GOP Honcho: A Contradiction in Terms
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Barring a miracle, it would appear that our next presidential race will
be between two of the three most loathsome candidates on offer from
the primaries. (Bernie Sanders will provide us a much-needed
dose of comic relief from here on out.) As polling indicated
beforehand, Trump won the Indiana primary last night, and this had
been regarded as the best shot Ted Cruz had of denying him an outright
majority of pledged delegates at the GOP convention. This development,
as unfortunate as it is for advocates of limited government, was
predictable, as I noted
over the weekend:
The bad news is that we're talking about the Republican Party here. This party has failed for decades to stand up to the Democrats because it offers no positive case for freedom. No wonder a bully like Trump saw an opportunity and stormed in. He will (and has been) responding to the above possibility [of a brokered convention] by claiming that the party's rules are "rigged" against him although the opposite case is more arguable. Will the party stand up to this by sticking to its guns or will it capitulate? I think the odds are higher of the latter, but would welcome the former as a sign that there is some hope for the GOP.This is doubly true now, since the only thing standing between us and a Trump-Clinton race, is for the spineless GOP establishment to assert its own right to name the party's nominee. But that establishment long ago abandoned the idea of rights and chose "power" instead, as if "winning" with Trump will advance the agenda it has paid weak lip service to for so long. As witness, see the following, from a piece about the Indiana results:
But what devalued the Indiana contest were days of coverage on how the members of a crumbling Republican establishment were reluctantly embracing Trump, or at least resigning themselves to his nomination.Yes. The GOP establishment is this bankrupt. At least we know it now.
The papers were filled with quotes from GOP honchos saying they wanted to avoid a contested convention, that it was time for the party to unify, and that maybe Trump wasn't so bad after all. Reporters tracked down Cruz delegates who said they were thinking of switching to Trump.
Regarding Sanders, as deluded as he is, Donald Trump would, if elected, pave the way for him or someone much worse, given how many millennials have no idea what capitalism is, and will assume that the blathering pugilist soon to bear the GOP standard represents that unknown ideal.
-- CAV
Updates
Today: Inserted a couple of missing words.
6 comments:
They are unlikely to actually win with Trump. In fact they could end up losing a lot of other downstream races because of Trump. Asserting their right to choose their nominee would actually be in their self interest which they are clearly too bankrupt and corrupt to do.
There is no doubt the media played a big role in this too. They are at least as corrupt as the politicians if not more so and Trump got loads of free coverage. It wasn’t so much that they were in the tank for Trump (some definitely were) but simply the amount of coverage compared to the other candidates gave him a definite advantage.
If it wasn’t for the fact that I suspect that Hillary may have committed treason, she would be the best candidate left. How sad is that?
‘blathering pugilist’
I like that expression, though not the actual pugilist.
Steve,
You're absolutely right about the downstream races. Trump's "new people" aren't Republicans, and many Republican voters will be inclined to stay home.
I'd say she still is the "best" candidate left, despite the possibility of treason: She will, over time galvanize Republican opposition and perhaps the resulting "gridlock" will buy more time for positive cultural and political change.
Regarding that phrase, thanks. I was about to call him a blithering idiot, but decided that was just an insult and that the second word was perhaps not true. This evokes the former, but has the virtue of being both original and true.
Gus
I agree; sort of. A massive defeat might shock the Republicans into....well I am not quite sure what, but it couldn't hurt. However if Trump loses a close contest (which I think will be the case), I don't think they will learn anything. It might also give pause to all those real fascists who I am sure are sitting out there right now, watching how Trump works the crowds, taking notes.
A massive exodus to a third party(s) might have the same shock effect but to both parties. There are already indications that might happen. Gary Johnson is already over 10% in some polls.
She may galvanize opposition. This assumes there are enough of them around after the blood bath to make a difference.
What none of this will do of course is trigger any real positive cultural change or make people rethink their world views and examine their premises.
Steve,
I think there's a big risk of the GOP learning to be more nationalistic, rather than more principled about capitalism.
Gus
Excellent and clarifying point Gus. It firmly places Sanders and Trump as opposite sides of the same coin. (nationalism vs. socialism)
Steve,
Interestingly, I saw a leftist worrying this morning that Trump would find a way to appeal to Sanders' disaffected voters. I'm not sure he will, but that would be interesting, in a morbid way, if he succeeded.
Trump and Sanders are ideologically both collectivists, but their followers react emotionally to different-enough things that I don't see them lining up for the other respective candidate. It's a little like the way religious fundamentalists are similar epistemologically, but never see eye to eye and would kill each other off if they get the chance.
Gus
Post a Comment