So, it’s been a few days since I, along with every other Democrat, had the pleasure of watching Kamala destroy the stable genius in the debate. In my case it was doubly fun because I was with a bunch of other Groton Democrats who got together at the New York Deli (right next door to our headquarters in Groton, not in New York) to watch the debate.
Since then I’ve become aware of two schools of thought about Trump’s craziness since the debate, e.g., his continued embrace of the “They’re eating the dogs and cats” lie and his recent “Truth” Social post that he hates Taylor Swift, a move that on its face seems to accomplish nothing other than putting Swift’s life in danger. It seems unlikely to move anyone into his camp, while it would seem likely to energize even more Swifties to go to the polls.
On to the two schools of thought.
One is the obvious. Trump is out of control mentally. His narcissism and creeping senility are combining, the result of which is outbursts that simply can’t help his campaign.
The other school of thought has it that these outbursts are strategic, a way of distracting the political conversation away from Trumps plan to usher in a fascist state.
There are good arguments for both sides of this particular debate. The media is easily distractible and, for the most part, will be glad to write about social media posts and Haitians eating cats and dogs. The fact that JD Vance has amplified these claims lends some support to the distraction theory, though a counter argument is that he doesn’t have a whole lot of choice. He can’t very well admit that Trump is mentally unfit. To the extent the focus is on this sort of stuff, Project 2025 can be pushed into the background.
As a counter argument, if this is a strategic thing, the fact is that Trump is incapable of thinking strategically, so it would have to have been thought up by his handlers, and that seems doubtful. They would have had to come to the conclusion that Trump could win by amplifying his mental incapacity, or that in any event he’d lose fewer persuadable voters (how can anyone still be persuadable?) by proving beyond doubt that he’s mentally incompetent than he would lose by being exposed as a fascist.
Looking on the bright side, it seems to me that whichever side is correct, the net result is that Trump is pursuing a course more likely to lose him voters than it is likely to gain them for him. That doesn’t mean there’s no danger of his election. Thanks to the sainted Founders, we are stuck with a system in which a candidate can get millions fewer votes than his or her opponent and still win the election. There’s no doubt in my mind that Kamala will get more votes than the genius, but that doesn’t mean she’ll be sworn in as president.
As an aside, I think I’m right in asserting that every time the Electoral College has elected a candidate who received fewer votes than his or her opponent, the winner was the worse of the two. Maybe there’s something to be said for majority rule.