Folks,
Listening to “talking heads” speak about Presidential candidates,
primaries, electoral politics, all sorts of “issues” or “policies,” and a
mud-smattering of personal attacks, it is good to pull back from the verbiage,
withdraw from the heat of battle, observe and think:
What we are all watching unfold in this primary season is an enormous
struggle to gain and to hold political power. Human beings’ feelings,
character, and various policy issues are all secondary at best.
The Democrats began to display the power struggle in open only when there
appeared to be, for several months, a plausible threat to Clinton and her lock
on power within the Democrat Party. The Clintonians did not take Sanders
seriously because he was so removed from the levers of power within the Party.
As he gained in popularity, and Clinton fell, she outmaneuvered Sanders by
moving into his ideological territory. Her enormous defeat in New Hampshire no
doubt shook up the ruling powers somewhat, although if they looked at the larger
picture—as I am sure the Clintons did—they knew that Sanders would be doomed by
the fact that such a huge portion of Democrat primary voters are minorities, and
especially the blacks have voted for, and favored, the Clintons overwhelmingly.
Sanders was a threat to Clinton only from the white youth he attracted; and
from the higher-income voters, many of whom have long distrusted the Clintons
for their less-than-noble qualities and their ability to shift positions quickly
(something Sanders seems unable or unwilling to do). Sanders has not, to date,
hit Clinton hard on significant matters, and so never really threatened her
power position. Nibbling and quibbling over her speeches at Goldman Sachs
proves to be pathetically insignificant. When Sanders said, “Enough of those
damn emails already” in their first debate, he virtually guaranteed Clinton the
nomination. How so? Sanders would not take off the gloves and really try to
deck the overwhelming front-runner in the Democrat Party. His own lust for
power has been overly bounded and constrained to defeat a very powerful Party
machine.
The Republican story unfolding before our eyes is a largely different
matter. The Republican Party elite had pre-selected the Presidential nominee
(as did the Democrats with Clinton). That choice was Jeb Bush. Spending some
$150 million on a candidate who barely rose above 4-5% in national polls shows
the foolishness of their ways, and their belief that money and power could
overcome any popular choice. That plan failed with Bush’s poor performances in
Iowa, New Hampshire, and then decisively in South Carolina; except for Iowa,
these states have been strong bastions of Bush power in politics. (Remember
that even in 2000, in the Bush-Gore election, the only state in the NE which
Bush carried was New Hampshire; had Gore taken that state, he would have been
President, even without Florida.) The Republican Party bosses clearly
underestimated Trump and the power of the movement he unleashed. The blindness
of the Republicans should not be surprising. The same Republican Establishment
has proven itself tone deaf for years. To note a few examples: disregarding
popular sentiment and foisting the lackluster insider Romney on the electorate
in 2012; the utter deafness to the Republican electorate after the huge waves of
2010 and 2014, which gave Republicans control of the House and the Senate. What
did these elected Republicans do? They arrogantly disdained their own voters,
and did what they pleased by doing virtually nothing to challenge the power of
the President—the task they had been elected to do. They failed, and they were
too proud to recognize or to admit their errors. The backlash has been not the
person of Trump, but the movement that has been sweeping Trump to victories.
“The Donald” has been capitalizing on the gross failures of the Party
elites—failures and backlash to their failures.
The Trump phenomenon is grounded on two primary forces: the contempt of
many Republican voters for their Party’s leadership in Washington; and the
disgust of many Republican voters with governmental power in general, and with
power from imperial Washington, D.C., in particular. Part of the irony here is
that Trump has not given much voice to reducing Washington’s power, and that
could prove to be his Achilles’ heel with his base. Trump is, on the other
hand, being used by the electorate as a battering ram against the Republican
establishment, and especially their leadership in Congress. Understandably in
terms of power-politics, the Establishment is fighting back, hard. One of their
main forces so far has been to use Mitt Romney, formerly Mr. Milk Toast, to
attack Trump with nasty charges. Senators and Congressmen have joined the
chorus. These men are not fighting for “ideas,” but to maintain their
power-hold over the Republican Party, and over a sizable part of the American
electorate. If Trump continues to win primaries, as he is expected to do, it
should be interesting to see how desperate the Republican elites become. Expect
virtually anything and everything to be used. Of course the Republican elites
gain support from non-Republican powers, such as the NY Times, and even the
Clintons, who do not want to run against Trump, despite what polls say now.
Bill Clinton is far too astute a Machiavellian politician not to know that Cruz
or Rubio would be easily defeated in a general election, but that the real treat
to their attempt to regain the Presidency is Trump and the movement underneath
him.
Watch the lust for power at work. The rest is superficial dressing. These
politicians use “policy” as a main cloak for their naked selves: men and women
greedy for gain—for power, and often for wealth. Imposing their “ideas” on the
populace—their “policies”—is primarily a means to exercise their power, and to
guarantee the holding of power for themselves and their fellows in their Party. What is a political Party but an organization to acquire, to maintain, to
increase, and to exercise political power? In this regard, there is no
essential difference between the Communist Party of the USSR, the National
Socialist Party of Germany, or the Republican or Democrat Parties in the United
States. Our Parties are more benign, not because the powerful in this country
are more virtuous than in Germany or the Soviet Union, but because their are
more CHECKS on the abuses of power in their country than in the totalitarian
regimes. All of the key players in these parties are authoritarian, and driven
by the lust for power. Otherwise, they would not seek such power over others.
They would live more private lives. If their overwhelming desire were to help
formulate and effect policy, they would work in a think tank, or on Capitol Hill
as members of a staff, or as lobbyists, or even quietly pursue scholarly work,
for examples.
One last point. As Trump closes in on the Republican nomination, we will
hear shrill and increasingly brutal assaults from the holders of power in both
parties to destroy the man and the movement that threaten them. They will not
openly admit: “We want power, and to keep our power, we must destroy the
greatest threat to us.” Trump will gain power as discontented voters, disgusted
with their Party elites and with Washington’s rule, feel increasingly threatened
and vulnerable (“unprotected”), as by international violence and domestic acts
of terror (whether from Americans or from foreign sources). Threatened people
lash back. Feeling powerless, they look to a powerful force to increase their
security. Most Americans feel highly vulnerable now: personally, economically,
financially, and with their lives threatened by terrorists. And what are
terrorists, but men and women so driven for power that they will resist to any
means to assert their will? Physical murder is the last resort of the
power-driven. Before that, they engage in character assassination and every
possible trick short of murder.
