Why Republicans are to Blame for the Trump Phenomenon and Why Everyone Else is to Blame Too!

Many conservative Republicans cringe when Donald Trump is mentioned as a candidate in the Republican primaries. Uninformed in policy terms, blustering, bombastic, and, frankly in my opinion, an uncouth self-promoter, Trump has been an embarrassment for the Republicans and for the country alike. So, why is he doing so well in the Republican polls and why do people seem to support him? 

To a certain extent, the Republican Party has only itself to blame for this episode. Not for Trump himself but for his popularity amongst Republican primary voters. For years, Republicans have elevated certain professions – businessmen amongst them. They have routinely been upheld as the “job creators”, giving the impression that they are, therefore, superior to the workers, who should be beholden to this group. The idea is that businessmen (and women) have unique leadership skills which qualify them to hold any or all leadership positions. Yet, how do you measure success in a business? Obviously, through wealth. The more money you have, the more successful you are. This was the foundation of Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012. It is the foundation of Carly Fiorina’s campaign this year. Romney and Fiorina did not explicitly claim that wealth makes them good candidates for the Presidency. They are not that crass. Indeed, I do not know if Fiorina is wealthy and really, it does not matter. But the fact is that their very candidacies imply that business skills translate to the political arena. However, Trump has made explicit what the Republican Party has kept implicit until now. Vote for Trump because he is a successful businessman and we know he is successful because he is wealthy.

Of course, this argument falls flat when we consider that Trump has declared bankruptcy multiple times. Asked this question in the first Republican primary debate, Trump claimed that in declaring bankruptcies, he had simply used the country’s laws to his own advantage. Who cares about the money which other companies lost as a result of his actions? He was wealthy. He, personally, did not lose. Again, crass, but has Trump said something which is often ignored? What is the goal of a business? Profit. Not the common good but personal profit and profit for shareholders. Can a country be run on the same principles? If not, then does someone who has operated a corporation on these principles automatically know how to govern a country?

Trump also stated that he used his wealth to buy political good will and favors. Campaign contributions made politicians beholden to him. Here again, Trump crassly said something which has been left implicit. Not only are businessmen perceived as superior in skill set but they have an advantage which others do not have – wealth and the concomitant power and connections which comes with it. So, Trump claims that he has two qualities which set him apart from others – his wealth which proves his skill (in what we will discuss later) and his wealth which proves his influence and power. In other words, why should we elect him? Because he is wealthy…

But while the Republican Party is certainly to blame for their promotion of “job creators” as skilled public servants, I think there is a larger problem here and more blame to go around. We, as a country, have stopped thinking about what qualities we would like to see in our leaders. The qualities of a great leader are not immediately obvious. There was a reason why the President was supposed to be chosen by the Electoral College. It is not easy to pick a person for this job. Clearly self-promotion was never the idea. But we also have to stop pretending that business skills are transferable to the political arena. Political skills are different from business skills or military skills. Is there overlap? Sure. But are they the same? No. Success in one field does not guarantee success in another. We have to stop pretending it does and think long and hard about what political skills actually are and what we are looking for. 

Finally, we spend too much time arguing about big government vs. small government and not enough time thinking about politics itself. Aristotle saw politics as the master science. Aristotle was not talking about small or big government. He pointed out that politics determines almost all things within the geographical boundaries of a state. Even the size of a government is the decision of the government. Yes, in this country we have popular sovereignty but the value of that is greatly diminished by our disengagement and malaise. No matter what, it is indisputable that politics is a master science. And yet, we allow elections to resemble a reality TV show. We revere the Constitution while denigrating the current system. We complain, moan, and whine while doing absolutely nothing to change the system. 

I think it is essential that we stop pretending that politics is unimportant or that it requires no real skill or knowledge. That people with no specialized skill or training can be a good President. That people who are not serious thinkers would make good politicians. That success in any other arena equates to political success. This is a devaluation of politics. As a country, we devalue politics and value other professions. We look down on politics. That has to stop. This is a vicious cycle. The less importance we give to politics, the lower our standards to measure who should take those roles, the worse the political drama and chaos, and the lower our view of politics gets. 

Politics requires more skill, more knowledge, more selflessness, more dedication than many other professions. We should revere it accordingly and demand more of our leaders, not less. Let us start by highly valuing politics and we will have a political system worth valuing and emulating. I would love to get to a point where Washington insiders will not run as Washington outsiders because being an “insider” is a bad thing. Where a person’s qualification will not be about their success outside of politics. Where disagreement is possible without discord and compromise is possible without defeat. Where being a part of government is a mark of esteem and not cause for derision. That would be a world where we would not have to worry about Donald Trump running for office – he would not have made it to that debate!      

A Review of The Lowlands by Jhumpa Lahiri

I am not a newcomer to Jhumpa Lahiri's work. This book, like many of her books, is dominated by the themes of identity, and the impact of displacement and diaspora on one's identity. This book, however, was not only a difficult read, but also a somewhat confusing one.

On one point, in particular, Lahiri has done an excellent job in this book. She explores the relationship between our identities and our relationships. Sometimes, our relationships dictate and form our identities. At other times, our identities dictate our relationships. If a woman is a mother, she comes to define herself as a mother. Or if she wishes to be a mother and achieves that relationship, then she is a mother. But what happens if there is a complete disconnect between one’s relationships and one’s identity? This is explored in the character of Gauri who finds herself a wife and mother, while unable to pursue the intellectual pursuits which were truly fulfilling to her. The result is explored through the eyes of Gauri, her husband, and her daughter. One sees how one woman’s attempt to change her life, her identity, and escape her past, has a tumultuous impact on the lives, self-conceptions, and identities of the people around her. It is refreshing to read something where the woman does not simply attempt to adapt her sense of self to her circumstances – devastating though the effect is.

The book, like Lahiri’s other ones, is extremely evocative of the locations where the characters live. The chaos of the early communist movements in India is exacerbated by the chaos of a highly populated city. The sights, sounds, and smells of the city are powerfully drawn. The relative peacefulness and quiet of Rhode Island is belied by the chaos of the lives of the characters who now live there. In other words, while the family has escaped the outward chaos, they are still chained to it in their minds, lives, and beliefs.

The problem with this book is that it is difficult to understand why Lahiri chooses to end the book where she does. It seems to be a forced almost-reconciliation between mother and daughter, one which rings hollow in the face of the character which she drew for the daughter. While the idea of reconciliation for the sake of future generations is extremely plausible, it is simply not in keeping with the characters. In addition, the book attempts to discuss philosophical views of time, space, and identity while furthering the “plot”. This is unsuccessful. Rather, it feels as if parts of the book are philosophical while other parts are about the trajectory of the story and character development. Therefore, this book has problems of pace and connectedness.


Overall, it is a good book but would not rank higher than other works by Lahiri like The Namesake. Goodreads asks you to rate books on a 5-star scale. I agonized about this for days and finally decided to write this review as a way of making up for the uncomplicated ranking of a complicated book.

Hobby Lobby - yes AGAIN!!

Much has been written about the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision since June but I cannot get it out of my mind. The aspect of that issue that I want to focus on here is that of responsibility. Policy-making will remain inconsistent at best and partisan at worst unless we decide what makes us (as individuals and corporations) responsible for an action.

Clearly, the case shows that Hobby Lobby and the Conestoga Wood Company felt responsible in some way for employees obtaining and using abortifacients (drugs which induce abortions). Though scientists have disproven the idea that these drugs “cause” abortions in any direct way, this is bound up in the religious beliefs of the people that own these companies. They oppose these drugs on religious grounds and therefore, do not want to facilitate their use in any way. But how, by merely providing healthcare, can a person/family/company be complicit in another person’s decision to use abortifacients? The company was providing healthcare which then subsidized the purchase of these drugs. They were not advocating or acquiescing to the use of these drugs. To the owners of these companies, subsidizing such a purchase apparently makes you responsible for the action itself. Paying for a plan which then subsidizes an abortifacient led to a feeling of responsibility for such a purchase. In other words, these companies felt that if they allowed their healthcare plan to subsidize these medications, and women, therefore, got easier access to them, this was making the company responsible for the subsequent “abortions”. However, this is an indirect responsibility at best and indulging in this type of reasoning, opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Where then does indirect responsibility end? If a woman works at Hobby Lobby, is paid by Hobby Lobby, and then uses that salary to obtain the drugs, is Hobby Lobby responsible? By paying the “high” salary that we keep hearing about, are they not responsible for women who work for them and can afford to buy these medications? Can companies be held responsible for things they “facilitate” in the same indirect way? Can I hold a company responsible if I gain weight by overeating their delicious food? The only way for companies like Hobby Lobby to ensure that they are not complicit in any way, direct or indirect, for women purchasing abortifacients is by hiring only men, or making sure that the women that work there believe in the same principles that they do. Obviously this solution is neither desirable nor possible nor legal.

This brings me to the connection between Hobby Lobby and China. As article after article has pointed out, Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs do not seem to be violated by their dealings with a country which has a large number of human rights violations and a (now a little mitigated) one-child policy. Here, again, the question of responsibility is paramount. If subsidizing a healthcare plan, which may or may not lead to purchase of abortifacients, is wrong, why is the same not true for subsidizing a government which forces these decisions on its people? John Locke famously expounds on what he calls “tacit consent” in his Second Treatise of Government. Tacit consent is given through passive use/acceptance/interaction with a government. Thus, even if you are travelling the highway in a country, you are seen to have given consent to its laws. In other words, any association with a government which is not rebellious is seen as giving tacit consent to it. Certainly, given the indirect responsibility that these companies seem to take on themselves for women’s healthcare decisions, they can be seen as having given tacit consent to the countries they do business with. Thus, the accusation of hypocrisy against Hobby Lobby seems accurate.

Of course, the easy answer to this philosophical objection is that religious beliefs are not based on reason. Since Hobby Lobby’s beliefs are based on religion, they do not have to be consistent. This is Justice Alito’s answer in his decision where he makes the point that there simply cannot be a national direct answer to the question of who is responsible for indirect actions due to vast diversity on this issue. The problem is that, while religious belief does not have to be based on reason, public policy does. This is precisely why basing public policy on religious beliefs is a mistake. Public policies reflect (at least a belief about) a chain of causation. Every policy which is passed says something about what we believe and what we want. However, public policy also has to be general and applicable to all. To accept indirect responsibility on the basis of faith is to discard the possibility of a rational, consistent, coherent public policy to the wild vicissitudes of belief and self-interest of all.