Trump: The Wrong Kind Of Outsider

Trump: The Wrong Kind Of Outsider

Donald Trump barked his way through a mire of intangible promises on the campaign trail. His appeal however resonated with the public’s general perception of him as an agent of change; a man, who in his own words, would ‘drain the swamp.’ As we have seen in the past few weeks however, he is doing anything but this. The nominations of Wall Street fat cats Steven Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross to Secretary of Treasury and Commerce, Rick Perry to Secretary of Energy, and Jeff Sessions to Attorney General, among other malevolent choices, have made it clear that the billionaire will be anything but a champion of the blue-collar Americans he courted. In this respect, he is therefore already a ‘failed’ president.

Last week, Bernie Sanders entered what might have seemed to many, the lion’s den, participating in a town-hall discussion with Trump supporters. What became abundantly clear from this Kenosha, Wisconsin talk was that the people there, who had suffered grave unemployment levels, were not in the least bit willing to be coalesced by the Clinton/establishment machine. Many would have chosen Bernie if he had been on the ticket. Politics, for the most part, did not influence their decision. What did was the deep and troubling realization that Washington, in its current state, would never cater for them. One of the gravest mistakes the mainstream media has made this year (and there have been many) is to conflate these peoples’ ideals with those of Trump’s. His supporters were for the most part never proponents of such ridiculous schemes as the Mexican Wall. They did believe however that this election could break the cycle of the past. After all, what would it be like to have an outsider in the White House? Hmmm…

584f56613268f-image

Forty years ago, America did exactly that, with perhaps its most honest and earnest president ever, Jimmy Carter. The 39th President’s tenure was hardly a smooth road (to put it lightly) but it was undoubtedly a diversion from what came before and what would follow. For example, he conducted himself with an air of modesty, you wouldn’t even expect of state politicians, by carrying his own suitcase, enrolling his daughter Amy in a public school, and refusing the playing of the ‘Star Sprangled Banner’ for his arrival at functions. He led by example, when conducting policy, turning the air conditioning off to promote energy conservation whilst opting for a sweater when things got cold. He spoke candidly and took the blame when he felt it was deserved, addressing the nation on a ‘Crisis of Confidence’ in July of 1979. He also refused to bow to the whims of the Democratic Party, whose power was consolidated in Congress, but whose aspirations did not always meet in tandem with his idea of a fiscally responsible nation. In the end, he was punished with defeat, largely for his inability to solve the Iranian Hostage Crisis but also for his refusal, in many respects, to play the establishment game. Outsiders are necessary, every once in awhile, for the sake of shaking Washington up but as President Clinton, came to understand in 1994, compromise is essential too. So what happens then, when the so-called ‘outsider’ decides to compromise on this vision before his inauguration has even taken place?

1976-jimmy-carter

Populism drove the course of this election. Sometimes it can be a good thing. It gives way to new ideas or revitalizes issues lost within the course of a specified agenda. This happened with New Labor in Britain in 1997 during the era of ‘Cool Britannia,’ when Tony Blair helped recapture a country bogged down by over 17 years of Thatcherite policies. Sometimes, if unchecked, it can go terribly wrong however. For example, to step outside the election process, let’s take a look at the explosion of patriotism that blossomed in the wake of 9/11 (something we addressed briefly in our last piece). Whilst America’s critics remained, their voices were largely subdued. This gave way for Bush to instill his ineptly named ‘War on Terror’ on the world, pass the Patriot Act, and launch two wars. Before Congress, when he declared that nations must decide ‘whether they [were] with’ America or against them, applause rang across Washington. It was pretty disgraceful but populism drove the rational mind to cowardice amidst an atmosphere built on hate and American pride. Bush was an insider but he and his team knew how to capitalize on this bulwark of emotion. Carter did too, within a different context and Trump does now, within his.

00ed76bf00000190-0-image-m-34_1422981673190

‘Populism’ is not necessarily a bad thing, if you take it to mean ‘pleasing all the people all of the time’ as Tony Blair so ambitiously hoped to do nearly twenty years ago. Its specific intent must always be checked however. Carter sought to break with the past and restore a moral sense of authority to America. In my opinion, with no lies put forward and no shots fired in four years, he did that. Bush used it, at an opportune time, to drive forward a domestic and foreign policy. Trump, it seems, has taken the people of America’s most desperate hopes and fears, and twisted them to project an image of authenticity in his own name. He is, within one sense, an ‘outsider’ because he lacks the political know-how to do his job. (He also doesn’t look like most humans.) His administration will however not be revolutionary in this vein. It will more likely resemble a Bush II presidency, pumped up with right-wing steroids and of course, gaffes galore.

 

The Left’s Chance To Take America

The Left’s Chance To Take America

2016 has been a dark year. We not only lost the man behind “Purple Rain,” but we got more than we could bargain for with the man who believes orange is more than just the new black. Now, with a little more than a week to go before what could be the most decisive day of the decade, we are confronted with what I like to call that last trek of the Fellowship; the part in which Samwise grits his teeth while carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mount Doom. And just as a new age came from the ashes of that fiery climax, so too can we expect a sliver of hope on the horizon, if not a great beacon. But enough Lord of the Rings for now, let’s speak plainly; for if not only the Donald is defeated November 8 but the Republican majority is overthrown in the Senate/House of Representatives, America could begin to herald in a New Deal for the 21st Century- one led by Hillary Rodham but directed by that old favorite maverick, Bernie Sanders.

inperson_bernie4-web__850_592
The Gandalf of US Politics

Earlier this year, we wrote a piece on a plausible return to the left for America, in which we explored the possibility that the strength of Bernie’s rhetoric would push the Democratic party far enough to the left, that the next administration would mark the most progressive agenda since the time of Lyndon B. Johnson. Bernie’s eventual defeat was a crushing blow to many, especially among the young, who scattered their way about to Hillary, Jill Stein, and for some incredulous reason, Donald Trump. We figured at the time however that although Bernie had lost the nomination, he had dealt a significant blow to the once centrist stances of Hillary, ensuring that she would be held accountable for the promises she made on the campaign trail. In recent weeks, a lot more focus (though far from enough) has been placed on the Senate though, because of Speaker Paul Ryan’s warning to the GOP base: ‘[if] we lose.., do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee?’ Yup!

It must be noted of course that Bernie’s ascension to this highly sought podium is not guaranteed, but it is a strong possibility and thus, a strong opportunity for liberals. The logistics of taking the Senate are not at all daunting either; there are 34 seats up for grab this year (a term in the Senate lasts six years) of which 24 are held by Republicans. (It may interest you to know John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul will all be contesting their highly coveted seats). They need to take at least four of those away to bring the Republicans down to 50 seats and another one or two, if they want a majority (accounting for Independents). This miscalculated statement on the Speaker’s part has given rise to the #ThanksPaul emblem now spreading the Sander’s seed once again across the nation. As we all know however, a tweet or Facebook post is nice, but a vote is helpful.

paul_ryan_mtr-620x412
‘What Have I Done…’

Generally speaking, the Republicans have been better at marshaling their cohorts out to vote for mid-term elections and on other less exciting occasions (e.g. for town mayors). The result has been a systematic rightward shift for the country on a national, statewide, and local level, making it particularly difficult for the Democrats to gain any legislative ground, even with a majority. This changing dynamic can be traced back throughout America’s entire history but in 1980, the ball really got rolling with the GOP’s courtship of the Evangelical vote. Reagan’s revolution was not only one against the Soviets and the Carter administration, it was one built on Supply-Side (or ‘Trickle-Down’) economics and a distrust of Big government. The deficit grew but the brainwashing worked- people kept going out to vote Republican. When in 1994, after a particularly heartbreaking mid-term election, the Democratic President Bill Clinton, declared the ‘era’ of such government to be over, an unfortunate belief was ground into the American psyche, that some level of conservatism would always be needed. Obama’s rise then should have dispelled this notion, building on the promise of the Affordable Care Act the so-called audacity of ‘hope.’ He was abandoned in a significant respect however, by those who championed his cause in 2008, but felt deterred and disinterested by the nitty gritty bits of the legislative process- the public. So, three election terms later, will America’s liberals and moderates finally learn the imperative lesson? It’s not enough to solely elect a president, you need to elect his/her network on all levels. A slab of paint may make a wall look nice, but beyond that wall, you’ve still got Mordor.

mordors_duospire
Trump Tower

As it stands, the Senate is split between 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. Polls are currently indicating a strong chance for a Democratic take over, though baffingly Marco Rubio is still leading in Florida, despite losing to Trump, criticizing him, then supporting him. With the House of Representatives then (in which all seats are contested every two years), there are presently 247 Republicans, 186 Democrats, and 3 vacant seats. A Democratic coup here is far less likely, though recent polls suggest they could take an extra 20 seats. President Johnson once said the difference between a Senator and Congressman was the difference between ‘chicken salad and chicken shit.’ It’s a darn good quote but as asserted earlier, every little difference matters. So come November 8, when the world wakes up to a new dawn or a poorly devised Hobbit trilogy, remember that the power to change the United States does not solely belong in one office.

Both As Bad: A False Equivalency

Both As Bad: A False Equivalency

In less than three weeks, the year-and-a-half stench of the 2016 election will begin to fade. With poll numbers increasingly conveying the dominance of the Clinton camp, it seems unlikely that we will see an orange face in the White House come January. But unlikely is just not good enough. Polls can be misleading for a variety of reasons. Voters can be swayed too, depending on their feelings; and whilst we would like to think every eligible voter will bother to get of their beds November 8th, the dismal reality on such occasions has always proven otherwise. Too many people,  disenfranchised with the so-called broken system, often espouse notions of how voting won’t make a difference. There’s something dodgy going on with both Trump and Clinton after all, right? It’s a wash- either’s going to be terrible for the country! It’s easy to say such things but it’s also lazy and irresponsible- because like it or not, Trump and Clinton are not as equally bad and indifference or disgust in the election cycle will not grant you immunity from its consequences.

34805
SNL’s interpretation of the 2nd debate

False equivalencies have always speckled their way across political discourse. We believe balance is important because it mitigates bias. That’s why we try to give Republicans and Democrats equal opportunities for speaking when it comes to the issues. On certain occasions however, balance for balance’s sake becomes inconvenient, if not, regressive. For example, in a debate on Global Warming, does an Archbishop really deserve the time of day a qualified scientist receives? Should politicians with ties to the fossil fuel industry really influence environmental progress, where their expertise (if any) lies elsewhere? You might argue that these agents of chaos are only there to reflect the beliefs of a wider population. Does the percentage of climate change deniers then still reflect such a ridiculously humoured viewpoint? Almost every issue has at least two sides to it but they do not always balance on the basis of argument, scientific proof, and popularity. That’s why most schools in enlightened parts of the world teach evolution but not creationism.

With this election, it seems absurd then that false equivalencies are being thrown around so casually. We have Trump, who without fail,has  committed to at least five gaffes every debate without answering a single question coherently, as sentences meander off into the upside-down, perhaps to be rediscovered in the next season of Stranger Things. He has for years navigated his personal and business life with the candour of a silver-back gorilla on cocaine. He has questioned the legitimacy not only of Obama’s presidency but of his citizenship. He has mocked the disabled. He has dimissed sexually aggressive banter as “locker room talk”. He even used the word “bigly.”

Then we have Clinton, who just feels dangerous. Granted, there are plenty of issues to be raised with this woman but in comparison to Trump’s resume, they are minute and rather petty (except for her Iraq vote- that was bad). From the vitriol of her adversaries’ testimonies however, you’d swear she had sold nuclear missiles to North Korea and covered this up with laundered money from several years of work on behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative.  Really, she hasn’t done all that much wrong. She was cleared of Whitewater and Benghazi. The e-mail scandal, whilst irksome and professionally unacceptable, has hardly warranted the level of discussion it’s been given. The truth of the matter is that Clinton’s legacy has been dogged for so long now by conservatives that scandals seem to arise out of thin air. As John Oliver wittily pointed out, before it’s proven that there’s no basis for them (or in fact, that they are just made up), they have already simmered into the subconscious of America’s vague but general distrust of this power-hungry, condescending woman. We know she’s dangerous, we just don’t exactly understand how.

kenbone-4
When you sincerely think this is a tough choice…

With Trump, we know we’d have a disastrous presidency. With Clinton, we suspect we won’t be given the revolution Bernie promised last year. Those are both disappointing outcomes of a desperate election, but they are not equally disappointing. This logic is simple but the Bernie supporters now backing Trump or even the idiot Gary Johnson don’t seem to have grasped it. I am reminded of a quote from the movie Argo in which Bryan Cranston’s CIA operative informs representatives of the Carter administration about the option they have chosen to rescue six hostages from Iran; “there are only bad options. This is the best bad option we have.” So, even if Clinton’s not your choice of spice, isn’t she a whole lot better than putting a piece of human shit onto your chicken?

 

 

Presidential Debate Tips For Trump & Clinton

Presidential Debate Tips For Trump & Clinton

On Monday, the 26th September, Clinton and Trump will engage in the first of three national televised presidential debates. Anyone who caught the back-and-forth between Trump and Jeb or Trump and Cruz or Trump and Rubio during the Republican primaries will understand just how pivotal these forums can be. Simple gaffes can destroy a candidate’s legitimacy. Poor phrasing can undermine a crucial point they want to convey. Even the wrong body language can result in severe repercussions. So what should Clinton and Trump take note of? We here at the Walrus thought it would be worth taking a trip down memory lane.

Kennedy vs. Nixon (1960)

This race heralded the first national televised debate, as the young and charismatic John F. Kennedy squared off against the raging jowls of Richard M. Nixon. Whilst many Americans, listening to the debate on their radios, felt that the Vice-President succeeded in offering a better vision for America, the television viewers felt differently. A wearisome, sick Nixon simply came off as less confident and able on the black-and-white screen. Kennedy, on the other hand, understood this medium in the way FDR understood how the radio could be used to communicate. He spoke clearly and held himself firmly- a man who was comfortable with nothing to hide.

Trump, of course, is no stranger to the televised medium and despite his outlandish hairdo, comes across as quite a unique and exciting figure to beheld. Hillary however, whilst experienced, often appears stiff and calculated, like she’s reading from a prompter.

Ford vs. Carter (1976)

Jerry Ford was one of the most affable presidents America ever had. He didn’t boast the sharpest of wits however, as evident in one of his and Carter’s national televised debates, when he stated that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” Carter wryly smiled whilst the stunned moderator, Max Frankel, responded, “I’m sorry. What?…” This performance only served to reflect and reaffirm the credibility of Chevy Chase’s SNL Ford; a bumbling, awkward man barely getting on by in the job. It may have been a just a little slip, but it cost Ford dearly in the media and public’s perception of him. Trump, in particular, should take note here. He may have gotten away with his random gesticulations in the primaries but Clinton, unlike most the GOP, is hawkish and ready to pounce on any little mis-step.

Carter vs. Reagan/ Mondale vs. Reagan (1980 and 1984)

Ronald Reagan was hardly the smartest of US presidents either but he was a great communicator. He had a way of brushing off criticism and making his opponents feel a bit overbearing. Against Carter, we saw this when he said “there you go again,” in response to a criticism the President made about Reagan’s stance on a past healthcare bill. Against Mondale, we saw this when he quipped “I will not make age an  an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” In that brilliant soundbite, he not only pushed aside any genuine concerns about his age, but also posed a good counterpoint and reinforced his likability as a humorous man. So if Hillary could crack a few more lines like “you heard none of this at the Republican convention and Trump went on for 70-odd minutes- and they were odd,” that would be just dandy. This kind of reflex is perfect for the Youtube generation.

Bush I vs. Clinton vs. Perot (1992)

Don’t look at your watch! The Commander-in-Chief George HW Bush made this fatal error in a three-way debate against Slick Willy and a more credulous billionaire than Trump. While Bush may have had pressing matters on his hands, this quick, likely subconscious act, reflected the media’s perception of him as a man both out-of-touch with/ not interested in the common man. Bill, in contrast, not only didn’t get distracted, he stood up and walked out from the center of the stage to make eye contact with the people asking questions. He is of course, in a league of his own, but it’s worth noting nonetheless that you must always respect the time given for these debates, even if they are repetitive and pointless.

Gore vs. Bush II (2000)

To borrow a term from W’s lexicon, Al Gore misunderestimated his opponent. Whilst the second Bush was clearly nowhere near as clever as the Vice-President, he did manage to come across to a great many people as a likable and relatable individual. Gore tried to pounce on his basic understanding of the issues with a multitude of condescending mannerisms. At one point, he walked over to Bush as if to confront him man-to-man on a question he felt he gave the better answer to. At another point, he loudly sighed. It’s not exactly fair but the public do like an underdog and in this case, they gave Bush II enough wriggle room for the contentious count-up that followed. In this year’s case, it may be tempting for Hillary to act this exact same way, but there is a line between humouring your base and offending the other. Reagan understood this; Gore didn’t.

 

And so Clinton and Trump should now be well prepared for September 26th if they have read this. Naturally we have only scratched the surface but it is clear from these cases that a winning personality and sharp wit does the job best. Hillary has the latter and to some- let’s call them progressively challenged people- Trump boasts the former. We may be given stiff, unintelligible, and ambiguous answers next week but one thing’s for sure, the entertainment factor will be huuuuuge. 

 

 

Why Bernie Didn’t Sell Out

Why Bernie Didn’t Sell Out

Last week marked the unofficial end of the rivalry between Hillary Rodham Clinton and that ever cantankerous Senator Sanders. In a speech delivered before the people of New Hampshire, who voted in his favour, he addressed the question of his movement’s future and where his loyalty lay. I watched this as it streamed live on Facebook, torn between the body language of the two figures at the podium and the incoming flood of knee-jerk reactions from half-wits and the odd informed. Many complimented this change in tone; it had after all been a long and arduous primary season. Others lamented however Bernie’s decision to stand by the Devil and surrender everything he had ever stood for. And that’s where we stop because (and I’ll put this plainly), Bernie didn’t sell out. Here’s why:

  1. He won on the issues- if you listened to Clinton’s speech, which directly followed Sanders’ endorsement, you will have noticed how clever SNL were with their skit on Clinton becoming more and more Sanders’ like (to the point where Kate McKinnon ended up with a bald cap). At first, I gave her the benefit of the doubt on the assumption that she just isn’t as conservative as the uber-liberals have suggested. When it came to Wall Street however and her bargaining plea to overturn Citizen’s United, it became clear that she was taking note of the issues that prevailed in the debates, brought about because of Sanders’ longstanding rhetoric. She delved into college fees and global warming too, which made for a nice combination, leading me to believe that she has moved far more to the left than even the most hawkish of critics could have guessed.
  2. It’s not just about the Presidency- Sanders’ movement and the rise of the Left cannot solely rely on an office tampered with more than ever. It needs to endure beyond one or two terms into a progressive model by which the future of the Democratic Party can be shaped. Yes, Hillary has, in many senses, won the battle but the future could be Sanders, so long as the issues on which he based his candidacy, continue to resonate. As mentioned above, I think they already have to the point that Hillary can’t afford to ignore them. As well as that however, he can also serve as a highly influential figure outside of the White House. Who, for example, had more of an effect on American culture in the 1960s than Martin Luther King? Has Jimmy Carter not accomplished some of his best work out of office? The presidency is a convenient altar, through which many channels, from foreign aid to educational reform, can be distributed but as Bill Clinton himself has noted, it’s also prey to circumstances beyond a president’s control (e.g. 9/11).
  3. Trump must be defeated- I’ll admit that this is not my favourite argument as I do not believe elections should be contested on the basis of fighting against, rather than for something. It is an important one though and whether it depresses you or not, voting for the lesser of two so-called evils is still worthwhile. Bernie’s candidacy, has gone as far it needs to, in my opinion. With the Democratic National Convention coming up, it has become clear that his issues and supporters will not simply be sidelined but incorporated into the party’s agenda for the coming years. For now, he needs to ensure, if his own visions are to be realised though, that this party does as well as it can come November. Otherwise, the country will head in the exact opposite direction with Trump.
  4. Listen to the speech again- Sanders didn’t have to necessarily endorse Clinton but it was the responsible thing to do; what purpose would their rivalry have served after all? Not enough to sway you? Listen to the speech again then and tell me where exactly he abandons the principles on which he built his campaign? Still not enough? Take a trip through his YouTube interviews and go back to a year ago when he expressed his admiration for Hillary Clinton whilst acknowledging their differences of opinions. Granted, the race heated up and nostrils flared during the primary season but the gulf in rhetoric that existed between their camps, was never as deep as many of Sanders’ less reasonable supporters suggested. He fought a good battle and we can only admire him for what he did but that battle is over now and at some point, you have to concede and look to the positives.

It’s undoubtedly sad to see Bernie leave the race; he shook things up and set the country’s vision towards a better tomorrow, in a manner we just couldn’t have expected over a year ago with the “inevitable” Clinton candidacy. His role however in this race will at least go down in the history books and his role to come will remain that of an inspiring spokesman for a disenfranchised generation.

The Age Of Protest Votes

The Age Of Protest Votes

The United States has something important to learn in the wake of Brexit; protest votes are not only petty, they’re extremely dangerous and stupid too. In this election year, we have been bombarded with multiple pieces on public frustration with establishment politics. As much as we are seeing an intelligent dialogue developing in this context however, we are also witnessing with a great many others, the collapse of a logical framework for debate. Too many people are now voting with knee jerk reactions; against rather than for something. The political game can’t be played like customer service though. Protest votes yield actual results.

imrs_wdp

On June 23, the British people voted narrowly to leave the EU. Across social media and the web, the reaction was one of shock, even amongst many who voted in this favour. And then came “Bregret”- the pun on a word already being played with, as up to 7% Leave voters began to profess their vote was only cast in the belief that Britain would inevitably remain, or as some form of quasi-protest against some half-formed ideal they didn’t even understand. This became evident immediately in the wake of the votes, as top Google searches ranged from questions concerning what Britain’s role in the EU is to what indeed this “European Union” is. And we thought America was hogging all the stupidity this year…

The campaigns in Britain were of course controversial and already we are beginning to see how weak the structures on which Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson built their case were. Interestingly, national identity and immigration were key issues, especially amongst older voters who by large voted to leave the institution that had been irking them since 1973. The question has loomed for many years as to whether Great Britain is losing its Britishness. In America too, this question has come to the forefront with Trump’s campaign. Many of his voters, the so-called “silent majority,” white middle-class feel that they are not being catered for in the way they used to be. After all, look at how much hip hop music is on the radio these days. It’s threatening, quite frankly.

pho-english-bulldog-11-e1310185714112_zps6938df48
Holding onto their Britishness no matter what…

 

Political correctness is another factor, in tandem with this, which boils the blood of many. Where actual issues arise with immigration, many liberals disavow the very notion of discussion on this area with labels of bigotry being thrown around at the clinking of a tea-cup. Trump, for all his bullishness and disregard, comes across as genuine and honest, in contrast to the political suits of past times. When he speaks about Mexicans, he’s speaking from the heart. Granted, that’s not a heart I’m sure exists, but he’s speaking from whatever’s there nonetheless. People appreciate this. They want a politician who speaks like your drunken grandfather on a night out. So when people complain about how they’re losing their political identity, it’s not a far stretch to attribute it to many of the left-leaning commentators who put a binding on the language book many years ago.

trump-face-american-flag.png

Whilst I am clearly not a fan of political correctness, I do appreciate where people are coming from. There are problems with the EU and America. There are problems with immigration. National identity and culture should be appreciated. With all these cases however, common sense must then prevail however. For example, you may not have agreed with David Cameron on many domestic or foreign issues, but his Remain stance, was no just cause for joining the anti-establishment. You may feel America is being pushed around with immigration, but does this justify the extremist measures of a man whose policy is based on a Wikipedia entry? Establishment politics can prove frustrating but overhaul and revolutions are only required where all other means are exhausted. Trump may appear to many the underdog saviour who will restore American prestige at rallies, but sit down again and read the transcript of what he says, then think. If the Google searches come November concern the costs of a border wall, then standardised testing should be needed to secure the right to vote.

Andrew Carolan

The Divided Right

The Divided Right

The piñata that is the Republican Party has been burst open and every day, new morsels are being discovered by the media. Last Friday, we heard that Mayor Danny Jones of Charleston, West Virginia, had changed his political party status to “unaffiliated” in a growing list of disillusioned conservative officials. That same week, several major companies including Apple pulled their sponsorship from the Republican National Convention. And to cap it all off? The man, the Republican loyalists stood behind (if reluctantly), has lost his momentum.

For a year now, the accepted narrative has been that Trump stands no chance against Clinton. Despite mass coverage and the GOP nomination, many remained undeterred. It seems their faith has been rewarded however as his latest hurdle has resulted in a parting of ways with his campaign manager, Emperor Palpatine… I mean, Corey Lewandowski. The poll numbers are no longer looking so good for the man who once promised “so much winning” for America and in the wake of this great cataclysm of popularity, lies the remains of the fractured right-wing. So what happened? Why? And what’s next?

trump-lewandowski-campaign-manager
Trump and Lewandowski (left) kicking up a storm.

 

Since the shining light of Reagan descended upon America, the GOP has adopted an increasingly conservative and radical stance in the political system. This culminated most recently in the refusal to work with the Obama administration on almost every initiative, leading to a Government shutdown on Obamacare. With the culture wars wagging their tails every now and again, the great beliefs of the usually strongly united right became that America was losing its identity. Even the vaguest idea of making it “great” again was so appealing that a man like Trump, strange though he may seem, at least had to be considered. And in their desperation for this fabled era of prosperity, the fractures which set a part fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, tea-party members and cowboys, widened so much so that the GOP abandoned whatever shred of dignity they still held.

Since securing the nomination, a tenuous effort has been made to cobble this mess back together and create something sufficient, lest the Wicked Witch of New York, gain power. The problem is however that it all seems so forced. Even Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, a man who should really have a pivotal role to play in this, has a hard time vocalising just what he wants. He think Trump is a racist and bigot and should not be encouraged by any means. He also believes Hillary is not the “answer” and therefore Trump must win. His role however, he asserts, is not to tell delegates what to do. It’s the kind of stuff you could imagine seeing on Saturday Night Live but alas, Ryan is presently a tortured soul. It therefore seems the pieces will have to be picked up by Trump himself, who will undoubtedly face the least reserved GOP convention in history next month.

151022_POL_Paul-Ryan_jpg_CROP_promovar-mediumlarge
Paul Ryan’s the kind of guy who holds up the drive through with his indecisiveness.

 

It’s hard to imagine exactly where this party will go next. They could simply reform if Trump loses, pretend as if 2016 never happened and go after Hillary, the way they have done with Obama. After all, remembering things accurately has never been a top priority (remember, Reagan raising taxes, anyone?). They could also have a long look in the mirror, smash it, and treat the likes of Trump as icons of a prevailing radical right, in stark contrast to the rising Left. Lastly, they could not smash the mirror and realise their party can only redeem itself by returning to the principles which once held it in high esteem. Fiscal conservatism, a lower-taxed market, and small government are not necessarily bad ideas if executed with a degree of rationale.  They just need to be checked with compromise where compromise is needed and common sense where alternatives yield better results. Richard Nixon understood this when he proposed an ambitious health care plan, alienating himself from many members of his party. George H.W. Bush, too, understood this when he abandoned his pledge and raised taxes to help stimulate the economy. Perhaps, 2016 can mark the beginning of the end for modern conservative practises and a return to form.

Andrew Carolan