By Marc Jampole
Lately I’ve been wondering if Donald Trump is trying to lose
the election.
Maybe he started running as a way to burnish his brand,
similar to what Ben Carson evidently was doing. What he wanted to do was raise
his awareness, especially among the uneducated, so he could continue to place
his name on dubious ventures and sell them to his public at inflated prices.
But then things got out of hand and he found himself alone
in what pundits called the “establishment lane,” with every other candidate
tacking to the extreme right on social issues, tax and spending policies, Social
Security, healthcare and foreign affairs. While Trump jumped to the right of
them when it comes to immigration and articulated with extreme explicitness the
racism which GOP regulars have whispered in code for 40 years, on many issues
he was much more centrist than any of the candidates to whom the news media
affixed the “establishment” label. No one said he was in the establishment
lane, but take a look at who has won the last two Republican nominations—the
most centrist-looking candidates of their election cycle, although both McCain
and Romney, just like Trump, advocated lowering taxes even more on the wealthy.
No one called Trump establishment, but the relative centrality of many of his
positions appealed to Republican voters as much as his outrageous statements
and ultra-nationalist and isolationist trade and immigration proposals.
Trump now finds himself as the presumptive candidate and
maybe he doesn’t want the daily stress and hassles of the presidency. Maybe he
realizes he bit off more than he could chew. Or maybe, like Rubio, Cruz and
many other candidates from both sides of the aisle, Trump likes running a lot
more than he likes governing.
Whatever the reason, his recent actions have me thinking
that he’s throwing the race to Hillary. (And thank goodness for that, since the
choice is between a sociopathic narcissist who has failed at many business
ventures and perhaps the most qualified candidate in the history of the
country.)
How else do you explain him
accusing American soldiers as a group of stealing millions of
dollars from the army that they were supposed to distribute in Iraq? In one
fell swoop, he has alienated active military and veterans alike, groups that
should inherently favor the Republican, no matter who he (or hypothetically
“she”) may be. It may be the first time ever in history that a candidate for
office on any level in any country has maligned soldiers. Not generals, not war
leaders, but dogfaces in the field!
And how else can you explain his terrible two-ish temper
tantrum against Judge Gonzalo Curiel that lasted a week? Or his pulling the
media credentials from media outlets that piss him off, thereby establishing
himself as an opponent of free speech? Or his insults of other Republicans who
have not fallen in line behind his candidacy?
How else do you explain Trump intimating that Obama is
surreptitiously helping the terrorists? Remember that eight years ago when an
audience member made a scurrilous accusation about candidate Obama, John McCain
immediately corrected the benighted fellow and said that Obama was a patriotic
American with whom the Senator happened to disagree. It’s the kind of irresponsible
accusation that upsets a lot of right-looking
independents and centrist-looking Republicans.
And how else do you explain his lunatic and racist statement
that if we had not let the father of the Orlando killer into the country, the
killer would not have been in Florida to shoot up a gay night club? This kind
of logic would lead to the deportation not just of a generation of new
Americans, but of virtually everyone whose ancestors immigrated here. Can’t be
too safe!
These recent comments and the strong responses by Hillary
Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and President Obama have sent Trump’s negatives
higher than any candidate of any major party has had in U.S. history. The latest
polls show Hillary’s lead growing on him. Meanwhile, more Republicans are
distancing themselves from the Donald. Some like Kasich have reiterated their
lack of support. Others like Senator Mark Kirk and Representative Bob Dold have
rescinded prior endorsements. Bernie Sanders has brought a tremendous number of
new voters into the Democratic Party and Hillary shows every signs of doing
what it takes to make them happy. I’m the only one saying it now, but I think
it’s shaping up to be a Democratic sweep—presidency, Senate and the
gerrymandered House.
And yet.
The Orlando tragedy has fortuitously provided Trump with an
opportunity to make a tremendous grandstand play that could convince the
unsophisticated that he can engineer deals to grow the economy and protect us
from terrorism.
As you may know, Republicans have repeatedly blocked
legislation that would prevent people on the “no-fly” list of those suspected
of having terrorist connections from buying or owning guns. It looks as if a “no fly, no gun” law would
have prevented the Orlando killer from buying the weapon he used to assassinate
49 people and injure scores of others. “No fly, no gun” legislation was one of
the two bills for which Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and other Democrats
filibustered this week, the other being extending background checks and waiting
periods to guns purchased at shows and on the Internet. Not up for
consideration is a reinstatement of the ban on assault rifles such as the ones
used by the Orlando nightclub and Newtown elementary school massacres.
At this point, it’s anyone’s guess whether these basic,
common sense gun safety measures will pass the Senate, let alone the House. It
depends upon how many Republicans dare to cross the National Rifle Association
(NRA).
Believe it or not, Trump has come out in favor of a “no fly,
no gun” law. He is scheduled to meet with the NRA in a few days and he says he
is going to talk to them about a “no fly, no gun” proposal. What if, after the
meeting, the NRA announces that it has dropped its opposition to “no fly, no
gun” and Trump takes credit for negotiating a deal that passes legislation
which 90% of all Americans, including most gun owners, want? Wouldn’t Trump say
that it proves that his master negotiation skills can solve the country’s
problems?
With Republican candidates already weakened by the Trump
candidacy, many GOP incumbents, especially in blue and purple states, must be
feeling the heat for their recalcitrant positions regarding gun legislation
that most of their constituents back. Perhaps the NRA will feel it must evolve
its position on maintaining the rights of people suspected of terrorism or risk
losing the Republican majorities that will keep every other type of gun safety
legislation from passing.
But the public may not consider the internal machinations of
the gun lobby and Congress when evaluating the success of a “no fly, no gun”
law, if the NRA support comes after a meeting with Trump. They may see Trump as
the all-conquering hero who got the NRA to compromise and thereby kept guns out
of the hands of terrorists. The Trump script for his presidency will be coming
true, or at least many voters could see it that way.
It is possible then that by compromising on the most
absurdly extremist position it holds, the NRA could give the presidency to
Donald Trump, or at the very least get him back on a positive track.
Of course, even if the NRA does give the Donald an early
Christmas present, he will still be the same narcissistic sociopath who never
censors his thoughts, tends to authoritarian solutions, lies a lot and is
ignorant of the basic mechanics of government and the pressing issues facing
the country. There will be lots of time between now and November for Trump to
insult, lie, get personal and generally demonstrate his inadequacies as a head
of state.
No comments:
Post a Comment