View on the news

Dynasty versus dynamism, and the populism of blunt candor

Christopher Curran
Posted 7/30/15

The presidential primary season is already in full swing, with only five months till the Iowa caucuses. However, this primary season has already taken some unpredictable turns.

The conventional …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
View on the news

Dynasty versus dynamism, and the populism of blunt candor

Posted

The presidential primary season is already in full swing, with only five months till the Iowa caucuses. However, this primary season has already taken some unpredictable turns.

The conventional political wisdom forecast a relatively easy pathway for the two dynasty candidates. Both former New York Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) were the presumed frontrunners. Perhaps to some pundits they still are. Yet, these forgone prospective nominees of their parties have been struck by lightning generated by two improbable opponents.

To the surprise of many, self-proclaimed “independent socialist” Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont, has galvanized thousands of voters with a vociferous condemnation of corporate America, a demand for a national $15 an hour minimum wage, and call for free tuition at any state college or university.

While the septuagenarian Sanders has electrified the left, billionaire businessman Donald Trump has stirred support on the right. “The Donald” has seized upon the ongoing illegal immigration problem, which he has dovetailed with the distrust of Washington politicians who have been nebulous to address the crisis.

Consequently, the assumption that Clinton would undoubtedly become her party’s nominee has been called into question. Also, Bush’s likelihood to gain his party’s crown, even in consideration of his 15 competitors, has dwindled somewhat. This current political atmosphere begs many essential questions. Is the current popularity of Sanders and Trump an endorsement of their individual policies, personalities, or character? Or, are they gaining followers by speaking to the utter frustration of citizens who have endured successive innocuous governments? Do these two surprising candidates hold real answers, or do they demonstrate a catharsis for those dissatisfied with government?

Clinton has long been thought to be the natural successor to Barack Obama. After her near miss for the nomination in 2008, Democrats have believed that she could repeat the novelty sensation of Obama’s elevation. The once obscure Obama was catapulted into the nomination primarily upon his status as the first African American to possibly become president. Hillary’s supposed inevitability is largely locked in to her status as the first woman to possibly become president.

Corrosive to her chances is her predilection for prevarication. A practiced liar, Hillary has been caught publicly lying on many occasions. The Whitewater Affair (a suspect land development deal in Arkansas), the White House Travel Office firings, false statements covering up her husband’s infidelities, erroneous claims about being under sniper fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina, her misstatements over the slaughter of four diplomatic employees in Libya, and her lack of honesty involving her covert emailing system during her tenure as secretary of state – all these incidents and more have proved her consistent dishonesty.

On the contrary, the explosive Sanders is well known for his unbridled honesty without any concern for possible political fallout. As a congressman, Sanders voted against intervention in Iraq in both 1991 and 2003. As a result, he was ostracized as being unpatriotic. Furthermore, Sanders voiced great concerns against the Patriot Act, which he correctly interpreted as eroding basic rights of due process. He was denounced for his standpoint on this crucial constitutional matter as well.

As a senator, he railed against the “too big to fail” bank bailout called the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) spurred by the economic collapse of September 2008. He has called consistently for raising the top-end tax rate on millionaires, for raising the minimum wage, ending corporate welfare, and striving for greater fairness regarding Social Security. All of these standpoints were often in conflict with most of his Senate brethren. Regardless, he based his reaction to legislation based upon his personal political morality, which is something the politically mercurial Clinton is seemingly incapable of.

Sanders’ continuing blunt honesty is resonating with those who feel they have been disaffected by our government. While Clinton has avoided answering direct questions from the press, or for that matter ever stating what she might actually stand for, Sanders has spoken with expositional candor.

Money-wise, during the last quarter, Clinton’s campaign collected over $47 million in political donations in comparison to Sanders’ $15.2 million. However, Sanders crowds at political events have been larger, more vibrant and more enthusiastic. This juxtaposition might mean that the inevitable Hillary might not be. If not the unconventional Sanders, perhaps someone less controversial who adopts his manner of campaigning could steal away the Democrat presidential nomination.

Whereas on the Republican side, Trump continues to confound the 15 other announced candidates by drawing more escalating support despite his unkind criticisms of Sen. John Mc Cain of Arizona and several other callous comments regarding illegal immigrants. Egocentric, bombastic and outlandish, Trump’s impetuous utterances simultaneously offend some and endear many. According to national polls, Trump is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Donald’s campaign seems to be a seat-of-the-pants, reckless and disorganized run. Yet, he is catching fire, driven by outlandish self-aggrandizing speeches and interviews.

Due to the self-financing of his run, Trump appeals to voters who have concluded that he will not be beholding to any special interest. Should he ascend to the Oval Office, his supporters believe he could administrate the executive branch of government using the successful business practices that have made him gloriously wealthy. These hopeful supporters have faith that he can solve the illegal alien problem, establish trade parity with China, and restore long-term fiscal solvency to the now astronomical national debt.

The former frontrunner Jeb Bush, after a relatively effective declaration speech, has been drowned out by the larger-than-life Trump. The former Florida governor’s campaign style is low key and reasoned. His stated policies in regard to education, the economy and immigration are tenable. However, his delivery lacks the verve and excitement of his competitor Trump.

The once-inevitable frontrunners for the nomination of their parties may not realize what they once thought was a lock due to the eruption of the improbable. Sanders and Trump have struck a chord with voters who have lost their faith in government. Whether either of them can prevail is questionable. However, that evidence of their current successes should cause Clinton and Bush to take heed. America needs real honesty and leadership, not just those interested in political expediency.

Comments

1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • falina

    But. but......what about Chafee, lol?

    Thursday, July 30, 2015 Report this