Is Donald Trump Actually the Best Hope For Realizing Liberal Policies?

donald trump

Let me say right off the bat that I do not support, endorse or have any love for Donald Trump. In fact, I do not endorse, support of have any love for any political candidate or figure. I specifically find Trump to be a ludicrous idiot whose hateful rhetoric has helped fan the flames of widespread hate and prejudice. If Donald Trump were to disappear forever on a Malaysian airliner, I would not lose a single second of sleep over it, even if I knew it was done by extraterrestrial reptilian shape-shifters whose plan was to secretly rule the world through a single governing body and needed Trump out of the way to do it. I would still chuckle inwardly in a bemused manner at the misfortune the Threefold Law dealt Trump before I stopped to be amazed and befuddled that David Icke and his supporters were right. That being said, if I wanted to (I don’t) insure that the policies championed by liberals and progressives had a chance to see legislative fulfillment, I would have to strongly support Trump for the following reasons.

Donald Trump Is Not What He Appears To Be

Recently a reputable neuroscientist gave his opinion regarding Trump, and that opinion is that the Hair Club for Men advert come to life and now running for president is actually a giant fraud. And it makes sense. Trump has been a public figure for a very long time and during most of that time he identified and was recognized as a champion of Democratic Party values. He also stated explicitly that if he were to run for president, he would do so as a Republican to take advantage of what he saw as that party’s supporters ignorance and outright stupidity. Now here he is, running for POTUS as a Republican and appealing to the believers in the most ignorant and outright stupid ideologies in the land; those of xenophobia, bigotry and blatant fascist nationalism. Doing so has gained him a die hard base of supporters, but even more importantly, it has given him tons of priceless publicity for free. He is riding the zeitgeist of fear that has dominated our politics and culture since 9/11. Yet he claims, in a ¬†surprising moment of reason, that we have not been given the correct account of those events. And every Us-vs- Them statement he makes is a recognition of the overall equality of other people and their cultures to us and ours.

Given his subtle nods to the people, ideas and beliefs of those he supposedly opposes, when combined with his historical political positions and the potency and efficacy of the method he is employing, it seems pretty clear that Trump is not who he wants his supporters to think he is. There is also good reason to believe that President Trump, unlike Candidate Trump, would be far more amenable to the warfare/welfare state government we have gotten equally from both political parties. Policies which tend to be ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ when it comes to government interference as a component of the ‘solution’. In fact it is reasonable to believe that Trump and his friend and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton would both pretty much support the same policies. Which brings us to the second reason Trump might be the better candidate for liberal and progressive policies…

A Republican President Would Fare Far Better In A Conservative Congress With Liberal Policies

Politics is not a game of common sense, it is a game of politics. The very same neoliberal policies that both candidates would potentially support would be taken by their party opponents in the other branches of government in much different ways. A healthcare bill proposed by Bernie or Hilary might fail in the parrying of party politics, where the same bill proposed by Trump might be successful. This was the same logic used to point out that Rand Paul might have been the best candidate for realistically realizing some liberal and progressive policies, even though Rand did not use hyperbole as a ruse to gain the required support, which is why we are now talking about Trump and not him. Politics are a circus of the absurd and to get from point A to point B you might have to make pit stops at K, 5 and :).

Cruz and Rubio, the other two potential contenders from the Republican party actually do believe the neocon fundamentalist nonsense they spew, so this alone is enough to support Trump for that parties nomination. Those two would not just be radically right, they would quickly be rendered somewhat ineffective by their party opponents absolute refusal to compromise with them in any way. Which would lead to another mid-term shift in congress that insured a steady opposition to their policies by congress. For better or worse, and in my opinion the latter, Trump would be willing to play the game with all of the deceits and conceits required to get things done as ringleader in that aforementioned circus.

I do not support anybody for president, least so Hilary or Trump, who I view as practically and politically the same entity. But it is not that I would support anybody, as I do not wish to choose a master, nor would I commit the act of aggression hailed triumphantly as democracy. Cruz and Rubio are obvious fascist nut jobs. Putting either of those guys on the television every day as Supreme Leader would undoubtedly have the sort of negative psychological and intellectual effect that Bush/Cheney had on the public consciousness, even if not being any different than Obama in policy. Bernie Sanders, whom I do not support, would be the most interesting choice for a single reason. Bernie, at least in appearance, tends to represent the concerns of the working class from which the government derives consent for its existence. Perhaps seeing the impossibility of his fanciful feel-good ideals and policies in practice would reveal to a large segment of the public the final truth; that government is an inherently flawed institution that cannot ever live up to the ideological standards of a truly progressive humanity.

This is how wrecked our entire system is. As unlikely as it may seem, the most backward peckerwood running for president might actually be the only one who can achieve the political goals of his alleged opponents.

Written by Joshua Scott Hotchkin is intended to be a diverse collection of writers with different thoughts and ideas about ending aggressive authority and the state. As such, the messages of the various contributors may sometimes seem to be in conflict. Rather than taking as a monolithic entity, try thinking of each author and every article as a single voice in a brainstorming session about the future. 

Facebook Comments