Donald Trump’s candidacy for the President of the United States has engendered an enormous amount of media coverage. People who read my blogs know that I do not have an enormous amount of respect for the media, because I think that most of the media are extremely irresponsible and downright dishonest.
The thesis of my blog today is that Trump does not actually want to win the Presidency. As I type this, I am hearing on Fox News that they are waiting for him to address us in an imminent press conference. He will probably refer to his possibly running as an Independent candidate, since he feels he has been treated unfairly by the Republican National Convention. He has indicated in the past that if he feels he has not been treated fairly, that he will consider such a run. What he is specifically upset about is his assertion that in Saturday night’s debate in South Carolina, many audience members booed him on a constant basis, simply because they are a part of the donor class who are following Bush and Rubio, as Establishment puppets.
If this occurred, then Trump is right to be furious. That is a low-down move. People are tired of such political manipulation. I can also defend Trump in a number of other ways. He did not say most Mexicans are rapists and murderers. He said their government is sending their worst across the border. I don’t think this can be denied. In general, he gets along well with Mexicans, and he enjoys a certain amount of Hispanic support. Another area where Trump can be defended is that he has been a very successful businessman, and given the current state of the American economy, it seems like at least some of his ideas, if implemented, would undoubtedly lead to a more robust financial condition for the country.
However, I have a theory that does not seem to be shared by anyone else. At least, I haven’t seen it mentioned. I don’t think Trump really wants to win. At least, not as a Republican. I think Trump wants the voters to stop making him so popular, so that he can save face and get out of the race. I think he ran to improve his brand, and take his fame to the next level. Pundits on television and in print are constantly saying how traditional political rules don’t seem to apply in this election cycle, and that Trump says things that if most politicians said them, their careers, or at least their candidacies, would be over.
I have reasons for this theory. Trump didn’t do the debate in Iowa, Ostensibly, this was because he didn’t appreciate Megyn Kelly’s question in the other debate run by Fox News. I say it’s because he figured that this would anger Iowan voters, and he would not do as well as it was predicted he would. And it worked, somewhat. He came in second. He’s said that he could shoot someone on a public street, and it wouldn’t offend his voters. This sounds like frustration to me that his escapades aren’t offering the results he’d intended. He is starting to swear on the campaign trial. I’ve never heard him swear before, and I’ve been following him for years. I loved The Apprentice. I think Trump is a financial genius, and that his Presidential run is part of his business strategy to strength his brand. But it’s gotten away from him, because he didn’t account for the fact that his outrageous statements are picking up on the anger that the American people feel, or that many of them feel, about the current state of American politics. There are no consequences for politicians. His supporters believe that Trump will deliver those consequences. He will build a wall. He will kill ISIS. He will ban Muslims. Two-thirds of Republican voters in Iowa, I believe it was, said they agree with the last of these issues.
Donald Trump has many wonderful qualities. But I think there’s a reason why he’s doing some of the things he’s doing. And it’s not part of his strategy to win. It’s part of his strategy not to win. Do you really think he’s giving up his business, what he’s spent his life to build, just to be a politician? Especially when he has admitted he has pretty much owned the politicians in the past?
I have attempted to show two sides of this story. I think that’s the emotionally intelligent thing to do, rather than always making snap value judgements, just because it fits in with our own particular agenda. Thomas Carlyle, one of America’s first great men, wrote about natural aristocracy, a term which refers to the belief that humankind does not have to be born noble in order to be noble. An emotionally intelligent natural aristocrat is someone who sees both sides of issues, and is calm and rational, where character is more important than prejudice.
