One presidential election after another, Republican constituents – 63% of which now support Trump, 13% don’t usually participate in elections or even vote, the remaining 24% usually support the Republican candidate – are usually inclined to support their candidates based on factors (such as the economy, foreign policy, social issues, etc.) they’d argue their candidate have better solutions than the Democratic counterparts. Regardless where the truth lies, – there would be plenty of arguments on both sides – that’s how the Republican electorate have justified their support and vote for their candidates.
In the 2016 presidential election however, it is proven by any and all sources (Republican, Democrat and Independent research and studies) that Donald Trump’ proposition for the country is by far the worst that has ever been proposed since the creation of the Republic. For starter, his economic plan would add $5.3 trillion (with a T) to the national debt, Clinton’s plan would add $200 billion (with a B; 26.5 times less than Trump) according to the report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). So much for Trump who has repeatedly bragged that “I am the only who can fix the country economy”!
All available data (minus his taxes he still refuses to release) have provided evidence that 1) Mr. Trump is not the business savvy he’s cracked up to be 2) he’s defrauded others regularly 3) he’s stifled small businesses which sold products and provided services to his companies 4) and he has filed bankruptcy six times. And yet his supporters who claim to support him because of his business savviness are unfazed by his many business failures and his fraudulent approach to business in general.
What is exactly going on?
You may have heard the expression “stubborn as a mule”; if not, here is in essence what it means: even when proved wrong, the individual continues to argue his position, keep his stand and believe to the contrary. I even wonder whether the expression (stubborn as a mule) is fair to the mule.
That’s the dilemma I face here trying to understand Trump’ supporters without coming across as insulting. Maybe it doesn’t matter; their role model Donald Trump has resorted to those types of language quite frequently; so, they should be very familiar with and comfortable with the idea that someone else can talk to them (and others) the same way and would not be judged differently.
Trump’ supporters have expressed over and over all the while defying any sort of logic that Donald Trump is good for the country; without hesitation, they would venture to explain away why they believe so. Listen for a minute to Rudy Giuliani – former mayor of New York City – explaining away why it’s okay for Trump to insult constituents and voters who do not agree with him; listen to his campaign manager Kellyanne Conway – who used to lambast him for not releasing his taxes when she was part of Ted Cruz’ campaign – who now thinks Trump is doing the right thing not to release his taxes. Listen to his supporters who resort to all sorts of nonsensical arguments to justify Trump’ stance on the tax documents all the while found it perfectly legitimate to question Obama’s citizenship or Hillary’s email debacle. Trump’ supporters have no value whatsoever; they stand for nothing but want everyone to think otherwise. They’re somewhat like, well a lot like their role model Donald Trump who talks a big game but has nothing to show for it.
I take offense that the expression “stubborn as a mule” would apply to Trump or any of his surrogates and supporters. A mule’ stubbornness could prove more bearable than any Trump’ supporter trying to explain why Donald Trump who proves to be completely unqualified, totally unhinged and incapable to rationalize would be considered as the nation’s leader. I have to admit I am completely baffled by the percentage of the electorate (as of this writing, 44% per the latest survey) – if any of the surveys has any value this election season – who still support Donald Trump for the job of the presidency.
It is true that Mr. Trump has proven to be an unorthodox candidate; it is true that no “political strategist” has been able to understand what has happened up to this point with the Trump phenomenon – although many have offered some form of explanation – but it remained a mystery that the polls still show the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is very close. I do not personally give credence to the polls; I am either in a state of shock or denial to believe those surveys do not in any way reflect the reality of the electorate this presidential election season. But I am not insane; indeed the reality is not reflected in the polls. Although I am not able to explain the reason I do however offer a point of comparison.
In 2012, Mr. Romney had the backing of previous administrations, most (if not all) Republican leaning publications and the support and donations of most major mega-donors, powerbrokers, broadcasters, bloggers and so on, and yet still lost the election to Barack Obama who, as an incumbent, could not provide much proof of an economic recovery. Today however, Donald Trump has no backing from previous administrations; most Republican leaning publications have either supported Hillary, a third party candidate or stayed completely neutral. Most mega-donors – including the Koch Brothers – have stayed away from Trump or publicly denounced him as unfit and unqualified to be the next president; great many outstanding Republicans including former president George W. H. Bush have endorsed Hillary Clinton. How in the world could the race be so close?
For reason that have yet to make sense to any rational mind, Donald Trump is still within striking distance of becoming the next president of the United States. Political strategists have offered their own explanation for this anomaly, the top one being that Mrs. Clinton is not well liked by the electorate. I do not wish to argue the “experts’ version” of the problem; I am however convinced that Mrs. Clinton’s unlikability is more a “scapegoat argument” for those who are unwilling (afraid or ashamed) to explain their support for Trump. In other words, it is easier for the “shameless” Trump’ supporters to disparage Mrs. Clinton than it is for them to justify their choice for Trump.
They are well aware that Trump is not qualified to be president; subconsciously, they know Trump doesn’t and cannot represent the image of someone to lead the country but they want to support him anyway because they can identify with Mr. Trump’s bigotry, hatred for blacks, for Hispanics, for Muslims. They also identify with Mr. Trump’ supports for police brutality against and killing of minority. Mr. Trump is in reality their voice, the voice of the Republican Party.
It doesn’t matter to them that Trump doesn’t typify the character of a president; it doesn’t matter to them that Trump would drive the country economy to the ground; it doesn’t matter an iota that Trump would isolate the country from the rest of the world; it doesn’t matter a bit to them that Trump is a professional liar and a crooked businessman; it doesn’t matter to them that Trump would probably plunge the country to another civil war. All that seems to matter to Trump’ supporters is to have a bigot in the White House. They cannot say it out loud; they cannot voice it; so, Mrs. Clinton is the scapegoat they’ve used to justify their choice of the least qualified individual for president.
They are as stubborn as a mule.