Teflon Trump?

For most in the American political sphere being revealed in the press as having views that could be categorised as racist and misogynist tends to destroy any hope of holding any political office, and rightly so. A prepared statement whilst flanked by wife/husband and children is usually the precursor to withdrawal from any race. Years in the political and publicity-barren wilderness are only usually ended by a cathartic appearance on Oprah or Ellen, where a warts-and-all confession is normally followed by a revelation about the charity or cause that they’re now fronting. Tears from guest, hugs from host, applause from audience, are the heralds of forgiveness from the American public. And so the cycle begins again.

Not so Donald Trump, even when his wife Melania issues a public statement condemning his behaviour. For those of us that have followed his political campaign with astonishment and shock over the last sixteen months, the latest release of his remarks about women in 2005 should really not surprise us. Trump in many ways has been a phenomenon in this election process, proving that political know-how, intelligence, taste, justice, good judgement are not prerequisites to be a serious candidate for the most powerful office in the world. The press speculation that Trump may resign is seriously wide of the mark, especially as Trump’s campaign has always been driven by egotism and narcissism. In fact it may well give his campaign the positive momentum it so desperately needs. During the nomination campaign Trump steamrollered the opposition. His campaign took over the written press, was constantly talked about on television, and was the talk of social media. The overlong nomination process allowed Trump’s campaign to build up such a head of steam that it was unstoppable. Bush, Cruz, Rubio, all fell by the wayside as the Trump machine marched on.

Like Carter in 1976 and Reagan in 1980, Trump is running not just in opposition to Hillary Clinton but as an outsider to the Washington elite. Trump’s attraction for many of his followers is that he is a challenge to the political establishment in the nation’s capitol. While the powerbrokers are interested in a conservative status quo being maintained, Trump is seen by many of his supporters as a salvation-like figure that will bring change. Quite how a billionaire – who inherited his wealth and was exposed as not paying taxes for over a decade – can be seen neither a member of the establishment nor a representative of the man in the street is overwhelming. The Republican Party leadership’s rejection of him during the nomination process only succeeded in improving his standing among the 76% of Americans that disapprove of Congress.

But the current desertion of GOP senators and lawmakers from Trump as a result of his lewd remarks could actually strengthen his original position as an outsider. GOP leadership support has actually stifled Trump’s claim to be not one of them. Trump has shown in both the nomination and presidential campaigns that he is a master at preaching to the choir but fails to convince the congregation. His presidential campaign has stumbled in comparison to that of his nomination campaign because of his inability to transfer his attraction to Democrat voters. The problem for Trump was that he had created an echo chamber for his political rhetoric – rhetoric that has rarely progressed past xenophobic, sexist, self-centred utterances. The initial surge in support has declined, and this is due to a meandering presidential campaign that has very little substance to any message.

What’s fortunate for Trump is that he is only in a single figure deficit behind Clinton. Had he been in a bigger deficit he may have found himself deselected by the Republican leadership. Under Rule 9’s ‘or otherwise’ clause on nominations the Republican National Committee could remove Trump from the party nomination. But doing so could damage the Republican brand in a more lasting way than Trump ever could. Removal of a man with almost 45% national support could lose the GOP essential support among the working class voters that it will desperately need in 2020. Furthermore Trump could still run despite deselection and hand Clinton the presidency by splitting the Republican vote. And finally, Trump could end up suing the GOP if they withdraw their support under a vaguely written clause.

The biggest indicator to Trump’s continuing role as a presidential candidate is tonight’s presidential debate. Trump has already suggested he will bring up allegations of Bill Clinton’s misdemeanours in the televised debate. If Trump ‘wins’ this debate then the GOP will in all likelihood continue to support his candidacy. If he fails miserably and he trails Clinton by 10 points or more, then the RNC could decide to promote Trump’s Vice President candidate Mike Pence as their presidential nominee although that would add further weight to Trump’s claims of an establishment-led undemocratic conspiracy. Whatever the outcome tonight’s debate should provide some fireworks.

Romney gives Trump both barrels

Mitt Romney today unleashed a no-holds barred attack on Donald Trump’s attempt to win the Republican candidacy. Romney, GOP candidate in 2012 when he lost to Barack Obama, called Trump a ‘fraud’ and a ‘phoney’ in his address at the University of Utah, and urged Republican voters to get behind another candidate to represent the party in the 2016 race to the White House. In his scathing address Romney stated that Trump’s proposed foreign and domestic policies were threatening to the Republican Party and the country. The promises that he made on the campaign trail were, he said, ‘as worthless as a degree from Trump University.’ Romney warned that electing Trump as a presidential candidate was giving the keys of the White House to Hillary Clinton. “A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president” said Romney and that under Trump America would “cease to be the shining city on the hill.”
Romney’s attack, though surprising in its voracity, was not wholly unexpected. Since Trump’s victory in seven of the primary elections on Super Tuesday this week, a response from the GOP leadership was always on the cards. But as much as it is a stinging attack on the GOP candidate race leader, it is also a sign of the times of the poor leadership displayed by the Republican elites. As a result of mismanagement of the party, the Republicans are facing the prospect of having a presidential candidate that its leadership do not want. It is a damning statement of a party that is self-destructing in a very public way.
Should Trump win the race to be the GOP candidate then the Republican leadership have two options: to either back Trump wholeheartedly at least in public, or to support an independent candidate in the hope of squashing Trump’s chances at winning the general election. If the party leadership decide to back Trump then they have historical precedent: in 1960, just weeks before the national convention, former president Harry Truman spoke out against the prospect of John F Kennedy winning the Democratic candidacy. On July 2nd, 1960, Truman said to the press in Independence, Missouri “I would want to say to him [Kennedy] ‘Senator, are you quite sure that you are quite ready for the country, or that the country is ready for you in the role of president in 1961?’” By the end of the summer Truman was campaigning on behalf of Kennedy, announcing to the press that he changed his mind ‘when the Democratic National Convention decided to nominate him for President.’ However such a volte-face by the Republican elite seems unlikely in the case of Trump because of the severity of the Romney’s attack.
If the Republican Party elites decide to run a candidate against the party’s official candidate in the shape of Donald Trump, then they are almost certainly guaranteeing the election of Hillary Clinton. The second Republican candidate would almost certainly draw votes in a general election from the official candidate. It is possible but unlikely that the party would cut its nose off to spite its face. It is more likely that the party elites are hoping that the race will culminate in a brokered convention – one where no potential candidate has a majority of delegates after the party’s primaries and caucuses. This would allow bound delegates to free themselves from the primary results. Such circumstances are rare in the modern era – the last Republican brokered convention was in 1948 when Thomas Dewey won the nomination – but such a situation would allow the Republican elite to renegotiate with party delegates.
There are two problems with this: firstly, are the delegates likely to rebel against the party leadership and side with anti-establishment Trump? Secondly, should Trump lose the candidacy in such a way would it lead to him running as a third candidate. Again there is historical precedent, most recently when single-issue candidate, Texan billionaire Ross Perot ran in 1992. Perot damaged the Republican vote enough that a certain Bill Clinton won the general election. Would Trump do the same to the Republican candidate in 2016? It is certainly possible; he has the finance, and most definitely has the ego, but whether he could stand not being the centre of attention at least half the time is something entirely different. What would cause concern for the GOP leadership is that Trump is likely to take more votes from the Republican vote than Perot, and this could cause a lack of nationwide confidence in the GOP and consequentially a catastrophic side effect in the congressional and Senate elections.
There are Republican observers who suggest that the party needs Trump in the same way it needed Barry Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater’s momentous loss to Lyndon Johnson precipitated a reformed Republican Party that won the White House in 1968. Such a comparable potential loss under Trump would cleanse the party, observers say, and allow it to rebuild stronger, breaking free from some of its more restrictive policies and backers. What is certain is that Hillary Clinton today must have grabbed the popcorn and watched the show as Romney gave punch after punch to Trump. In beating up Trump Romney has also beaten up the Republican Party. The cracks that were beginning to show before Super Tuesday is now evident for all to see, and the Republican leadership have nobody but themselves to blame for this.

The Trump Phenomenon

The founders of the US Constitution at the end of the 19^th century instilled a checks and balances system to ensure that each branch was subject to the approval of the other two. The separation of powers was designed to limit each branch’s power. The president, as part of the executive branch can veto the legislative branch’s bills. However, with a two-thirds majority the legislative branch can override that veto. The Supreme Court can in turn declare laws unconstitutional. And to round the circle, the Supreme Court members are appointed by the president but have to be approved by Congress. There are other checks and balances in place. The US intelligence community for example has the oversight committees of both the House and the Senate to ensure that they work within the confines of the law. And it’s just as well: according to former CIA director Robert M Gates, ‘some awfully crazy schemes might well have been approved’ had that oversight not been in place.[1] The presidential elections are no different. It is usual that two major requirements restrain those running for the presidential candidacies: the appeasement of the candidate’s financial backers, and the support of a targeted subsection of the electorate to reach the White House.

The increase in the cost of running for office in the United States has meant that there is a greater need for financial backing, which in turn makes the financiers more influential on the proposed policies of their supported candidates. Indeed such is the need for finance to gain office that many politicians are complaining that holding office is less about politics and more about fund-raising for the next term. Candidates who have an immense personal fortune, such as Trump and previously Ross Perot, can afford to buck the trend. They are almost solely committed to their own policies because they do not have the normal financial restrictions that candidates face. This allows Trump to announce policies and make public observations and accusations that have been previously regarded as extreme.

Trump’s ability to say what he likes gives the appearance of a shotgun approach to policy, but actually this is just an illustration of the second freedom he enjoys. Most party-led candidates are targeting a specific audience with their policy declarations. Not only the financiers determine the nature of their policies but also the policy’s target demographic. Republican supporters are generally pro-life, pro-business, small government, and candidates’ political statements are usually framed to keep within these boundaries. Furthermore, candidates tend to avoid making statements or suggesting policies that are not within the confines of their part’s political spectrum. Trump has moved away from modus operandi in an attempt to appeal to every voter that stands right of centre. His business acumen is attractive to the working class, his stance on immigration attractive to the far right, and he has some appeal to libertarians and Tea Party members with his opposition to big government.

Political analyst Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com fame suggests that Trump’s support in the polls may not last, and nobody analyses the poll data better than Silver. Trump’s rise, according to Silver is based on one of three theories – his attraction to the populist vote, the lack of Republican leadership, or that there is a media bubble around Trump. All of these theories suggest that Trump’s popularity is not particularly strong and could dissipate in a short space of time. The reasons that Silver suggests are relatively simple ones: that the populist vote is incorrect, that the Republican elite will manage to successfully campaign against him, and that an early loss in Iowa or New Hampshire primaries will affect his standing.[2]

There is a danger though in underestimating the momentum of the Trump campaign. That Trump would be even considered a leading contender at this stage twelve months ago was unthinkable. The Trump campaign is becoming expert at picking up popular discontent with the federal government. The latest Gallup poll into satisfaction with the federal government showed a drop of 14% to just 18%, the lowest figure since Gallup first conducted the poll in 1971.[3] Trump has constantly criticised Obama’s use of executive actions, especially those allowing undocumented mothers and children to remain in the United States.While Trump is seen by many of his supporters as the anti-government candidate the results of that poll should give the Trump campaign further hope. What may damage Trump’s standing as the libertarian candidate is his suggestion that he will also use executive orders to repeal those of Obama. Despite Trump’s assertion that he is ‘going to use them much better and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done.’[4] It may cost him supporters who wish to see a move away from the imperial presidency of this century.

The issue for the Republican elites however is the lack of a clear alternative to Trump. His ability to manage the press has not given his rivals an opportunity to regain the ground that they have lost. Trump while still not a certainty of winning the Republican candidacy could most certainly do so with a couple of early victories in the primaries. Trump’s rival for the Iowa caucus on 1^st February is Canadian-born Texan Senator Ted Cruz, currently polling 27.3% to Trump’s 26.8%.[5] However if Trump has few friends among the Republican leadership, then Cruz has even fewer, and would be a disastrous choice for the GOP. If the other candidates, principally Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, fail to act swiftly, then the unfettered Trump could have an unassailable lead long before Super Tuesday on March 1^st.

---

 

[1] Robert M Gates, From the Shadows, (New York: 1996) p559

[2] Nate Silver, Three Theories of Donald Trump’s Rise, (found at www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/three-theories-of-donald-trumps-rise/ [accessed 11^th January 2016])

[3] Joy Wilke, Americans’ Satisfaction With US Gov’t Drops To New Low, (found at www.gallup.com/poll/165371/americans-satisfaction-gov-drops-new-low.aspx [accessed 11th January 2016])

[4] Quote from Bradford Richardson, Trump: Obama ‘led the way’ on executive orders, The Hill, January 10th 2016, (found at www.thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265371-trump-obama-led-the-way-on-executive-orders [accessed 11th January 2016])

[5] Data from Real Clear Politics (found at www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html [accessed 12th January 2016])