Palm Beach, Fla.; Washington, D.C.
I thought I would have needed to write a longer post about this subject matter. But then I realized that, first, I already wrote something good enough back in December.
And second, my second son’s namesake, who in an ironic turn experienced a postmortem revival with the rise of the 2015 version of Trump, wrote something back in August 1992 that should seem eerily familiar, considering things that have happened in times far closer to our own than to August 1992:
What has happened in the Buchanan revolution, as I argued in this space last month, is the emergence of a new political identity that focuses on the concrete and particular interests and beliefs of the nation and of a particular social, cultural, and political force — Middle America — as the defining core of the nation. Mr. Buchanan was by no means the first to give political expression to this force, and he may not be the one who carries it to a successful revolutionary fulfillment. Perhaps it was David Duke who actually initiated it in recent times, and perhaps it will be H. Ross Perot who brings it to fruition. But Mr. Duke, for obvious reasons, was not an acceptable spokesman, and Mr. Perot, for all the charm of his accent, will probably be unable to accomplish its agenda. The Texas billionaire has all the political sophistication of a man who watches the Today show at least three times a week and believes everything he hears on it, and his unwillingness or inability to tell anyone what he would actually do about the various crises he has cribbed from television and weekly news magazines suggests that he would be quickly devoured by existing political elites if he really arrived in Washington. Mr. Perot displays the typical naivete of businessmen, who always suffer under the delusion that government operates just like the enterprise they and their golfing partners command. He may succeed in winning the Buchanan vote, and he may win the White House, but if he does, he will discover that giving orders to Congress, federal officials, lobbies, interest groups, and foreign powers is not the same as peddling computers and telling his secretaries to retype his letters.
Give the whole thing a read, when you’ve got time. Sam really was a prophet.
As you know, I immediately dismiss nearly all of the conventional criticisms of Trump, because they’re also true about virtually all politicians. That and buck, AFAIC.
However, Trump does have some unique foibles:
(1) A Civics 101 textbook naivete about the political world. Of which the first term disabused him.
(2) It is said of politicians that they have a bad habit of agreeing with the last person they talked to. Now, for most politicians, they only seem to have that problem; They only pretend to do so in order to get out of one room and into the next. Trump, OTOH, actually has that problem. Really impressionable and babe in the woods naive even at his age, alluding to the flaw above. This is one of the unstated reasons why orgs like Project 2025, American Moment, etc. etc., exist, so as to make sure that the kind of people that surround Trump in Trump 2.0 are way more of the last person he meets is like the first person he meets. Keep the Paul Ryans and Anthony Faucis and Jared Kushners of the world far far away, out of sight out of mind.
(3) Then there’s what I wrote back in December, and Sam said back in ’92 about Perot. Even now, Trump still has this idea that conventional political administration is a Weberian power structure, like a corporation or the military. In reality, it’s herding cats. Even though the Project 2025 et al. milieu will most likely see to it that the Trump 2.0 personnel is far better from a “personnel is policy” standpoint, it will not eliminate cat herding.
Because, if you lock 1000 people who agree on everything in a big room, then come back in one hour…
Trump, because he’s Weberian-minded, has a bad habit of thinking that disagreement within political administration is tantamount to insubordination or disloyalty or treachery. That I think was part of the fundamental heat and energy source behind all the baby mamma drama in Trump 1.0, and I don’t think it’s going to be much better in Trump 2.0. In fact it would be worse than a comparable situation, because the race for the 2028 Republican nomination starts at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2025, with many people in Trump 2.0 putting themselves in the ring. One level below that, a secondary scramble will be afoot to determine who gets to be general sense important in the post-Trump MAGA world, and likewise, it will involve lots of Trump 2.0 officials and hacks. In a way, it’s going to be a much cleaner analogue to what happens in a Mafia organization after The Big Don (pun intended) kicks off. St. Louisans of a certain age or well versed enough in history will instantly recall Michaels vs Leisures after Tony Giordano died.
On top of that, Trump takes political insults way more personally than he should, whereas a more normal acculturated politician would let it roll off their backs and realize that it’s par for the course. Ironic, considering we’re talking about someone who owns golf courses.
(4) Trump never let his brain fry in current epoch conventional political ideology. That’s both good and bad. The good is that this makes him somewhat immune to the fashionable and treacherous ideological fads of both the left and right and their robotic proposals. The bad is that this means his civnat populism-nationalism-ish way of thinking isn’t a grounded ideology to him, it’s just an instinct and a proclivity. Which means he can and has gone off res, especially if the last person he talks to on a given day is Paul Ryan, Anthony Fauci or Jared Kushner. Which alludes to the second flaw above.
“You know, QD, you’re talking almost as if…”
Like I said, under the vest.
Countenance Blog 
I saw you noted at Minds that a certain personage would have been 77 today. I never met him but we exchanged a few emails.
He was really moody and temperamental. But you always knew which side of the mood spectrum he was on at any given time, so if he was in a bad one, you knew to tread lightly.
The first email I wrote to Samuel Francis was, I think, in 2001.
My favorite teacher in college (I was a liberal in my college days) was an admirer of Morris Dees. He taught political science and history. We were friends until his death. By this time I had changed but we still enjoyed talking current events and history.
He gave money to the SPLC. I showed him am article Samuel Francis wrote about Dees’ unethical shenanigans. My former teacher was so convinced by Francis that he told me he stopped giving money to the SPLC.
When I saw Samuel Francis had an email address, I wrote him with this news. The same day Sam answered. It went something like this:
“Very good!!! You have made my day. I am happy my efforts cost Morris Dees some money and support.”
There were some things that could put Samuel Francis in a good mood.
Along these lines, I’ve been thinking about our sector’s general disappointment with Trump 1.0.
In retrospect, and with the 20/20 vision of hindsight to help, I think that it’s part Trump’s fault and part our sector’s fault. Part Trump’s fault for the reasons I outlined in this post. However, it’s also part our sector’s fault. I think too many sector people had too many lofty overinflated and crazy expectations of him; They went way over eye level. It’s as if they/we actually believed our sector’s “orange crowned god emperor” and “we were promised box cars and Zyklon B” memes and took them seriously, instead of the in-sector in-jokes that they always were and were supposed to be and were meant to be.
In a few days it will be the 54th anniversary of “Kent State.” I was in college at the time.
I lived 15 miles from there. Although, at the time was stationed at Leighton Barracks, Wurzburg. Made the front page of “Stars & Stripes”.
While I have a few spare minutes on this very special day (one on the calendar that I better not ever forget but she wishes she could forget), want to throw up the link to the “Time” article that everyone is talking about that’s relevant to all this.
Because you’ve already read my post, and also my post several back (keep scrolling) where I warn everyone not to take Trump literally on foreign policy, you already know what my reaction is to this.
https://archive.ph/fcCIa
I’m also disinclined to tale Trump literally. In a month, Trump turns 78. He’s beginning to look it. If someone bet that Trump will leave this earth before Biden, he might win.
When Obama was in his first term, Conservatism Inc. was always saying, “Obama’s poll numbers are dropping.” Actually, as the late Lawrence Auster pointed out, they were holding firm at 45%.
The latest polls have Trump ahead of Biden by only a few points. And Biden’s approval is 44%. A Democrat has a shelf of sorts underneath.
I still have a feeling Trump will blow it. Or, to put it another way, will not cover the margin of theft.
Obama’s poll numbers were always going to be higher in published form than reality, for a reason Obama himself acknowledged.
A relevant addition.
The running mate is most likely going to be somebody not on the lists of names you see in conventional journalism or right of center journalism.
More than that, I must keep under the vest.
I can say this, though: In a normal running mate selection process, it’s usually about balance. Age, sex, race, geography, experience, ideology.
However, because of Trump’s age, I know for a fact that the RM/VP vetting team is more focused on Presidential gravitas and credibility than balance, as whoever Trump picks has a decent chance of becoming the 48th President of the United States some time before January 20, 2029.
This means the RM/VP needs to be someone of Presidential Stature, to use an old-fashioned term.
Is there anyone like that around?
Stormy Daniels testified today (Tuesday) as a “surprise witness.” The whole purpose of this farce/trial was to humiliate Trump. Which it does.
Politicians caught in this situation always deny it–Hart, Clinton, now Trump. In Clinton’s case he eventually had to admit it. Ted Kennedy denied “any immoral conduct” in going off alone with a young woman, who left her purse back at the cottage.
The Great Kennedy Historian/Apologist Arthur Schlesinger testified before the Senate Impeachment hearing–“Everybody lies about sex.”