Monday, June 12, 2017

Why I supported Trump's campaign.

It's halfway into 2017 and it's clear that many people do not like President Trump. This time it seems a bit different than the usual Democrat vs. Republican animosity. Some people seem to be outright hostile toward Trump's political ideas and decisions. It's not an easy thing for me to explain why I support Trump, but I will attempt to do the best I can. The reason it is not a simple explanation for me is because my reasoning requires a lot of supporting information, almost a foundation of understandings that have led to my support for Trump as president. I tend to look at politics with a pragmatic frame of mind, what will benefit me the most and who aligns with my ideas the most. Looking at the last several presidents they usually have fit into the mold of politician who has full support of one of the two predominant political parties. Without going too deeply into my thoughts on the political parties I think my thought process for selecting a candidate is as follows.

I tend to look at things first from a probability perspective. This is usually a rough estimate of what kind of chance I think a given candidate has to win. I do not base my decision on group think or peer pressure. I liked the idea of Trump as a candidate because he did not fit the traditional model that most presidential candidates do. This means that he will make decisions and have options that are not seen by traditional candidates. This also means the possibility to make changes that may have positive impact on the issues we have seen continually unchanged. Important issues like the loss of manufacturing and jobs, immigration, and freedom. He wants to make America great again, which is an idea I like.

In this last election people were excited about three candidates Sanders, Clinton, and Trump. I liked a lot of what Sanders had to say and supported a lot of his ideas, but unfortunately I did not think he had a real chance at winning. I grouped Bernie into the same category as Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, they have no real chance at becoming president. Today's body politic simply will not allow for these types of candidates to be successful. I'm not entirely sure why but the easiest answer is probably that they would cost stakeholders too much money with their relatively large ideas for change. Some people might think this is a defeatist attitude, but I think it's realistic. To me it does not make sense to put effort into supporting a candidate that does not really have a chance of winning. Therefore, through the process of elimination this leaves Clinton and Trump.

I grouped Hilary into the type of mainstream political candidate as the past several presidents and think I had a pretty good idea about what type of decisions she would make. She would likely do nothing too different, would follow the status quo, and would continue to make statements to appease the masses. This is a problem because we hear a lot of talk and rhetoric to satisfy potential supporters but usually see very little actions after they are elected. Trump falls into a much different category. His background was not as a career politician and he was a successful businessman. Comparing the background of these two candidates was about all I needed to know to make my decision. I think these are some of the reasons why Trump won. He is different enough to possibly make a dent in the system that would inhibit a typical politician from making changes. I think many people recognized these qualities and this is why Trump won.

I would like to know what peoples thoughts are about this issue, please comment.

No comments:

Post a Comment