After Wisconsin, the G.O.P.’s powers may finally have found a way to keep their anti-Trump hopes alive: https://t.co/puMiDEbZyp
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) April 6, 2016
Some of you continue to throw mudballs at my hopes for Kasich, urging me to be realistic about the numbers.
You’re missing the point. I see the numbers. It’s not about the numbers. It’s about there being some hope for the country, some way out of the current mess. I think it’s essential that we not forget that this one way out exists.
For instance, Doug (who hates it when I try to cling to hope) asks, looking at the schedule of remaining primaries, “where does Kasich win?”
My reply, which I repeat here because I think it’s worth a separate thread…
I don’t know. It’s not anything I’ve given any thought to. The point is for him to survive, to still be at the table when the nomination is decided at the convention.
Yes, it’s bad he didn’t do better in Wisconsin. But again, I haven’t pinned my hopes on him WINNING anywhere else, although it would be awesome if he did.
The point is a contested convention, one at which alternatives to Trump and Cruz can emerge. It could be Romney or Ryan, although I’d prefer it be Kasich — not only because I like him better, but because he subjected himself to the primary process and survived.
If you want to talk probabilities (what is likely to happen, rather than what SHOULD happen, which is what concerns me), then I say the most likely outcome is that Cruz is nominated. Party leaders (to the extent such creatures still exist) don’t have the guts, or the juice, to deny the nomination to both the first and second-place finishers (it remains to be seen whether they have the character to deny it to Trump).
This probability was greatly increased by Graham, Romney, et al., lining up behind Cruz — which to me was outrageous. They have set a pattern of capitulation to this man they all despise, one likely to be repeated at the convention.
What I’m doing is looking for some hope, any hope, that the nation will not be faced with the much-damaged Hillary Clinton (or, even worse, Bernie) on the one hand and either Trump or Cruz on the other. It is essential that there be SOME hope. This is not a game; this is our country…
Related Posts
H.L. Mencken was right: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Cruz wasn’t my first choice, but he’s miles better than Trump.
A contested convention could really take on a life of its own and get out of hand if it goes beyond 3 or 4 ballots. Also, while it would be one thing to deny Trump’s supporters their guy by nominating Cruz (Trumpsters are a minority of the Republican party, and Cruz might be perceived to be willing to address some of their legitimate concerns), it would be something else entirely to alienate both Cruz and Trump supporters, a hefty proportion of GOP primary voters, by nominating someone perceived to be a “status quo” or “establishment” Republican.
I think the safest outcome is for Cruz to beat Trump on a 2nd or 3rd ballot. Bird in the hand, and all that. I wouldn’t want to give Trump a chance to rally. I’d give Cruz a chance to beat him for a few ballots before looking for other options.
But that’s just me, you know, if I were a delegate, which I would like to be.
Trump supporters have “legitimate concerns?” That’s news to me.
The main way Cruz is likely to reach out to Trump supporters is the way he already does — by lashing out against their big bugaboo, “political correctness.” (Which, in this context, generally means lashing out at basic civility.) What else do you think he would do to appeal to them? I shudder to think…
What I mean is that, while Trump has either nonexistent or horribly ill-conceived prescriptions, he occasionally gets close to the mark in terms of diagnoses. The Iran deal really was a huge mistake (Trump’s foreign policy, if you want to dignify it with that term, would be terrifying, as mentioned in pieces like that Krauthammer thing you shared recently). We really do need to get serious about securing our border (and airports, and visa overstays, and entry/exit tracking, etc.).
And while I personally view the border / immigration issue principally as one of national security, I can make a distinction between a demagogue like Trump and sincere voters who may view the immigration issue through more of a jobs/economic lens.
Make no mistake, Trump supporters are wrong. They have to bear some of the blame for the mistake they’re making, but there are real reasons why people feel like their elected leaders are tone deaf to their concerns. I just think Cruz as the nominee would be easier for some of Trump’s more reasonable supporters to swallow, and thus would minimize the damage and fracturing of the party (there’s going to be some of that no matter what happens).
Speaking of political correctness…
All through this election cycle, I’ve noticed that a lot of reasonable people feel they must give lip service to the “legitimate” concerns motivating the populist insurgencies of Trump, and Sanders, and for that matter Cruz.
I don’t see why one must kowtow to nonsense.
We hear about economic anxiety as being a legitimate source of the rise of these candidates. Well, most of us have experienced these anxieties — I have probably more than anyone else who frequents this blog. I still do, every day. But it doesn’t cause me to lose my mind and believe unlikely things, or turn to demagogues. And I don’t feel obliged to respect it when others do…
That observation is worth a separate post — or perhaps a book.
I may return to it…
Appealing to base instincts is easy pandering. Uncommon leadership is positively shaping minds.
And yet, Mark, few if any seem capable of this uncommon leadership. Brad speaks of “economic anxiety” but I think that’s only one part of the story. There’s a much larger anxiety out there (certainly if you add all the “insurgent” candidacies together) about the very soundness of our system of government, certainly at the federal level. We’ve had periods of economic uncertainty before; I don’t know that we’ve had this level of pessimism, cynicism, utter frustration with the system before. This is real, circles around both sides of the political spectrum (indeed, to some extent upending traditional ideas of what is “liberal” and what is “conservative”) and is not going away anytime soon no matter who is elected President.
The system is collapsing on itself. Whatever cynicism, pessimism, or anxiety exists in the general is a response not a cause. Complexity, bureaucracy, and an inability to get things done by the government generates the attitudes we see now. I’m hoping for a throw-the-bums out election but don’t expect it.
I’ve been travelling across the country for the past two weeks and in informal conversations with people (cab drivers, people at a higher ed conference, people in Las Vegas), I haven’t had a single person who has told me they are voting for Hillary or Trump or Cruz. There were a few Sanders supporters… but when I tell people I’m voting Libertarian Party, several people (including my cab driver last night who said he was a Democrat), said they are fed up enough to do the same.
The disaffection is unfocused and confused because people don’t understand why government, particularly on the national level, is so messed up.
Basically, it’s the parties, and all the other professional advocacy groups who thrive on deadlock and dysfunction, using it to enrage their constituencies in order to raise money so they can keep doing what they do. Meanwhile, the government is frozen, unable to do things as fundamental as pass a budget.
To give one example of why things don’t get better: If the public understood what was wrong, the people would rise up as one and demand that the Senate hold hearings for the president’s Supreme Court nominee. Only someone totally brainwashed by the partisan status quo can accept for a second the excuses Republicans are offering for not doing so. The notion that the last election was somehow illegitimate and that we have to have another to legitimize a nomination is risible, unless you completely buy into the madness that the parties foster and maintain.
Then, once the people woke up on THAT, maybe they’d demand reapportionment reform, which would fix pretty much EVERYTHING that ails the House.
Yeah, there’s plenty to be mad about. But it’s hard to focus public attention on the real causes. So folks get worked up and blame “political correctness” or “billionaires,” or some other scapegoat that catches their fancy…
Or, they turn their backs on the idea of government itself, and vote Libertarian. Which means they turn their backs on the notion of civilization…
I agree. The problem is that the politicians do not reflect the outlook of the voters. I mean this broadly. That has been corrosively toxic to the political system.
There are plenty of Senators and members of Congress who have the ability – the outlook and the aptitude – to be national leaders. The same goes for our current President and VP (and most of the past ones, as well – even ol’ 43 himself). But we all know that there are always a few loonies in DC – it’s just that this year they hold the keys to the asylum.
We are going to continue down this spiral – I won’t call it a death spiral – until the Supreme Court wakes up to the fact that its number one responsibility is to to ensure a representative form of government. They can do that by ruling against gerrymandering. They are the legislative check against an out of control (or tightly controlled) process of rigging the vote. That’s the heart of electorate’s anger. And it’s the thing that aligns with their economic fears.
Redistributing our economic gains won’t solve our problems. Empowering the electorate so that it, as a totality, feels responsible for who is sent to Washington can, eventually, do more to solve both the political and the economic dislocations. There are no panaceas, but a sound, representative process is the American Way. That’s the bedrock principle that has propelled our nation. To neglect that is to confirm we are at our zenith. I don’t believe that.
“We are going to continue down this spiral – I won’t call it a death spiral – until the Supreme Court wakes up to the fact that its number one responsibility is to to ensure a representative form of government. They can do that by ruling against gerrymandering.”
I can’t imagine that’s going to happen. First of all, I don’t think SCOTUS sees it’s number one job as ensuring a “representative form of government”. I think SCOTUS justices see their only job as faithfully applying the law of the United States to the specific cases brought before them. The Court can only hear and decide cases brought before them. It’s a polite child who only speaks when spoken to.
If you’re hoping the Supreme Court is going to save us from gerrymandering, then I think you’re going to be waiting a long time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for gerrymandering. I just think the only way it will be resolved is by electing people to state legislatures who will re-draw the lines. That’s the easiest way, too.
But they’ve drawn the lines so that it’s harder to elect people who will draw the lines a different way…
Hey, I didn’t say it would be super-easy. 🙂
Sure they do. Bottom line, that’s the Justices’ job. We enshrined that principle in our Constitution. It’s fair to argue that ensuring laws conform to our Constitutional framework is the Supreme Court’s mandate. That’s true. But the bedrock principle is representative government. That’s the thing they are sworn to uphold, as are the legislative and the executive branches. The problem is that over time and with the conniving technological advances have enabled, the legislative process has perverted our bedrock ideals and strayed from its responsibility to represent the people of the United States of America. The only avenue to correct this – as the legislative process will not correct itself here – is to have the court rule that it must adhere to its Constitutional responsibilities.
I don’t expect that there will ever be a perfect form of political representation. It’s not realistically possible. It will always be a scrum of political wits and brawn. But where we are now is a perversion. Look at the Congressional districts in every single state. No state – not their voters nor their legislators – has been able to create districts that represent people; it is simply not possible under the stranglehold of Party. All districts represent Republicans or Democrats. Our gerrymandered redistricting serves the parties, not the people. That wasn’t the Constitution’s intent.
Neither party is better or worse than the other. They are equally bad. That’s not debatable.
It’s also hard for a tidal surge by the public against gerrymandering, even if it were to occur, to have any effect.
That’s because elected representatives don’t care about what the majority of voters think. As Mark says, “The problem is that the politicians do not reflect the outlook of the voters.”
What they do reflect is the views of most extreme people who vote in their own parties’ primaries. And that’s the kind of government we get.
Take the Supreme Court nomination impasse. Please.
A solid majority of voters agree with the Constitution, saying that Obama should name Scalia’s replacement, not his successor. Because, you know, DUH.
But Republican senators care only about the minority that is rabid about Obama and hate him and all who sail in him, and couldn’t care less what the Constitution says.
Now you’ll say senators are elected at-large and therefore are immune to the effects of gerrymandering, and you’d be right up to a point. But the poison generated by redistricting has affected the parties overall, in harness with all the interest groups who find fanning extremism useful.
Look at Lindsey Graham. Sure, he won re-election despite being a guy large numbers of Republicans (the extreme ones, the ones representatives fear) won’t stand up for. But he had to deal with the craziness of having six or seven extremists run against him in his primary. Who wants to face that all the time? Too few senators do; which is why few are as willing to stray from extremist orthodoxy as Graham is…
“Take the Supreme Court nomination impasse. Please.”
I see what you did there. 🙂
I find Graham as extremist as anyone when it comes to matters of war.
Yeah, I know you do. You and Doug.
But he’s actually someone who still embraces the postwar (post-1945, to be clear) understanding of America’s role in the world that has been embraced by Democratic and Republican leadership for lo these many decades.
The extremists are the ones on either side of him — on one side the folks who think we can just wish away our security needs and responsibilities, and on the other the chest-thumpers who know nothing of collective security, and talk about “carpet-bombing” anyone who crosses us.
The only way Graham stands out is that these days, there are too few like him…
By the way, Jeff — good luck with your bid to become a delegate to the convention. I think you’d make a good one. The more thoughtful people there, the better…
Thanks, Brad, I appreciate that!
The Iran deal really was a huge mistake.
– Jeff
The honest answer to the Iran deal, and this goes for Democrats and Republicans, is that we just don’t know yet. In 10 years we might but for now the jury is out.
As for Trump supporters I doubt they really care that much.