Walter Russell Mead, explaining
Trump Summer well:
For voters who’ve come to believe that both parties are owned and operated by the kind of people who pay Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars to make platitudinous speeches, who believe that the system is rigged and will never be reformed, that the candidates offering “real solutions to real problems” are fooling either themselves or, more probably, you, Trump at least offers the satisfaction of making the other rat bastards and pompous PC elites squirm. He laughs at them and makes them look small; he defies their hatred and revels in their pursed-lip disapproval. By incurring the hatred of the chattering classes, he seems to some voters to be signaling both that he hates the empty showmanship of the capital as much as they do and that, by making himself the enemy of the self-determined arbiters of the rules of the political game, he is throwing himself on the support of the American people.
Or, put another way, by
another blog commenter:
And yes – I have given up on America. Because a nation is merely a codified philosophical concept contained within a physical set of geographic boundaries.
But look around you. The original version of that has all but faded away entirely. Hell, the elitist class even think that enforced borders are passe.
What’s truly astonishing here is not my stark realism – but rather – your delusional dissonance. Change can come, but not through the status quo of the current political paradigm we’ve been dealt. We cannot rebuild a stable recovery on a rotten foundation.
This thing must be burned down.
In other words, operationally if you doubt that a nihilistic, "burn it down" approach is the proper approach to political change, you are, like me, a bit of a Menshevik in the current context. I get it -- there's a palpable sense of betrayal in watching John Boehner and Mitch McConnell operate. It bothers me, too. Yet I don't possibly see how supporting Trump can advance the cause. Fires are notoriously difficult to control. And nihilism is for suckers.
13 comments:
There's been so much meta commentary on Trump, I've bit my tongue in attempting to burst the bubble that The Donald's candidacy represents something new/dangerous in politics.
Most commentators suggest Trump is the electorate's indictment of the modern political process - a sort of Godzilla; a bad end result to unintended consequences. Rather, to the extent there's any sort of a "meta" response to his candidacy, Trump is more akin to Frankenstein - a deliberate creation.
The media/political process reveals in sound bites, controversy, and a insatiable appetite for scolding. Trump provides all three of those items in spades, and is doing so in July/August when few people, outside of the media and the political hardline activists, are paying the slightest bit of attention. This is an ouroboros moment - the media allows Trump to dominate their airwaves and press column inches and then is shocked (shocked!) that he polls as well as he does, which demands more media coverage.
A couple of weekends ago, I ran into a long-time GOP activist I know while shopping. She's been involved for decades, although I wouldn't describe her as particularly knowledgeable. She said she really liked Trump. I couldn't help but ask why - laying out all the sorts of reasons I'm sure you, D, and the rest of your readership could cite chapter and verse about why Trump is neither a conservative nor even really a Republican. She knew none of it. Given all this, we shouldn't be surprised at his polling lead, nor at his inevitable collapse.
Trump will disappear largely because of what it really takes to win at this level. The Presidency isn't won at the national level - at least not in the primaries. He'll have to go into Iowa and New Hampshire and court activists who've been doing this for decades. Can you picture Trump visiting every coffee shop and greasy spoon in those states? Or him sucking up to some alderman or prominent farmer? I think Hell will freeze over before The Donald lowers himself to hobknob with the hoypoloi.
And frankly, it's worth mentioning that all for his bragging about his "yuge" fortune, he only has about $300 million in cash/securities. Unless he's spending it all, that's no where near enough to win the Presidency or GOP primary. Obama spent over $683 million in 2012; Romney spent $433 million. If Trump is serious (which he isn't), he'd need to fundraise at some point. And again, I can't picture that.
Those who would support Trump need to consider how his WWE involvement, multiple business bankruptcies, gambling involvement, and horrific family life will play in prime time commercials. At least if you're a Republican, character matters, and Trump's is unequivocal. I really don't get what anyone in the "Tea Party" sees in the guy.
This is an ouroboros moment - the media allows Trump to dominate their airwaves and press column inches and then is shocked (shocked!) that he polls as well as he does, which demands more media coverage.
I agree with that.
Trump will disappear largely because of what it really takes to win at this level. The Presidency isn't won at the national level - at least not in the primaries. He'll have to go into Iowa and New Hampshire and court activists who've been doing this for decades. Can you picture Trump visiting every coffee shop and greasy spoon in those states? Or him sucking up to some alderman or prominent farmer? I think Hell will freeze over before The Donald lowers himself to hobknob with the hoypoloi.
I agree with that, too. What I worry about — there are a number of worthy candidates fighting for space and Trump's presence could potentially snuff out a few campaigns before they have a chance to catch fire. I'm not a fan of Rick Perry per se, but he might be a dead man walking already. Same thing for Bobby Jindal, who I like more. I'm concerned that when the Donald does fade, we might be without some good other good candidates and that some less-than-stellar choices (a/k/a Jeb) will remain. And I am worried that Boehner, McConnell et al. have so poisoned the well that a lot of people are going to sit on their hands this time out.
If I were a Republican (and I'm not...shocking, I know), my concerns about Trump's potential effect on the GOP field would be dwarfed by his potential to Perot this thing in the general.
--
I was curious as to what the state of the campaign was at this time in the 2008 cycle. My (imperfect) window into this was what I was writing about the election on my old blog this time eight years ago.
As it turns out: nothing.
On September 23 (the first entry I can find) I wrote: "If [Giuliani] is the GOP nominee next year, the general election will be a race between an authoritarian from New York...and Rudy Giuliani."
The next nearest entry I find was was a link to this piece by Hitch (RIP) speculating about Al Gore making a run, that I posted on September 27, 2007.
Anyway, a lot can happen in the six months (!) between now and Iowa/New Hampshire.
If I were a Republican (and I'm not...shocking, I know), my concerns about Trump's potential effect on the GOP field would be dwarfed by his potential to Perot this thing in the general.
That, too. First things first, though.
All i know is that trump is happy that you are blogging about him.
All i know is that trump is happy that you are blogging about him.
It's Yuge!
Trump isn't going to go full-on-Perot (to paraphrase "Tropic Thunder", you never go full-on-Perot).
The costs involved with getting on the ballots of 50 states as an independent candidate are "yuge." Almost every state has signature requirements to get on the ballot. Some are relatively minor like Minnesota (2,000 signatures). Some are much, much higher, like California with 160,000 signatures. Getting those signatures takes time and money.
And then there's the issue of actually running. Is Trump going to bankrupt himself in a vanity effort? He's only put $2 million towards running for President so far. How much money will he put when the path to 270 electoral votes is of Grand Canyon proportions?
Would he do it just to spite the GOP? Sure, that sounds like Trump. But it would also require him to be comfortable to receive a few percentage points at the ballot and lose - massively. For that same reason, I'd almost be willing to wager money that Trump ends his campaign before the first votes are cast.
I think it's a fair question to ask whether Trump really wants to be president. I certainly can't refute FR's points about the barriers to running as a (mostly) self-financed independent in the general.
It's also a pretty dismal state of affairs if Donald Trump isn't rich enough to do such a thing.
Hes been doing the flirt dance every four yrs since the 80 s. I was surprised he took it this far this time. I still think its all about getting attention.
Given the way Trump responded to Megyn Kelly, and given his interaction with Bill Clinton (hardly a disinterested party), I seriously doubt Trump's stomach for carrying this one through. Mr. Obama looks positively thick skinned in comparison, and that's saying something. So ego trip, yes, Perot type thing, yes, but serious candidate? Let's be serious here.
One thing, though; Trump's wealth, if indeed it's in the billions, as even the WSJ estimates (1.5 billion), that's enough. The question is not whether he could self-fund if he wanted to, but rather whether he wants to become a "mere" millionaire for his little ego trip.
Not that election expense isn't horrendous, but there are many people in this country (Gates, Buffett, various Waltons, Trump, etc..) who could self-fund if they wanted to.
(yes, point taken from FR that Trump's liquid assets aren't that great, but his overall assets are sufficient)
Trump is all about Trump. So far he's carpet-bombing the media and it looks impressive, but he has no infantry to fight it out doing the campaign work state by state. He's good for shock and awe right now, but he doesn't have a real strategy (though I'm pretty sure he's got an exit plan).
Regarding his wealth, most of it has come from cozy establishment deals with government entities; he's not going to do anything to seriously upset the power-brokers. He can definitely be a spoiler, though. As Mr. D pointed out, primarily at the expense of other candidates who can't get traction during the silly season. (Probably better for them, though, to get bounced now). His populist move is just self-aggrandizing puffery, and I believe his dust-up with Kelly was completely premeditated and a Clinton-esque triangulation to get some buzz from the left side.
He might even be in Clinton's pocket, but I think that's a dangerous game (noting, of course, that the Clinton's are used to stuff blowing up in their faces). If Trump scores too many points going after the "business as usual" power structure it's going to make Sanders more appealing, not Hillary.
It's Iowa State Fair time this week; watch how much time he spends there. He might set foot in the state, but I don't expect he'll spend the night.
Post a Comment