By Edwin Cooney
About ten days ago, a friend sent me a powerfully persuasive piece of political commentary. The piece was from “Current Affairs,” a new political publication. The author, Nathan J Robertson, asserts that the only hope Democrats have of preventing the election of Donald Trump is the nomination of Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. In fact, Mr. Robertson insists that Mrs. Clinton actually should withdraw her presidential candidacy in favor of Sen. Sanders as soon as possible.
Listing about seventeen of Mrs. Clinton’s “lies,” many of them going back to the time when she was First Lady of Arkansas, Robertson argues persuasively that Donald Trump will, as he has throughout the Republican primary season, dominate the general election campaign with putdowns, insults, and misrepresentations of Mrs. Clinton (many of which, in the public mind, have a basis of truth). Furthermore, Robertson asserts that Mrs. Clinton is far from a stellar campaigner. Finally, he insists that Sanders’ weaknesses are so mild in comparison to Trump’s weaknesses that by simply ignoring anything Trump has to say that is negative about him, Sanders can easily deflect Donald Trumps nonsubstantive, reckless and irresponsible thrusts. This would show the public what a reckless and irresponsible political demagogue Donald Trump truly is and demonstrate to the American people Sen. Sanders’ own mastery of public issues.
Now, I like Bernie Sanders. I plan to vote for Bernie in the upcoming New York State primary on the 19th of April. However, after decades of hearing Republicans rather successfully degrade “radical liberals,” I’m almost as skeptical of the Sanders candidacy as Nathan J. Robertson is of the Clinton candidacy. Even worse, you can be certain that with all the breast-beating conservatives recently did on behalf of Israel, too many conservative types don’t view Bernie Sanders’ Jewish faith very favorably. One of the most constant threads woven into American culture is the tendency to mix Judaism with socialism and even Soviet communism. Hopefully, Robertson is right to observe that this tendency is lessening. However, I’m not sure one can bank on that possibility.
As I read the list of “lies” that Robertson insists will be the devastating core of Donald Trump’s successful march to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, two historic political occasions occurred to me.
The first took place back in 1960 when Vice President Richard Nixon’s campaign, with absolute confidence in the vice president’s debating prowess, agreed to accept Senator John F. Kennedy’s challenge to four debates. In so doing, the studious Dick Nixon gave handsome and vigorous Jack Kennedy a stage he otherwise would not have had from which to showcase his knowledge, wit and movie star presidential persona. The second occasion was during a debate between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio, the GOP’s candidate for the United States Senate seat from New York back in 2000. During their September debate, Congressman Lazio, seeking to press Clinton to sign an agreement not to accept “soft money” from outside of New York State, moved from his podium into Mrs. Clinton’s personal space waving a paper in her face which he suggested they both should sign agreeing to that end. Lazio’s “Trump-like behavior” was the turning point in the campaign. Lazio looked like a political bully and, by comparison, Mrs. Clinton (who was in fact America’s reigning First Lady) at least looked like she could be a viable United States Senator.
Three times since 1960, presidential candidates have refused to give their political opponents a national debate stage on which to demonstrate their personal presidential preparedness. The first time was in 1964 when President Lyndon Johnson refused to provide the handsome and articulate Barry Goldwater a national debating platform. In 1968 and 1972, Richard Nixon, forever wary from his 1960 experience, refused to debate Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972. Despite a rather continuous political blowback all three times, both Johnson and Nixon prevailed.
There is some indication that the public may be weary of televised political debates now in 2016. Mr. Trump, who has to this point already refused to participate in two GOP debates, is hardly in much of a position to protest too effectively should “Lady Hillary” refuse to grant him a platform from which to ridicule her public record, call her and her husband Bill liars, insult women, slander minorities, and recklessly speak his mind, a habit that seems to endear him to too many voters.
Nathan Robertson’s warnings regarding Mrs. Clinton’s public persona should be taken seriously especially by Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. However, Robertson’s hopes for Sen. Sanders’ success shouldn’t be confused with inevitable reality. As the primary season concludes, the constituency will vastly widen. Additionally, political decisions and public events, domestic and international, will affect the outcome of the campaign to a greater degree than they do before the general election campaign season.
Six months ago, the hopes of 19 politicians and their followers that they individually might sit in the White House were as shiny as newly minted Lincoln pennies. Today, the hopes of all but five of those politicians and their constituents are as dull as lead slugs. Still, the hopes and fears of free Americans will play a significant factor in our ultimate choice.
Back in 1964, pointing to the less than 60% national voter turnout in 1960, conservative Republicans suggested to young potential voters like me that there existed a huge silent reservoir of voters who would vote if they only had a choice rather than having to support an echo of the then-entrenched Democratic party. Barry Goldwater was that “choice in 1964.” Today, Donald Trump, although hardly a tried and true conservative, clearly is that “choice.” The question that has never been answered is whether such a reservoir of voters exists! The existence of such a voting block has always been a major conservative assumption.
Hence, then and now the fearful and the hopeful, confident in their own assumptions and scared to death of yours, peek out at the unpredictable and uncertain world. Some world, isn’t it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment