I’m always so interested to see what a phrase such as “data-driven conservative” actually means to the person who claims it. You seem actually and astoundingly to be saying that the only thing that would prove to you that Schultz’s hubris and ego are in charge (conditioned on his enormous business success) is if he came out and said so. It isn’t necessary to read someone’s mind or find another way to probe and learn that person’s deep motivations to make useful and true observations about their acts.
I wrote nothing about Schultz’s motivations. I simply described the story told by his actions. The plain facts are these: absent a grassroots demand for someone’s candidacy, no one but a very wealthy individual could launch and finance an independent campaign for president. If he didn’t have economic success and economic power at a vast scale, the whole thing would be a non-event. I’m flattered that you thought it was worth so much effort to attempt to debunk my analysis, but sadly, all you’ve done is set up a bunch of straw men you could then knock down.
You are missing the difference between feelings/beliefs/attitudes and actions. There was a discussion in the Michael Cohen hearing this week about whether the current president is racist, missing the same point. It doesn’t matter one whit whether Schultz believes in his heart that his business success qualifies him to be president, any more than it matters whether Trump’s heart and mind hold repulsive beliefs about racial superiority. What matters is whether their actions uphold a broken and oppressive system. Schultz’s campaign expresses the worst of our money-driven politics; Trump’s actions advance a white supremacist social order. All the rest is apologetics, and I’m sorry to see anyone offer them with such passionate conviction as yourself. Neither candidate deserves it.