts to portray him as a dangerous extremist by chuckling and saying, "There you go again!"  It proved highly effective.

Barrack Obama was also a master of the technique.  He knew just how to drive his opponents crazy and then shake his head at their antics.  If an opponent wallowed in the sewer and invited him to come down and fight, Obama would say, "Wow!  It must really stink down there!"

A more recent example is Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock's famous ad.  Rather than making any detailed attempt at refutation, it shows him walking an impossibly cute dog, while saying showing a whole serious of headlines finding that attacks to be false out out of context.  "But I think Georgian's will see her ads for what they are," he says, throwing a bag of dog poop into the trash.  "Don't you?"  The dog barks agreement.  

Kamala Harris is showing some signs of understanding this technique as well.  The question is whether it will matter.  The latest poll shows Trump pulling ahead.

More Seriously: The Politics of Inclusion

 

Seriously, though, there is a point her.  My point is that Kamala Harris is working hard at the politics of inclusion and may be pulling it off.

Traditionally, Republicans have openly or subtly conveyed a message of exclusion.  Yes, they take care to include Black and Hispanic speakers to show that all races are welcome, but the constant message of "authenticity" and "real America" cannot help but convey a message that some "technical citizens" are inauthentic and not "really" American.  Who this refers to is somewhat intentionally left vague.  

Democrats, by contrast, present a message of inclusion -- which nonetheless has a tendency to exclude.  To some extent, this is the result of being a less cohesive coalition that the Republican base.  Democrats necessarily have to give assurances to all members of their coalition that all are welcome.  This can have the effect of telling people outside the coalition that they are not welcome.  And, yes, Democrats have made their efforts to overcome this.  Barrack Obama catapulted to national stature with his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention in which he said:

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

And when he ran for President, Obama sought to reassure people outside the coalition by choosing Joe Biden, generally agreed to be an Authentic Real American, for Vice President.  Somehow it never convinced skeptics that he was anything but an out of touch elitist -- or worse.

So Kamala Harris is making her own bid.  She has chosen Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwest for Vice President.  Walz flaunts the persona to assure voters on the fence that if you are Mr. Super-Whitey from the Midwast who coaches football, served 24 years in the National Guard, thinks tacos are made from hamburger and seasoned with black pepper and a hot dish is made with mild green chilies, taco sauce, chili pepper and paprika, you are an authentic real American who is welcome in our party.  And if you are the daughter of Indian and Jamaican immigrants from California who makes homemade fries seasoned with home grown rosemary and thyme -- well you are just as real American and just as welcome in our party.

In further news today, Trump is ahead in the latest poll.

Does Kamala Harris Put Dijon Mustard on Her Homemade Fries?

 

Apparently, Kamala Harris's husband back in 2019 revealed her French fry recipe.  Apparently it involves double-frying them in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoning them with home grown rosemary and sage. 

"As if I needed another reason to do all I can to elect her," gushed one fan.  "WE ARE NOT GOING BACK," proclaimed George Conway, showing a picture of McDonald's fries by comparison.  Which is funny, because I can distinctly remember the day when any candidate would have gone to great lengths to conceal such a shameful secret.  Harris also stopped by a high end spice shop to buy "Creamy Peppercorn Dressing Base, Fox Point Seasoning, Trinidad Lemon-Garlic Marinade, Turkish Seasoning, and Tuscan Sunset Salt Free Italian Seasoning," and the worst Fox News could find to say was that the chain where she shopped was overtly political in its opposition to Republicans.

You don't believe me?  Seriously, look up Dijongate.  The right wing worked itself into a tizzy when Barrack Obama ordered Dijon mustard on his hamburger.  Obama did not do himself any favors by trying to conceal his preference.  And a general uproar ensued over Obama's elitism in using fancy mustard.  And now a Democratic candidate is making homemade fries, double fried in peanut oil and duck fat and seasoned with home grown rosemary and sage?!?  To which I can only ask, does she put Dijon mustard on them?

I Don't Care if Trump Loses His Mind. I Just Want Him to Lose the Election.

 

George Conway, the Lincoln Project, and others are looking for more and more ways to torment Donald Trump until he completely loses his mind.  They use terms like "narcissistic injury" and "decompensation," but the ultimate goal is clearly to drive him around the bend. 

I have problems with this.  First of all, it's not nice to make someone lose their mind, even if that person is Donald Trump.

Second, and more important for our country's future, the goal here should not be to make Donald Trump lose his mind.  It should be to make him lose the election.  Trump's tormentors are forgetting this distinction.

Presumably they would say that making Trump lose his mind if the most effective way to make him lose the election.  I am not so sure.  After all, he has been ranting about Hannibal Lector and sharks and who knows what else for months without any serious political consequences.

If the goal is to make Trump lose his mind as a means to making him lose the election, at a minimum, he will have to lose his mind in public.  And somehow, no matter how nutty he acts, all it seems to provoke in response is a collective yawn.  Personally, I think he could jump up and down and squawk like a chicken and most people would just shrug and say, "That's Trump for you."

Second of all, would it matter?  I am with Bill Maher, who said he would vote for Biden's head in a jar of blue liquid ahead of Trump.  Presumably there are any number of people on the other side who would vote for Trump jumping up and down and squawking like a chicken over any Democrat.  

I am Gobsmacked That the Republicans Were So Gobsmacked

 

Let us concede that the Democrats, in swapping out candidates so late in the game, took quite a radical action and it was somewhat understandable that Republicans were thrown for a loop. 

What surprises me, though, is that Republicans still have not recovered from it.  Apparently they had no Plan B, which is surprising.

I can understand that they might believe Biden would not withdraw voluntarily.  Biden himself was doing his best to create that impression.  But if Republicans truly believed that Biden was as frail as they claimed, did it not occur to him that he might be involuntarily removed by events beyond his control?  

In the most extreme scenario, he might die.  Failing that, he might have a clearly incapacitating medical event.  Or the Cabinet might invoke the 25th Amendment.  Even if one assumes these things are unlikely, they were not so far-fetched that a sensible campaign would have disregarded the possibility.  A Plan B seems like so much common sense.

I can only assume that Republicans assumed that Joe Biden's removal as candidate would have been followed by a power struggle to be his successor that would have torn the Democratic Party apart.  If Republican planners wanted to be generous, they might even have assumed this was the reason why Biden would never voluntarily step down.

Why the Pro-Hamas Crowds Pickets Democrats -- The Same Reason Ultra-Maga Harasses Republicans

 

There has been talk about why the pro-Hamas protesters showed up in force in Chicago and tried to disrupt the Democratic convention while leaving Republicans alone.  After all, Republicans are clearly more obedient to Israel and less friendly to the Palestinian cause than Democrats.  But really this is no different than why ultra-MAGA harasses and threatens Republican, but not Democratic, law makers.

An important caveat is in order here.  We have at least some idea who these pro-Hamas protesters are because they show up in person.  Their leadership appears to be Palestinian, while the rank and file are mostly college students and generic progressive activists seizing onto the cause of the day.  Most of the pressure the far right exerts against Republican officials takes place out of the public eye, by threats by email, phone and the like.  As such, it is not clear who are making the threats -- militia members, such as the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, or Three Percenters, or just the more hard core MAGA "normies."  

But the threats are real.  Many Republican office holders are being intimidated into supporting Trump, not just by the threat of a primary challenge but by actual physical threats as well.  Mitt Romney famously pays $5,000 per day in security because of these threats and can recount other Republicans who don't have that kind of money falling into line.  In 2020, Republican state legislatures expressed similar fears when Trump pressured them to appoint alternate slates of electors.  Rusty Bowers (Arizona Speaker of the House) and Brad Raffensperger.  Democratic law makers have not been targets of this sort of threats, although Democratic election officials have.*  And the reason is clear.  These hard core MAGA members believe that election officials are committing criminal fraud and therefore feel free to threaten them.  They expect Republican law makers to be in the tank for Trump and to vote for his certification regardless of election outcomes.  The do not expect Democratic law makers to be in the tank for Trump and therefore do not regard them as traitors for not voting to certify him.  

Or, put differently, ultra-MAGA are not currently seeking to take over the country.  They are seeking to take over the Republican Party as a prelude to taking over the country.

Something similar applies to the pro-Hamas crowd.  They know Republicans are in the tank for Israel and do not expect to have any sway with them.  Their fury is directed at Democrats, who they do expect to sway.  Or, put differently, they see Republican supporters of Israel as mere enemies and Democratic supporters of Israel as traitors.  And they are attempting to take over the Democratic Party, presumably as a prelude to taking over the country.

Of course, there are differences as well.  MAGA has been much more successful at intimidating Republicans into submission than the pro-Hamas crowd has been at intimidating Democrats.  The primary reason for this, I assume is that MAGA is much larger than the pro-Hamas crowd -- large enough to form the majority of a party, versus a minor faction.  

I also suspect that the ultra-MAGA tactic of staying in the shadows -- of making secret anonymous threats or harassing people at their private residence -- is more effective than the highly public and obnoxious actions of pro-Hamas.  If ultra-MAGA took their worst actions in the public eye, I have little doubt they would alienate public opinion enough to undermine their power. But private threats and harassment do not make it onto the public radar screen, and create they impression that there is a violent and authoritarian Left threatening the fabric of our country, with no equivalent on the Right.  The real difference is that the violent and authoritarian Left has been kept marginalized, while the violent and authoritarian Right is integrated into the mainstream.

________________________________________

*Also school board members.