Warren vs. Trump June 2, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
Got to say I’m enjoying Elizabeth Warren’s fantastic take-downs of one D. Trump. Can’t help but feel she has the measure of the man with lines like:
“Donald Trump is worried about helping poor little Wall Street — let me find the world’s smallest violin to play a sad, sad song,”
“What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their houses? What kind of a man roots for people to get thrown out of their jobs? To root for people to lose their pensions?” Warren asked.
“I’ll tell you exactly what kind of a man does that,” she continued. “It is a man who cares about no one but himself. A small, insecure, money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes a profit off it.”
His comebacks seemed rather lame by contrast.
But as Slate asks, can Clinton channel this approach? Remains to be seen.
Mind you, it’s an open goal in so many ways. Here’s a guy who won’t release his tax returns.
One other thing about Trump that is fascinating is that he’s a simulacrum. He’s not – as far as can be determined, fixed to any particular positions publicly, turning 180 degrees as it suits him. From pro-choice to anti-abortion, unconcerned about immigration to proposer of a ‘wall’, and so on. Yet who genuinely, bar his most besotted fans, believes he has any great adherence to these positions? And that’s what is most strange about this – perhaps even most cynical. This last week or so we saw a convinced far-right politician almost become President of Austria. But Hofer is convinced. If he chops and changes it is in so far as he can present a more moderate face to mask his far-right beliefs. But with Trump it is the opposite. He is masking somewhat moderate to disinterested inclinations with hard, often brutally so, immoderate policy positions and proposals.
In this respect his candidacy is performative in a way that is quite unprecedented.
And yet. It is a logical conclusion of a US right which has often shifted rhetorically in an extreme direction in order to corral support. But the distinction I think is that those who did that were themselves convinced, if less pronounced conservatives, think of Romney, or Bush, rather than people who fundamentally didn’t give a toss one way or another.