They could have stopped
him, but they didn't. I'm referring to the Republicans and Donald
Trump. There were plans afoot, right up to the convention and a day
or two into the convention, to pull a fast one – enact some sort of
change in the rules – whatever – anything
to keep Trump from being the nominee. But it all collapsed; it
became a non-story, a non-event, literally overnight.
And
now, since that didn't happen, they are left with pathetic whining
and empty threats to – at this point! -- choose someone else (to
run on what ticket, pray tell?), or even to form a temporary third
party. But this is all, in my opinion, an anemic attempt to save
face – to basically say “Trump does not represent the Republican
Party, even though he won its nomination (in accordance with rules
which we could have changed, but didn't).” Well, fine – he may,
in fact, not represent the mainstream or establishment Republicans,
but he certainly represents all those who voted for him in the
primaries, and they seem to constitute the majority of voting members
of the party at this point in history.
But
that is precisely the point. Trump won the primary race thanks to a
populist insurgency -- a movement which he, basically, inspired.
Where were these people before Trump came along? They were out
there, clearly, but they had no voice – they were the forgotten,
the disenfranchised, the ignored, the mocked and ridiculed (by the
media and the liberals), and the generally shat-upon. So Trump
became, literally, a rabble-rouser, and it was that rabble that
temporarily took over the Republican Party by sheer force of numbers
and energy. There's nothing like the politics of victimization to
turn the powerless into the (temporarily) powerful – and since the
Republicans are traditionally the party of non-victims, this was
something the establishment did not foresee and had no way of dealing
with once it occurred.
Now,
I hasten to add that this particular populist demographic was not,
and should not be confused with, the “Tea Party”, although there
might have been some overlap in personnel. The latter was,
basically, a conservative movement within
the party; it made the country-club types uneasy, but they were
willing to tolerate and work with it. The Trump crowd, on the other
hand, makes the country-club types hold perfumed hankies up to their
patrician noses; they really are beyond the pale, and “not our
kind”. If the Tea Partiers were the county clubbers' churchgoing
cousins (you know, the kind with wrinkled suits and big hair), the
Trump crowd are all the black sheep of every Republican family rolled
into one. They're the equivalent of Cousin Mike, who shows up at the
family reunion on a Harley with a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon strapped
to the back seat.
And the reasons are not hard to understand. The
Republicans have been, as long as anyone can remember, the party of
the contented... the complacent... the smug... the satisfied... the
party of those who've made their pile and thus want nothing more than
to hold onto it and keep it out of the hands of the unwashed masses.
You can call it “conservatism” if by that you mean keeping things
just the way they are – with, perhaps, an occasional bone thrown to
the underclasses in order to keep them at bay (or at least confine
them to the Democrat-operated inner cities where they belong). (And
who says that it's only the Democrats who “need” the inner cities
with their captive constituents? The Republicans need them too, the
same way they need jails – to keep the proletariat contained.) But
this is conservatism with neither compassion nor principle; it's a
holding pattern, and it's phobic whenever confronted with actual
ideas (which is why the Tea Partiers were regarded as being a bit out
of control – because they actually had what amount to ideas in
these times of conceptual vapidity).
And
then along came Trump and his rabble army – and when you think
about it, they didn't necessarily even have to be Republicans. After
all, Trump and Bernie Sanders probably have more in common than Trump
and the mainstream Republicans. But aside from that, Trump is not,
after all, a man of ideas or of principles – to say nothing of
“theory”. He is, when you get right down to it, fairly pragmatic
in his goals, if vague as to the means of achieving them. He's not
much for slogans, and is certainly not interested in demagoguery of
the typical liberal/Democrat type, or bland speechifying of the
typical Republican type. Heck, he doesn't even talk in rhymes like
Jesse Jackson, or put on different accents depending on his audience,
like Hillary. If you get beyond the offhand remarks and quips (AKA
“gaffes”, according to the MSM – and why is it that when Biden
says crazy stuff, he's just good ol' Uncle Joe, whereas with Trump
it's taken as evidence of madness?), you find a lot of common sense –
and that is, in fact, what his supporters are looking for. They've
had the lifeblood sucked out of them by people with “ideas” for
decades now, and are just looking for someone who “gets it”, as
Trump seems to do. (And I don't mean “getting it” in the “I
feel your pain” sense, a la Bill Clinton, because it was obvious
that he didn't feel anyone's pain, and even if he had would not have
cared.) Plus, Trump has the added quality of being politically
incorrect, to the maximum extent possible without being literally
driven out of town (although he has come close at times). And this
is something that naturally appeals to anyone who considers
themselves a victim of political correctness. The old-time radical
goal of “épater
le bourgeois” -- shock
the middle classes – has taken on new life, and from an unexpected
quarter at that. Now it's not so much the middle classes per se that
need shocking (although that's also true) but the complacent subset
represented by the Republican Party mainstream. (And their
complacency is particularly puzzling considering that they have long
since lost the culture wars and most of the big bucks are going to
the Democrats. Which causes one to wonder, what's left? What do
they stand for, anyway? (I think the answer should be clear by
now.))
So
with all of this in mind, why is Trump so anathema to the Republican
establishment? Why are they openly plotting against him – openly
hoping he loses? Well, it's because he, basically, stole the
nomination – snatched it right out of their pale, limp, lifeless
hands. But they let him do it, and why was that? It was, basically,
to teach those populists – that rabble, that doesn't belong in the
party anyway – a damn good lesson: This is what happens when you
try to turn the party of complacency into some kind of “people's”
party... some kind of rag-tag outfit that talks about change, and
reform, and all that radical stuff. Another way of putting it is
that Trump is trying to turn the Republican Party into a Democratic
Party for the white working class – and that can't be allowed to
happen. (And yes, I know, the Democratic Party represented the white
working class for many years, but they decided at some point that
their fortunes lay more with the “rainbow coalition” -- a
multiplication of aggrieved minorities under the supervision of
“intellectuals”, academics, and media and Hollywood trend
setters. So the traditional Democrat constituency became orphans.
Some of them were corralled by Nixon with his “Southern
strategy”... others by Reagan... and now it's Trump's turn.)
The problem with all of this is that the Trump camp is a
minority within a minority. Not only do they not belong in the
Republican Party, but they are a minority in terms of power,
influence, and resources – even if they managed to exert themselves
sufficiently to get Trump nominated. And the Republicans, in turn,
are a minority party on the national level, simply because we have
gotten to the point where the takers outnumber the makers – the tax
receivers outnumber the tax payers. (And I don't hesitate to place
myself in the former category, since I'm on a civil service pension –
although I also pay taxes.) We have become, in short, a nation of
minorities, most of which are aggrieved, rebellious, and militant –
and thus easy pickings for the Democrats, who promise everything but
deliver next to nothing (but that doesn't seem to matter since it's
the “ideas” that count, and the Democrats are nothing if not the
party of ideas – invariably wrong, but ideas nonetheless). (You
can see this in the fact that while Obama has done so much for race
relations – ahem! -- all that really counts is his being “the
first black president”. And all that will really count for Hillary
is being “the first woman president”. Results? Let's not get
all hung up on that issue.) Ideas are fine things except when they
trump (no pun intended) reality.
So the demographics are against any Republican candidate
for president, even if they are not against all Republicans in all
Congressional districts, state houses, etc. The Republicans could
have nominated pretty much anyone to run against Hillary, and they
would, by now, be dead men (or women) walking, as is Trump. And
that's only pure demographics, and doesn't include the big-city
machines that have myriad ways of delivering votes to Democrats –
their age-old tactics now in overdrive with the advent of
computer-based voting machines. (If it has always been true that it
doesn't matter who votes, but who counts the votes, it is more true
now than ever.) (At least in the old days it took some considerable
physical effort to steal votes; now all you have to do is be in
charge of the software.)
The Republicans can “fight back” by concentrating on
Congressional races, governorships, state houses, etc. -- and they
are, after a fashion. Of course their default platform when it comes
to domestic policy is “we're almost as compassionate as the
Democrats” -- a sure-fire winner. And when it comes to foreign
policy, everyone is pretty much on the same sheet of music across the
spectrum – although Trump has come out against “nation building”,
which is sure to win him very few fans among the neocons who control
the Republican party and have great influence with the Democrats as
well. (This may, in fact, be his greatest sin as far as the Regime
is concerned – that he seems skeptical about the desirability of
expanding and maintaining the American Empire.)
The most recent candidate who represented a true choice
among the entire Republican-Democratic array was Ron Paul, and his
ideas are either 100 years behind the times or 100 years ahead; time
will tell. Rand Paul was a pale imitation at best; he got some
things right and other things as wrong as anyone else. Basically,
he's a good man but not an idea man, and if anything is going to
smash the two-party monopoly (which means a single ruling party with
two subdivisions) it's ideas – and not just the usual pap, but real
ideas with real consequences.
I should mention also that a prominent argument against
the idea that the Republicans allowed Trump to be nominated so that
he'll lose and discredit “right-wing populism” once and for all
is the Supreme Court issue. Put Hillary in for 8 years (she'll get
re-elected in 2020 even if she has to campaign from a hospital bed)
and we'll wind up with an iron-clad liberal Supreme Court for the
rest of the century, or something. (And BTW, if the rumors about her
health are even partly true, is she really going to last eight years?
Will I be putting up a blog post entitled “Citizen Kaine” at
some point? Time will tell.)
But when it comes to the Supreme Court argument, well...
for one thing, look at the success rate of Republican presidents when
it comes to Supreme Court appointments; most of them take about five
minutes after they don those heavy black robes to wander off the
reservation. But the main point is that the Republicans knew –
just knew, with absolute certainty – that they couldn't win the
presidency this year. So why not try and salvage at least some
advantage from what is shaping up to be a debacle? Why not teach
those populists a lesson and get rid of them (blaming them for losing the election, of course), and drive them back
into those trailer parks and mountain shacks where they belong? Then
the “nice”, well-behaved people can take over the party again,
and... what? Continue to suck up to the Democrats, even when they
are in the majority in Congress? Probably. It's what they do best.
No comments:
Post a Comment