THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN APRIL 20, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
During the 2008 election cycle, Mitt Romney was often accused of treating politics more like a consumer-focused business than an exercise in leadership. “My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo,” he said, radiating the sense that if primary voters wanted something, anything, he’d be willing to sell it. His strategists obsessed about creating and selling “Brand Romney.” To many, these efforts made him look like a crass twit, a market researcher’s caricature of the perfect Republican candidate, even as he came in second-place for the GOP nomination. This election, however, Romney may have to compete with Donald Trump.
Trump, the real estate mogul and reality TV star, has been putting out the types of feelers that usually signal a real candidacy rather than a publicity stunt. He is riding high in the polls on essentially the same customer-service-style political strategy that fellow entrepreneur Mitt Romney pursued, but a la Trump, stronger, bigger, crasser—and in a far more radical political environment, where the demand for an ultra-hard line on terrorism has been eclipsed by the niche demand for Birtherism, along with extreme policy positions that voters weren’t even obsessing about yet like virulent anti-Chinese protectionism and a policy to openly steal the Arab world’s oil. The Republican establishment has perceived this as a threat—believing that Trump will drag the entire Republican field into a world where they cannot be taken seriously by general election voters—and launched an all-out effort to tar him. But the truth is that their effort may be a lost cause, for reasons that are intrinsic to the success of Trump’s consumer-focused approach: This year, GOP voters’ hunger for radicalism is so great that it can be filled by essentially anybody. Kill off Trump’s candidacy and the demand will remain, leaving an opening for yet another demagogic charlatan to take his place.
Trump first raised eyebrows in the Republican establishment by taking steps that a serious candidate would take before running for president—planning trips to Iowa, chatting up potential staff, sitting down for an interview with Christian Right journalist David Brody. Then, last Friday, Public Policy Polling released a survey that showed Trump not only running ahead of the entire 2012 field, but registering numbers higher than such prior leaders as Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. That caused the Republican Powers That Be to stop dismissing him and launch the kind of sustained attack that is said to have succeeded in fatally damaging Sarah Palin’s credibility as a potential presidential candidate. During the last few days Karl Rove, George Will, and the Club for Growth have all trashed Trump very aggressively.
But a closer look at the PPP findings should reveal the weakness of this elite strategy. What they show is not a desire to support the faux tycoon per se, but a raging right-wing, anti-establishment fever that has only gotten stronger in recent months. Ending or mortally wounding a Trump candidacy would only address its symptoms, rather than curing a condition in which voters will follow whichever candidate is willing to outdo his or her opponents at wingnuttery. According to PPP, fully 23 percent of self-identified Republicans say they could not vote for any candidates “who firmly stated they believed Barack Obama was born in the United States.” Another 39 percent weren’t sure they could vote for such Birther-defying candidates. The pollster didn’t test some of the other provocative positions associated with Trump, such as his stance on China or desire to despoil the Arab world of its oil, but I have a strong feeling those sentiments would perform pretty well, too. There may be no coherent body of views you could call “Trumpism,” but even without Trump, there would be a hunger for spicier red meat than is being offered by the current crop of Republican candidates.
This screw-the-establishment sentiment must be understood in the context of what looks to be growing dissatisfaction with compromises made by Republicans in the Tea Party Congress and statehouses. The House Republican leadership has been congratulating itself for “winning” the recent appropriations fight without shutting down the government, and without triggering an outright revolt among the House freshmen. But that’s not going over well in activist land. This previous Tax Day weekend saw a slew of protests against the latest establishment sell-out: In a nice act of revenge against her Beltway detractors, Sarah Palin regaled a Wisconsin audience with a fiery attack on Congressional Republican gutlessness, taunting them that they need to learn to “fight like a girl.” And conservative pressure to go to the mats over a debt limit increase is rising rapidly each day, particularly if the alternative is some sort of budget deal with Democrats that leaves tax increases on the table while removing the kind of radical attack on domestic spending advanced by Paul Ryan’s budget.
This dynamic creates an enormous temptation for non-congressional Republicans to join the revolt, as evidenced by the rapid devolution of Tim Pawlenty into an extremist on budget issues and a favorite at Tea Party rallies. (He’s now opposed to raising the debt ceiling, even though that would damage the U.S. economy on a scale similar to a nuclear attack.) And if there is something that GOP voters want which Pawlenty is unwilling to give them because he decides it’s too crazy, then there will always be Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann, who are receiving rapturous receptions on the campaign trail, to flay him for his equivocation.
If Trump is pushed out of the limelight or off the campaign trail by the conservative establishment, or by his own erratic record on a host of issues, the atavistic longings of the rank-and-file conservative base will simply affix themselves elsewhere as other candidates try to tap the rich vein of anger he’s helped galvanize. And if he survives the pounding he’s about to get from respectable opinion, then George Will is right: He will make a “shambles” of every Republican presidential debate. But that’s not only because he’s an eccentric demagogue who is willing to say just about anything for attention. It’s also because he’s exactly what conservative voters crave.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
12 comments
As much as I hope Kilgore is right about the appeal of the wing-nuts (since nominating one of them will ensure that Obama wins and hurt the Republicans' chances of controlling Congress), I fear that they will fade in the primaries for any combination of reasons, including: 1) Under more scrutiny, each of them will become less appealing to primary voters either because of their pasts or because of stupid things they say along the way. Trump, for instance, will suffer due to his lavish and irreligious lifestyle, greater public awareness of his bankruptcies and/or exposure of his previously liberal stances. And once the campaigning starts, each candidate will do his/her best to highlight the others' weaknesses. 2) Some voters who currently express wing-nut sympathies (re birtherism, for example) will find other issues (such as the state of the economy) more salient. 3) Fox and like-minded outlets will only go so far in feeding the frenzy, as working for a Republican victory (with a relative moderate--at least compared to the populist extremists) will be a priority. 4) With folks like Pawlenty rushing to the right, it makes it more likely that those at the end of the spectrum will split the far right vote. 5) Romney will benefit from his superior organization, funding, experience with presidential campaigning and GOP establishment support. But I'd love to be proven wrong...
- Thunderroad
April 20, 2011 at 3:13am
This article makes what I believe could be a fatal mistake by Democrats, namely assuming that the birthers and the like are simply fringe dwellers, easily spotted because they go around screaming with their hair on fire. Not so. As I have learned over the past two years, many every day folks, professionals, grandmothers, boy scout leaders, have these eccentric views, believe Glenn Beck is right, and genuinely fear for America and their children. How to respond to their irrational fears without treating them as lunatics is what is needed. The key, of course, is understanding the basis, or source, for their fears. And that won't be easy. Why? Because it's a sensitive subject. Douthat mentioned it earlier this week in the context of entitlements, in particular Medicare. Yet his column raised nary an eyebrow in the rest of the commentariat. But the subject won't go away, not if the demographers are right.
- rayward
April 20, 2011 at 8:41am
Ed, The wisdom in Punditstan last week on Trump was that his surprising rise in the polls among R voters was that he represented dissatisfaction with the R field. A vote for Trump was in effect a protest vote, a vote for "none of the above." Your view is more intriguing, that a vote for Trump is a vote for "all of the above." He is the R field, albeit a more pugnacious, shameless version thereof. I think you are on to something. Dan
- dbuck1
April 20, 2011 at 8:46am
During primaries, Republicans candidates appeal to voters who are right of center. Mr. Trump may be following the play book of an earlier Presidential aspirant, H. Ross Perot. Avoid primaries, purchase considerable television time, and appear on stage with the Republican and Democratic Presidential Candidates for televised debates.
- Doug12
April 20, 2011 at 9:54am
- Does the old guard in the GOP dislike Trump because of what he's saying, his reversals from past positions or because he's never been their guy and never will be? Are we sure the above protesters would not find a way to embrace impressive numbers even if they represented twisted policies? Rove boasted that a war would be part of a winning strategy so he's already proved that victory with his guy is more important than the particulars. How many established Republicans took a walk on the wild side last year, and won? The GOP will accept crazy if it does well in focus groups but they'll have one of their own peddling it.
- michaelg
April 20, 2011 at 10:28am
When Palin says "fight like a girl," does she mean biting and scratching or what? Is that why they call her a barracuda?
- orray2
April 20, 2011 at 11:31am
No, the old guard in the GOP dislike Trump because he's a loose cannon. Since he matches perfectly the anti-Government expectations of Tea-Party Republicans, and demands for empty demagoguery, he's a perfect candidate for that. But since he's so clearly and obviously a demagogue, THAT would make the Republican Party look bad. In other words, the Republicans want a dog-whistle candidate who can SAY the right things while MEANING something completely different. Trump both SAYS and MEANS the same things, as if he'd never HEARD of a dog-whistle. The GOP doesn't want, and can't stand, to have their hidden agenda revealed in this way. It makes them look bad.
- AllanL5
April 20, 2011 at 11:54am
1. What is the purpose and usefulness of the requirement that the President be a native born citizen? As long as liberals argue that Obama is, we keep the issue in the limelight. Let's amend the Constitution to at least he be be born on planet Earth. 2. For that matter, Trump looks to me as if he is an android, albeit a early, not-very-well-designed model. Let's amend the Constitution to require that the POTUS be a human being, and require that he pass a DNA test. 3. Failing that, let's field a stealth liberal android (assuming that one can be created this quickly) that looks and acts like a right-wing Republican. As Allan L5 said so well: In other words, the Republicans want a dog-whistle candidate who can SAY the right things while MEANING something completely different. Let's give them what they want, but one that when we blow the dog whistle will fetch liberal bones.
- skahn
April 20, 2011 at 5:48pm
Great article and unusually worthy comments. Allan, you are a most insightful pundit--may your words spread around the tubes.
- bufatutu
April 20, 2011 at 7:57pm
Ditto rayward. With all due respect to the insightful comments above (esp Thunder and Allan), forward-looking Dems should be trying to understand the flash attraction of Bozos like Trump. Lots of perfectly sensible voters who will be willing to come around by November are willing to flirt with wackadoodle in Spring. If they are appealed to respectfully and educated about the real policy choices and their consequences, O wins. If they're dismissed and insulted as being millions of mini-Donald Trumps, maybe not.
- Robert Powell
April 21, 2011 at 4:25am
But the truth is that their effort may be a lost cause, for reasons that are intrinsic to the success of Trump’s consumer-focused approach: This year, GOP voters’ hunger for radicalism is so great that it can be filled by essentially anybody. There's a simple solution to all of this: ABOLISH PLURALITY VOTING! It would mean that any Republican running for office would not have to kowtow to the base's shibboleths just to make it onto the ballot in November because anyone who can garner the required signatures could run in the general election without disadvantaging anyone else in the race with similar ideas.
- sighthnd
April 21, 2011 at 11:20am
There's a rumor going around that Trump is actually still liberal on many issues, positive about President Obama, and getting into the race saying this crazy stuff in order to wreck the Republican Party. That rumor seems quite paranoid, but one thing I think is pretty clear: Donald Trump, if nothing else, is certainly capable of such shenanigans. Sheesh. Whatever else he is, Trump is entertaining. If, that is, he doesn't damage not only the Republican Party but the polity.
- Erik_S
April 21, 2011 at 10:13pm