So What If Trump Knew Of GOP Rules

Posted on in Politics, Trump

Every day I hear countless pundits suggest Donald Trump has no right to complain that the rules governing the GOP primary are unfair. The argument goes something like this. Donald Trump knew of the GOP primary rules from day one. They are nothing new. Now, despite knowing of the rules existence, he has decided to complain about them being unfair. This is where Trump critics begin crying foul.

Whether the rules are fair or not, is beyond the scope of this piece. My sole purpose here is to destroy the argument that Trump’s prier knowledge precludes him from complaining of the fairness of these rules. The irrationality of this argument is almost beyond belief. To see it, one needs only to apply logic: something sadly in short supply amid the hysteria surrounding Trump’s candidacy.

From day one, Donald Trump knew of the content of the rules governing his participation in the primary process! So what? Does a rule automatically become fair so long as everyone knows of its existence? It’s not as if Trump had a hand in drafting the content of these rules, as this argument insidiously infers. He had no say in their content what so ever. No candidate did. Candidates had no choice but to accept their content, whether perceived fair or not. A candidate’s only recourse was not to run.

If critics are right, that Trump’s prior knowledge of these rules relinquishes any future complaint of their fairness, we must logically conclude Rosa Parks was equally unjustified when she complained of a law requiring her to give up her seat to a white man. Think about it. Before getting on the bus that fateful day, Rosa Parks knew the law required African Americans to give up their seats, upon request, to whites. Rosa Parks didn’t have to ride the bus, no more than Trump was required to run for President. She could have walked. Instead, she voluntarily got onto the bus with full knowledge of the guidelines governing her participation. Like Trump, she had no hand in drafting the content of the rules. However, Trump critics claim this fact is irrelevant. So, we’re left with the conclusion that voluntarily participating in the bus ride relinquished any future complaint Rosa Parks had regarding the fairness of the law. Clearly, we all find this an unacceptable conclusion. Thus, there must be something wrong with the argument leading us to this inescapable logical outcome.

From now on, perhaps we should discuss the proper content of these rules, rather than allowing this valid debate to be obscured by the canard surrounding a candidate’s prior knowledge. The legacy of Rosa Parks depends upon it.