Talk about double whammies. A left-leaning (sometimes steeply, though the incline depends on the issue), Sunderland-supporting opponent of Donald Trump interviews an American who is not only pro-Trump, as in voted for him, but has at least flirted with the idea of regarding Newcastle United, from the dark side of the Tyne-Wear divide, as his Premier League team of choice.
Randolph Mann and I met through ESPN FC, where I write about Sunderland, and became Facebook friends. When I posted a whimsical Facebook entry suggesting ripping up the US constitution and keeping Obama for a third term, he told me in no uncertain terms: "No, sir."
But this was followed by thoughtful points with which I could disagree without losing respect for their author. Now as much the world tears out hair at the decision of the USA electorate to send Trump to the White House - a decision made by electoral college but not popular vote - I thought it would be interesting and useful to raise some of my own misgivings with Randolph. He readily agreed and this is the resulting conversation by e-mail,
There is not the slightest hope Randolph and I would ever agree on much. But I detect a sense of humour; he raised no objections to the kind of headline I proposed, which obviously overlooks the fact that not all Trump voters can possibly have been hate-filled rednecks with an aversion to joined-up writing. I think Randolph and I could thrash out our differences amicably over a few beers ...
Randolph: Thanks for inviting me to participate in this virtual pub. I hope that there will be some benefit in my response at least in the from of adding perspective. All too often these matters are painted through the lens of the media we have, which is sadly driven by one agenda or the other, and seldom the truth. I'm not saying that I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong about everything, but there are a great many misconceptions and flat out dishonest portrayal of things in our country, which are molded for world opinion. Anyway, here goes..
* Salut!: You describe yourself as a Trump voter but not a Trump supporter. Is it people like you who made the difference on Tuesday - and how do y ou define the distinction between the two?
That's correct. I voted for Mr Trump, but was not a Trump supporter. I didn't donate or volunteer for him, or attend his rallies. I backed Ted Cruz supporter in the primaries, and if he had won the nomination, I might have been more inclined to be a supporter of Mr Cruz by getting more involved. There's a pretty wide gap between the two men and their various positions, strengths and weaknesses.
I think that everyone likes to hope that their vote makes a difference. I live in southern state. Most people like me (constitutional conservatives), actually refused to vote for Mr Trump, because they do not trust that he is a conservative at all. In that respect I think that people like me made a difference, making it a much tighter race, because they withheld their typically Republican votes in the presidential race, or backed third party candidates as a principled protest. There was some discussion of hope that Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson winning the states of Utah or Mexico respectively, which might have denied either major party candidates the required 270 electoral votes, and sent the decision to the US House of Representatives. In such a scenario the House would choose between the top three candidates. This was always a longshot scenario,and in my estimation not worth the risk.
* Which specific policies attracted you to him and disgusted you in her?
There's a pretty clear difference between the two on issues of abortion, guns, taxes, foreign policy, and immigration. I line up with Mr Trump's stated position on all of these issues, and find Mrs Clinton's stance on them abhorrent and frequently dishonest. I could list many specific policies within each catgory, but I doubt most voters actually get that detailed in their analysis. In the end it came down to an anti-establishment vs establishment, and Mr Trump cashed in on this.
* Popular vote vs electoral college. Which should prevail in a democracy?
I support the Electoral College. I don't wish to be semantic about this, but The United States is a constitutional republic. The founding documents specifically intended to have these perceive idiosyncrasies a for reason. The intent in a nutshell was to (ironically) to insulate the nation from populist movements (like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders) while assuring that the individual states carried weighted power. In this case Mr Tump won, but he only did so because his appeal was nationwide, and dominant in a plurality of the states. The system actually worked as it was intended to here.
* You've told me you are a pro-life, pro-guns conservative. In what circumstances would you allow a woman to abort (eg rape, physical/psychological wellbeing, a level of poverty or functional defect that makes childcare a problem)?
Abortion will remain a controversial subject throughout human existence on this planet, and the main reason for this is that there is no perfect solution to the problem, Putting aside my personal opinion that abortion is murder, I would favor solutions that eliminate abortion as a routine form of birth control for irresponsible behavior. In circumstances such as rape, incest, risk of the mother's life, or a severe birth defect I would concede that this creates a moral crisis to resolve. As a Christian I still come down on the sanctity of human life. However, if I were a leader/politician, I would recognize that not everyone shares my religious faith and conviction, and seek out a compromise solutions, which might allow for the procedure in such extreme circumstances. I don't think poverty weighs into this. Rich and poor, we all know the consequences of sexual intercourse, which is behavior primarily intended to repopulate our species. The fact that is enjoyable is no coincidence, nor is it an excuse to terminate a human life. With that said I am not an opponent of birth control, and would seek out solutions that recommended wide use of various forms of it (condoms, medications, devices, education, and yes - abstinence). Some people will scoff at some of these as their moral compass points them, but I maintain that's not a one size fits all solution. If handing out condoms or preaching abstinence minimizes abortions, then it's a worthwhile endeavor.
* Guns: what is your response to the arguments that a) most Americans killed by firearms are killed by other Americans, not terrorists and b) lack of coherent gun control directly contributes to mass shootings?
I don't think that I would suggest that our right to bear arms has anything to do with terrorism. The intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was not to allows citizen to own and carry weapons for defense against terrorists foreign armies, home defense, sporting purposes, or even hunting. The intention was to create a government which does not fear the people owning weapons. This was and still is insurance against tyranny.
I would further say that the statistics on gun deaths are heavily tilted by suicides, a scenario where the victim and the perpetrator are both citizens. I suppose you could make the case that if the people had no guns, there might be fewer suicides, but it seems to me that people looking to kill themselves are going to find a way with or without a gun.
I would disagree that there is a lack of coherent gun control in the United States. There are well over 10,000 gun laws on the books now, and more being written every day. Mass murders are no concerned with obeying laws. The issue with mass shootings is rooted in mental illness, and how we identify those in our midst with these problems before they kill. I don't have the answer to that, but I know that it's not taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Since we're talking about guns here, I'd like to point out that there is a myth spread about by gun control advocates that there is a "gun show loophole" where people can walk into a gun show, and buy and AR15 without a background check. This is a complete falsehood. All sales at gunshows, and gun stores are subject to background checks. THe "loophole" is that licenced gun dealers may buy, sell, and trade with each other without a background check, and the rationale here is that their license was issued based opon a backround check already. Asking dealiners to submit for checks during gunshows clogs the system with needless investigations, taking away from the ability to screen the public purchases. And while we are on the subject of the infamous AR15, there are a great many lies about this weapon out there circulating. The AR15 is a carbine, and nothing more. A carbine is a low powered, low caliber, and small rifle. The "semi automatic" label attached to it describes the 150 year old technology of one shot fired per pull of the trigger, in spite of media attempts to paint this as light machine gun.
* Immigration? Is the wall for real? And which Muslims would you keep out of the USA (if not all as Trump once suggested, though I think he later refined that to specify certain countries of origin)?
I don't know if the wall will ever stretch from ocean to ocean. I do know that parts of the border already have a wall, and that the outgoing president expanded that wall. With that said I do not believe a wall will keep illegal immigrants out of the United States. I think that they will just go over, under, and around it. I think any immigration policy has to be far more comprehensive than a while. That was just symbolic campaign rhetoric.
I don't advocate an immigration ban on all Muslims. For that matter I do not believe that Mr Trump ever said that. I think that he said that he'd push a temporary ban immigration from certain countries with migrants/refugees/terrorists that were of a specific risk to our nation. I think that this level of scrutiny is appropriate, and has recent historical precedent. It's also important to remember that the president cannot pass any legislation autonomously.
At this point I'd be very wary of receiving Syrian migrants, given the chaos we have seen in Europe over the past year. I suppose that's an isolationist policy, but the United States frequently gets criticized for intervening too much and not doing enough at the same time. The president's primary duty is to protect the people. With that said I do have empathy for the plight of refugee, and think that the crisis needs a resolution. A real leader would meet with his global counterparts and various stakeholders to find solutions to to root cause of the crisis.
* Let's not beat about the bush: Can you understand the sense of horror felt in much of Europe that an apparently decent man, for all his flaws, vacates in White House for a man who, for all his business acumen and obvious appeal to so many, seems such a vulgar, brawling and unstable bully?
I guess I would say that any sense of horror is pretty hyperbolic, and either ignorant, or intellectually dishonest. I can understand concerns that Trump's style is intimidating, but he's not a war hawk. He's anything but one. Since were' not beating around the bush, I'd ask those Europeans to explain exactly what horror it is that they fear. These very same people told us how Ronald Reagan would end the world because he espoused policies of political strength. Popular culture was overloaded with music, movies, comedians,etc., for decades about how Mr Reagan would get Europe nuked. The reality is Mr Reagan's policies made the world a safer place. I can accept that Mr Reagan was wholly more dignified than Mr Trump can be, but that didn't gain him any respect from the very people gasping in horror now. At the end of the day though it is M. Trump's burden to earn your respect. I can accept that, but will Europeans give it to him if he does earn it like Mr Reagan did?
I would agree with you that the outgoing Mr Obama is by all appearances a decent man. That doesn't make him a great leader or a problem solver. His foreign policy has been pretty ineffective and disastrous. Through out his entire two terms of service The Unites States has been at war, an interesting tidbit for a man awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before he even took office.
* You probably have great admiration for those who fought Hitler. Is it embarrassing to have support for your preferred candidate from such quarters as KKK and, in Europe, Marine Le Pen and others leading parties some of whose members are not convinced the right side won WW2?
Yes. It is. I despise the Ku Klux Klan. Hate groups suck. They are overwhelmingly viewed as idiots by conservatives here. If I believed that Mr Trump sought out support from these groups, or advocated any of their causes, I would not have voted for him. However, I see no evidence that he endorses their behavior, only that they endorse his. Yes, that's embarrassing. It's also embarrassing for me that our present administration gave billions of dollars to Iran, and green-lighted their nuclear weapons program to a nation led by a Holocaust denier, bent on the destruction of Israel because of religious hatred.
I see where you're going with this, and I'd agree that Mr Trump should and should have done more to distance himself from the appearance of affection to/from the Klan. At the same time the more you give attention to them, the more their hated wins, and you also risk the 'methinks the lady both protest too much' syndrome. I also do not think that this type of hate group support was unique to Mr Trump's campaign. The fringe kooks always come out of the woodwork for someone.
* What did you make of the contrast between the gracefulness of the victory speech and the 'lock her up' rhetoric of the campaign?
It did not go unnoticed. I think both Trump and Clinton were very gracious to each other in the aftermath, which was somewhat helpful to us all. Political campaigns are ugly, dirty business. That's sad.It leaves me wondering when a great leader will emerge and run a dignified campaign. Sadly when we have such candidates, they are viewed as weak, and they do not succeed. This is really a problem of our society as a whole. The candidates are just giving us what we want to hear.
* And between the 'great respect' he professed for Obama at the White House and the earlier nationality slur?
It was clear that their meeting yesterday was laden with necessary pleasantries for the sake of appearance and each man's legacy. Hopefully though the course of the transition of power it will develop into a sincere respect for each other as it did between Mr Bush and Mr Obama. I do think Mr. Obama owns some of the blame for the circumstances surrounding his heritage given his astonishing secrecy and the lack of promised transparency into his background. If you hold Trump accountable for doubting Obama's birthplace eligibility, then you must equally do so with Mrs Clinton since she raised the issue in the Democrat primaries leading up to the 2008 election. She's never apologized or recanted either, and yet they reconciled for political convenience. Its hypocrisy all around, but we've become accustomed to that from out politicians.
* What do you expect to happen in the four year term? Your minimum and maximum expectations?
Unfortunately campaigns are no longer run on substance, so it's difficult to know what to expect. Eight years ago Mr Obama promised Hope and Change, whatever that means. Mr Trump promised to "Make American Great Again" and to "drain the swamp" I'd love to see him do it, although I really do not expect a lot to change. A president has a lot less power than people perceive. They get too much credit for the good things and too much blame for the bad. Mr Trump has no government experience, so it will be interesting to see how he governs. He's been a successful businessman, so we know that he can build relationships. Yet politics is a different animal. His own party may fight him on things. The opposition party will fight him on everything. As we have seen he is not a patient man.
I would like to see the ACA (Obamacare) repealed, and a comprehensive health care solution addressed. I would like to see the tax code reformed, and the dissolution of progressive taxes. A comprehensive immigration reform plan would be great too. One topic that both candidates ignored in this election was energy, which has the potential to provide real solutions to many other problems if it's managed correctly. The absence of ideas on this was disappointing.
* Any message not covered by my questions to Europeans or indeed bitter Americans about the outcome ?
The biggest outcome of the 2016 election will be the status of the United States Supreme Court. Many people do not understand that the Supreme Court was designed to be a separate and co-equal (to the presidency) branch of the federal government. It often goes ignored, but wield incredible power in the form of having a final ruling on constitutionality of laws/policies, and in establishing future precedent. Had Mrs Clinton been elected the court would have moved in a very activist direction, making sweeping interpretive changes to the US Constitution. The reason for this is that of the over the next four years it's entirely plausible that there will be four new justices on the bench because of likely retirements of unfortunate deaths. The present court make up is 4 progressives, three conservatives, one moderate, and one vacancy via the death of Antonin Scalia, a conservative justice. Mr Trump has promised to appoint a replacement for Mr Scalia, something President Obama botch by making an arrogantly partisan appointment in an election cycle. Such an appointment would restore the court to a relatively balanced state. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the progressives, is now 83 and showing signs that she's likely done. Ginsburg is the most intelligent and like of the liberal/progressive justices, and her departure will hurt their cause on it's own. If Ginsburg is replaced by a conservative, the court would heavily in that direction, something that I would welcome naturally. The court was a campaign issue, but neither side stressed it as much as they should have, and some may regret that in the years to come.
* Randolph Mann on himself:
I'm 50+, the father of three, working as an architect. I grew up playing soccer, primarily because my mother was one of those overprotective sorts that felt (gridiron) football was too violent. As much of a disappointment as this was for me, I embraced soccer as a passion and a lifestyle. I still love other sports, but there's something magical about the 'beautiful game'. When the English Premier League began broadcasting games on American cable television channels in the early 1990s my interest was thoroughly piqued. After a bit I needed a favorite team to follow. The natural choices for American fans seemed to be Liverpool or Manchester United, but I didn't care for either one, nor Chelsea, who were pretty mediocre at the time. I followed Leicester City a good deal because Kasey Keller played for them, and looked into Middlesboro because a Bolivian player named Jaime Moreno had stint there before coming to DC United here in MLS in 1996. Leeds was always a great team to watch before they imploded. My brother and some friends adopted Arsenal, whom I respect and enjoy watch, but have no real love for. I'll root for them against most, but they just are not my team. Almost instantly though I chose Newcastle United because I loved the fact that they were sponsored at the time by a beer, a local beer at that. My father used to buy Newcastle Brown Ale, and I though it was pretty good growing up. Once I got to watching them I loved their always attacking style, the passion and insanity of their fans, and naturally Alan Shearer, who played a style of the game that I always aspired to. I've tried to do my duty as a Newcastle fan to hate Sunderland, but the rivalries don't translate as well across the ocean. I thought it was a massive mistake for Jozy Altidore to move there, but I've never been much a believer in him. His attitude is terrible, and his talents go wasted to laziness much of the time. I have noted with some irony that DeAndre Yedlin is now with Newcastle, and fitting in well. He's an imperfect players, and could use some mentoring and experience, and he's not much of a defender, but his speed and crossing ability offer a massive upside.I was looking forward to next year and some friendly jabs back and forth you, but it appears now that we may be passing in the standings absent some changes.
Recent Comments