is the title of this important column by Charles M. Blow in today’s New York Times. It begins like this”
Sometimes you have to simply step back from the hubbub and take stock, with cleareyed sobriety, at a moment in history to fully appreciate its epochal import. Now is such a time.
A nativist, sexist, arguably fascist and racist demagogue who twists the truth is the front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, over the protestations of the party’s establishment, who rightly view his ascendance as an existential threat to an already tattered brand.
He is odd and entertaining, vacuous and vain, disarming and terrifyingly dangerous.
I am not going to go through all the column as is my wont. I am going to urge you to read this.
Instead, I am going to offer some reflections on several issues, and then jump to Blow’s conclusion.
I would be honored if you would keep reading.
I will be satisfied if I have at least persuaded you to read Blow.
There is no doubt there is panic among many Republicans, who for too long were dismissive of Trump’s chances of winning. There were those who tried to attack Trump and were dazed when he counterpunched, often viciously.
There are others who simply do not understand how he gets away with lies and contradictions, even as they acknowledge his ability to ignite the fears of many voters.
Both Republicans and pundits are complicit in Trump’s rise. It is not just that he is long-time celebrity, going back even before The Apprentice made him a nationally known figure. Consider just these two points:
1. Major Republican figures, determined to make Obama a failed President, did not slam down the birtherism among their base. Yes, that includes you, Mitch McConnell. Yes, that includes all those who met on January 20, 2009, to plot how to obstruct the new President. One of the very few public exceptions was John McCain, during the 2008 campaign, who took the microphone away from the woman at the town hall when she was calling Obama a Muslim and told her that he knew Obama was a Christian. Remember, Trump got heavily involved with the birtherism movement, and many of those now supporting him probably have some memory of his various efforts. That major Republicans did not in a unified fashion denounce the movement and those involved, including not only Trump but also his good buddy Joe Arpaio, helped fuel the rise Trump has now.
2. The media is also complicit. Very complicit. We did not need the recent words of the president of a network telling us that Trump has been good for his bottom line to realize this. Anyone sentient could see the amount of coverage given to Trump as compared to other candidates. One reason Trump has had to spend little money is because of the amount of free media he has gotten. Here I have to make an additional remark, prefacing it by noting that I am a Clinton supporter. How might the Democratic race have been reshaped if instead of Trump getting all that coverage at least some of the early events of Sanders had been given the same access to the airwaves? After all, there should be no doubt that Sanders also speaks to the anger of the American people. And Sanders was speaking out as a candidate almost half a year before Trump even got into the arena.
I am not yet convinced that Trump will win the nomination. He depends to some degree on drawing into the process people who have not previously been participants in Republican primaries and caucuses. He has done well in those places where one does not have to previously be registered as a Republican, including all 4 of the early contests if I recall correctly. But note that in two states which were Republican only on Tuesday, OK and AR, he struggled, losing the first to Cruz and narrowly winning the second in what was a competitive 3-way race. There are 20 remaining contests that are Republican only. Further, in states in which there is either open voting as there was in Virginia and as there will be in Michigan, he is in a competition for some voters with Bernie Sanders. Trump’s image of being a winner was somewhat dented by only winning 7 of 11 events, whereas Bernie’s was enhanced by winning four of 11. Next Tuesday could be key to see where those voters break. Trump is still the favorite for the nomination in my opinion. BUT — a proper vetting of his record of business failures COULD damage his brand.
There are issues on which he is vulnerable.
- other than real estate, he has a track record of failure: Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Mortgage (which he established at a time when most were warning that the mortgage business was in real trouble)
- when he has to testify in one of the lawsuits on Trump University in the Fall, he will be facing the possibility that his words under oath could then be used against him in a criminal case, since the judge in that case has made clear that there is the possibility of RICO charges. If that is not taken off the table, might Trump invoke his Fifth Amendment rights?
- it is possible to take the words Trump now uses, find examples of how he used them in previous business ventures — “we are going to get the best people” — and bracket them with the failures of those businesses, and close with him saying it about the government, and perhaps raise some questions.
Perhaps an ad of Trump’s more outrageous statements put back to back to back might dissuade some who would otherwise vote for him. People are willing to excuse any one statement, but what if confronted with the consistent pattern?
It is POSSIBLE to stop Trump from getting the nomination, but the question is also at what price. He almost certainly will come in with the most delegates, even if not a majority. While a convention could therefore deny him the nomination, the damage done would be not just to the Republican party, but to the Democratic process. Think on our side at the ire felt by many at the notion of Superdelegates denying the winner of the most elected delegates the nomination.
Demagoguery has long been a part of American politics, whether or not we want to recognize it. American populism has also long had its dark side. As for demagogues, we can think back to Huey Long or more recently to George Wallace. As to populism and how it gets interwined with nativism and attacks on any considered “other” we can consider the Know Nothings for starters. The rise of the KKK and its persistence well into the 20th Century is a clear example. The willingness of political and economic and social elites to use the fears of the populace to their own advantage is something that has been too consistent a part of our political history, and that the likes of the Wall Street elites now horrified at what Trump represents may seem like appropriate karma for them, the problem is the damage done to the entire political process.
In some ways, Obama may have represented the last, best chance to fix our politics before they became completely broken. I acknowledge that the revolution of which Sanders speaks appeals to many, as demonstrated by the number and amount of contributions he has received. BUT, and this is important, not only is the Democratic turnout down compared to 2008, so is the percentage of that turnout which is the young people among which he does so well (by contrast the percentage of the Democratic electorate that is Black is up, and Clinton is drawing a bigger percentage of them than did Obama). So far there is little evidence of the kind of revolution that Sanders seeks, whereas there is a lot of evidence of the dangers of the kind of demagoguery which is employed by Trump and which has been magnified by the way the media has covered him. The brokenness of our government that has resulted from the willingness of Republicans to obstruct Obama in every way possible has contributed to the environment in which Trump is thriving.
In the middle of his column, Blow offers the following wores:
Let this sink in, America.
Stop thinking that it’s all a joke, a hoax, a game. It’s not. Maybe he began this quest as a branding exercise, but it has morphed into something quite real: a challenge to the collective moral character of the republic. The success of his candidacy so far calls into question the very definition and direction of America.
This is a critical election. It is not just the Republicans who need to think about how in our Machiavellian approach to politics, that the end justifies whatever means we choose to invoke, undermines the very notion of a liberal democracy, of the notion of e pluribus unum.
Blow warns that an election against Trump would not be a cakewalk. I agree.
It would also be an election that is likely to be even more of a food fight than we have already seen in the Republican primary. I have no doubt that Trump would bring out women who would claim that Bill Clinton raped them (Juanita Broderick), or that Hillary attacked them for speaking out about Bill. He already has several who will “testify” about Benghazi. That’s the tip of the iceberg. I will not demean this site with several of the other items I have reason to believe he is prepared to use to try to destroy Clinton.
As Blow warns us:
Say this out loud: The leading candidate for president on the Republican side is a demagogue. He is on track to be that party’s nominee. He is attracting record numbers of voters to the polls. If he wins the nomination, he could also win the presidency.
He is a misogynist. He is clearly comfortable association with racists. He is a nativist. He has no sense of shame or embarrassment. He is a narcissist.
He is a demagogue.
And I will end as does Blow, with no sense of peace:
Scared yet? Good! Stop laughing this off. It’s not a joke. It’s quite real. And you need to remember the moment that you woke up and realized just how real it was.