Alex Campbell says, " I have heard you mention a few times that
if Trump wins the nomination, he will destroy the GOP. I was hoping that you
could say more about what exactly you mean by this and why you think it." Let me try to respond.
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties rely
for electoral support on what is referred to as their "base," which
is to say a sizeable group of voters who can be counted on, in good times and
bad, to vote for the party. Since only between 54% and 62% of eligible
voters have actually gone to the polls in the past four cycles, it is obvious
that "turning out your base" is a key to winning a presidential
election. A solid margin of victory in a
presidential campaign is perhaps three to five percent of the total vote, so there
is more to be gained by increasing the share of
your base that votes than in persuading so-called
"independent" voters to switch from one party to the other.
For half a century now, those who run the Republican
Party have been successful in getting a base of low and middle income voters to
support policies that benefit the rich rather than themselves by appealing to
racial prejudice, religious anxiety, resentment at class snobbery, and jingoist
passions. As Thomas Frank put it
brilliantly in his 2004 book What's The
Matter With Kansas?, the Republicans get the peasants to charge the castle
with pitchforks, shouting as they charge "We are mad as hell, and demand that
you cut taxes on the rich!"
The Republicans never deliver what they promise
on social issues, but fears about same-sex marriage, abortion, and the
"War on Christmas" keep the base riled up and in line.
This seems to be the year in which that con job
finally fails. Trump has hi-jacked the
Party while making it clear that he cannot be counted on to support
international capitalism and the financial classes [it is very significant that
Trump is in construction, which is typically local, not international.]
The merger of the interests of the rich and the
anxieties of the lower middle class has never been natural or stable, and if
Trump does in fact win the nomination, it is difficult to see how that merger
will be reestablished after he loses the general election. It is noteworthy that the super-rich
individuals who have poured hundreds of millions into the Republican Primary
Campaign have thus far had virtually no return on their investment.
Something like this is what I had in mind.
5 comments:
It's interesting that the Economist magazine, which I always take to be the voice of international finance capital, is very frightened of Trump. I'm sure that they prefer Hillary. (They're not wild about Rubio either).
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693579-front-runner-unfit-lead-great-political-party-let-alone-america-time-fire-trump
I see three reasons to hope that Trump gets the Republican nomination: (1) he is more likely than Cruz or Rubio to lose to Clinton or Sanders, (2) he is more likely to destroy the Republican Party, and (3) he is erratic. Cruz’s and Rubio’s policies are as extreme as Trump’s, but, whereas Cruz and Rubio are consistently evil, Trump’s erraticism leaves open the possibility that he will do less harm. For example, Trump said, with respect to repealing Obamacare, that he would not allow people to die in the streets, and Cruz condemned him for that.
Hypothesis #1: the non-voters are ~~equally split between right and left.
Hypothesis #2: the non-voters on the right have not been voting since 1980 (or ever in their lives) because nothing sufficiently sadistic was on offer.
Hypothesis #3: irrespective of anything that happens or is said before the convention, every Republican (no exceptions, not a single one) will support the Party's nominee after the convention.
Hypothesis #4: the non-voters on the left have not been voting because they see politics as the problem, not (even potentially) the solution.
Hypothesis #5: everything that increases the irrationality, violence, and sadism of the political arena will increase Republican turnout and decrease Democratic turnout by a symmetrical amount.
Hypothesis #6: the Republican nominee will be either Trump or someone who has beaten Trump at his own game.
Hypothesis #7: the Republican nominee will win 74% +/- 4% of the popular vote and exactly 535 electoral votes.
There are dependencies among these hypotheses, but I shirk the effort to recast them as a series of syllogisms.
Thanks Robert, that's helpful. I hope you're right.
Alex Campbell
Post a Comment