Robert Campbell

Michael, Great... So there are criticisms of Donald Trump that aren't hit pieces. Was it so hard to say so? Eminent domain for private projects isn't golden. Was it so hard to say so? Since I've returned to participating here, you've been mentioning everything except these two. How is it that I can prefer Cruz over Trump without pretending that Cruz is ideal? You know, as in Cruz would have been well advised to let Mike Huckabee go to to Kentucky for a photo op with Kim Davis, all by himself... I doubt I am alone in this. Yet when it comes to promoting Trump, you clearly want everyone to extol Trump as ideal—as magnificent, to employ a word that keeps showing up in your accounts of him—and to condemn Cruz as the worst possible. Robert

Korben, Donald Trump said in Iowa that he was in favor of increasing ethanol mandates. He said it where the people could all hear it. Who wanted to hear that, and how it relates to reality, are other matters. Donald Trump said in Wisconsin that Scott Walker was at fault for going after the public employee unions and getting laws passed that reduced their power, causing all kinds of unpleasantness when the unions did not let go of power easily. He said those things where the people could all hear them. Who wanted to hear them, and how they relate to reality, are other matters. Will ramping up ethanol mandates (instead of abolishing them) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American? Will discouraging anyone from challenging public employee unions, or from undercutting their power, improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American? While we're at it, will slapping 45% tariffs on Chinese goods (either by getting Congress to pass a law and signing it, or saying to hell with Congress and simply ordering it) improve the standard of living or quality of life for the average American? If Trump had been campaigning for the past 9 months on getting Congress to pass a bill overturning all Federal regulations that have been put into force since January 20, 2009 (or January 20, 2001), it might be different. But he hasn't been campaigning on that. He's been campaigning on the imperative that Social Security and Medicare MUST BE PRESERVED and he will make sure there are never any cuts to them. Unlike Hillary or Bernie, however, he also insists he will cut taxes, while at it, will eliminate the entire Federal debt in 8 years. The question is not whether Trump has built anything. It's how much he falsely claims to have built, on top of what he actually built. The question is not whether Trump has done anything worthwhile. It's whether he has claimed additional worthwhile things that were not his doing. It's whether in the process he's also done any destructive things. (A very small example. In one of his Wisconsin press conferences, Trump complained that Scott Walker had stolen the phrase "common-sense conservatism" from him. He asserted he had invented it. I'm not sure anyone should be too proud of an invention so dull and vapid. But it was already a politician's cliché back in 1970, which is surely not its date of origin—just as far back as I can remember it.) Finally, who Donald Trump is surely includes every bit of vaunting, every riff about how everyone loves him, every "perfect statistic" he recites, every lie he tells for political gain, every occasion on which he reminds the audience of his superior status (I will never approach X, X will have to come and beg me), every deflection of blame when he screws up, every putdown of a woman on account of her looks. These don't all form some detachable layer that, come May or come July or come November or come January, he will suddenly cast off, allowing us all an unobstructed view of his unclouded magnificence. This columnist is a faithful member of the Obami, hence his access to White House aides. But he is admitting that Obama's approval ratings haven't been inching up on account of any positive accomplishments. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0417-mcmanus-obama-polls-20160417-column.html if the American people are attracted to Donald Trump, why would 67% of them so strenuously deny it? Robert

Michael, Do you think that it is possible for anyone to make an objective appraisal of Donald Trump's character? In particular, if one must know Donald Trump personally to do so ... do you know him personally? You've said that a true narcissist can't have a good family. Barack Obama appears to be a counterexample. You've said that a true narcissist can't produce anything. Camille Paglia's favorite example of a narcissist is Elvis Presley. Robert

Michael, I don't doubt that Donald Trump hears a command to rise. But to whom does it apply, besides himself? Robert

Leonard Peikoff lets him. Robert

Michael, And here I thought that it was supposed to reveal Ted's true essence. If more people believed it, would you still call it a hit piece? I've seen writings about Donald Trump that are hit pieces. The Puffington declaration, that it would not be covering Trump under politics, only under entertainment, was a running hit piece. Can you name one book, article, TV segment, whatever, critical of Donald Trump in any respect that you do not deem a hit piece? Robert

Roger, The judgment that Peter Schwartz is a hack and a sleazeball is evidentially overdetermined. The evidence is wherever one looks, whether it be "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," or his one-page notice dismissing the entire contents of The Passion of Ayn Rand as arbitrary assertions, or his unsupported claims to expertise in several fields not his own... There are plenty more; take your pick. As a hack and a sleazeball in the orbit of the Ayn Rand Institute, Schwartz also necessarily fails to credit the precise origins of many of the ideas he borrows. But he would be a hack and a sleazeball even if he hadn't borrowed Nathaniel Branden's theory of self-esteem without attribution. Unlike Peter Schwartz, Leonard Peikoff actually accomplished something, once upon a time. But his actions since founding ARI have been almost entirely on the negative side of the ledger. Pretending to an expert on self-esteem, which denying his borrowings from Nathaniel, makes for one of the smaller negative entries. (Not nearly on the level, let's say, of unleashing Jim Valiant.) Tara Smith has published three books that provide a decent exposition of the Objectivist ethics. She might have done a lot more, had she not had to obey Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger at virtually every step. Robert

Brant, I don't recall Nathaniel Branden often making such comments on public figures. I do recall him saying, in 1996, that Bill Clinton was still an adolescent, psychologically. I'm pretty sure he said this more than once. I see a comment about Trumpian narcissism coming to him as easily as a comment about Clintonian adolescence. Robert

Michael, Peter Schwartz is a hack and a sleazeball. His hackery and sleazeballishness rely heavily on borrowed ideas. One of his borrowed ideas, in the Puffington piece just linked, is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, courtesy of Leonard Peikoff. Of course, this borrowing is approved, even mandated, where Schwartz operates. (The date on Schwartz's piece also tells us how Greg Salmieri may have gotten his inspiration for claiming that Trump constantly indulges in arbitrary trains of non-thought.) But the bigger idea he borrowed (without attribution, which is also approved, if not also mandatory where Schwartz operates) is Nathaniel Branden's notion of pseudo-self-esteem. Schwartz isn't a psychologist, and his persistent practice of noncitation is intellectually dishonest. However, actual psychologists have been known to consider Donald Trump a poster boy for narcissism. Further, some actual psychologists take a narcissistic personality, like Trump's, as a manifestation of pseudo-self-esteem. Do you really think that Nathaniel Branden, were he still with us today, wouldn't have viewed Trump in pretty much the same fashion? Or would he have appreciated Trump as truly magnificent, and unfairly maligned? Robert

Michael, From your point of view, can an article or program that is critical of Donald Trump in any way ever not be a hit piece? Can article or a program that is critical in any way of one of Donald Trump's opponents (say, Ted Cruz) ever be a hit piece? Robert

Well, if it were up to me, I wouldn't make Donald Trump repeat his promise that Social Security and Medicare, which MUST BE PRESERVED, will never be cut. Oh well. Why do I think that, if elected, this is one promise Trump will actually try to make good on? Robert

True. But he isn't likely to become more generous all of a sudden. Robert

Korben, That's possible. Rove was a Bushie from the beginning, and how many electoral successes has he scored with candidates not named Bush? Anyone who remembers how much Rove was actually able to do for Mitt Romney won't much care where he decides to direct his efforts now. Robert

A further thought about Donald Trump's high negatives with women: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424519/The-comb-creep-hates-women-know-SELINA-SCOTT-reveals-Donald-Trump-failed-seduce-stalked-20-years.html I do think Ms. Scott is going too far in likening Trump to a shark. There is a difference between being a narcissist and being a psychopath. Robert

WSS, "several calls made from a Texas number"... And the population of Texas in 2006 was how many? Robert

ND, What lessons would Trump draw from failure in Colorado? From failure anywhere? As Suderman notes: Trump didn't have a competent operation in Colorado—period. But that's how we might understand what happened. There can be no lessons to be drawn, from Trump's point of view. Being Donald Trump, he is by his unique nature entitled to win every primary, caucus, or other contest for delegates. If he loses any of them, he cannot have lost fairly. Some malign actor must have stolen it from him. The Lyin' Ted rhetoric was never about any alleged injury to Ben Carson. It was always about Cruz having the temerity to defeat Trump in Iowa. Robert

Adam, Well, for starters, what Donald Trump said to Kirsten Powers about The Fountainhead could have been said just as well and just as easily by a person who had never read it. Does anyone think Barack Obama actually read Atlas Shrugged? Robert

Brant, I used to get a ton of it, here in South Carolina. Hardly ever see franked mail any more. What used to be recited in front of an empty chamber for the Congressional Record now ends up on the web. Robert

Not to fault Bernini's, but I prefer Michelangelo's David. Robert

I can't resist quoting one of Donald Trump's less publicized appearances in Wisconsin: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-advice-wisconsin-college-students-221383 Stomp 'em enough, and then they'll sit back and listen to your stories? Robert

Michael, This is why I see no point in contributing further to a discussion here of Donald Trump's candidacy for President of the United States. For if it weren't the alleged disowned hatred beneath the surface, it would be something else. It's hard to engage in anything resembling dialogue with a person who informs you in advance that anything you might say on the subject will be dismissed. Robert

Michael, I've been lurking, and will return to that status in short order. But, yes, I've read Kirsten Powers' interview with Donald Trump. There's no departure from the pattern in it. Where other Republicans are concerned, Trump feels obliged to stomp, re-stomp, and, at the feeblest sign of continuing resistance, re-re-stomp. He seems to believe that stomping and re-stomping are among his keys to success: Then he expects the stompees to tender their vows of obedience, and beg him for a position under his command. In effect, he wants someone like Scott Walker to apologize for making it necessary for Trump to lie about his record. Why would any of them ever think Trump likes them? Besides, if one tenth of what Trump has said about any of them is true, no voter should want them on the ticket—and Trump should want them least of all. Robert

Well, we've been reminded why the Brits always write "Shi'a," never "Shi'ite." Their vernacular still employs the five-letter variant of a certain word.

WSS, Not a whole lot here. Conservative Treehouse is entirely in Trump's pocket. I guess we've reached the point where Jim DeMint (my former US Senator, and one I liked a lot better than Lindsey Graham) is a traitorous emanation of the Republican Establishment. But the underlying logic divides Republicans into those who serve support Trump and those who serve the Establishment. Mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive. Robert

Michael, I did not work for either of Ronald Reagan's campaigns. But I never heard this kind of rhetoric out of anyone who supported Ronald Reagan. Nor can I believe that the man himself would have been anything but dismayed and disheartened, to hear it from a single one of his supporters. I will leave it there. Robert