By Edwin Cooney
As Republicans open their 41st quadrennial convention, one question stands out above all others! Who are they? Like their Democratic kin-folk, factionalism is a necessary and often valuable aspect of voter appeal. In past years, Republicans have nominated candidates for president and vice president who occupy opposite fringes of the party’s ideological and cultural constituencies. Never, however, has such a fringe nomination been such an alteration to traditional party values than that of Donald J. Trump.
Up until Mr. Trump began upsetting the table that holds the bonafide credentials of American “solid citizen conservatism,” it appeared that the traditional ideological combination of churchgoers and chamber of commerce types would be the ones to challenge Hillary Clinton’s presidential legitimacy. Suddenly all predictable bets are off and the GOP elephant (I’ve named him Abe in these pages) finds himself “buffaloed” as he attempts to clear a path to Republican success next November eighth.
More than Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Wendell Willkie in 1940, or Barry Goldwater in 1964, the nomination of “the Donald” flies in the face of traditional Republicanism. Consider the following:
Up until recently, most Republicans supported free trade (minus all tariffs) in concert with “the new world order” of international affairs and expectations. Mr. Trump, who’s wealth suggests that he knows more about business than most other business people, insists that the United States needs to return to eighteenth century protectionism to stimulate job creation here at home. He reasons that if it costs corporations more to compete in foreign markets due to the tariffs they will then pay, they’ll begin bringing good jobs back to America.
As for international relations, Mr. Trump insists that as a “no nonsense wheeler dealer,” he can do business with the Russians and North Koreans, because, after all,they’re “real” and he’s “real.” It’s amazing to this observer that a potential president should appeal to voters on the basis that he shares the mentality and traits of such leaders as Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. (Somehow I can’t imagine Truman insisting that he’s like Joseph Stalin. Neither can I imagine Eisenhower or Kennedy advertising himself as comparable to Nikita Khrushchev!)
Meanwhile at home, Mr. Trump is sure he can make Congress do his will because, after all, he’s a businessman! Many Americans have long believed that the government should be run as a business, which fits hand in glove with Mr. Trump’s oversimplified concept of what makes a free society work. This belief is close to the heart of millions of Americans despite the fact that presidents with successful business backgrounds (Hoover, Carter and G. H. W. Bush) all served only one term and were defeated for re-election by Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and William Clinton respectively, none of whom had much experience in business.
Last Friday, Mr. Trump announced his selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his vice presidential running mate. Governor Pence’s selection from an ideological point of view is an excellent move, at least on the surface. Still many crucial voters will be wondering, what does the Trump/Pence team portend for public policymaking? Therein lies the potential genius — or foolhardiness — of the Trump candidacy!
Political opponents customarily and invariably seek to contemptuously drive wedges between presidential and vice presidential doctrinaire histories. In 1988, Republicans delighted in wondering when the debate between “liberal” Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis and “conservative” Vice Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen would take place. (One even got the impression that Republicans might pay for such a televised debate.)
The Pence nomination represents the party’s ideological tradition which is its intellectual and spiritual representation for a considerable segment of society. However, Mr. Trump’s appeal is more to our fears than it is to our hopes or even to our enterprise. Donald Trump is far from the first politician to appeal to our fears. Presidential nominees including FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ all, to some extent, appealed to voters’ fears. FDR appealed to our fears of continuing economic depression.Truman appealed to voters’ fears of the possible destruction of enlightened progressive government. Ike appealed to voters’ resentment over the ongoing war in Korea. JFK, in 1960, appealed to Americans’ fears of Russian superiority in space and national defense. The crucial difference between Trump’s appeal to fear and the earlier appeals is most apparent in the crudity of its roots and in its thrust.
Mr. Trump’s appeal to voters’ fears widens the number and types of people we should legitimately fear. The wholesale dehumanization of minorities, women, foreigners, non- Christians and others amounts to little more than a demonstration and ultimate legitimatizing of just plain bad manners. Furthermore, it legitimizes rather than outlaws “political correctness.” Don’t ever let any political ideologue pretend he doesn't have a sense of political correctness. Christians and social conservatives both preach rules of conduct one must apply in order to be a solid citizen. The only reason political liberals or progressives have a reputation for “political correctness” is that they have traditionally believed that social morals are equal to spiritual morals and that social mores and issues really and truly constitute a just society.
The GOP’s appeal this fall will invariably be that what matters most is the individual’s priorities and feelings. The idea that America has any kind of a collective responsibility will simply be labeled socialism or despotism.
Mr. Trump’s crude and ill-mannered appeal for votes is obviously a substitute for both principle and knowledge. It is my guess that the 41st National Republican Convention will reflect the understandable resentments of the American people far more than it will seek to energize the creativity and generosity of “we the freest people” in history.
Back in 1884, New York Governor Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) ran against Republican James G. Blaine of Maine. Both of the candidates brought a serious flaw into the campaign. Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock. Blaine appeared to have been guilty of an involvement in public scandal. Ultimately the public decided Cleveland’s error was more tolerable because it had nothing to do with public policy. Hence, the question is whether a lack of vital operational knowledge or occasional political deviance will most likely demean or enhance our future safety, prosperity, and peace.
My guess is that your future and mine ultimately matters more than Hillary’s integrity or Trump’s ill-mannered and crude ambition!
The instant Mr. Trump is nominated on Wednesday, July 20th, what Donald Trump is all about will ultimately define who the Republicans are for the foreseeable future.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment