My support for Donald Trump’s Presidential aspirations has always been halting, half-measured, repressed.
I don’t get fired up for the guy so much as I get fired up for what he represents. What he portends for our stagnant political culture as it bleeds into (or from) social culture. I rally to his “side” but it’s really because I just enjoy watching Washington D.C. burn. If I were to truly get in touch with my deepest, darkest feelings, my support of Donald Trump is born of nihilistic self-destruction, at best.
Until today. Now there is something about Donald Trump that genuinely elicits the fanatical spark of support from me.
He is no quant!
Who would have suspected?
If any Presidential candidate of the past century can be expected to buck the trend, it is Donald Trump.
I despise the culture of quants we have become.
Our so-called brightest create an analytical school of deconstruction centered around quantifying all human behavior and reaction. It is the reason I hate and distrust the field of predictive economics; it seeks to predict collective human behavior of which, I skeptically assert, there can be no measurement standard. The quants have naturally invaded electoral politics and they are shameless in their assumption of responsibility for electoral victories.
In this MSNBC segment, you can witness as quanthood abounds as it lasciviously pats itself on its inflated back while gloating in Barack Obama’s electoral victories which can be explained mostly by sociocultural demographic drift than by any artificially kindled collective algorithm which magically spells human (ie, voter) behavior.
I’ve previously expressed my distaste for quants in this 2012 post about the fabulous movie, “Moneyball.”
In Donald Trump’s words regarding the supposed number-crunching that delivered Obama to the White House, “I’ve always felt that it was overrated. Obama got his votes much more so than his data processing machine. And I think the same is true with me.” Forward to 2:15 into the video as Steve Hildebrand, Obama Democratic “strategist” in 2008 and former data cruncher/anti-human data fetishist soft-talks his way out of abject self-justification by ridiculing Trump’s simplistic manner. Listen to his cuckish reticence and Obama-like Scientological repressed cultish sense of lassitude. And even more appallingly, at 3:50, Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager and quantus extraordinaraire, details how a quant tirelessly, obsessively, compulsively, teased out data that someone who had half a brain might have done on their own without silicon assistance.
This is the nexus of Donald Trump’s anti-campaign.
He is listening to his head, to his instinct and to his intuitions, and those of his staff. He realizes numbers, data, and statistics barely approach what our innate intelligent awareness tells us if we listen to, and understand. His representations are all that oppose this dichotomy.