Pragmatist Trump

Posted by $ TomB666 9 years, 1 month ago to Politics
154 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This article gives a little different take to Donald Trump.

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015.

RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries”. He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Trump is not a liberal or conservative, he’s a Pragmatist.

We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation was jocund, ranging from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and understands it must be fixed. He doesn't see the problem as liberal or conservative; he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending, globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn't a Republican problem – it isn't a liberal problem – it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy isn't a liberal or conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

A Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it. Here again successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn't work, you don't continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist Donald Trump hasn't made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through a Carl’s Hamburgers. I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason people do not like him is because: (1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians; (2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a candidate speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who own them vis-a-vis donations; (3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology; and (4) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasik [sic] and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don't give tens of millions without expecting something in return.

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist might be just what America needs right now.

And as I said earlier, a pragmatist sees a problem and understands that the solution to fix same is not about a party, but a willingness and boldness to get it done.

People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common amongst those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solve a problem, because its better to still have an "issue(s) to be solved" so re-elect me to solve it, which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success.

Donald Trump has his total financial empire at risk in running for president - that says it all. Success for the US!


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If he had stuck to domestic fascism the trains would have failed along with everything else. But statists can't resist attacking other countries. Who would have hung him when under different circumstances is speculation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Progressive education" is one aspect of Pragmatism and Dewey is famous for it. The article you linked to is a whitewash of what he advocated.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    The major problem with bureaucracy is what it does, not that it doesn't do it more efficiently. Some of it we are stuck being dependent on and need something better than the lines at the dept of motor vehicles to get a license renewed within a day, but the biggest problem is the intrusive, punitive interference. Who wants that done more efficiently?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I would suggest that businessmen are committed to efficiency of process. Our Founders created the Constitution with some thought to efficiency of governance. You may be right in the "name of solving them" concept, but I would sure like to see the panic in their eyes and actions IF someone with a bent toward efficiency jumped in the middle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You aren't looking far enough. And you are still using the definitions of the left. No way out of that trap. Except don't. The center of the left is not the center of the USA but is the center of the USSA. The choice is Constitutionalism or SoSocialism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    And None of the Above it's in the column marked refuse to participate in a rigged crooked game where only left wing socialists are allowed in the winners circle.

    I'm at the point of being more blunt about it. Those who vote for Sanders, Clinton or Trump are anti-Constitutionalists and traitors to the USA.

    However as good little Citizen X's of the USSA they do quite well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You will miss his vote but the chanced are 48 out of 50 the the left will welcome his vote in the 'winner take all' column. And it could have meant something and done some good if applied elsewhere. Sad.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    reasonable and solutions. are not the choice of words I'm looking for when choosing the national leadership.

    I tried 'his web site.' Nothing came up. Since i don't have the time nor inclination to wade through the number of site choices that google presented I'll leave the mysterious 'his' to his own devices and go by what's been quoted and a sourced.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I meant, had he stopped with domestic policy only. Instead he allied with a fellow dictator in a war of aggression against the rest of Europe. And one could argue that war, not any domestic collapse, brought him down.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no vote possible for someone for whom you agree in the literal meaning of 'vote'. A vote is not a sanction, it's a limited political choice that should be made whenever you think it makes some policy difference worth having.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    A boring out of tune Ken Burns background banjo would be a nice touch.

    Isn't the treble clef now beyond the frequency range of your hearing?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    A good place to start given your background is the Ekirch book on The Decline of American Liberalism, with its chapter on Pragmatism and Progressivism. It makes the basic point without getting very far into the philosophy and its source. Then you have more explicit motivation to understand what happened with the philosophy.

    Ekirch was a classical liberal, not Objectivist, and has some dubious interpretations. But by "liberal" he means the original American liberalism of Jefferson and Madison, etc., not the anti-liberal statist variety, and his history is excellent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Trump was asked the question about punishment because he wants to ban abortion.

    The alternative between Trump and Clinton, if it comes to that without either or both self-destructing before the election, is Trump as an intolerable bad risk for what Clinton makes a certainty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    All of it was correct. America does not deserve Pragmatism. It has been injected by the intellectuals. Most people have naively absorbed it knowing nothing of the explicit philosophy, thinking of it instead in terms of their sense of life of "American know-how and practicality". The intellectuals are killing the country and wiping out the American sense of life. In that sense, they were given no choice with Pragmatist me-too Romney.

    "Died yesterday" a that stage of AS means murdered. A large portion of the society didn't approve it but didn't have the understanding to know an alternative or what to do about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Stopped where? It was already fascism. He didn't need to join with Hitler for his own domestic fascism. His lack of respect for the rights of the individual only led to his attacking those in other countries.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Putting a businessman into a statist environment of problem causers and you get more problems in the name of solving them. Businessmen rarely know or are committed to proper principles of government and cannot begin to challenge a statist environment they are put into. That certainly applies to Trump, who already starts out with statist premises of his own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Your last three sentences are correct. Regrettably, America has endorsed the philosophy of progressivism over the past 100+ years, completely contrary to its founding. And I reiterate, America has now gotten what it has deserved. Anyone who thought that they were not getting czars to manage the decline of America in 2009 had the chance to vote President Zero out in 2012, not that things were significantly different in the prior 15 years. Where we differ is in America's "sense of life". America is a rotting corpse, just like Japan and Europe before her.

    I watched AS 2 again on Wednesday. Remember the sign by the homeless guy that said: America. Born July 4, 1776. Died yesterday. RIP.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Greetings ewv,
    I really don't know what Mr.Trump wants, other than presidency and ego satisfaction.
    I was just narrowly pointing out at the charade that is called reporting and journalism in our times. Strictly speaking,the question that was asked and the answer that was reported were both distorted virtually instantly.
    By the way, many millions of Americans would like to go back to banning abortions. I hope that we do not.
    Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cruz inspire in me any confidence whatsoever. I am first and foremost interested not to allow Mrs. Clinton and her party any power whatsoever. Any alternative at this time seems to me to have a good chance of being significantly better than she. Perhaps I should say lesser evil, since the federal government has so much evil inbred that it will surely take more than a couple presidency cycles to generate significant improvements. E.g. after Carter it seemed that Reagan turned things around and improved them substantially.
    As others have observed and I tend to agree, virtually all that he achieved has been reversed. I conclude that great numbers in the electorate do not have even a most basic skill of dispassionate thinking. As many have sad and I deeply believe, peoples get the governments they deserve.
    I recently read, in a unrelated context, the definitions of hope and optimism which appealed to me:
    Hope is the belief that the future will be better than the present and that you have some power to make it so.
    Optimism is the belief that things will work out no matter what you do.
    I confess to having lost hope and not being optimistic at all.
    EDIT: corrected spelling and reversed paragraphs
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by JohnConnor352 9 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I am voting... For someone with whom I agree. I will not give moral sanction to the likes of a Trump, Sanders, Cruz, or Clintom.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo