As Republicans and Democrats in the US go through the long process of selecting a nominee for next year’s presidential election, both parties face the same question. Will the anti-establishment — even anti-political — mood now dominating the contest last?
For once, Labor Day (the first Monday in September) was not the presidential race’s demarcation point: The overall themes had already been set. Revulsion at government and traditional politicians hit the presidential contest like a tornado in the summer, flattening the campaigns of some who were once seen as serious contenders.
Among Republicans this sentiment is, of course, no surprise, given their party’s steady rightward drift and consistent antipathy toward US President Barack Obama. However, it suited a wealthy, noisy braggart who barreled into the race attacking conventional politicians as “stupid” and insisting that he alone could get things done.
Those who wrote off Donald Trump as a “buffoon” failed to see that he has shrewdly read the Republican zeitgeist, and that he knows precisely where to stick the knife into competitors. His depiction of former Florida governor Jeb Bush as a man of “low energy” has done real damage to a candidate whom many had assumed — even before he formally entered the race — would be the favorite.
“The Donald” (no one has better name recognition than the former TV personality) has pitched his appeal both to American patriotism and the country’s dark side. His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is aimed at those who are frustrated that the US can no longer impose its will on an increasingly confusing world. For them, and for Trump, Obama is to blame: He does not stand up to foreign leaders (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might disagree); he withdrew from Iraq too soon (though the timetable was set by his Republican predecessor); he even “apologizes” for the US.
Trump plays to the US’ persistent veins of racism and nativism: he vows somehow to round up and deport some 11 million undocumented aliens and fortify America’s border with Mexico by building a wall — paid for by Mexico. His striking narcissism (everything he does is “outstanding, great, terrific, the best”) is both his trademark and his policy.
In the middle of last month, as Trump’s poll numbers rose even after public statements that would have brought down mere mortal candidates, it dawned on pundits that he was no summer infatuation. It became evident that he might win the first nominating contest, the Iowa caucuses, and that he was leading in the second, New Hampshire, and other states. It was no longer laughable to say that he could be the Republican nominee.
However, the “anti-system” mood of this election campaign is not confined to the Republicans. US Senator Bernie Sanders the socialist and Trump the plutocrat are addressing much the same impulse. Speaking in clear, declarative sentences, Sanders sets forth an idealistic conception of government policy that appeals to a great many people on the growing left of the Democratic Party.
By contrast, Jeb Bush and the Democrats’ presumed nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, embody traditional politics. Both come across as focus-grouped, packaged, and cautious, whereas Trump and Sanders are seen by their followers as “telling it like it is.”
Sanders appeals to the popular frustration with the compromises made by the US’ leaders, including the centrist former president Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton, trying to straddle the divide between the two wings of the Democratic Party, is increasingly leaning to the left as Sanders draws enormous crowds, something she has yet to accomplish. Moreover, her campaign is struggling to escape the quagmire produced by revelations that she conducted official business on a private e-mail server during her tenure as Obama’s secretary of state.
Meanwhile, Trump’s appeal among Republicans is across the board: moderates and conservatives, college-educated, Evangelicals, men and women. It also includes white supremacists: in June Trump was endorsed by The Daily Stormer, the US’ largest neo-Nazi “news” Web site. When two far-right activists in Boston beat a homeless Latino man, with one saying that they had acted in Trump’s name, the candidate commented that some of his followers are “passionate.” A poll of Trump supporters found that 66 percent believe that Obama is a Muslim, and 61 percent that he was not born in the US (a claim that Trump continued to trumpet long after it had been disproved).
Trump’s closest Republican rival, renowned neurosurgeon Ben Carson, also has no political experience and says outlandish things. However, Carson says them quietly, which might be why his favorability rating in Iowa is higher than that of his Republican competitors (pulling even with Trump in one poll). For example, Carson has said that people enter prison as heterosexuals and come out gay; that the US is like Nazi Germany in suppressing ideas and opponents; and that the president need not enforce the US Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision legalizing gay marriage.
Trump and Carson, along with two other candidates running as political outsiders — Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive officer Carly Fiorina — currently account for about 60 percent of support among Iowa Republicans. Bush and the rest of the field, including Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio — all one-time darlings of the political press — are floundering. To recover ground, some, especially Walker, have fallen into the trap of trying to out-Trump Trump.
However, there is only one Trump, and his candidacy is causing conniptions on the part of Republican Party officials, particularly given his campaign’s open hostility toward Latinos. Following Obama’s re-election in 2012, Republican leaders commissioned a study that showed that the party’s nominee will have to win more Latino votes than ever to win the White House. There is scant chance of that if Trump is the party’s standard-bearer.
So far, Trump has defied the laws of political gravity. It remains possible that his candidacy will crash as some of his rivals drop out and leave their supporters (and wealthy backers) to crystallize around someone they see as a more viable alternative. That would be a relief to Republican Party leaders, who recently obtained Trump’s vow (easily undone) not to mount an independent presidential campaign should he fail to win the party’s nomination.
In the meantime, both party establishments have reason to be nervous. With Sanders now polling well ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, serious commentators have begun speculating that Americans will ultimately be asked to choose between Sanders and Trump.
Elizabeth Drew is a political journalist and author.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS