Donald trump is the antithesis of Howard Roark. He builds for exactly the wrong reasons and often fails making the public pick up his costs. He is Gail Wynand.

I did say "every few things".

Trump will turn over the table. The DC establishment will lose power.

Really?

http://americanactionnews.com/article...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

Trump is a lot smarter than you think. He knows exactly what he is doing

If he is the establishment, why does the establishment hate him so much

We want...information.

True antiestablishment is his message today. However he has been building golf courses and casinos for decades. He has been buying politicians for decades. Trump is the establishment. Trump owns the establishment.

Looking at it as if the candidates were entertainers, there's a very different audience between Reagan and Trump.

Hello DrEdwardHudgins,
No. Wrong book... In many ways he reminds me of Thompson (AS of course)...
Respectfully,
O.A.

I have learned from a previous post that Mr. Trump provokes some interesting comments on this site. The only thing Roark and Trump may have in common is the "a" in Architecture. Trump is a successful builder but in no was follows the teachings of Rand or Roark.

Agree.

I am so tired of the establishment always manipulating me with pundits and polls that I just done believe pretty much anything that they say anymore. The two parties are just businesses trying to make money off the elections. And the electoriate is stuck with basically two choices- whether we like it or not.

If its a democracy, which it shouldnt be but is, one person= one vote should rule. The back room deals to pick a candidate who can advance the policies of the "party" just isnt a good idea in this day and age. Internet voting or even cell phone voting needs to be made to work. That way we can vote for whoever we want from the list of whoever wants to run. Let the best person win.
Whether the trump haters get their way or not, he has exposed what goes on in the back rooms for all of us to see.
Hillary with her $220 million in "campaign investments" will probably win, as she controls the media manipulation and propaganda machine.

Cruz doesnt have what it takes to be president. His whining and preaching just turns me off. And his insistence on "stop Trump" is a real turn off. I want to see what they CAN do, not what the other person CANT do.

If Trump is ejected from the Repubs, and Sanders from the Dems, I hope BOTH of them run independently and keep Hillary from getting the 270 electoral votes. She is an evil witch, and needs to be stopped.
If Hillary is elected, I give up on the USA for good. Its headed for a venezuelan collapse until people realize socialism doesnt work. That will be long after I am gone, however.

I was proud to say I voted for Reagan. I still am.

Trump is a product of a socialist/fascist oligarchy...he is an opportunist and a pragmatist...i think he would succeed in a free market society as well...as he is now, he does not stand on principles that will cost him anything...he is not a Randian hero...you get what you see...

In some ways Wynand strikes close to home for me. I see exactly how he got sucked into it.
Keeting came off as a little $hit to me from there very beginning, going along with is mother's esteem-seeking idea, stringing along his g/f, getting a kick out causing someone to be fired and out of causing the same person to get hired, needing the housekeeper to genuflect when he walks by and steps on the floor he just mopped.

In short, I liked Wynand and did not like Keeting. You have a very powerful point: If Wynand were a real person, a public figure, I would see his low-brow public persona, which might look like Trump.

Fox, NBC, CBS and other polls all show Trump losing pretty significantly to Hillary. She'd beat Cruz but it's close and at least on most economic issues, Cruz is better than Trump. Kasich beats Hillary in a several polls but he is more establishment GOP though better than Hillary. I see the long game as rebuilding the GOP or some sort of more consistent party out of the ashes. And this will mean that we must fight value battles in the culture, since politics is the following, not the leading edge.
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

"All the King's Men" is a good analogy. But I argue that he could have been politically successful as a strong, anti-establishment voice like Reagan, appealing to the best in people rather than the worst. If he wins against Hillary (and all the polls say he won't) and follows through with trade protection and anything like a serious attempt at a police state roundup of 12 million illegals, then the only question would be, "Is he destroying the country faster than Hillary would have?"
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

I don't argue that Trump's a total statist. He's a total pragmatist with policy views that contradict one another at the most basic level. E.g., he's for huge taxes on foreign imports but for cutting taxes elsewhere. I thinks that a trade war will bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. Deregulation in the U.S. and getting rid of corporate taxes would be important but it makes no economic sense for Americans to be making products that foreigner can produce cheaper. And I think Trump puts out these contradictory policies in large part to appeal to the ignorance of voters.
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

A Keating comparison would be valid as well. In this short piece I focused on Wynand because he, like Trump, built business empires and were flamboyant figures. But yes, wanting the unthinking adulation of other was more Keating. One difference though is that Trump does want adulation for some actual achievements, e.g., becoming rich by building.
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

I'll probably do a piece on how Reagan was anti-establishment but appealed to the best in people while Trump appeals to the worst. I've ripped the GOP establishment for years, but I want to see it superseded by more consistent, pro-liberty, pro-limited government politicians who actually work to reduce their power.
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

Dr. H.
I agree with you. But, had he followed your advice, he would have been gone by now. I think that he was surprised by the initial response he got, and just like the main character in "All the King's Men," he now knew how to win.

The thing with Trump is that his crude, name-calling, over-the-top behavior and advocacy of economically-ignorant policies seems quite calculated, meaning he knows he's appealing to the worst emotions. I point out that while Reagan tried to appeal to the best in people, Trump appeals to the worst. No doubt he loves his country, But if he did so thoughtfully, he'd not want a country of people who were susceptible to his ignorant appeals.
------
On Twitter follow Edward Hudgins @DrEdwardHudgins .

That remains to be seen. If Trump is elected President, will he sit down and make a deal with Castro? Will he go back to Iran and try to make a better deal, or just cancel it altogether? In the realm of international geopolitics, if you make a deal with an enemy that has said repeatedly he wants to destroy you, you have already ceded the point that destroying you is OK. I just hope that Trump has a strong enough moral compass to know the difference between a business deal and an unconditional surrender.

Of course, he's changed his position on many issues, and his policy positions are a contradictory hash, not based on any principles.