A couple of posts ago in my post on Zeitgeist (
click here), I mentioned the phenomenon surrounding Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump as a sign of the times, as these two individuals have in a very diverse way touched a nerve with the people of the United States. My hope was that they would bring about a more honest approach to the political spectacle that is every presidential election.
This past week Fox News conducted what was promoted as the first Republican debate of the election season. Ten of the seventeen candidates were chosen to "debate" each other in prime time, but as it turned out, it was anything but a rigorous debate. It was more an exposition on the supposed weaknesses each candidate would likely have to address if and when debating the assumed Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton.
Donald Trump was center stage, both physically and metaphorically. I'm not a Fox News fan, nor am I a Republican, but I (as I presume many who watched were) was drawn to what proved to be the spectacle it became. I suspected Donald Trump would be the main event and would take center stage. No disappointment there whatsoever, but what fascinated me was the response he received from some of his more "Donald" moments, for a lack of better term. I paid attention to not only what he said but also how he said things. The audience was a spectacle in its own right. In many ways the audience's reaction to Mr. Trump was more disturbing than Donald Trump acting as Donald Trump.
What I find fascinating is that Donald Trump is, for the most part, an honest man; in that, what you see and hear is what you'll be getting if he becomes the nominee. He's a great marketer, who has the business acumen to know how to exploit a market when he sees one. As I have mentioned in other posts there is a notion that the more outrageous one is there are those who will find it immensely attractive and will believe whatever outrageous thing is being put forth to be factual simply because someone who is saying it repeatedly and unashamedly in public and on-line knows that sooner or later it will be considered by less examining minds to be the true. Such people are part of what I call the Anger-Fear Market.
THE ANGER-FEAR MARKET
For the most part, people who make up the Anger-Fear market that Mr. Trump has tapped into are largely people, from what I can tell, who have very little to be angry and fearful about. This market appears to be composed of people who have bought into an ideology (largely created by the social conservatives that make up the Tea Party branch of the Republican Party) that the idealistic life-style they believe they're have and are entitled to is in some way being threatened.
They say they love this country, tote the flag, and then blame the government for all their perceived woes. In many ways the angry/fearful ideology they have subscribed to has been cultivated, haphazardly, by the very social conservative politicians that make up the congressional branch of the government they love to be angry at. I suspect most are not suffering at all, but have bought into the notion that they are suffering in some way or will likely suffer at some point down the proverbial road.
I suspect that, in general, they are largely comfortable with their incomes, their private or company health insurance policies, their pensions, social security, Medicare and can afford the luxury of complaining about things they don't need, but would take advantage of in a heart-beat because... well... they have it coming to them. They deserve everything they can get from the government they are angry at and fear.
What they don't like is what they see the overreach of government, particularly in the form of the Executive and Judicial branches of government. They don't like change sneaking into their backyards, as they see it as a threat to their way of life. They are prone to believe that their tax dollars are being spent on unworthy causes; causes that don't directly impact their lives. They subscribe to the idea that they should see their tax dollars at work particularly in the their own backyards.
This market is composed of stalwart evangelical types who are vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act, or anything that they see as a government hand out that they are not getting. Of course not everyone in this market will fit these generalized descriptions, but they all seem to share a secret fear that is expressed in the words, "You're not entitled to...."
It makes them downright angry that those they consider as lazy, lay-abouts (otherwise known as the poor, homeless, and unemployed) are getting something for nothing. They see no need for welfare programs and despise immigrants who will work for little or nothing and do the jobs they wouldn't think of doing. They have bought the notion that our country has been weakened by such handouts and by foreign diplomacy which they largely consider pandering. They are more than willing to listen to anyone who has a self-made person story to tell and believe that might makes right.
Enters Mr. Trump
THE WANNABE SYNDROME
What resonates so strongly with those who are willing to vote for Mr. Trump is that they see in him a sense of their own entitlement that he so eagerly displays. They are displaying the classic symptoms of the Wannabe Syndrome. It seems to me, at least, that Mr. Trump really doesn't share many of the views of those in this market place. He doesn't have to. Rather what he possesses is a language they understand - the language of anger and fear as expressed in derogatory and diminutive remarks.
In some ways, I think they see in his apparent brand of bravura, to call things the way he sees them, to fire those who don't do what he wants, to contribute to the political campaigns of politicians of both parties so that they do his bidding (his words), to manipulate the legal system ( as in his explanation of his own dealing with bankruptcy) in order to bolster his personal business interest with no regret over those who lost vast sums of money, a surrogate change-maker in the ways of politics. What they like most is his ability speak his mind without compunction, because they would like to garner the attention he does and who find in his brash mannerisms a vicarious experience. In other words, Mr. Trump's approach is filling an emotional need at the moment for those in this market.
He comes across as the angry American, who will fix our political system just like they want it fixed, although he has yet to say how he would fix it. He brandishes political incorrectness as being the new politically correct. His form of diplomacy is to call people names, use crude and insulting remarks to any and all who oppose him. His version of Theodore Roosevelt's maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is to forgo the stick and just call them names. It works for him and it will work for the country. For the moment, those in the Anger-Fear market are eating it up.
Reading this market correctly, Mr. Trump was able to do what others in the past have done when accessing this market, which is to find scapegoats to blame all the perceived evils and woes on. Mr. Trump recognized this angst on their part and has quickly capitalized on it. That was his "in" to the political arena, and he grabbed it with relish. He was able with little or no convincing evidence to make a case that illegal Mexican immigrants and by extension, the Mexican government, are the problem to most of our economic and social woes.
BINGO!
Mr. Trump is now crediting himself for getting the Republican Party on task with this all important issue of his choosing.
IRONY
What I find interesting is that those who are trumpeting Mr. Trump at the moment do not appear to be listening to what he is saying. The only thing they seem to have heard is "Illegal Mexican immigrants." It also seems they are more attracted to the angry tonality of his voice and his choice of words than to what he is actually saying or not saying. What I find ironic is what they seem to like about him most is exactly what they will point out as being wrong in others outside of their market place; such as, not being forthright with information, of displaying a sense of entitlement, and overreach.
It is an interesting phenomenon of human behavior to be attracted to very thing one fears most, to try to enlist it as a means to combat it. Fighting fire with fire rarely, if ever, works within the domain of human behavior. I don't know how many times we have to get burnt to learn this lesson. Humans are funny that way, and history has proven our proclivity to behave this way by finding the strong man who we believe will do our bidding by doing his bidding. I certainly don't need to find examples for you. You can figure them out on your own. History is full of them.
Mr. Trump has enough business and political sense to avoid showing his hand to the other contenders or his would-be supporters. Right now, he doesn't have to. Specific plans and approaches to governing are missing from most every candidates presentations. As such, I suspect he will continue to be vague as to the details of any plan he has for governing this country for as long as possible.
I suspect Mr. Trump will continue to keep his honest brash style and will not see a need to apologize for being vague and non-specific or for being rude and crude. I'm not sure how long this type of honesty will serve him, but I have no doubt he will try to find a way to use it to his advantage.
What is yet to be seen is if Mr. Trump understands the United States Constitution and can actually abide with a division of power. I don't see him as one being comfortable with sharing the stage or sharing power at the level imposed by our nation's Constitution.
One of his supporters said the reason she likes and supports Mr. Trump is that the government is like a corporation and should be run like one. The United States Government is not a private corporation. He's not going to be able to fire those elected to congress or those appointed to the Supreme Court. As the president he will have to take an oath to support the Constitution. It won't be something he can opt out of.
HOLDING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HOSTAGE
Speaking of opting out, perhaps the most ridiculous moment in the Fox News debate was at the very start. Mr. Trump has made it clear that he would not rule out a third party bid for the presidency if things didn't bode well for him in a Republican Party bid. He made this clear long before the debate.
To ask all the candidates on the stage whether they would support whoever the republican party nominated and not run as a third party candidate was squarely aimed at Mr. Trump. It was extremely obvious. "Poor form" is all I can say.
What did Fox News expect - that they could strong arm Mr. Trump into making that commitment or that if he honestly (as he did) remain noncommittal they would, in some way, make him less appealing to those in the Angry-Fear Market?
If so, it backfired tremendously as he exhibited in true Trump fashion his blatant, in-your-face approach of reiterating that he not only would consider the possibility of a third party run, but the likelihood of doing so if he is not the Republican nominee.
Fox News and the Republican partly certainly do not know this market very well, even though they helped create it.
In my opinion, the more potent question that was asked of Mr. Trump, later in the "debate," was whether he was a Republican given his previous support of things Republican's don't normally like. I felt that question made his "honesty" waver as he vaguely answered that he changed his mind about things. He sort of waffled a bit.
For the moment, Mr. Trump has the Republican Party where he wants it, enthralled in the fear it helped foster.
If Mr. Trump decides to run a third party, I would not be surprised if one or two of those who shared the stage that night might try courting him to be his running mate. Loyalty can dissipate quickly if one has nothing to gain by remaining loyal. If you watched the "debate," you can probably figure out who would fit that category and who might want to tag along on Mr. Trump's coat-tails should he leave the party.
The Republican Party has been for far too long reliant on negative one-liners to keep their followers attracted or distracted. They have bet their political future and the future of this country to wordsmiths to come up with fear mongering rhetoric to keep their constituency on line and to appeal to those who are fearful of anything resembling a government takeover. Terms like I used above, "Waffling" is part of their lexicon, I believe. Republicans, for the most part, don't like wafflers. If you say something you better stick to it. The fear of being labeled a waffler has undoubtedly prevented some from demonstrating the type of productive critical thinking needed in government.
They have turned "Washington" to a catchword for everything wrong with government, yet they will do anything and say anything to get to Washington. They tout the phrase "Big government" as the problem and in doing so are subliminally advocating that "government by the people and for the people" be turned into "government by the few for the few."
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is a master of the one-word zinger, mostly crude and inappropriate. His unabashed use of inappropriate, crude remarks has upstaged, for the moment, the one-liners that Republicans have used effectively in the past. His crassness is making their crassness look lame. In a sense, they are reaping what they have sown and have met their match.
I can honestly say I miss the true conservative voice in the United States, one that is intelligent and reasoned. Such voices exist, but are too often "trumped" by those whose rhetoric fosters anger and fear. We need to hear more reasoned explanations why something is good or isn't good for this country in terms that avoid divisiveness, that extend beyond sound-bytes, and that promote the common good for the citizens of this country and the world. I also realize this is easier said than done.
We have suffered a long, sad day in this country at the hands of politicians appealing to the crudest of mentalities in this country. Putting aside the unabashed crudeness of Mr. Trump's "blood" remarks about Megyn Kelly, other appeals to the crude mentality made by Republican candidates include grinding up cell phones, burning tax codes, and frying bacon with an automatic weapon.
While historians will tell us that such vitriol has always been a part of the election process in this country, I also think we are living in a far different age where such vitriol spreads with the speed of light to millions and that within those millions are those who will see such shenanigans as the message they can and will emulate. This is how the anger-fear market was created in the first place.
If the Republican Party plans on supporting Mr. Trump solely because they fear a third party run by him, which they openly predicted will result in a sure defeat of their nominee in the 2016 presidential election, they would do well to take a page from Mr. Trump's own strategy book and get honest about who they are and what they wish to present to this country because, right now, the Republican Party is looking very, very weak (to use a Trumpism) with seventeen candidates who are all over the page and who will undoubtedly be at each others political throats in the not too distant future.
I suspect if Mr. Trump were in charge of the Republican Party, he would undoubtedly have fired the likes of himself (the uncontrollable rogue element in the system) long ago and cut their loses now as a way to recoup before 2016 rolls around. Mr. Trump is not one to waste time on hope or take a wait and see approach. I'm not sure why the Republican national committee is.
I don't wish either the Republican Party or Mr. Trump ill. They are engaged in the murkiest of political processes, the primary election process. I'm not sure what the Republican Party stands for. I have a much clearer picture as to what it stands against.
As for Mr. Trump, he is who he is. Mr. Trump does not appear willing to take orders from anybody.
The question I would ask the Republican Party is if it is willing to be ordered about by Mr. Trump?
Whether Mr. Trump stays with the Republican Party or goes on his own, he is poised to reap some benefit and he knows it or he wouldn't have engaged in this process in the first place.
The reality is Mr. Trump is a party unto himself who has tapped into a voting market created by the Republican Party. If the Republican Party can live with that, who am I to judge. So be it. Such is the political drama of a presidential election.
Whatever happens in 2016, I hope the Republican Party eventually straightens itself out for the good of this country.
Until next time, stay faithful.
