The Republican candidates for president would have us believe that they are strong, manly men who would stand up to Putin, destroy daesh, contain Iran, and generally “restore” America’s power throughout the world.
But they cannot even stand up to Donald Trump. The men who purport to show no fear in the face of terrorist bombs live in abject terror of a Trump tweet. Those who promise to out-maneuver a resurgent Russia with nuclear weapons cannot even find a way around a New York real estate magnate with bad hair. The most fawning and obsequious of them, the man who vowed find out if “sand can glow in the dark,” bought himself only a temporary respite by his appeasement, but is now sinking in the polls. The appeasement Cruz denounces in foreign relations was the cornerstone of his relations with Trump. He counted on Trump to destroy his rivals, which he has, and now he is destroying Cruz. What goes around comes around.
The fact that the Republican elites are all baffled by these results indicates how divorced they are from the American people. The globalist Republicans are totally disconnected from their nationalistic base. They expected a repeat of McCain and Romney, fending off the populists with a few dog whistles about abortion, or immigrants, or gay marriage while advancing the corporate agenda their financiers paid them for. They anointed Jeb Bush with the holy oil of endless money and now have nothing to show for their investment. Whatever one thinks of Trump, he has destroyed the credibility of the party elites. Trump realized, perhaps intuitively, that what the people are really concerned about is of no real concern to their “leaders.” And the fact that he has pandered to popular concerns without offering any real solutions does not mean that real solutions are not available; they are just not available to the men who run the Party.
They cannot out-talk Trump because they do not know the language he is talking. His words might as well be written in cuneiform; those who run cannot read the writing on the wall. But in the end, they will deal with Trump, because Trump understands the Art of the Deal (mankind’s second greatest book, so we are told) the art of selling out your friends to make a profit with your enemies. They despise the reptilian Cruz, not without reason, but feel they can make a deal with The Donald. And The Donald will become The Nominee. It is now all but inevitable.
The picture is no better from the democratic side. The bumbling Hillary Clinton is likewise suffering the fate of the tone-deaf. As Secretary of State, she left a trail of disaster through the world, and particularly the Middle East, and is performing the same service for her own campaign. The Republicans have not been able to lay a glove on her, and their 11-hour interrogation only made her stronger. It’s the only thing that has. What they could not do to her she is doing to herself. The Republicans concentrated on Benghazi while ignoring the total disaster that is Libya.
The same service she provided to Libya was also provided to the Ukraine and to Syria. The endless search for moderates to arm in the cause of democracy continues without realizing that armed moderates quickly become jihadi terrorists. And she wants us to believe that the $125 million she and her husband have received from the banks for “speaking fees” will have no impact on how she governs. For all I know, she is right; she might give the banks the same service for free, just as her husband did by ending the Glass-Steagall Act and deregulating derivatives. On the whole, not a very inspiring story.
No one could have predicted a credible challenge from an aging, Jewish “democratic socialist,” but the disconnect of the Democratic elites from their working-class base has made this a possibility. The Democratic elites are no less globalist then their Republican counterparts, and if anything more open and evangelical about it. One party might make the world safe for democracy and the other make it safe for commerce, but either will make it toxic for workers, families, and communities.
Sanders calls the party back to its working class and populist roots, and his success, such as it is, is as mystifying to the Democratic elites as Trump’s is to the Republicans. Nevertheless, Clinton will triumph over Sanders in the end, and indeed the end for Sanders may come sooner rather than later. New Hampshire and perhaps Iowa could be his only victories. “Democratic socialism” is simply a bridge too far, even if its actual content is not that much different from Eisenhower’s liberalism.
Conventional wisdom has Hillary crushing The Donald, but then conventional wisdom did not credit The Donald in the first place. Hillary doesn’t inspire while inspiration is Trump’s stock in trade. Trump can read the writing on the wall and make a deal with it, while Hillary is pretty much limited to reading the New York Times, when she reads at all.
So, we are guaranteed some “interesting times,” in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse. But one thing is sure: those who pander to populism will not deliver on their promises, and have little understanding of our real problems. Those most likely to win are those least competent to rule. And in age of rising powers, cultural upheaval, and economic crises, intelligent, prudential rule will be a survival skill.
We will not get it; the writing is on the wall.
Photo by Gage Skidmore
Mr Medaille,
So good to have you back! I’ve missed your interesting, thoughtful and well-written articles.
Thank you.
I agree that the smart money is on Trump wining the election. As for whether he will be a moral and effective leader, I am undecided.
I’m curious what you think the “real problems” are.
Aside from Trump’s media savvy, his main appeal seems to be his stance on immigration. While immigration may not be a threat to the country as a whole, if voting patterns are a sign it does threaten the Republican party. I have my issues with the GOP, but is it unreasonable to worry there will never be a conservative majority at a national level again?
I am beginning to think that using “populism” as a slur in a democracy makes as much sense as using “nobility” as a slur in a monarchy.
In my experience, it is the name that the oligarchs of a managed democracy give to any grass roots movement that attempts to revive genuine democracy (with all its attendant blessings and horrors). “Democracy” in that context is a meaningless, feel-good word.
Perhaps the only way for a democracy to survive is for it to be managed. I can make my peace with that. Even still, it leaves me uneasy to think that it is a nest of vipers that manages us.
On a technical note, this blogging platform seems to remove all separation between paragraphs. That is most unfortunate.
Managing public opinion was and is the whole point of what was originally called “propaganda” but later called “public relations” when the prior term came into a bad odor. Watch Adam Curtis’s splendid documentary, “The Century of the Self.”
America will never be a conservative country “again” because it never was in the past. It was founded in liberalism, and its politics is an argument between left-wing liberals and right-wing liberals, an argument between Corporate statists and statist corporatists.
I see what you mean about the lack of paragraph separation.
John Medaille, Why do think it’s in Donald Trump’s advantage to sell out?
Advantage? Selling out is its own advantage; it confirms and demonstrates one’s power over the group, and boosts one’s ego as the one to negotiate with TPTB. Besides which, he has to, since he has no idea of what to do, and nobody around to tell him. He has always surrounded himself with clueless sycophants like Sarah Palin. This is, after all, a man whose most iconic phrase is, “You’re fired!”
Yes, its good to see an insightful post from John Medaille, although he may give Trump overmuch credit. I think he’s going to flame out. He has shown up the Republican field for what they are.
Besides which, he has to, since he has no idea of what to do, and nobody around to tell him.
Ah, there you go. Right on the money.
“Democratic socialism” is simply a bridge too far, even if its actual content is not that much different from Eisenhower’s liberalism.
If you mean people will hear the word “socialist” and run for the hills, I don’t think that matters a bit. Only pundits care about that. Bernie is far too right-wing for my tastes, and I wish someone younger, a more original thinker, had made a credible challenge to Hillary, but he’s the one who stepped forward.
John Medaille writes : “He has always surrounded himself with clueless sycophants”
I am amazed that someone who is supposed to understand economics would make the above comment because it shows a clear lack of understanding of the role competent consultants play in the success of any business enterprise.
Would those be the bankruptcy consultants?
Yes, it would include the consultants he used in his chpt 11 bankruptcies. Given your involvement in real estate which is commonly volatile in that area of the market that is speculative , you should be perfectly aware of how chpt 11 bankruptcy is used, and that given the businesses in question that did file for chpt 11, those filings don’t reflect anymore poorly than a medical bankruptcy does on the common home buyer.
I am surprised that no one bothered to reply to this. Trump’s bankrupt businesses were not mistakes at all. Each one was a strategic move designed to avoid paying debts that he otherwise would have been legally required to pay.
He used bankruptcy law as a way to cheat his business partners, pure and simple.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructures debt. It does not eliminate the debt.
Well, Mr Medaille,
I gotta say, Rubio is looking good after Iowa. If I was a betting man…
And now, after the debate, he is toast!
Yes! I have to admit, I find the Republican Party to be the best comedy show on earth. Absolutely ridiculous.
I’m kind of hoping Trump wins. He seems to be the only candidate who seems to realize what a joke the whole thing is. He’s the candidate Republicans deserve. Hitler he is not.
I takes a very cynical optimism to support Trump. I don’t know that I will support Trump in an election, but it is a feeling to which I am often drawn.
Trump is a troll. The older word for troll was “fool”, as in the guy who could call the king lump of swine dung and get away with it. When people seriously talk of putting the fool on the throne and ousting the king, society is probably messed up enough that actually doing it won’t make things much worse.
On the other hand, you are entirely correct that Trump is no Hitler. Hitler was an ideologue. Trump is a pragmatist. Both of these personality types have their flaws, but it is unlikely that the horrors of the early 20th century will be visited on us if Trump wins.
@Medaille,
Your response about the myth of a conservative America are well taken. However, even if the founders were not conservatives, I suspect there has always been a sizable sub-population (of which I consider myself a member) who hold to a conservatism that is more or less in line with Russell Kirk’s 6 canons. Republicans may not represent this contingent very well, but I doubt their absence from the political sphere will do us any favors.
Comments are closed.