In the U.S. election campaign, Donald Trump has been the big story. But now that Bernie Sanders is surging on the Democratic side, the big story is how two no-chance candidates are doing so well. The two don't have anything in common policy-wise, so pundits are seizing on their one commonality: neither one looks or acts like a traditional politician.
In trying to explain Trump, it had already become an article of faith that voters were drawn to his authenticity, with some talking heads saying that voters are so sick of artificial candidates that this was the main reason for his success. Although it wasn't usually stated, there seemed to a implication that his supporters were so desperate for authenticity, that they supported him in spite of his racist, sexist rhetoric, as long as he was speaking from the heart.
The problem with that explanation is that fake politicians are like attack ads: everyone says they hate them, many claim they don't work, yet they just keep winning. If authenticity was so important to people, how is comes filled with such pretentious, manufactured politicians. Even Trump himself has left plenty of clues that he's as fake as anyone. His initial attack on Mexicans was followed by a revelation that his own clothing line was made in Mexico. But his supporters - like so many people before them - chose to ignore facts that doesn't fit the narrative they wanted to believe.
I get the impression that the media is hanging on to the people-just-want-authenticity explanation because it’s hard to accept that so many people are attracted to Trump’s repulsive message. But really, the Trump phenomenon isn't hard to understand, intellectually or emotionally. He's polling what, 24%? That's 24% of Republicans, so about 12% of Americans in general. Is it really so hard to believe that there are 12% of Americans who are bigoted enough to agree with the content of his message?
This also helps to explain the other question pundits are struggling with: surely he can't win, so how is he going to lose? They either conclude that eventually he's going to go too far with his wild statements, or that his campaign with implode in confusion and infighting. Those things could happen, but there's a simpler explanation. Think back a few weeks; what were we making fun of before we had Trump to make fun of? We were joking about the huge number of Republican candidates. Here we are taking about a guy "dominating" with about a quarter of the vote. For him to win the nomination, he'd have to win over lots more voters, just like any of the other candidates. And that's his biggest obstacle: there can't be many supporters of Rubio, Jindal, Fiorina, et al who would go to Trump when their preferred candidate drops out. Really, Trump is a story only because there are so many candidates splitting the sane vote.
On the Democratic side, Sanders’ surge is not surprising or even unusual. There have been lots of election cycles where a party flirts with a candidate who seems to represent a purer expression of the party’s ideology. For a precedent, you only have to look to the first President Clinton. He was one of the few presidents who didn’t win the New Hampshire Primary. It was won by Paul Tsongas; remember him? Didn’t think so. Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush didn’t win New Hampshire either; John McCain did. Say, why do we care so much about New Hampshire again?
Howard Dean and Pat Buchanan are other examples of party favourites who gave the eventual winner a run for his money. In each case, the party eventually voted for the less exciting but more mainstream candidate. Why? There are a lot of reasons, but I believe the biggest is that as the election process goes on, the members get a chance to look at their opposition, and remember who they are and what they stand for. After a while, everyone starts to remember that their main goal is to win the election, and the fantasy of having an ideologically perfect candidate isn’t as important. A few more weeks of Trump leading on the Republican side would be bad news for Sanders' campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment