Results from the Nevada GOP caucuses show Donald Trump with more than 45%, nearly twice the percentage vote of each of his runner-up rivals, Marco Rubio (24%) and Ted Cruz (21%). I do not understand how anyone could entrust our nation's future to one whose vocabulary consists of superlatives and digs. My husband is wrapping up writing a book on Providence in American history with a chapter on Abraham Lincoln. Trump and Lincoln--polar opposites in their characters and their perspectives of the presidency. I only wish we could produce a Lincoln-esque candidate with the humility to deferentially serve God and the United States people, driven and able to absorb the intricacies of history, international relations and domestic policy. Instead,GOP front-runner Donald Trump has demonstrated expertise in braggadocio. He exclaims in speeches that he did very well in school, is rich, very rich, and plans to use The Art of the Deal as his presidential guidebook. He emblazons his name in two-story letters on skyscrapers. He blithely insults women, Mexicans and his fellow candidates. Jimmy Kimmel capsulized the Trump approach in a Dr. Seuss book parody that he read on-air to the approving real Donald.
Most voters share my incredulity with this Trump phenomenon. A January Gallup poll found 60% of Americans view Donald Trump unfavorably. (The same poll found 52% viewed Hillary unfavorably.) Who are these people supporting Trump? How come I've never met any? But it's numbers that explain why a vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary: Even with her 52% unfavorable rating, Mrs. Clinton is amassing enough delegate votes to win the Democratic nomination. People who like Bernie just haven't come through in the primaries and caucuses--at the moment Hillary's sewn up 503 delegates, while Bernie earned a paltry 70. Apparently promising free stuff--like free college tuition, free preschool, and free medical care--isn't bringing in the delegates. So, as Hillary's totals rise, Bernie's support weakens, and we can assume she'll be the Democratic nominee, just as everyone always said.
If Republicans divide on the other candidates and propel The Donald to nomination, his negatives "trump" Hillary's. More people are offended by Donald's racist-sounding anti-immigrant rants and his rudeness to Meghan Kelly than love his unplanned bursts of feeling and optimism. So, if he's the Republican nominee, the party shrivels as members defect and Independents cast their votes for the more predictable, and therefore least dangerous of the two offerings. It's great fun to watch debates where the frowning Comb-over King lets loose his assurances we'll be the best country and fix everything. But when it comes down to our safety and the delicate diplomacy needed in this fragile world, it's clear Americans just don't want an apprentice.
Woke up to my husband shoving in my face an article he'd torn out of the Sunday NY Times. Half-awake, the first thing I noticed was that it had been ripped from my personal favorite part--how dare he eviscerate the Sunday Styles section?
He'd pulled out an article called "I Married a Republican: There, I said it," by Ann Hood, in which against all logic and her peer group, the author marries one whose party identification is "not a Democrat"-- but in the end (spoiler ahead) after much embarrassment and anguish, triumphs when he puts an Obama sign on their front lawn. I can identify with Ms. Hood.
Before I married my own Republican, I had been a registered Democrat, surrounded by like-minded souls in the liberal halls of academia, for a dozen years. Not that I had an investment in progressive politics--as a dutiful student, I merely echoed the "wisdom" of my teachers and fellow students, not spending the time to question or think much about the basis for their passion. The implicit message was that we were compassionate, generous and caring, while the Republicans were selfish, restrictive, old-fashioned and materialistic. We were young and vibrant; they were old, blue-haired and tired. We represented the future, the Age of Aquarius, in which adversaries negotiated rather than fought wars that took young people out of school and sent them to dangerous places.
I had rehearsed my arguments enough that when I found my Republican, I had my standard defenses in order. But, unfortunately, he had been there, too, and switched stances based on real-life experiences, an encyclopedic knowledge of history and fact, and an awareness of the prejudices of academia. And because I truly didn't care much about politics, but cared increasingly about him, I let go of my means of acceptance by my professors, and started listening to one once deemed the enemy.
I couldn't read much of Ann Hood's article without wincing. Her disrespect for Republicans rang too familiar, and too shallow. Her identification with her own cohort, membership in which was dependent on sharing the liberal mind-set, was too deja vu. (Can't shake Yogi Berra's "all over again" tag). Her naive acceptance of what she'd heard and what she was told was too close to my own experience.
But the capper--that her husband chose Obama--put the lie to her entire story. No matter how you slice it, Obama is not a Republican, and, other than his declared affiliation, we don't even know he's a Democrat. His platform is vacuous, filled with platitudes that any Republican could embrace. He says "yes we can," but to what?
To say "I married a Republican" who puts up a sign for a Democrat is not really too tough a trick for a liberal, because, wink, we know by the fact he married YOU, Ann Hood, that he must be sane, after all.
Puh-leeeze.
And wouldn't it be nice if the NY Times acknowledged that conservatives can be intelligent, too? Imagine the headline: "I Married a Democrat: There, I said It!" The response: "So?" But that dream is for another Sunday, when I'm not awakened by the rustle of mutilated newspaper.
Results from the Nevada GOP caucuses show Donald Trump with more than 45%, nearly twice the percentage vote of each of his runner-up rivals, Marco Rubio (24%) and Ted Cruz (21%).
