Trump's Great Grandstanding Gesture Amounts to Little, So Quit the Dramatic Hand-wringing Please
Donald Trump's announcement that he would ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. amounts to little more than a grandstanding gesture. So - Democrats and Republicans both - please quit all the dramatic hand-wringing. We know you're just grandstanding to offset Trump's grandstanding. Can't any of you possibly address the real issue? Or are you now strictly in campaign mode where every peep that comes out of your mouths must be calculated to bump up your standing in the opinion polls?
Well, we know the answer to that question. The only time politicians pander more to public opinion than they normally do is when they're campaigning. We might indulge a faint glimmer of hope that on rare occasions an elected official takes a principled stand after winning an election. But during campaigns, the words and gestures amount to mere manipulations designed to tug at our emotions and get us all fired up such that the emotional tide will carry us into the voting booth with a manic desire to see our man or woman elected.
Of course, you don't fall for all that, right? To do so would be similar to making investment decisions based on emotion - a sure recipe for disaster. Of course, emotions do impinge on us, even those of us who have steeled ourselves by developing various disciplined practices in not only our investment decisions, but in general. The last bout of emotional disorder struck us in late August, early September as markets tumbled in the scary way they do from time to time. It was the rare individual who remained above the fray. But if you had at least a modicum of discipline, you would have avoided getting whipsawed when the market turned right around and shot up again.
So too will the emotions of the moment work on you when candidates like Trump (not to pick on him in any way; he's just like the rest in this respect) play to your emotions to gain an advantage in the election. But in this particular case, worse than letting your chain be yanked would be allowing your emotions to take your eye off the ball. What's the ball here? It's what we talked about last time:
We could go on with the questions, but we won't. You, I hope, get the point. Keep your distance from the emotional plays of the candidates.
Well, we know the answer to that question. The only time politicians pander more to public opinion than they normally do is when they're campaigning. We might indulge a faint glimmer of hope that on rare occasions an elected official takes a principled stand after winning an election. But during campaigns, the words and gestures amount to mere manipulations designed to tug at our emotions and get us all fired up such that the emotional tide will carry us into the voting booth with a manic desire to see our man or woman elected.
Of course, you don't fall for all that, right? To do so would be similar to making investment decisions based on emotion - a sure recipe for disaster. Of course, emotions do impinge on us, even those of us who have steeled ourselves by developing various disciplined practices in not only our investment decisions, but in general. The last bout of emotional disorder struck us in late August, early September as markets tumbled in the scary way they do from time to time. It was the rare individual who remained above the fray. But if you had at least a modicum of discipline, you would have avoided getting whipsawed when the market turned right around and shot up again.
So too will the emotions of the moment work on you when candidates like Trump (not to pick on him in any way; he's just like the rest in this respect) play to your emotions to gain an advantage in the election. But in this particular case, worse than letting your chain be yanked would be allowing your emotions to take your eye off the ball. What's the ball here? It's what we talked about last time:
...securing our borders or attacking the problem of massive illegal immigration...It's worth repeating that unless these two issues are effectively addressed, all the other verbiage by our President and others about "protecting" us really amounts to very little.And, let's face it, trying to single out Muslims not only doesn't address the real problem, it's simply not workable. Do you think that a terrorist trying to get into our country will announce that, yes, he (or she) is Muslim, if that becomes a negative qualifier? How exactly would you be able to determine whether or not a given individual is Muslim?
We could go on with the questions, but we won't. You, I hope, get the point. Keep your distance from the emotional plays of the candidates.
Comments