What Trump knows that you don't

The Washington Examiner ^ | August 27, 2015 | W. James Antle III 

When pundits call Donald Trump a "know-nothing," they are not just using a historical if pejorative term to describe his immigration stance. They really mean that he appears to know nothing about public policy or governance.
On the charitable assumption that his blustery, content-free stump speech isn't an act, you'll get no argument here. But Trump does seem to know a lot more about politics than many of his detractors, including those critics who are well versed in the finer details of entitlement reform or international trade policy.
Trump's success in the polls has been particularly frustrating for wonky conservatives. How can so many people buy into the business expertise of someone who so often gives technically wrong answers to economic questions?
Worse, why do so many conservatives seem enamored with a candidate who has taken unconservative positions on issues like taxes, abortion, healthcare reform and entitlements — that is, most of the conservative domestic agenda — and in some cases hasn't even bothered to move to the right on them?
Pat Buchanan gave us a hint in his 1992 Republican National Convention speech, when he spoke of "conservatives of the heart" whose political convictions were more visceral than intellectual. "They don't read Adam Smith or Edmund Burke, but they came from the same schoolyards and playgrounds and towns as we did," he told the delegates.
Many Americans, even those engaged enough to identify as liberal or conservative much less Republican or Democrat, aren't systematic political thinkers. They vote for candidates based on who they like or trust. They cast their ballots on the basis of real and perceived self-interest. To the extent that they approach politics in a more ideological or partisan way, it is often through a nexus of loyalties and identity as much as a specific preference for how high the capital gains tax should be.
A lot of conservatism is based on an inchoate sense that something important about the America of old is being lost. Maybe it's because the government is getting too big, or social values are changing, or the demographics are different, or even a feeling that the country's foreign enemies are ascendant. But conservatives haven't always thought it was morning in America.
Mainstream Republicans have capitalized on these sentiments many times. Party leaders from George W. Bush to Sarah Palin have rallied attitudinal red staters. Trump has just taken this identity appeal to the next level.
But in terms of policy, it isn't just that some conservatives haven't read Hayek. They fundamentally disagree with him. At the grassroots level, the American right has always had strong strains of nationalism and moralism. That's not an inherently bad thing, but the modern conservative movement has generally tried to wed these tendencies to a more limited or even libertarian view of government.
Nationalism and moralism can easily be expressed through strong, activist government as well. The platforms of right-wing parties in Europe and the rest of the world are frequently anything but libertarian, even in the loose sense that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were.
Trump also understands that many voters across the ideological spectrum aren't looking for a detailed political platform or five-point policy plan as much they want leadership. They want their government, and the people who lead it, to fix things and get things done. They want someone who will fight for them.
All of this annoys conservative intellectuals, who patiently point out to Trump voters that they shouldn't want leadership from someone who supports single payer, or conservative activists, who with increasing impatience try to explain that the right can't be led by a Hillary Clinton/Harry Reid donor.
But certifiably mainstream conservatives, from Andrew Breitbart to Ted Cruz, have employed the fighting terminology long before Trump, with varying degrees of specificity. You knew whom they were fighting — the Left, big government, the establishment, Washington — but they didn't always have the same answer about the ultimate purpose.
Before Reagan, Richard Nixon won two terms in the White House successfully pairing populist, culturally conservative Silent Majority rhetoric with frequently quite liberal policies.
The Donald knows that for many people politics is a team sport. The fans who cheered Brett Favre in Green Bay booed him in Minnesota and vice versa. Trump is trying out for the GOP team and has the marketing experience to sell it. While his pitch may seem crude, with the thrice-married braggart invoking the "great Billy Graham" and calling the Bible his favorite book, but is it that much cruder than the fundraising appeals conservative and Tea Party groups send out daily?
In retrospect, Trump's 2013 appearance at Graham's 95th birthday celebration in North Carolina might have been the biggest tip-off that he was serious about running for president.
When Trump came on professional wrestling broadcasts and trash-talked Vince McMahon, the crowd loved it. He is simply applying the same approach to Jorge Ramos, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. The crowd still loves it.
Finally, as somebody whose success comes as much from his fame as his real estate fortune, Trump gets the celebrity culture. Americans are obsessed with it and reality TV has blurred the lines between entertainment and, well, reality.
The citizenry's desire to keep up with the Kardashians and its anger at the political class has proved a potent combination. Many Americans think the people running their government are jokes, self-promoting blowhards with bad, expensive haircuts engaged in pointless political theater.
Why not have a candidate who will:
A.) Pick up issues with significant political appeal that the establishment in both parties won't touch
B.) Treat the system like the joke that it is and
C.) Lampoon the bad-haired self-promoters just by existing?
Trump may be a blowhard, the reasoning goes, but at least he's our blowhard.
This act is probably less sustainable than the entitlements Trump doesn't want to reform, but for a limited time it can be just as popular with its intended audience. The know-nothing may know a thing or two after all.