Dear Editor,
When Trump entered the race for Republican nomination for president last summer, it was clear that his strategy was to appeal, through his speeches and comments, to the far right-wing of the party, made up mostly of white people who had adverse views of the black President, blacks in general and immigrants in the United States from various racial and religious backgrounds.
One of the first statements he gave was that immigrants entering the country from Mexico in large numbers were guilty of crimes, rape and drug use, that he would expel the 11 million immigrants that were here already, and that he would build a 12 foot wall along the Mexican border to keep the transients out. Trump did not explain how he would pay for the huge cost of expelling all those immigrants, and when asked about the heavy cost of the wall, he blithely said he would make Mexico pay for that cost, how, he did not say.
Trumps standing in the polls with some nine other Republican candidates rose immediately to 20 percent, the highest in the group. Later in his campaign when people in the United States were becoming concerned about terrorism, he labelled Muslims in the country as being potentially dangerous and henceforth none should be allowed to enter the country.
Moreover, he suggested that those already here should be quarantined. The United States is viewed by the world as a country open to all people, regardless of race, religion or place of origin and the views Trump was advancing ran totally contrary to those ideals. In addition, Trump stated that, as president, he would reintroduce not only water-boarding but even more severe forms of torture. This, of course, would be contrary to International law which prohibits torture.
On the economics side, Trump pointed to what he claimed, inaccurately, that the US had a $400 billion deficit in trade with China, and that as president, he would impose punishing tariffs of Chinese products coming into the US. He also said that tariffs would also be imposed on goods from Mexico, apparently not realizing that many of these products, such as cars, are manufactured by US companies.
Trump says that this would help the US economy, and those on the far right, with little or no perception of history, and believing Trump to be an economic wizard, accepted this as gospel.
History has shown, however, particularly the tariff program Herbert Hoover set up in 1928, that tariffs such as what Trump has proposed, would set off trade wars which would stifle the economies of the countries involved.
Beyond this, Trump introduced into his campaign a level of invective and crude remarks never before seen in political campaigns. For example, the capable female Fox reporter who had the temerity to question Trump during the first debate about negative remarks he had made about certain TV women, was later vilified by Trump who said blood was coming from her eyes as well as from other parts, an especially nasty comment about a women.
He called Ted Cruz a “liar” repeatedly, Marcus Rubio “little Marcus,” Mitt Romney “a failure” and belittled Hillary Clinton for being late in returning to her podium during a debate because she went to the toilet, which he found “disgusting.”
Yet with all that, he called Putin a great statesman. And several times Trump has referred to the size of his “manhood,” itself reflecting a degree of insecurity.
Even with these extreme comments, he continued to rise in the polls, with particular big support from undereducated white men. Since nothing Trump may say lessens his support, one can only wonder about the well-being of those supporters.
Lately, however, Trump has tried to be less abrasive and more accommodating. As he sees himself becoming the Republican nominee, believing he has the firm support of the far right, he nevertheless knows that that support represents only about 35 per cent of those Republicans who voted in primaries. And he is ten points behind both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in national polls.
He must, therefore, attract considerable support from independent voters who make up about 40 per cent of the national electorate, and to do this he realizes he must come across as more mild.
Last week, he appeared before the AIPAC, the powerful national Jewish group. It was expected that he would not be well received because has said in the past that he would remain neutral in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But during his speech before the group last Monday, he extolled Israel and repeatedly said all the right things about how he would support it. Apparently forgetting what Trump had said in the past, the audience gave him a standing ovation. People have short memories all too often.
There are still times, however, when Trump can’t resist the urge to bluster. Angered by the audacity of protesters to disrupt one of his rallies, he urged his supporters to “beat the crap out of him.” At another rally, he said about a protester: “I liked the old days…what they used to do with guys like that? They’d be carried out on a stretcher.” Another time, he said: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” And that is what one supporter actually did before kicking the man hard while he was down.
Is it presidential for a candidate to urge people to violence such as this? Such manliness? The rednecks in his audiences loved it. But you can expect Trump to curb his anger and try to be conciliatory in his campaign, seeking support from voters outside the far right. One must remember, however, the terrible things he has said and how he has divided the country with his disparagement against minorities, especially Muslims and Hispanics, and the extreme measures he plans to use against them which would turn the country into a police state.
Stephen A. Hopkins
