Appropriately Supporting Trump

I MAY HAVE MENTIONED this before, and if so, I apologize, with the caveat that it bears repeating. Redundancy at times has its virtues. It is this: that the people who support Trump do so apropriately,that they should support Trump. I have often argued, as have others, that since the Republican party and the conservative movement generally has no shortage of proven, effective politians whose political ideologies are fundamentally in harmony with Trump's political agenda, sans the craziness, hatred,and incohenrence, why don't they change course, and back a candidate without the skeletons in the closet, the baggage, all the nonsensical insanity so evident in Trump's speech, character, and resume? The only and obvious answer is that Trump wins elections, that to give credit where due, that he is a winner, hard a pill though that may be to swallow for Democrats, decent people, and a few recalitrant Republicans like Liz Cheney and her ilk, rare Republicans of principle and high character. Those who support Trump remind me of Trump, I tell them. They never seem flattered to hear this. They know that he is a reprobate and moron, but he is their reprobate and moron. In 1920 H. L. Mencken predicted that under the current American political system the time will inevitably come when we the American people elect someone who in effect is a complete moron to the nation's highest office. Mencken was one hundred years ahead of his time. The time has come, the moron in effect is in office. Its like two of Trump's former professors at the Wharton school of business at the University of Pennsylvania, both of whom are still living and in their mid nineties agreed: that Trump is the dumbest son of a bitch they ever had in class. Often candidates are elected out of anger and desperation. FDR is the prime example.soetimes they are elcted because an entanglement of more than two people running for president makes it unaboidable that the winner of the election will have gotten only a plurality and not a majority of the vote. So it was with Abraham Lincoln, who won in 1860 against not one but three other candidates, representing regional interests. Thomas Jefferson won the eletion of 1899 with a somewhat similar entanglement of presidential candidates. The two party system usually guarantees a clean, straightforward contest between two choices, sans ambiguity. When pro temp third parties emerge, complexities result. I remember the election of 1964, when JBL landslided Barry Goldwater, man to mano, the momentum of the JFK legacy carrying him to victory. The nation wanted a continuation of Kennedy, and Johnson accommodoted by telling Congress "let us continue", and pushing forward the "great society", through Congress and through resistance in the eletorate, probably more effectively, ironically, than Kennedy ever could have. The moment he was murdered kennedy became more beloved than he ever was in life, as is always the case with dead people, and LBJ, whom the Kennedy's despised and called "Old Cornpone"(as if these Boston mackeral snappers had the slightest idea what "cornpone" actually is), astutely took that football and ran with it. Whatever is inside of you must come out, a friend of mine once wisely said, crude metaphor aside. Trump may be seen by history, and can be seen now, as a purgative which isneesssary to the purging of the American body politic. Our anger, frustration,an resentment at our failed systems lay within us, awaiting release. Along comes Trump with a bottle of that horrible tasting green liquid people are forced to drink before having a colonoscopy, we drink the ostensible hemlock, and off we to to our gut purge feeling empty, but somehow, cleansed. Soon enough we are back at the dinner table, filling back up. Let us polish off our bottle of bowel cleanser. Drain the gut, the swamp, the reflecting pool inside ourselves. We'll feel much better tomorrow.