@Pliinz JB: Given I agree with you on nearly everything in shared theoretical se

@Pliinz JB: Given I agree with you on nearly everything in shared theoretical sense, I find this matter of agitation over ‘personality’ a nonsense that’s absurd.

Trump is very simple and his strategy clear. He uses a common negotiating tactic to preserve his ability to act by preventing the opposition from coalescing – he creates uncertainty – and he preserves personal relationships with foreign leaders to preserve capacity to negotiate. Uncertainty, is cheaper and more powerful than order. Which is, I’m sure, counter to every intuition you carry.

Unlike you (and more like me) Trump evolved in a world of deals with dishonest people: finance, construction, unions, foreign and domestic governments. Corruption is rampant. He is a master of negotiation. He wrote a book in the late eighties. It lays out his strategy. He uses hyperbole (The american conservative version of the Kantian question of what if everyone did this?) and in doing so not only reaches his audience but on moral grounds, while at the same time, baiting the opposition into countering him and in doing so spreading his message.
He combines that strategy with ‘the common man’ with and empathy that americans find humorous and honest. He doesn’t talk down to them. He doesn’t treat them as lesser beings. Instead he empathizes with their plight, and seeks heroism in solving it.

If you understand the simplicity of what he’s doing at all times – in the clarity of his mission to remove the USA from carrying the world order, and relieving the working classes from the cost of doing so, then everything he says and does is following that very clear and simple strategy.

Now I came up through economics and computer science before following my mentor FA Hayek into legal theory. So when Trump began arguing that our people were being abused by the world free riding upon them after the rest of the world recovered from the wars in the seventies, and that something needed to change, I understood. And so did others. But we lacked the capacity to organize for change.

I am extremely conscious of your German cultural proclivities, versus my anglo equivalents (philosophical versus legal) and of course the consequences of it. And more so than most if not all I have tried to understand the Anglo-German-French-Russian spectrum of cultural presumptions. And so while I can understand your cultural biases. Even your personal (most of which I share). But siloing such that one places greater emphasis on what one likes or dislikes about a person versus their policies is a feminine luxury good, not one that bears merit in strategic matters.

And failing to understand the man is the reason the opposition continuously fails to resist him and the public continues to follow him.

Cheers
CD
The Natural Law Institute

Reply addressees: @Plinz @Pliinz