How Trump Happened

Today's NY Times editorial opinion section has an article worth reading by
Luigi Zingales who foresaw Trump's rise to an election win five years ago.  He based his prediction then on his own experience in Italy of enduring nine years of Silvio Berlusconi.  Zingales saw a couple parallels in the rise of the two popular demagogues.  In both cases he observed that the opposition spent way too much time attacking the character of their opponent and expended far to little energy in developing and communicating a vision for the future based on issues of importance to the voters.  In both cases, the opposition underestimated the desire of the voters to expel what they perceived to be a corrupt, elite establishment.

I think Zingales' analysis is pretty good, though I also think he gets on shaky ground starting with his title of "The Right Way to Resist Trump" and going on to suggest that Democrats should look for opportunities to work with Trump to undercut some of the Republican agenda.  His idea that Democrats need to look for new, younger leaders does seem like wise counsel.

In spite of the ongoing disaster of the elections, I think it is not at all certain that the leaders of the Democratic Party are going to be able to admit the fundamental errors that Zingales points to and to take the appropriate actions.  There are clearly going to be some changes in the top levels of leadership, but some of the likely replacement leaders look a lot like what came before them.

What Democrats need to acknowledge, I think, is that Trump and Obama got into office for some of the same reasons.  Both men were seen initially as outsiders who would shake up the establishment.  Obama seemed to make some progress in a few areas like health care, but he undercut his own strength by relying on appointees like Clinton who voters saw as representing an establishment who talked a better game than they delivered.  Republicans are certainly not immune to the same mistakes, but Trump's choices for Cabinet members and advisors -- however disgusting they may be to many -- may actually give him enough credibility with his current followers to condemn the country to two terms of Trumpism.

Bernie in New Mexico

There was a good turnout today for Bernie Sanders' speech in front of the Student Union Building at the University of New Mexico. (2000 attended according to the Albuquerque Journal report)

Bernie expressed his appreciation for how effectively Trump had illustrated the need for reform of the U.S. Tax system.  The rest of the presentation was pretty much the standard stump speech which we have now heard many times, but it was reassuring to hear the strength and clarity of Bernie's voice.  If Clinton can bring along a Senate majority, Bernie will have a significant say in what the Budget looks like for the next four years.

The Wrong Message

Three weeks from the election it appears that Clinton is heading for a win.  Pundits and pollsters may disagree over whether the outcome will be a squeaker or a landslide, but it seems that it would take something of a cataclysm to move Trump into the lead.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, Republicans are faced with a daunting effort to rebuild the Republican brand and bring together a very divided party to regain viability.  In the short term, the Republicans in office are focused on holding onto their congressional majorities at the national and state levels.  A clear path to a winning long-term strategy is not in the offering at the moment, but it seems that most of the Republican leaders outside of the die-hard Trumpists have a pretty clear view of the future's challenges.

A Clinton win will offer a sigh of relief and a brief respite from concerns about judicial  appointments and other liberal causes, but there is a serious danger of misinterpreting the results of the Presidential contest.  Democrats are aware of the fact that winning the Presidency will have little effective value if congressional majorities are not regained, and that picture remains very unclear at this point.  The less obvious internal threat long-term is from interpreting a Clinton win as an endorsement from the electorate of the status quo.

Bernie supporters won't have a hard time discerning that is the wrong message from a Clinton win.  However, the Democratic Party establishment is going to have a more difficult time coming to grips with that reality if their candidate takes office, regardless of Hillary's obvious vulnerabilities and the strong showing of the opposition in the primaries.

Looking at congressional races around the country it is pretty clear that most of the Democratic incumbents are playing the usual game with a focus on party loyalty and traditional fund raising tactics with acceptance of support from deep pocket contributors including banks and big energy.  What portion of the next generation leaders remain tied to those strategies is hard to gauge.  A second term for Clinton seems pretty iffy under even the best circumstances, and if the Democratic leadership does not effectively acknowledge the demand for significant change, it seems inevitable that the Democrats will face the same kind of meltdown in 2020 that the Republicans are going through now.

The second tier parties are also facing a moment of truth.  The Libertarians under Johnson do not have enough of a platform to sustain a serious assault on power.  Jill Stein is a more credible spokesperson for her Green Party, but pouring all of her energy into a quixotic run for the Presidency seems to lead nowhere.  Still, there are going to be some big prizes flapping in the wind including Trump's gang, Bernie's democratic socialists and the great, little understood mass of people called Independents.

Interesting times.

So, here we are...

The day of the first Presidential debate.  Going out a bit on a limb, I'm predicting that Trump will be widely seen as the debate winner.  The debate format works against a reasonable discussion about issues; it is all about one-liners and character attacks.  Hence, an environment favorable to a circus performer like Trump.  Of course, Hillary is a tough campaigner, and she will have around ninety minutes to rattle Trump's cage.  Judging by her past performances, however, it seems unlikely she will set the place on fire.

It was fun during the primaries to watch the Republican establishment try to come to grips with the Trump phenomenon.  I suggested then that the best strategy for Trump's Republican opponents was to back Hillary.  It seemed an obvious alternative.  If elected, Clinton is unlikely to rock the boat significantly.  And, with what would amount to an Obama third term and small Democratic congressional gains, the Republicans would be able to go on playing their same obstructionist game at the Federal level while further tightening their grip on State Houses.

Quite a few main-line Republicans adopted my suggested strategy to back Clinton.  However, as Trump's candidacy became increasingly viable, a strategic change got under way among the Republican leadership.  The big shots may not be singing praises to Trump, but the party machine is backing him.  The Republicans in office are seeing the possibility that Trump could take office, and speaking out against him at this point raises a clear risk of being out of the loop following a Trump victory.

Of course, nobody in their right mind thinks Trump would be a competent President.  He is wholly inexperienced in techniques of governance and ignorant about any of the important issues.  Being a bully with money got him the nomination, but that is not going to work for the daily challenge of running the country.  So, what is the Republican establishment thinking will happen with Trump in the oval office?

My guess is that they are preparing for two scenarios.  The first would be something along the lines of the Bush presidency.  People who have some experience and competence in governance will be moved into key positions, much as Cheney took over foreign affairs and energy policy.  Trump would then be free to occupy a largely ceremonial role as chief cheer leader -- provided, that is, that he could actually exercise some self control and not completely go off the rails.  Even without those not unlikely missteps Trump's mere presence as chief of state will create a world of uncertainty.  Other world leaders, reacting to Trump's unpredictability will take actions based on fears or perceived advantage which will create some truly terrifying international crises.  It is not hard to imagine, for instance, that Putin will see Trump's ascendancy as an opportunity to undertake an immediate invasion of Ukraine.

The other scenario likely envisioned by the Republican leadership is impeachment.  Even without the likely foreign policy or economic disasters to be expected from a Trump presidency, it will likely not be hard to find some pretext for kicking the clown out of office, and it certainly would not be hard to put together a bipartisan effort to do the deed.  The outcome of a successful impeachment would be a President Pence.  So, now the Republicans have someone in office who has the skills and experience to enact the Republican agenda -- moving the Supreme Court back to the right, stalling climate change action, supporting big energy, big pharma and big banks, and solidifying the blockade of women's rights.  Etc.

---------------

The next day:

Trump turned in a poor performance.  I don't know that will lose him any votes among his current supporters.  My sense is that they see Trump as what they might be if only they could win the lottery -- still ignorant and inarticulate, but insanely rich.

Still with Bernie

picture from newyorker.com

Bernie Sanders endorsed Clinton before the convention and he reiterated that support in his speech last night, to the consternation of many of his supporters.  What I think is important to bear in mind is that his backing of his primary opponent has not been the result of any expectation of personal gain.  Think for a moment about the contrast with the Republican convention where people like Christie, and Rubio sacrificed their honor to kowtow to a man whom they had previously scorned.

Sanders is not looking for a job in the Clinton administration.  He clearly is sticking with his positions on the economy, on education and on election reform.  He is backing Clinton in spite of reservations about her entanglement with Wall Street, Big Pharma and Big Energy because he sees the Trump alternative as unthinkable.  Whatever the outcome of the November election, I foresee Sanders continuing with his revolutionary agenda, and he has in fact announced that intention immediately following his convention appearance.

It is not hard to understand the disappointment of Sanders supporters who worked hard in his campaign and who now are faced with the additional slap in the face from the revelations stemming from the hacked DNC emails.  Nevertheless, it seems risky to the point of recklessness to resort to abstention or support of a third party candidate in the name of ideological purity.  The idea that dealing a fatal blow now to the admittedly corrupted two-party system will ultimately lead to a progressive triumph is a bet with very long odds.

Even with the best and brightest in some top elective positions, governance of a country the size of the United States is mind-bogglingly difficult and complex.  The tipping point between success and failure of any agenda is always fraught with a near infinitude of variables.  A very good example of this is provided in a New Yorker article by Connie Bruck, Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantánamo.  In spite of the implications of the article's title, I think what it demonstrates best is the incredible inertia in the country's vast political system which constrains even the most rational changes.  Given that level of  fragility in our political system, it seems all too certain that handing Trump any chance to  flood the government with his gang of thugs is an irresponsible choice.

So, did you watch it?

I tuned in when Giuliani was at the podium.  He did a pretty good rendition of the power-mad super villain in a B-grade James Bond parody.  Lots of shouting, arm waving and pointing at himself as he said what he did for New York, Donald Trump would do for the country.  The PBS panel cut away in the midst of his speech to try to make sense of the moment; they all looked embarrassed to be there.

The playbook highlight of the night was an infomercial delivered by Mrs. Trump about her husband, proclaiming him kind and loyal while being tough when needed.  She said that if granted the privilege to become first lady she would concentrate on helping women, children and the poor.  Presumably, she has the resources available to identify poor people, but one has to wonder how interested they will be in beauty and fashion.  A lot will be riding on the quality of the hors d'oeuvres. (The Guardian video nailed it.)

The delegate audience started heading for the doors as Mrs. Trump was wrapping up her contribution.  General whatshisname stood up straight and looked stern while delivering a content-free speech with a few "USA" thrown in with no exclamation mark, and a deflated over-the-shoulder response by the departing delegates.

It was all a reminder, if one is needed, that in the daily course of events authoritarian, fascist regimes are excruciatingly dull.  They ultimately have to torture and kill to make themselves seem interesting.

Backing Bernie

I have made some small donations in the past to environmental causes, but this is the first time that I have contributed money to an individual political candidate.  My thirty bucks went to support the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

I like Sanders' focus on wealth and income inequality and his proposed remedies.  His proposals for reforming health care and education if enacted would put the U.S. back into a position of leadership in the developed world rather than bringing up the rear as is now the case..

Of equal importance to all the other policy proposals is Sanders' demand that the distortions of the democratic process caused by big money be eliminated.  Sanders is the only major party candidate who has turned away super pacs in favor of small donors, and he has mounted a credible challenge to all the rest who have not found the courage to follow his lead.

While it is widely agreed that the Supreme Court decision on campaign financing has undermined popular democracy, it should also be recognized that the decision does not require any candidate to accept super pac support.  There are clearly great hurdles to turning back the lure of big money to campaigns via legislative channels, but it seems given Sanders' example that it would be much more productive to simply demand of any candidates for office that they reject super pac funding.