Two things this week made me feel some sympathy for Donald Trump, which is an unfamiliar experience.
One was the widely reported story that he was being substantially outdone by Hilary Clinton in fundraising. Whatever the causes of this, it concerns me that this was translated into "his campaign is doomed" without any apparent questioning of the mechanisms that turn money into votes. It costs an enormous amount of money to run for office in the US, and this gives enormous influence to the kind of person who has large amounts of money to spend on politicians and an interest in controlling legislation. That has been a recipe for corruption and bad government since at least the days of the Roman Empire.
I'm sure he's smart enough to turn this into a talking point about where Clinton is getting that money from, and anything that increases the scrutiny on such deals can only be a good thing. Still, Trump has been grandly talking about self-funding his campaign and not being controlled by money interests. It is rather amusing to see what happens when he is literally invited to put his money where his mouth is. He doesn't need to be controlled by outside interests; he is one already.
The other was stories about the "Dump Trump" movement preparing to try to stop Trump even getting the nomination. Whatever you think of Trump, he got the required votes in the Republican primaries - in a system deliberately designed to stop non-establishment candidates like him. If the Republicans can stop him now, they ought in future to dispense with the fictional holding of primaries and simply choose a candidate internally. Or perhaps pre-select a few and restrict the primaries to them. This is not a ridiculous idea; political parties in other countries do exactly this. But it's not what they said they would do, and I strongly suspect there would be a revolt if they did. Particularly by Trump's supporters, already primed with stories of delegate shenanigans; and in general, by Americans who see it as their right to vote on everything.
Set against that is the whole purpose of political parties in a democracy; to vet and select candidates who will effectively represent the advertised principles of the party. If you know what a party stands for and agree with it, you should be able to just vote its ticket blindly and get a competent, effective representative. Dogcatcher or president, if they put up incompetents they are not doing their job and deserve to lose other contests as well. But what can a party do when it realizes halfway through the election process that it has picked a turkey? There is still time to fix the problem, but not by following the advertised process.
The best thing that could come out of this election is a great deal of soul-searching on all sides - Democrat, Republican, and public. There's no shortage of things that need fixing. I might have to settle for some Republican soul-searching after the massive loss that they frankly deserve. And if Trump wins, I will take some consolation that it will certainly illuminate some of the system's flaws with a most harsh and unforgiving light. Sadly, that light will stay on for at least four years.
Come November, I hope to be feeling even more sympathy for Trump as he struggles with public failure. But if all the blame is heaped on him, we will lose a precious opportunity to improve things.
One was the widely reported story that he was being substantially outdone by Hilary Clinton in fundraising. Whatever the causes of this, it concerns me that this was translated into "his campaign is doomed" without any apparent questioning of the mechanisms that turn money into votes. It costs an enormous amount of money to run for office in the US, and this gives enormous influence to the kind of person who has large amounts of money to spend on politicians and an interest in controlling legislation. That has been a recipe for corruption and bad government since at least the days of the Roman Empire.
I'm sure he's smart enough to turn this into a talking point about where Clinton is getting that money from, and anything that increases the scrutiny on such deals can only be a good thing. Still, Trump has been grandly talking about self-funding his campaign and not being controlled by money interests. It is rather amusing to see what happens when he is literally invited to put his money where his mouth is. He doesn't need to be controlled by outside interests; he is one already.
The other was stories about the "Dump Trump" movement preparing to try to stop Trump even getting the nomination. Whatever you think of Trump, he got the required votes in the Republican primaries - in a system deliberately designed to stop non-establishment candidates like him. If the Republicans can stop him now, they ought in future to dispense with the fictional holding of primaries and simply choose a candidate internally. Or perhaps pre-select a few and restrict the primaries to them. This is not a ridiculous idea; political parties in other countries do exactly this. But it's not what they said they would do, and I strongly suspect there would be a revolt if they did. Particularly by Trump's supporters, already primed with stories of delegate shenanigans; and in general, by Americans who see it as their right to vote on everything.
Set against that is the whole purpose of political parties in a democracy; to vet and select candidates who will effectively represent the advertised principles of the party. If you know what a party stands for and agree with it, you should be able to just vote its ticket blindly and get a competent, effective representative. Dogcatcher or president, if they put up incompetents they are not doing their job and deserve to lose other contests as well. But what can a party do when it realizes halfway through the election process that it has picked a turkey? There is still time to fix the problem, but not by following the advertised process.
The best thing that could come out of this election is a great deal of soul-searching on all sides - Democrat, Republican, and public. There's no shortage of things that need fixing. I might have to settle for some Republican soul-searching after the massive loss that they frankly deserve. And if Trump wins, I will take some consolation that it will certainly illuminate some of the system's flaws with a most harsh and unforgiving light. Sadly, that light will stay on for at least four years.
Come November, I hope to be feeling even more sympathy for Trump as he struggles with public failure. But if all the blame is heaped on him, we will lose a precious opportunity to improve things.
