In a recent book I related that as an author and political commentator I had come to the conclusion in recent years that the definition of true intelligence is the ability to quickly sum up a situation and draw correct conclusions based on what was of greatest importance. As "rational" beings - unless we are reacting strictly emotionally (rather than rationally), as most of us probably do occasionally - we no doubt have, orgive, what we consider to be sound reasons for our conclusions and our positions. In other words, they are, indeed, based in "logic" or "reason" - but they still may miss the mark entirely.
There is also, of course, in politics, the near-universal practice of defending one's (or one's party's) positions solely on the basis of saving face or "winning" - all the while knowing that one's arguments are fallacious and deceptive - false, in a word. The following from an NBCnews.com article from yesterday, September 27, 2017, entitled "Moore Trounces Trump-Backed Candidate in Alabama Senate Race," by Alex Seitz-wald, typifies just such a practice:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Conservative firebrand Roy Moore ousted incumbent Sen. Luther Strange on Tuesday night in the heated Alabama Senate race, handing a defeat to President Donald Trump, who had endorsed and campaigned for Strange.
Moore's victory over Strange was a landslide — 54.6 percent (262,204 votes) to 45.4 percent (218,066 votes), with 100 percent of the vote counted — despite Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell having taken extraordinary measures and spending millions of dollars trying to knock back the twice-removed former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
Is it true that President Trump had indeed backed Establishment incumbent Luther Strange? Yes it is. Does the fact that Strange lost to a man whom Trump supporters embraced for the very reasons they had backed the billionaire businessman mean that the now-President has lost his support or his supporters? Of course it doesn't- and if the writer of the above-excerpted article doesn't know it, he is simply not all that intelligent. Chances are, however, that the real reasons were of little (make that no) interest to him, as his entire purpose in creating the article and the headline was to damage the President. Period. End of discussion.
The reality, however, to informed (and intelligent) observers is both clear and quite different from the parallel universe portrayed in the article; and, as is usually the case, it isn't complicated. Here it is, and I alluded to it in the previous paragraph: The majority of the People of Alabama (the majority of Republican voters in this case) - like the majority of the country (as reflected in the Trump victory) - have rejected the Establishment, i.e., the DC Swamp, in both parties. That's it.
So, far from being a rejection of Donald Trump and his platform, the victory was a decisive show of support for the very things that got him elected (primarily his anti-establishment positions on everything from the border wall, to trade deficits, to his willingness to call out and go after radical Islam); and since the author of the article had no doubt zero desire (and probably even less ability) to discern what really happened in the Moore-Strange (indeed, it was!) primary, I'll explain that as well...and once again, it isn't complicated. (It took me and probably most honest and informed observers all of two seconds to figure it out.)
In a nutshell, we had Mitch McConnell and the GOP Establishment literally spending millions of dollars - somewhere between fifteen and thirty million dollars according to Breitbart - to keep the Establishment incumbent (Doctor?) Strange in place, and to prevent yet another anti-establishment outsider from entering the picture/fray - in support of the President and his policies, ironically - as he had apparently been convinced by his clearly-Establishment advisers (including, allegedly foremost, by his son-in-law Jared Kushner) to back Strange...against, one can only believe, his own better judgment and instincts.
And why would they advise this (and he acquiesce to their advice)?
a.) In order to engender the support of Mitch McConnell - and, one assumes, Paul Ryan - and the GOP Establishment (the majority of the party in both the House and Senate) for the President's (and the People's) agenda;
b.) To preserve his unblemished track record in the post-presidential election races; and
c.) Because these ever cautious and calculating (as well as gutless) "moderates" (at best) no doubt believed that the firebrand Moore couldn't or wouldn't ultimately win - especially if the President backed his opponent.
The bottom line here is that the President didn't win the election - or get where he is in business or in life - by being timid or cautious, but be being exactly the opposite, i.e., brash and bold; by taking chances; and frankly, for all who have become adept at reading the true pulse of the People (real people) - not those timid voters whom the GOP Establishment have conjured up in their fevered and feeble minds - this shouldn't have been either a brash or a bold decision - but a no-brainer - on the part of the President!
It also should have come down, ultimately, to just one thing: doing what is right, and what he (still) believes in. Hopefully he will now go back to simply being himself, following his own good instincts, which have made him the enormous success that he is. That, of course, is what got him elected, and if the GOP Establishment will not ultimately (as they have failed to do thus far, nearly across the board) support his and our agenda, then we must and will simplyturn them all out in the next, and subsequent elections!
Meanwhile, no, we are not tired of winning yet. Maybe the President will now want to rejoin us.... The Trump Author predicts that he will!
Please "Like" and "Share"! You'll be helping us get the word out, and know how we're doing. Thank you!
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
I'm busy working on my blog posts. Watch this space!