I am not a citizen of the United States, but some of us Canadians watch our Southern Neighbor closely. As a graduate of a combined History and Political Science program – a conscientious choice of studies – with an unflagging interest in such matters, I believe myself to be as entitled to be mistaken in my prognosis as any professional pundit paid to opine on these matters. I hope to have contributed something original, but there is neither enough time nor money to permit myself to read everything which has been written about Mr. Trump, President of the United States of America. [This article will probably be deleted, or retitled, if I have failed in my mission of placing my bets correctly.]
Two important points: no one paid me for this, and, as I have hopefully grown wiser through the years, downward has been my opinion of politicians in general . Trump had not been the Republican nominee whom I would have preferred, and indeed, according to some online quiz which attempted to tell me who – between Republicans and Democrats – was most tailored to my tastes, neither Trump, nor my first choice were indicated. We may surmise that the software progam could have been a device used by or for one of the candidates in order to undermine another, ever most subtly – treating all undesirable candidates as a group representing a third-party spoiler against some feared candidate opposed to whomever it was, who was favored by the designers of that quiz – but of course, when you bet, you might lose.
Well, anyway, Mr. Trump won. We will see why this was inevitable. Many pundits who did not foretell his success were paid for by his enemies in both parties, or were blinded by who knows what. Let’s see what they couldn’t find, ignoring the oft-repeated mantra of people being tired of business-as-usual in Washington, or the other ones about our standard politicians as being corrupt and deceitful.
The Low-Cost Campaign
Donald Trump started by using his own money for campaigning purposes, as opposed to those who accepted money from others, especially in the case of the PACs, political action committees. These latter make the winning candidate beholden to them. Trump could be seen clearly as being his own man. Were he a devil, that would be bad, but as a mere human, the odds that in this case we had, as in a software productivity suite, WYSIWYG [What you see is what you get] become much greater. It was a human with some failings, resonating with others with similar, trivial weaknesses.
The funny thing about his campaign is how little he spent, which some even found to be something to ridicule. Ah, but little did they pay attention to …
Trump! He had the winning cards all along. A rose by any other name might smell just as sweet, but were the flower to be called “weed”, it might accidently be smoked by the unaware. No! We call a spade a spade, a rose a rose, and Trump – a Trump. The name is its own advertisement. This man trumps. Check the meaning, the etymology (the latter being a collateral interest of mine). It is said by one source, that Trump is of German origin, originally Drumpf. The fact is, it may be hard to find such a name in the German language, at least in the form in which it is written. In our diagram below, we show that the only book reference found with Drumpf, is the result of an optical character recognition error. In dialects, there can be a switch between the letter “d” and “t”, such as in Tropfen, which I pronounce with the “d” sound when not being careful. [Compare “nose drops” to Nasentropfen, which I pronounce with that “d” sound in my dialect.]
The accepted German word is Trumpf. What’s that mean? “Triumph”, a word derived from the French triomphe, and ultimately, from the Latin triumphus. Where it comes from doesn’t really matter, the fact is, in our subconsciousness, a seed is planted by the word, the seed sprouts, permeating our mind with “win, win, win”, “triumph, triumph, triumph”, trump, trump … Trump! Absolutely no need for an advertising agency to swing us round to his side with their psychological tricks, such as mastered by Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays. Trump’s name does it all for free!
And that’s not all …
What were his enemies thinking? Not only had his simple surname its advantages. Why did they have to bring up Trump Towers? No psy-ops could have done it better for him! They instill inside of our heads, when talking about Trump Towers, that “Trump towers”, or “Trump towers above them all”. Had it been an advertising gimmick, people would have noticed it for what it was. But there was no such slick advertisement, just envy by those who wanted to use Trump’s wealth against him with their insinuations.
Faux Pas, or the Foe’s Paw.
Much was made of certain comments made by Donald Trump, which were considered not to be Politically Correct. This is a funny one! Living in a democracy, someone comes along and wants to define what is correct in politics. Of course, even had Trump spoken ever so mildly about those matters – which we are about to broach, his politics, just the same, would not have been correct to his foes. While I am in favor of a civil tongue, let us see to what degree his enemies wanted to besmirch his reputation with their dirty paws over the question of his supposed faux pas.
What Mr. Trump proposed about Muslims sounded bad, but I would say, not so much for what he said, but for what he omitted to say. It was not unheard of in the history of Canada and the United States to vet potential immigrants. In order to go to the Latin American country in which I am domiciled, I needed to present a medical and police certificate. Indeed, had either been missing, it would have been better for my health not to have gone south of the Rio Grande. Which brings us to the proposal of the wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and …
Most of the illegal immigration comes (or once came) across the Mexican – U.S. border. It is to be noted, that I do not stress that these are all Mexicans, as there are concerns that some terrorists might be taking advantage of this route.
That “wall” need have been taken too literally. If it is built, well, those who believe in the literal interpretations of words will have what they want. But when Winston Churchill referred to an Iron Curtain descending upon, and dividing Europe, he was not yet speaking of a literal demarcation between the free countries of Europe, and the Communist ones. The Berlin Wall, after all, came much later.
Well, the communists put up the wall in that German city to keep their citizens in. The Soviet Union did not want people to travel beyond the Iron Curtain, except for propaganda purposes. In the days that I wrote this, even Venezuela only reluctantly let people cross in Colombia for some very essential shopping. So, we have to matters here: the justification, or lack of one, for the migrations of peoples, and an excuse for having walls. This is tricky territory for me, because I may end up contradicting some principles I believe in, but this is a first attempt.
Without being original, I repeat and expand on the above: walls of countries were meant more to keep the native population in, and not to prevent others from coming in, which was the exception, rather than the rule. Walls of private property are the ones to keep people out. Asking the government to build a wall (whether paid for by Mexicans or Americans) violates a principle by many pro-libertarians that governments involve themselves in matters that should be handled by the private sector.
But, regardless of whom builds the wall, I ask: if there is a wall on the U.S. – Mexican border, would the benefit accrue more to the U.S. or to the Mexicans? Almost everyone sees the benefit, if any, for the U.S. side. But this underestimates the degree to which that portion of law-abiding Latinos (with the momentary lapse of legality while crossing the artificial creation called a border) impoverish their own country by leaving. Sure, we hear about remittances that immigrants in the U.S. make to their mother countries, but we also have to consider the value-added lost to the Latin American countries in educating their citizens who then decide to leave – think “brain drain”. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, for I read that the immigrants take more out of the system than they put in. I would not be too sure about that, considering that many politicians favored this, as there is more than one way to evaluate the contribution that others make in a society, and it need not be financial – though I would not deny that this is important. At any rate, this part of my argument is flimsy, and Trump was on the side of the Americans who saw a net loss for his country. But more ammo for such a position has exited. Prepare yourselve for a shocker!
You know how the Pope was pleading for other countries to accept immigrants, telling Europe to accept the Moslems, telling Americans to accept more Latinos? Well, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that requires this particular charitable act. The Bible mentions acting correctly towards immigrants that are in one’s country, it says nothing (I believe), about actually inviting them in, or letting them enter uninvited. In fact, once I saw a book, which I could not afford, the statement of position made by a Catholic theologian once condemned by Pope Francis’s predecessor, Benedict; who had the ungainly – to ears accustomed to the English language – name of Edward Schillebeeckx; and who stated that emigrating from one’s country is wrong! I forget the specific reasons, but, in the event that the country invested in one’s education, in one’s health, we can see a point. To the degree that those who move are perhaps more ready to do something positive with their lives (consider the Pilgrims who went to the United States, putting the emphasis on doing, on practising their faith, rather than on escaping from persecution), in comparison with those who remain, content with a less than perfect lot, the migrant did deplete part of the human capital of the country of his origin. In the specific case of the loss of Christians from certain Arab countries, such as Iraq and Syria, the traditional argument of the Catholic way of thinking was that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church” [Tertullian, Apologeticus, Chapter 50], in other words, the new Vatican policy is not going to increase the presence of that church in the Middle East. Of course, those who would impose some new Caliphate are quite happy with the situation.
I know nothing about Arab-Americans who voted for Donald Trump [some of whom might have been Christians], but even with the message about building a wall, there was a surprising group of …
Latinos who Voted for Trump
While in some cases, the Trump policy might appear to be cruel, and as a barrier to families being united, there were Latinos who favored Trump. Why would this be? It is this: those who entered America, and who had made something of themselves, be it ever so humble, did not want their jobs taken away by newcomers. This is what Trump promised, and at least those immigrants who were living in the country legally were meant to enjoy the benefits of the slogan, “Make America Great Again”.
African-Americans who Voted for Trump.
I have read that part of the problem between African–Americans and Latinos, is that the former believe that the latter are taking away their jobs. To the extent that Latinos offer their services for lower wages, among other factors, some of this community would vote for Trump for the same reasons that Latinos voted for him. In fact, was not the taking away of jobs from one group, and giving it to another, the reason Trump was against Globalism?
If one considers that the largest single voting block consists of women, and not of any ethnic or religious group, Trump’s negative comments about women, or certain women, were probably the worst that he could make, in consideration of the fact that many of them felt represented by his opponent.
This being the case – how did Trump win? It is this – for all the supposed PC thinking making the rounds, the essential fact is that human nature trumps ideology. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed; why Cuba and China, to varying degrees, accepted market reforms. Some who have not yet suffered under sufficient statism may naively want to try the experiment, but the idea of women as princesses and models was present in enough minds to have them vote for the candidate with the photogenic wife and daughter. An additional comment about this completes the next section, and it suggests another gentle persuasion of the mind for the feminine vote.
An article by Anthony T. Salvia, “The Donald and the Ronald” (found on lewrockwell.com) read a week before writing this, suggested 6 ways that Trump was like Ronald Reagan. I would expand on the idea, only mentioned in the context of divorce and remarriage, of the wives these men had at the time of their elections. Ronald Reagan’s wife was an actress in her own right, while Ms. Trump has had business success, while both she and her daughter are known for their modelling. When not the entire family, at least one of the two women were known well enough through the media, and a list of a dozen magazines would be too small to list all the times a Trump image was on a cover. Mr. Salvia did not mention daughters – I do. I remember Ronald Reagan as a host to the “true” Western TV show, Death Valley Days. In one spot, the host advertises a cleaning product (which we will not name here in order not to be accused of advertising). His daughter, Patti , after his spiel, chimes in with a “Marvellous, daddy”. Personally, count me in for any potential or actual leader with marriageable offspring. [Well, it depends!] Anyway, in both cases, we have a case of the trio, father, wife, and daughter mentioned. Unless I have missed something, in both cases, not much reference was made to the son(s). It’s the photogenic side that matters.
Papal Aggression a Helping Hand?
Pope Francis had suggested that Donald Trump was not a good Christian with his idea about the wall. It has already been shown that a learned theologian once thought differently about the wall. It also seems that a judgement was passed on Trump, which is not in keeping with the principle, “Judge not, lest you yourselves be judged”. Some Catholics may have decided they did not appreciate this interference. There may have been, among the ever-increasing amount of Americans who profess no religion, a group that decided that this negative opinion of Trump was a reason to appreciate him. Finally, there was some appeasement for the Republican Christians in the selection of Pence as Vice President. In keeping it American, we have not Peter’s Pence, but Trump’s Pence.
We were tempted, at one point, to write this, as if we were hedging our bets, and that Ms. Clinton was possibly the winner (thus eliminating the need to erase this article, if the prediction were wrong). How would we have managed this, in consideration of our arguments about the Trump win?
Once I tried to teach some English to a Chilean, who paid me in food for the class. Well, he lost all his wages trying to woo a hostess of a VIP bus line, and failed. But what he offered me for my argument here is that he interpreted the sound of “t” as made in English as “ch”. The word “tea”, for example, comes from a Chinese, or more properly, Amoy word, t’e, made with a puffing sound after the “t”, such that in Russian, it is pronounced similar to “chay”, and illustration given to show the interchange of one sound with the other. So, from the point of view, a Clinton win would have been a “clinched on” presidency. Further, thinking of Clinton made me think of Clint Eastwood, tough as nails, Flinty. Flint crushed, gives grit, true grit. On the other hand, there is the downside, Bill Clinton just didn’t have a hard-as-flint, true-grit, Dirty Harry look to him – at least, I remember him always smiling. Hillary may have shown grit at times, but a conspiracy theory would show why that did not work to her advantage.
The Elite Preferred the Trump Card to the Clincher
Once I read an article – it must have been about 4 years ago – which suggested that Obama won the Democratic primaries over Clinton, because she would have been too dangerous for the world order. The same goes for Trump being elected, instead of Clinton. I want to emphasise, this comes from conspiracy theory thinking, which suggests that presidents are not the real rulers of a nation, that behind them, there is something called the Deep State, or for those that prefer such terminology, a secret society which controls all, the New World Order, to which George Bush, in my opinion, unfortunately made reference – thus giving conspiracy theorists mother lode to mine.
In the interests of fairness, Ms. Clinton accused Trump of being the danger to world peace. During the primaries of these two candidates, a new British Prime Minister had come to power, and in response to questioning, said that she would not hesitate to kill 100,000 people with a nuclear weapon, if the situation warranted. I have not read enough to know if Theresa May was considered a threat to world peace because of her remarks. Her rationale might be just the same as that of any American president.
Trump trumped, while I both clinched both, and clinched on both names.
Notes on Style and Sources
In addition to any errors I have not yet noticed, I would like to point out some stylistic elements which some editors might not like, such as the use of alliteration in the first paragraph. This is deliberate, as was the use of the past verb tense, in anticipation of a historical fact. I have also made use of puns, some of which may not be obvious.
Here is a breakdown of necessary credits and clarifications: Most of the news was common knowledge at the time this article was written. There are some references to the Drumpf name on the Internet available through search engines, but they did not give us the etymology, which was so-much desired. It had been hoped to find the word “Drumpf” in a type of Hoyle card game book, Neuester Spielalmanach für Karten- Schach- Brett- Billard- Kegel- und Ball-spieler zum Selbstunterrichte, nach den gründlichsten Regeln und Gesetzen, by G. W. v Abenstein, published 1830 by Hayn in Berlin. This is found in Google Books, the short link is “https://books.google.com/books?id=p_RdAAAAcAAJ”, it is left to the reader to go to page 87. As noted, we happened upon nothing more than a misunderstanding of the letter “D” by the scanning software. Information about Bernays can be found on-line, and he is mentioned in my article on Conspiracy Theory. Winston Churchill mentioned the Iron Curtain during a speech on March 5, 1946, given in the United States. As for Edward Schillebeeckx, he changed his discourse in later years, sounding like Pope Francis, claiming that for some, foreigners were only good as immigrant workers at best. The text found was in Spanish, probably pirated, Los Hombres: Relato de Dios, Ediciones Sígame, Salamanca, 1995, on http://www.mercaba.org/ (July 23, 2016 find). “The Donald and The Ronald: More in Common Than Peggy Noonan Cares to Admit”, by Anthony T. Salvia, was read on <lewrockwell.com> on July 13, 2016, its publication date. Ronald Reagan can be found with daughter Patti on YouTube, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnZaq7E4HOE>. This link may be lost if the material is copyrighted. A list of magazines which had mentioned the Trumps, predominately Melania and Ivanka, included Avenue, Bazaar, Bazaar (in Russian), Bella, Caras (Peru), CQ, Dolce Vita Canada, InStyle Weddings, Jet Set, Philadelphia Style, Town & Country, Shape, Vanity Fair, and Vogue – with at least one Trump on the cover page (found through Google Images). The Deep State is often mentioned on <lewrockwell.com>, I do not pay much attention to it, as it would force me to rewrite my Conspiracy Theory article. Writing this has increased my vocabulary, by giving me meanings of Trump not even used in my puns here, but I would like to point out two meanings of clinch, one which might be in current dictionarys as a colloquialism, but another, which in my opinion was not defined well-enough, but a better definition can be found on top of page 252 at <https://books.google.com/books?id=eKNK1YwHcQ4C> in Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of Literature. Finally, Theresa May’s comment was widely reported between July 17 and 18, 2016, especially in British media.
© July 21, 22, 23, 2016, Paul Karl Moeller.