The Indiana
republican primaries on May 3, 2016 for Donald Trump continues to provide the
Republican GOP a problem which they didn’t anticipate. At least not to this degree.
Trump is not an enigma; he is however a phenomenon. A product, a reflection of
the type of society which rose from the Regan era of the 1980’s.
American politics, Americans themselves, tend to concentrate their
attention to those who can win. Very few rules (legal or otherwise) can dislodge
this primary value from the American ethos. With regard to Donald Trump, winning,
supersedes all. Throughout the primaries there has been a level of incredulity,
of disbelief that a presidential candidate like Trump; could heap such a
disdain for the electoral process. That is …all its perfunctory ethics and
codes of conduct.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter.” -Winston Churchill
The 20-minute exchange between Ted Cruz and Trump supporters in
Indiana serves Winston's quote very well. It also exemplifies the raw
emotional state of the population at large who now; question the essence
of what it is to live and work within a dysfunctional democracy. It
speaks to what former Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders refers to as the
1%-what is often described as "the establishment".
This exists not only in America's institutions, but also within its
political and economic structures at every level of governance. Making promises during elections and forgoing those same
promises on the basis of impracticability, national self-interests no longer
resonate with its citizens. Americans are realizing that electing
representatives at the congressional, and senatorial, levels achieves nothing. Congress has now been made impotent by their own accord or by submitting to the will of special interest groups or powerful conglomerate institutions.
No American can claim ignorance, or deny having not being made aware of the political changes within their own democratic institutions. This is an ongoing issue, but during this election Trump is the only candidate to have harnessed and labelled it.
“Making
America great again”
CNN political pundits are bemused. Trump is a
frustration, and a manifestation of the unknown in terms of political acumen. There
is also an element of legitimacy. Is Trump a legitimate representative of the
American voter? Until the primaries began, no one believed that this was in
fact the case. Confined to the realm of the entertainment industry; a character
such as Donald Trump would be impossible to pass as ‘presidential’ material. Trump’s legitimatization
is based in part by his ability to achieve success. His pursuit of the ‘American dream.’
It is reflected in all facets of his life. His accumulated wealth, his
stature, his good looking wife and ex-wives, his children, and existential
circle of friends. Peeling back a Trump onion would reveal many layers of the
man himself. Having a proper vetting process was not something
the Republican GOP deemed important or necessary. After all, 17 other well-known
and established Republican candidates shared the path towards the Republican
nomination.
Both
Republican and Democratic establishment are circling the wagons. They are
bracing themselves against the anger of the American population itself. And
they are unsettled. There are no precedents, no operational manual to be had. It
doesn’t exist yet. Trump has the opportunity to lead those who have supported
his nomination and his eventual run towards the presidency-- as a civil war
battle cry. A civil war against the status quo. Americans, at least those who
identify with Trump and Bernie Sanders, are a whisper away from employing more
physical means to regain control of the country.
And as with
any political entity, the process by which Trump has successfully distanced his
detractors and withheld their ability to mobilize their opposition during his
rallies is concerning. A recent BBC
documentary explaining the current American climate made corresponding
allusions to pre-war Germany when comparatives were used to describe Trump.
These arguments have merit.
Under the
leadership of Bernie Sanders, the American electorate would have the capability
to elevate a social-democrat. While this doesn’t sit well with true republican
ideology, it would offer a viable alternative for Americans of either party and
independents to elect a president who has the necessary will to do what must be
done. Return the democratic process, ‘…to the people, by the people and for the
people’.
Trump does
not offer this option. “Making America great again” hinges on his skill set to
develop policies that will not be in accordance with democratic principles per
say. Rather, Trump policy making--would incorporate what is necessary to
re-position Americans as the western super power. Not only from a military, but
also from an economic perspective. Trump has more than once railed against
NAFTA, TTP, and other international trade agreements which puts American interests
at a disadvantage. Along with his
immigration proposals, Americans who identity with his policies and deem them
necessary will support new legislation introduced by Trump in order to follow
through with his agenda—be damned domestic or international consequences.
Social
democrats and independents may cringe at Trump’s means towards the end; but
they are not willing to ignore the real possibility of losing gainful
employment either. Clinton’s assertions earlier in March of 2016 during a
primary debate--that coal mines in Indiana would be effectively shut down under
her presidential mandate—cost her the Indiana primary nomination. Sander’s will
not carry the democratic nomination, but he can influence the tone and mandate
of the Democratic Party election platform. In essence tie Clinton’s hands and
force her to win an election based upon a platform that will inflame American
anger—not diffuse it.
Is Trump too big a risk?
A scorched
earth political battle is already promised by journalist, radio and television analysts
in the United States. The Clinton campaign already labelled Trump as being too big
a risk. Campaigning against a republican platform is one thing. Campaigning
against the will of the electorate is another. Examining past failures made by
republican nominees will not serve Clinton well. Save in one aspect. And that
is to understand what voters want. Not hope to get, not what they hope to
settle for…but what they expect. Ignoring this fact will negate all other
strategies.
That is a
difficult proposition for any 2016 democratic presidential ticket. Clinton
cannot distance herself from Obama’s tenure. Neither can she dissociate herself
from her voting record on critical bills passed by Congress. In addition,
Sander’s decision to challenge Clinton for the remaining 6 weeks of the
democratic nomination primaries will force Clinton between a rock and an impossible place. Disaffected republicans
and democrats often describe Trump as a person to be fearful of. Is it because
they don’t understand him? Quite possibly. Unlike career politicians Trump is
not interested in appealing to everyone.
New York Times
journalist Patrick Healy quoted
Trump a day after the Indiana primary saying,
“I know everyone won’t like everything I do, but I’m not running to be everyone’s favorite president... Things are seriously wrong in this country. People are hurting, business is hurting. I’m running to move quickly to make big changes.”
Trump is not
politically correct. He makes mistakes. He is not above quoting the National
Inquirer (or anything else for that matter) if it helps him win. Trump makes no
pretense about possessing the necessary knowledge to develop policy. Frankly,
he doesn’t care. He can delegate that to someone who does. As long as it
follows his requisites. He will change his position, if he sees the logic in
it.
As human
beings we love familiarity, we understand what is learned. Unfortunately, the
capacity to face what is unknown with composure is equally important. There is
nothing to fear, but fear itself. Portraying Trump and his policies as “too big
a risk” might work for the Clinton campaign. After all, he doesn’t have any
real answers yet. At least none that have been shared with the public. He swears a lot, he has machismo. His facts
(or what passes for facts) are often versions of the truth…but no matter if it
helps him win.
He believes in “might is right”. Perhaps not
in the same sense in Abraham Lincoln’s 1860’s Cooper Union speech in New York
were this famous quote derives from; but Trump has no problem using the military
as his foreign policy cornerstone. And no American would argue against that. His
immigration policy, brings international ridicule. “Good luck with that,” said
President Obama.
The thing is,
it’s not Trump’s idea. The Secure Fence Act goes back to 2006. Hardly something
new. For the neighboring towns along the Rio Grande, illegal immigration is not
something to be taken lightly. Clinton might wish to tare town walls and build
bridges, but as the US-Mexico border is concerned, the American litmus test is
way out of whack with those of the establishment that Clinton was a part of for
all her adult life.
Trump is not
afraid to voice what many Americans feel needs to be done. This is not political
theory 101. Violence will occur. It’s impossible to avoid it. The blame game
will continue. One thing for sure, the 2016 election is just the beginning, not
the end. If the American population does not see a government that works for
them, in the very near future—they will destroy it. Maybe it will look like the
movie Vendetta. Maybe not. Time will tell.
