ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

35 COMMENTS

  1. There is no such thing as success for Trump, there is just surviving by cheating as many people as possible, and calling that success.

    • It’s called being successful at business. Something few understand. Left wing people like yourselves definitely don’t understand.

      • If what Trump has done is success then I’m glad I am too liberal to understand. Perhaps you have not heard that he is being charged in the matter of a twenty-five thousand dollar bribe to the Florida AG. Or that he is being sued by a woman who claims he raped her when she was 13. Or about the ongoing case about Trump University fraud. Or about the number of contractors and former employees who are sueing him for failure to pay them what he owes. Or about the 11 women who have come forward about his sexual aggression. Or even that a court case has been filed to extend the consent decree against the Republican because of Trump’s “poll watcher” requests in his speeches.

        Or maybe you just haven’t seen any of the recent polls. The ones that show that he is on track to win just like President Romney, and President McCain did. Oh wait, they both lost, just like Trump will.

        Yes, if Mr Trump is a success, I am proud to e a failure.

      • Million dollar handout from father to startup, multiple law suits for welching on paying workers, multiple bankruptcies and bailouts. Sure. Success. One thing you don’t do as a business owner is to alienate your customers through racism, misogyny, xenophobia, tax evasion, sexual harassment, incitement of violence, negativity and a complete absence of anything remotely resembling empathy, thoughtfulness or even temperament. His skin is translucent. Such a hate fuelled despot could never be president. Thankfully, the American people are better than that.

  2. Trump can draw support from democrats in this election itself.Many supporters of Democratic party are not happy with the choice of their candidate.

    • I doubt any liberal Democrats would side with trump, due to the fact that he goes against their beliefs and ideals

      • Think of the vast number of unemployed youth , think about all those who are simply fed up with promises politicians make before every election only to forget once they get elected.All such people will vote for Trump.

        • Why would anyone “fed up with the promises politicians make” listen to anything Trump says.

          If you think that he is not a politician, then what has he been doing for the last year? Stating that you are seeking the nomination for the presidency makes you a politician. And he had the lying thing down long before that.

      • That’s the trouble with partisan thinking–the other side has to be wrong all the time.

        Trump’s problems with the Republican Establishment is all about his stands that do not reflect traditional Republican thinking. Let’s just look at Trump’s Contract with American Voters:

        LOBBYING–He wants to clamp down on lobbyists. While both parties are guilty of lobbying, more Republicans traditionally go from Congress to lobbying, and it used to be a solid Democratic issue.
        NAFTA–Free Trade has always been a Republican issue. Although Bill Clinton signed the pact, he had more trouble getting his side of the aisle to agree to it. Likewise, TPP. The Republican Establishment loves it.
        TAXES–Republicans, most notably Reagan, want “supply side” economics. The idea is that if you encourage the rich to get richer, some of their gains will “trickle down” to the rest of us. Democrats are more for a strongly “progressive” tax system, which “progressively” taxes higher levels of income at a higher rate.
        TARIFFS–Nobody has been talking about tariffs for a long time, since other countries just retaliate, and free trade ends. In the old days, it was Democrats who liked tariffs.
        CHILD CARE–This is a solidly Democratic issue, which is why there was such surprise when Trump brought it up. Republicans do not like having the government programs such as this.

        He didn’t mention his anti-war stance. He doesn’t like “nation building,” such as we tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is an issue that will appeal to Democrats, as well as Libertarians.

        • Of course, racism, misogyny, and complete incompetence are dealbreakers. Even if Trump had proposed solidly middle of the road Democratic policies, his bigotry and cluelessness absolutely disqualify him from going anywhere near the White House.

          The fact that left leaning people want nothing to do with Trump has nothing at all to do with partisanship. Openly racist windbags haven’t been popular among the civilized half of the country in a long time.

          If you doubt me, you can ask yourself whether you believe that Trump could’ve won the Democratic primaries.

          • Your last statement doesn’t make sense.

            HC was the golden child for DEMs. She had to rig a system to beat a 72 y. o. socialist. Pathetic.

            • Conspiracy theories aren’t very convincing to normal people. Hillary won by 3.7 million votes, 12 percentage points, and 1000 delegates. It wasn’t even a close race. The accusations of rigged primaries are as delusional as Trump’s accusations of a rigged general. The Democratic primaries had an entirely predictable outcome, in that all polls showed an easy win for Hillary, and win easily she did. Bernie actually outperformed the polls in many states, so frankly it would make more sense of you to accuse him of rigging. Not that it would be any less delusional, of course.

              Bernie did well, mostly because Democratic voters are an ideologically broad group of people. The social democrat wing of the party is just genuinely very distinct from the center-right, socially liberal Democratic mainstream. Bernie represents a large group of people who simply agree more with his fundamental ideas about how society should work.

              And, to correct some facts, Bernie is neither 72 years old nor a socialist. I know political science is an unknown field to Republicans, but at least do some basic googling. You’re embarrassing yourself.

            • Sanders lost fair and square, by way of both popular votes and pledged delegates. Sanders is not now and was never a Democrat. It is not at all strange that he was rejected by the Democratic party. You will note that he is running for re-election to the Senate as an INDEPENDANT.

            • It depends on what you call “fair and square.” The primaries were scheduled to discourage liberal candidates (front loading Southern States). There were many other “backroom” deals.

            • The Democratic party is supposed to be a group of like minded people tied together by common beliefs and principles. Sanders not a liberal Democrat, he was a self identified socialist. At a town hall on MSNBC he told a questioner from the audience that he was running as a Democrat because he would nothave gotten any attention a an independent. He has since registered for his reelection to the Senate as an INDEPENDANT. He sought to hijack the Democratic party for his own purposes. He complained about closed primaries which by definition allow only Democrats to vote. You have the right to register as an independant, and it gives oh the right to claim ideological purity. It gives you the right to say you vote for the person, not he party. What it does not give you the right to participate in the choice of the Democratic candidate.

              Donald Trump was allowed to hijack the Republican party, he obviously doesn’t share the values of the party. The Democrats just have better safeguards to protect the party.

              You do realize that a political party is private orginization, not a government entity. Party leaders could simply select candidates to represent the party with no voting at all.

              Likewise, no one can say you cannot run as an independent, you just don’t get the support of the party.

              If You are not a member of a party and do not represent the party’s values, you got no gripe coming.

        • ? This is exactly why some may jump ship. But the problem with many people is that they do not care about policies, about stance on war, or job killing trade…. They only care about feelings. I don’t know about you.. but Hillary’s war on Russia is not a GOOD IDEA.

        • OK. Do you have a point?

          Wasn’t JFK really a trickle down president? He might have pleased if differently but….

        • Agree with you 100%. So one could easily argue the Trump version of Republicanism is already itself a third party. Question remains in my mind. Has Trump changed what Republicans stand for, so actual Republicans need to form a new party? Will traditional Republicans win the party name, and a new Trump party be born? Post election fallout may be very interesting to watch.

          • I think it depends on how the election turns out. If Trump loses badly, the establishment (big business, free trade, etc) will resume control. Then, Trump supporters will have to decide whether they want to take over the party again, or go back to sleep. Or, if Trump decides to go for it, a genuine third party could be fashioned.

    • No true Democrat will cast a vote for Trump. You might get a few of the so called Reagan democrats, but then once a fool, always a fool.

    • The only people who could vote for Drumpf are misogynists, racists or those too dumb to realize the monstrosity they are aligning themselves with.

  3. TRUMP fans aren’t worried , he’s going to win , its the liberals that are going to be running for the razor blades

    • Razor blades? No. Canada? Maybe. Or maybe we will just stay here and continue to fight Trump’s regime

    • LOL. It is physically impossible for such a racist, misogynist, sexually deranged, xenophobic, tyrranical, constitution-destroying despot to gain office. The reasonable and humane majority of the American people simply will not allow it. Obnoxious and hate fuelled monsters do not get to be US president.

        • Last time I checked, dead people don’t vote. If you imagine that there is a rigged election, then you don’t understand our democracy. Voter fraud happens very occasionally, but it is a minor issue given the extent of the checks involved in the process. The majority is humane and reasonable, which is why an inhumane tyrant like Trump could never be elected. It would take a massive dumbing down of the populace and a removal of empathy to change that.

  4. “…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.”

    There already is a permanent third party; it’s been around for 45 years and been consistently the only third party on the ballot in all 50 states. It’s called the Libertarian Party.

Comments are closed.