In regard to Trump!
I don’t yet claim to understand politics to well, or the infrastructure that was designed behind democracy or especially the American political system. I do however have some thoughts that might balance our perspective on certain prospective leaders.
There is a works by Machiavelli called “Il Principe” which I have not yet read, but I look forward to. I would have avoided such a works before and yet now I am intrigued as I believe I have some understanding of its premise. The insight Machiavelli presents is notably in the form of a MALEVOLENT ruler and how such a ruler might optimally rule their own principality. The purpose of the writing is still contested, whether Machiavelli was being somewhat satirical or possibly politically correct (ie passing wisdom in a way that would not get himself killed) but I suspect this is largely due to the publicly unfavourable sentiment of supporting wisdom (and want) of a malevolent ruler.
There is a very important point Machiavelli seems to make that I have come to understand through different studies on game theory, economics, and security, that the main purpose of a governance system is to bring stability to society, and that stability should be considered over some period of time (arguably the longest term possible).
In regard to a BENEVOLENT ruler that makes certain policies that are altruistic from their own point of view and advantageous to the public, there may come a time in the future in which different pressures of nearly infinite magnitude FORCE such a ruler to finally make a decision that goes quite against the former altruistic and publicly beneficial policies.
This is in itself is not stable, nor could the public count on it as such. So there is reason then to suggest that a “prince” that is malevolent, is quite a lot more predictable and stable, in that they will take all selfish lines first leaving little, none, or less room for change than the benevolent prince.
This works on a international level too, as each country must depend on the economic stability of other countries, and if we solely or whole-heartedly rely on promises and altruistic type co-operative efforts (or some benevolent strategy) this really becomes a scary security and stability “leak” in regard to the trade systems going forward (what happens if a benevolent regime gets overthrown by a malevolent one because of some natural disaster of chance!?)
This is my first point about why Trump, in some ways might be favoured over some more socialistic type leader (Bernie Sanders?) who might be more to the benevolent side trying to work with and for the peoples rather than for their own self interests for prosperity.
Another point I think is relevant is that a good leader must know how to best appease the masses, that we all know (or should know) do not always SEEM to act rationally and in the best interest of the individual.
I really suspect this has to do with the nature of politics in regard to the underlying infrastructure. There is a basic conjecture I think the American system is laid on that the public is free to choose and redesign their governance structure PROVIDED there is a certain level of consensus reached for it. Some aspects need higher level of agreement, and the basic realization here I mean to point out is some of these aspects are set for a level of consensus that is effectively impossible for the public to reach.
They are free to choose change so long as they can all agree on it.
So there will seemingly then always be great debate on things such as gun control, that the “rational” individual will never understand (why do we need gun freedoms when seemingly we just kill each other with them?) . But the missing factor or link here is that such as system was designed by persons FAR more learned than the average citizen today, and was built in such a way to continue to afford the individual the greatest freedom possible, yet with complete inability for that citizen or the general citizenry to mistakenly take away their own, or all others’ freedoms.
In this we can understand the role of a politician is to sway enough of the population to coalesce behind their own particular political agenda, which itself must be carefully crafted on popular public opinion (otherwise what group large enough would vote for that person).
So an “intelligent” and most favourable leader, in the sense of what is useful and who might bring the greatest stability (which is perhaps what the public should want in order to create a society that can most properly takes care of itself) knows how to play this game best and I think might espouse different arguments that might perfectly and logically appease to the LOCAL people that are being addressed at the time.
Of course out of context then these political platforms might likely sound absurd, nonsensical, irrational, bigoted, and even violent or anti-freedom.
I don’t actually expect Trump would waste economic resources on building a wall to keep migrants out (and to possibly toss immigrants over!), and rather I suspect in private Trump might argue to any detractors that he is one of the largest employers, in one way or another, of such people (perhaps through business in the U.S. or different projects around the world).
He might be caught saying he will or won’t eliminate minimum wage, when the reality is he is quite likely to completely eliminate it so the business sector could employ peoples at the most minimum cost possible. This is something I think any learned person would support, as well as many of the successful business persons of our time.
This brings me to another point I think that is clear and important and probably in great contrast to many of the preferred (more socialist) candidates-Trump knows how to run a business (and so do his backers likely!). And in case you might want to shout out the amount of times he has been bankrupt, I might add he has a ton of experience with debt as well.
He knows how to raise capital, he knows how to come back from defeat, he knows how to inspire and re-inspire his people. He knows how to put a team together and hes not afraid to change and shake that team up (I avoided something here!).
You want a good business person as the leader of your country. You want someone that understands not only trade but international trade. You want someone that can be ruthless but fair. You want someone that can seemingly fly off the handle but somehow maintain a multi-billion dollar business. You want someone that can muster instant and mass support from the plethora of uneducated voters out there. You want someone that is seasoned and can weather the media and social media storms.
Lastly, I hear many peers are supporting players like Bernie Sanders, that seem to be offering what will no doubt be dubbed by his supporters as common sense policies. My worry here is, and I think it is significant and quite scientific, in the empirical evidence sense (although not immediately observably so), is that such ideals of a socialistic society in which the collective provides for its peoples through some centralized entity, is really truly a means towards destruction and downfall (and has been throughout our history).
As paradoxical as it sounds to some there is a point to be made that the most secured capitalistic and private endeavours are the only true solution and means towards what we might then call the socialistic end/ideal. That is to say that which the government touches always eventually ends up ruinous, whereas when the individuals are allowed to compete for their own private interests the results will always and only ever be a society with an unbeatable standard of living by any other means.