Things Are Always Better In the Morning, Most Mornings

.
Last week, the Republican National Convention nominated Donald J. Trump to be their candidate for President, a nomination which he —thankfully— accepted.  For those of you who misguidedly get all your news from me, here is a sort of executive summary¹ of the events at the Convention:

On the first day of the Convention, the large component of those opposed to Trump attending the Convention requested that candidates be allowed to vote their conscience, without being bound to vote according to their State primaries.  A voice vote was called, and the chair voted out the changes, to the fury of the “Never Trump!” movement within the GOP, all on National TV.

On the second day, Mrs. Melania Trump spoke on behalf of her husband, in a beautifully phrased speech, with at least two paragraphs taken from the speech of Michelle Obama of four years earlier.  This got the nitpickers into a tizzy.  The main thing that I see here is that Melania’s speech contained (in addition to unwarranted praise for, and faith in, her husband) some very universal aspirations; elements of which would have appealed to the more moderate members in the GOP, and many Democrats as well.  But her audience at the Convention was composed of men who weren’t accustomed to taking speeches by women seriously, and women who were more attuned to Melania’s style and delivery rather than her content, and so the speech was a roaring success.  But we have to wonder whether the principles she presented have anything at all to do with Trump’s agenda, or whether even Trump’s usual speeches have anything to do with his agenda.  Or whether he has an agenda at all.

Mayor Rudolf Giuliani gave a speech filled with furious animus against the usual targets of Trump’s speeches, but otherwise completely useless as a basis for serious thinking.

Chris Christie’s speech on Day 2 was a sort of theatrical indictment of Hillary Clinton, using his best law court style.

Other speeches were given, by the mother of a marine killed in Benghazi, the father of a high-school football player killed by a gang, one of whose members was an illegal Mexican immigrant, minor Republicans, Speaker Paul Ryan, and Mike Pence of Indiana.

In other words, nothing said at the Convention really gives us any insight into how the campaign will proceed from now on, except for the Trump women, whose values seem to bridge the differences between the Republican Party and the Democrats.  Ivanka trump declared that she and her father would fight for equal pay for men and women, a principle that has never been popular within the GOP, and Melania Trump expressed an interest in education, something we have not heard from Trump himself.  Whether these ideas have anything to do with what goes on in Trump’s head is anybody’s guess!

A huge problem we have to deal with is the principle that is becoming increasingly current everywhere, namely that any sort of excitement is good.  As many have observed with disapproval, these national conventions have become nothing more than pep rallies.  Adults of all walks of life are reaching back to the excitement they remember from their youth, and are grasping at the pep rallies that preceded important football games.  So that’s what these conventions are deteriorating into: media events to turn out the vote.  And we can anticipate that, in the future, no one will vote without a massive pep rally to encourage them.  Oh, it is not restricted to politics.  Some students in college, for instance, will not pay attention to a lesson unless it is made more exciting by some video.  Other lessons must contain an exciting game.  Sometimes it involves colorful T-shirts that are handed out.  Gold Stars.  Candy.  Some professors can’t get motivated to give a lesson unless there’s something really exciting in it.  If the professors aren’t excited, you can bet that the kids will be bored, too.  Meanwhile, students in numerous poor countries are paying attention at lessons that have zero candy content.  Trump’s infamous short attention span is not remarkable in the least; he represents a huge sector of the population with short attention spans.  This is good, because his speeches are all arranged in tiny snippets of thought.

So we have no idea what Trump stands for at all, except that he wants to take a firm stand about illicit immigration.  Despite the indignation of the Democrats, this is something they want as well; the US policy has always been centered around a sort of Maxwell’s Demon principle: only admit high-quality immigrants.  Some Democrats would prefer a more liberal policy, but they seem to be in the minority.  It is very risky for the US to adopt an open door attitude towards immigration unilaterally, because the consequences would be to place an enormous burden on the already overburdened Social Welfare system here, which was never very robust to begin with.

Is his incendiary rhetoric just window-dressing, or does it reflect what he really wants?  Is it deceitfully intended to attract a racist sector of the population that has so far stayed out of politics, but whom Trump does not intend to support once in office?  Or are the messages from his wife and daughters intended to mollify the more moderate Republicans, with ideas he has absolutely no intention of following up with?  In other words, does Trump cynically believe that he can say and do anything in order to get elected, and then proceed to do something entirely different once he is in office?

Trump’s son (Eric?) said in an interview that Trump was seeking a Vice President who would take charge of both domestic and foreign policy, leaving Trump with the main task of making America great again.  In other words, he wants an apprentice to do all his work for him, whom he can fire, if he (the Apprentice) does not perform according to specification.  I don’t think the Presidency works quite like that, though who can say, since it’s never been tried?  It may work for Trump, but probably not for the rest of us.

Worst of all, the relentless gerrymandering that the GOP State houses have indulged in over the last two decades makes it very difficult to elect anything but a Congress that is highly Republican.  If the GOP were hoping that Congress will restrain any Trumpian excesses, they’ve outsmarted themselves; if the GOP congressmen who get elected on Trump’s coat-tails are Trump disciples, no excesses will be restrained whatsoever.  Gerrymandering is one of the most vile procedures dreamed up by Americans, and its inventors should burn in hell for all eternity.  I sincerely hope that Democrats do not retaliate with counter-gerrymandering.

Now let’s look at Hillary Clinton.  It is possible that she would make a wonderful president, but, again, the Republican advertising machine has systematically worked hard to discredit both the Clintons over the last 25 years.  All the Whitewater, Lewinskigate nonsense was a huge PR stunt to blemish the Clinton brand, so much so that even Democrats have got into the habit of believing that the Clintons are lying, thieving opportunists.  (Jimmy Kimmel performed an experiment on video in which random people declared that they had know about completely fake Hillary Clinton accusations.)  In actual fact, the Clintons are fairly typical of politicians of any persuasion, except for the fact that they are particularly sympathetic to the plight of demographics that are viewed as underdogs.  But they are —or have been— loath to make any moves that would be viewed as hostile to business.  But that could change; the fiasco of 2007 should give them sufficient ammunition to be firm with the banks, if they aren’t scared by their close business friends into believing that an intimidated Wall Street is bad for the economy.  Wall Street has a short attention span.  Not to worry.

So, contrary to popular belief (even among Democrats), Hillary Clinton is likely to make a wonderful president, with possibly an unfortunate tendency to be lenient with Banks and Big Business.  Under her, the initiative to moderate environmental pollution, seek clean energy, protect Social Security and Health care, are likely to inch forward, but more likely to succeed.  I predict that she is more likely to be successful at formulating a robust immigration policy than Trump would be, but we will never know, since both of them aren’t going to be president at the same time.  Unfortunately, ignorant people across the country are likely to be resentful of practically everything she does, and if we get a progressive Congress and Senate, they will have an uphill battle trying to combat the antipathy to Hillary Clinton.

The takeaway, I guess, is that everyone should get out and vote.  (I have a big media event planned for just before the election date, where I will be dressed as a cheerleader, and we will give away lots of prizes.  Maybe.  But get out and vote anyway.)  Trump supporters will be voting like mad, because it will be a totally new experience for them.  Never Trump people will be out trying to sabotage Trump, possibly by voting for the Libertarian candidate, who certainly appears to be a little more sane than Trump, or at least intends to approach the Presidency in a more professional way.  So the outcome can be anything from a total Trumpocalypse, which will just be grandiose dysfunctionality, to a sort of lame-duck Hillary Clinton presidency, to a wildly successful Clinton administration, depending on the outcomes of the Congressional and Senatorial races.  Some initiatives will not wait: the environment, clean energy, income inequality, health reform.  Another four years of Democratic administrations will at least be fair, having endured the GOP for so long.  Things are not going to look that good on the morning after the elections, unless at least some of us go to the blessed polls.

Arch

¹ Executive Summary: A brief overview of a report or article for those whose reading skills have declined over the years.
‘’“”—’