In every election, people get fired up about their candidate. Or in this election, they froth at the mouth about their candidate’s opponent. EVERY contest is called “the most important election of our lifetime,” and there are lists of dire consequences if the other side wins. But after a few months, we realize, well, that election didn’t really change all that much. This election is likely to be the same.
If you’re feeling down about the country, read this article written by a British Member of the European Parliament. It’s printed in the conservative Washington Examiner, here.
Each presidential campaign thrives on fear of the other. Trump’s supporters tell us that Clinton’s judicial nominations will fundamentally transform America, tilting the balance toward authoritarianism. Clinton’s supporters retort that Trump is a quasi-fascist.
Both sides misunderstand, or affect to misunderstand, the Constitution.
The United States was designed precisely to contain the ambitions of its rulers. Jefferson and Hamilton had seen arbitrary rule first-hand, and were determined to ensure that even the most Caligulan leader could not create an autocracy. We might almost say that they had Trump, or someone very like Trump, in mind when they drew up the rules.
. . .the Republican nominee who, in the unlikely event of his election, would be likely to face impeachment. There would be scant sympathy for President Trump in either House, and he seems to have as little concern for constitutional propriety as he has for telling the truth. Indeed, the only truly persuasive argument for electing him is the “Vote Trump, Get Pence” line. . .
Barring some truly extraordinary electoral bouleversement, [Hillary] will not have a free hand in her first two years; nor, given the usual pattern of mid-term elections, is that likely to change in the second two years.
American liberty is too deeply rooted to be wrecked by a couple of judges. Take the most commonly voiced concern among conservatives. Suppose that a Clinton-made Supreme Court overturned the Heller verdict — that is, the ruling that interprets the Second Amendment as meaning that an individual can own and carry weapons.
The day after such a reversal would look just like the day before it. No state constitution would be amended. No legislation would be mandated at either federal or state level.
That’s what checks and balances mean: No president, no Supreme Court, has absolute power. The system, you might say, works. . .
America [is] the wealthiest and the freest, because its system of government elevates the individual over the collective.
No single president, however demented, can undo the work of two-and-a-half centuries. That’s the true meaning of American exceptionalism.
Because of the lopsided polls, Hillary Clinton hasn’t said much about what she would do if she lost. But the issue has been addressed a few times by Donald Trump. In August, after Hillary’s huge bounce from her convention, people started asking Trump what he’ll do if he loses. Newsmax gave us an answer.
Donald Trump acknowledged the possibility of losing the presidential election, telling CNBC he’ll “go back to a very good way of life.”. . .
“At the end it’s either going to work or I’m going to have a very, very nice long vacation,” Trump told CNBC.
Trump will survive. Trump always finds a way to survive. So there’s no reason to worry about him. In fact, his son Eric has already explored whether a Trump media empire could be successful. And a test-run hit the Internet for the third debate.
Proclaiming itself an antidote to the “mainstream media” which Trump has said is guilty of tipping the scales of this election against Trump and the American people and in favor of a Clintonocracy, the nearly three hours of programming on Facebook cycled through Trump surrogates, family members and former Apprentice cast members, all of whom praised Trump endlessly.
Right Side Broadcasting Network, a conservative online media network that live streams Trump rallies, filmed the pre- and post- debate show, on which the common refrain was: “The mainstream media is against us.” Another common refrain following Trump’s debate performance: “By far his best debate. A clear and decisive victory.” Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn, who served a a co-host along with Trump adviser Cliff Sims, declared it “the greatest Republican debate performance since Abraham Lincoln.”
When asked about the idea of Trump moving into broadcasting, “Trump campaign CEO and former Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon said of the rumors: ‘Trump is an entrepreneur.’”
Yes, Trump will survive. But will the Republican Party? It was already coming apart at the seams, trying to hold together wide-ranging constituencies. Many in the religious right have considered their effort in politics to be a failure. But the largest rift is between big business and the new Trumpian populism. Some in the party hope for a “yuge” loss, so that the Republican Establishment will once again rule the GOP. But Trump’s followers are not likely to fade away.
There has been talk that Trump could start a third party, utilizing the base he already has. It is not far-fetched. We’ve had third parties that have had a strong impact on the process. In 1992, Ross Perot received about one-fifth of the vote, but he had no real organization. It was a one-man show, which quickly dissolved.
A better example would be George Wallace’s “American Independent Party” in 1968. He won five states, and could have built from a base in the “Solid South,” inviting disaffected Democrats, farmers, and others. The South had flirted with leading its own party, going back to 1948 and Strom Thurmond’s “Dixiecrats.” There was a solid base to build from. But Wallace’s effort failed due to an assassination attempt that put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. There was no one to take over leadership. Nixon picked the bones of the “party,” and later, Reagan made the South Republican for decades.
As we’ve seen, although Trump is already seventy years old, he has the vitality to lead for years to come. He also has active surrogates, such as Ben Carson, Chris Christie, and Rudy Guiliani—plus a new generation, in his own three children. And his policies are so different from “Republicanism” that he could maintain a party—one that would also draw from the Democratic party.
His anti-war message, as well as his disdain for big business would appeal to liberals, if it were delivered from outside the Republican Party. Drawing from both current major parties, Trump could conceivably form a lasting third party, for the first time in American history. Polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans would love to see a permanent third party.
So we may soon have a news network that will make Fox News look like pansies. Or we may have a viable third party on the horizon. If you’re a Trump fan, and you are depressed with what could potentially be an upcoming election loss, take heart. There’s no such thing as “failure” to Donald Trump—just delayed success.