
Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump - sohkamyung
http://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript
======
Yoric
So, I was about to write that it sounds confusing, but it kinda sounds more
confused.

Do all interviews to the Economist sounds like that? I mean, spending time on
anecdotes, evading the questions or failing to understand them, insisting that
an expression is original, repeating empty words, etc?

~~~
throwanem
No, that's all Trump. He interviews terribly, which is part of what makes him
appealing to people fed up with what they perceive to be the failings of
professional politicians - whatever else he may be, he certainly is not that.

~~~
krapp
I've become convinced that Donald Trump wasn't actually elected to be
President, he was elected to _play the part_ of President on television -
specifically, to be the angry, right-wing version of President Bartlett from
the West Wing.

~~~
throwanem
I don't think that the overlap between Trump voters and West Wing fans is
likely to be all that large, but I take your point.

I don't agree with it, though. Trump voters by and large voted for him because
they wanted done what he said he would do, and he successfully enough
presented himself as the kind of socially liberal, but America-first fiscally
conservative, candidate that a lot of people have wanted to see for a very
long time.

Whether he'll actually do any of the things he claimed he would is a different
question, of course, as is whether he - or anyone - _can_. But I don't think
it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people wanted to give him
the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on display.

~~~
krapp
I'm not certain Donald Trump's views or stated goals put him that far outside
the general Republican mainstream or separated him from the other candidates.
And arguably, other candidates have been more qualified and capable to
actually _pass_ the kind of legislation Trump supporters wanted.

Which is why, to me, Trump's persona seemed to matter more than his actual
policy positions.

As a policy goal, "the wall" it makes little sense. From a "fiscally
conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes _no_ sense. But as
a symbol of right-wing defiance, as a dramatic device, building a giant wall
to keep out the foreigners and making them pay for it because America is _just
that strong_ makes perfect sense.

>But I don't think it takes an effort of hermeneutics to understand why people
wanted to give him the job, when their stated reasons have been so clearly on
display.

The stated reasons have been all over the place, though, and they include a
general sense of disgust with political correctness and multiculturalism, and
wanting someone to act as a "brick through the window of the establishment."
I've seen so many things attributed to Trump's election at this point that I'm
starting to wonder how many of his supporters actually voted _for_ him rather
than _against_ something or someone else.

I may not be entirely correct, but I'm not certain I'm entirely wrong, either.

~~~
throwanem
> From a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" point of view, it makes
> no sense

From an America-first social liberal, it makes a great deal of sense. The
argument would be that, first, it behooves the US government to look after
bettering the lives of its own lawful citizens first, before attempting to
police and/or provide welfare to the whole world; and, second, that
incontinently accepting trespassers and extending them materially the same
benefits offered citizens vitiates the government's capacity to discharge its
responsibilities to those of us who have a right to be here. (And, yes, I
realize precisely how heretical that sounds to a lot of people.) But I don't
really have a good cite to point to, that demonstrates Trump actually made
that argument in so many words - although it wouldn't surprise me to learn
that one exists, and I'm just not closely familiar with it. After all, the man
says a lot of things.

I'd have a hard time arguing against the proposition that a lot of Trump
voters were voting, not for him, but against Clinton - just like a lot of
people voted not for Kerry, but against Bush, in 2004. But he did have a solid
base of support, I think a large majority by comparison with "tactical" voters
more like myself. He earned that support by dint of his policy claims, and
with the "outsider" persona which lent credibility to his argument that,
unlike those he faced in the various debates, his interest in the job revolved
around actually delivering on those claims.

Of course, now that he has the office, he seems to be completely falling apart
in it. But that has no bearing I can see on how he came to be there in the
first place.

~~~
krapp
But nothing in that argument requires spending billions of dollars to build a
wall across the southern border like ancient Imperial China trying to keep the
Mongols at bay. The wall, itself, as an actual thing, makes no sense.

Arguably, the wall would do more harm than good, both to our relationship with
Mexico, and the funding of other, more effective means of border control and
enforcement.

------
fs111
The US is doomed and we are all going down with it.

------
_nalply
I was reading Piketty then stopped to read this transcript. It was a strange,
jarring experience. Try it out.

