Good Political Maneuvering in the Age of Trump

Good Political Maneuvering in the Age of Trump

by

Good Political Maneuvering in the Age of Trump is an article by David Cox that explains the positive elements in Trump’s political journey.

Let me put aside for this article my own bias (prejudice is you are against something from the get-go, and bias is that you are for something from the same get-go). I am a Republican, and I am for Trump, voting for him twice now, and praying that I will not have to vote for him again in 2024, that he wins 2020. We are now in November 2020.

My comments here are things that I observe with Trump or lacking in his run, also things in the Democrats.

Identification Politics

One of the keys in getting into politics and staying there and flourishing is to identify positively with a base group of people. (See the article above where I explain this.) But to understand this well, a politician has to be of the public image in things that his base group wants.

Trump is anti-abortion. Trump is pro-America. These are good examples. Broken examples are that the Democrats constant anti-America, anti-police, anti-white male stances. My question is exactly where do they think that they are going? Are they so many liberal minded extremists in America that their negatives are going to play well? No. So they cheat instead. But none the less, things are going to come back on them in a very difficult and heavy way for them, because people are not so much children, and they are not naive. They dislike being stung. When you dance this dance, you have to pay the piper.

Surveying the political history of the United States over recent history, Trump has had his rallies for 2016 and over his entire presidency. Constant rallies moves his base and keeps them with him.

On the other hand, Joe Biden had what in this respect? Basically nothing. Outside of Chuck Shummer, Nancy Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff, and a few others like them (the Obamas), Biden has not moved his base, and we see statements that Democrats vote for the Democratic nominee, but they are not really excited about or particularly “for him.”

Political Self Promotion: The Method and Instrument

Every politician has to have some way of convincing people to vote for them. In this method or instrument, they absolutely have to maintain this method clear and open.

With all the troubles that the Democratic machine has thrown at Trump, he has managed to keep some good communication channels open with his base.

But as an American, I have to complain that the principle here absolutely has to be maintained that any politician, from either side of the aisle, they have to be able to communicate with their base supporters. It is going to break the American system of politics if this is allowed to continue as it is.

Our principle has to be re-emphasized.

A politician comes to power via gathering a base of supporters.

To interpret, disturb, or destroy this is breaking all the rules of fairness in our political system.

While it has been a wonderful ploy by the Democrats, it has to be removed and prohibited by law (the laws are already on the books so they have to be enforced heartily).

What ever happened to the FCC’s political commercials balance?

Back in my youth (1960s 1970s), politicians put political commercials on TV and radio. The government (both parties) at that time realized how important it was to maintain a balance between all candidates. So laws were imposed “to keep elections fair.” This cycle these principles and laws are completely ignored and overturned to the extreme against them.

Since this method is how politicians “communicate with their base,” the government prevented by law one particular news network or radio station from being saturated by those of one political party or orientation.

The background for these laws of equity in advertising go to the principle that nobody can distribute information or entertainment on the air waves or radio waves without permission from the federal government. Those who rule us decided this at the beginning of the TV era. So each TV station and radio station had to get a license from the FCC.

Today, the Internet also has these same laws in place over it. Only part of the Internet is in the United States. But even so, a website that is hosted in the United States has to abide by certain laws or rules. The US government also blocks sites from foreign powers that would do harm, like promote terrorism. These laws and restrictions are basically good.

Enter Facebook, Google, Twitter.

In the beginning, way, way back to the 1990s (in almost prehistoric times), these types of websites began claiming not to be anything other than like a public bulletin board outside of town hall or your local grocery store. They have no control over what is on their website, so they are not held responsible legally for it.

So the main point of their argument is that basic American principle, I am not responsible for what I do not have control over. But they lied. They had total control over their websites, and they could delete some information and even block a person completely. Recently they even block anything on their websites with specific key words. Then they made a conspiracy.

A conspiracy is when two or more people or entities conspire to do something illegal. The conspiring members are these woke websites. The conspiring illegal activity is simply that they block the first amendment rights of individuals, groups, and positions.

But unfortunately, the Democrats had already positioned themselves to block and defeat the rule of law.

What is the principle of equality in political advertising?

To get back to this principle, the government ruled that every public information or communication entity had to count the number of minutes of advertisement for each political party and candidate, and in one month if one had 3 hours and the other had 4, they had to offer 1 free hour of advertising to the 3 hour one. I don’t know how they did this, who paid for it, but the offer had to be made to the lower hours individual or party.

So what is the reality of this in our day? First of all, the laws are still on the books, and the rule of law has died in their regard. Nobody obeys that. Secondly, the communications entity are not offering anything to anybody, and basically they not even permitting an opposite political viewpoint to be offered at all.

So fairness and balance is dead in our day. The rule is that a lie repeated enough times becomes truth, or at least the majority of people will believe it is true. So this is just the decline of society that is horrible.

It gets worse. Fact checking

What is even worse is that now we have the Democratic invention of fact checking. First of all, to check the facts of someone is good. But it is not good if the fact checker is biased or prejudiced for or against a particular person or piece of communication. Facts need to be understand and revealed honestly, and logic is highly involved in fact checking.

It has become de facto that modern media sources are just mouth pieces of the Democratic machine. They are not a party any more. They are a machine acting and their party is just part of it.

So if things were fair, the Trump would have equal time on all of these networks, minute for minute. Things are not fair. While CNN attacks Trump for 30+ days worth of programming time, they rarely if ever have 1 hour of pro-Trump time.

But if we go back to the old FCC’s rules and laws, the particular communications medium COULD NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER OR THROW SHADE ON A POLITICAL COMMUNICATION. I use John Wayne’s term, throw shade on, and to disparage the integrity, truthfulness, or sincerity of that person’s message from opposing their particular view. Here Trump falls under this point of disparaging other people, but then again he is not a communications medium.

Let’s be honest here. What good does a fact checker do if they do not have the reputation of truth, honesty, and doing the job given to them? It is a farce. Worse, many unwitting people actually believe them in their lies. Even smart people sometimes have a time in sorting out everything being said today.

But one thing is that somebody gets their facts wrong, and another thing is that you do not agree with the logic of the other person. The Democrats do not have the facts right. So they SHOULD be arguing logically for their position. They don’t want to or just don’t do that arguing. Instead they try to destroy anybody that stands in their way, and this extends even to other Democrats, or their own positions in preview times. That makes no sense, but that is what they are doing.

Nancy Pelosi voted for the wall between the US and Mexico in previous years, and then she is against it under Trump. She is against the wall (“walls don’t work”) except when those walls are around her home. Democrats in general are against guns except for their own security guards. Democrats are on the Green Plan of no airplanes, except when that airplane is carrying one of them somewhere. How does this work logically? Answer. It doesn’t work. They are just hypocrites.

The Weapon of Promotion or Blocking the Truth

The Democrats have become experts at using the media to promote or block the truth.

This works two ways. First, it blocks deal killers from happening (these are things that would make normal Americans just refuse to vote for Biden). Secondly, it invents lies about your opponent. This is what we have been bombarded with for close to 5 years now.

More of my articles on Politics

 

Post Views: 165