I think most of us can now certainly agree:  even if we give Mr. Trump his claim that he is the most brilliant businessman ever, and his paying low or no taxes is due to his incredible financial acumen, we cannot help but conclude either he is a particularly poor politician or he simply does not wish to win this election.  His debate performance was certainly sub-par, and his doubling down on a former Miss Universe and trying to defend boorish statements is utter foolishness.  Does he really want to be the President?  Every moment he allows the discussion to be on anything other than why Mrs. Clinton is manifestly unqualified to be the President gives the American public the opportunity to reflect on why his character is also manifestly unqualified to be the leader of our country.  Oh what a Hobbesian choice we find ourselves in.

Mr. Trump’s taxes are another issue.  Does he really think that just because the Clinton’s strategy of stonewalling, obfuscating, outright lying and then ultimately dismissing as “old news” any of their malfeasances is a viable option for him?  Does he not remember–as he unceasingly tells us–that the media is in the tank for Mrs. Clinton?  The media will bulldawg this issue till the election or past.  And Mrs. Clinton is right–there is obviously something he doesn’t want us to see.  Suspicions are usually as bad as reality.  Especially if suspicions are right before the election instead of releasing ugly reality a year ago and moving on.  Does Mr. Trump really want to be the President?

So what of the NYT’s revelation (illegal, and possibly worthy of a lawsuit by Mr. Trump) that Mr. Trump suffered a large loss in the 90s, and therefore would have been eligible to offset profits in subsequent years–possibly owing no taxes?  Several thoughts.  First, while Mrs. Clinton is outraged that this rich billionaire might not have owed taxes for several years, she’s not doing it all just for show. Her mindset is that anything you and I produce is owned socially, and the question is how much you should be allowed to keep.  So of course its outrageous that you try to keep some of your own money. You should willingly offer up more than you are legally required to pay, you should always follow the spirit of the law (as we interpret the spirit of the law) and not the letter of the law.*  But when GE paid no taxes a few years ago in part because of all their green energy subsidies, GE’s CEO was rewarded with being the head of Mr. Obama’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Cricket, cricket? Second, what should Mr. Trump be paying?  Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s but not a penny more–if you do, you are giving a crack addict another shot of cocaine.  Surely you can spend your own money better than Mrs. Clinton.  Further, who was co-president during the 1990s when this tax “loophole” was allowed (remember, we got two for the price of one)?  If this is so egregious, why do Democrats lead the way for higher tax rates while creating more loopholes for people to avoid the fleecing?  The real outrage is our corporate tax system (really the whole tax system), which has the highest tax rates in the world yet collects relatively little due to exceptions for “worthy” loopholes.  Economically score this for Mr. Trump.  Politically, score this for Mrs. Clinton.

Finally, thoughts on my fellow Bereans who endorsed Mr. Trump.  I think they both ably made a case for Trump–both centered around the “he’s better than Mrs. Clinton” idea.  I wholeheartedly agree with this conclusion, even though I won’t cast my vote for Mr. Trump. I think those that would prefer Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Trump have an exaggerated view of the power of the presidency.  Mr. Trump, if he chooses to actually allow himself to be elected rather than sabotaging his own campaign, cannot continue the destruction that our government is inflicting on this nation.  But his cabinet secretaries and the bureaucracies can. The EPA, the DOEd, the DOJ and the many more symptoms of corruption and mischief across the government agencies will only continue in a Clinton presidency–and this is precisely the mechanism of our country’s downfall in an era of administrative law (where the bureaucracies write the actual laws and not the Congress). There is some hope that a Trump presidency might slow or reverse this death spiral.  The case for Mr. Trump goes well beyond the Supreme Court.  Mr. Trump is likely the death of the Republican Party, but he won’t be the death of our country.  But does he really want to be the president?

Should Mr. Trump lose this election, it will not be the fault of the base that didn’t vote for him.  It will be the fault of a candidate who decided he didn’t want or need much of the base’s vote.  He is a candidate who–in typical populist tradition–believes that the politics of addition is by division.  Works well for Democrats, but not so much for Republicans.

* But we remember the Clinton’s taking a tax donation for used underwear!  Really?!  That’s just kind of gross.  The most powerful couple in Arkansas avoids paying taxes that could be used to fund education and other services by exploiting a loophole for skivvies?!  Even Mr. Trump can’t be that bad!