Off He Went with a Trumpetty-Trump
For those old enough to remember Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, observing the current Labour leadership contest is a bit like having to decide between Colin Baker and Sylvester Mc Coy as the next Doctor Who. Jeremy Corbyn’s declaration this week to pursue a policy of nuclear disarmament rekindles memories of the so-called ‘Longest suicide note in history’ that comprised the 1983 Labour Party General Election Manifesto. Then again, you might not give a toss. I doubt many would across the pond. They’ve got their own political ‘X-Factor’ underway at the moment. Whilst the irrepressible Hillary Clinton seems odds-on to be selected as the Democratic candidate to run for US President in 2016, the Republicans appear to be going through a similar identity crisis as the Labour Party here – only, with the Americans traditionally doing everything on a far bigger scale than anyone else, this car-crash makes Labour’s journey to electoral disaster resemble a wrong-turning on the M62.
The candidate grabbing the most attention at the moment is the uniquely unlikeable Donald Trump. The tangerine-tanned blustering billionaire with the most obedient comb-over in the history of hair has made a career of talking to his fellow-man as though he himself belonged to a higher life-form, and he doesn’t seem to have modified his charmless offensive as he attempts to receive the nomination from the Republican Party. Mind you, if you’re capable of casting your mind back four or even eight years, the nominees to have emerged from the Republicans come every Presidential Election have grown increasingly bonkers for a political party that produced such canny operators as Nixon and Reagan.
Just as the Labour Party seem to be wilfully heading towards the lethal embrace of its hardcore grassroots, one with an idealistic (if unrealistic) vision of Britain as a Socialist Paradise somewhere between an imaginary 1945 and 1966, the Republican Party gives every impression it is engaged in a public demonstration of hara-kiri that precludes power for at least another four years. There’s something strangely undemocratic about the American system that throws up so many unsuitable oddballs as prospective Presidents; no previous political experience is entirely necessary, just enough cash to foot the bill for running. Even in the recent past, figures with a track record of high office such as George Bush Senior have emerged as sound candidates, yet today it would appear their kind of CV is more of a hindrance than a help.
A lengthy absence from the Washington hot-seat and the absence of any feasible replacement for Obama has made the Republican Party vulnerable to its more surreal fringes, rendering the kind of fruitcakes that would once have been dismissed without a second thought potential contenders. The infiltration of the Tea Party set, first sighted in a position of power with the abrupt rise of the spectacularly dumb Sarah Palin, has done so much damage to the Republican reputation that the party is in danger of being tarnished for a generation as a sanctuary for the unhinged and unelectable. That a ludicrous cartoon character like Donald Trump could in any way be put forward as a credible contender for leader of the most powerful nation on earth merely underlines the problem. On one hand, this system could be cited as the ultimate democracy in that anyone can theoretically run for President without the tedious climb to the Cabinet that constitutes the British political ladder; on the other hand, the fact remains that being bankrolled by a personal fortune or some huge corporation is the only realistic way of hitching a ride on the primary bandwagon.
Donald Trump’s motivation for the job he seeks seems to be another extension of his belief that anything can be bought. Inheriting his father’s real estate business, Trump’s evident business nous gradually made him one of the world’s richest men, though he bordered on bankruptcy twenty-five years ago before rebuilding his fortune. In his time, he’s owned skyscrapers, casinos, football teams, golf resorts and beauty pageants, as well as fifteen seasons fronting the original US incarnation of ‘The Apprentice’ (for which he was reputedly paid $3 million per episode).
His dalliances with politics initially stretched no further than party donations, though he entered the arena by running for the Reform Party in 2000; a decade later, he appeared set to run for the Republican nomination but pulled out early on. This followed his idiotic questioning of Barack Obama’s US citizenship, demanding the President publicly produce his full birth certificate, a publicity stunt that backfired. This was the first real sign of Trump’s tactics as a potential politician. Certain sections of the Tea Party have long been convinced Obama is a Muslim, so Trump exploited the groundless paranoia. When he finally announced he’d be running for the Republican nomination proper for 2016, he tapped into some Americans’ long-term fear of their poor relations by describing Mexicans in a manner that made Nigel Farage’s comments about Rumanians sound like a fawning love-letter to Prince George from the pages of ‘OK’.
With the Republicans resorting to anoymous senators, small-scale crackpots and yet another Bush, Trump – with his rampant egomania and ignorant belligerence – has unsurprisingly caught the attention of TV viewers, pushing his popularity as a potential candidate and taking the lead in the race. But, again, like the UKIP leader, Donald Trump stands out because he’s such a dramatic contrast with the competition and creates headlines by placing more emphasis on what he’s against rather than what he’s for.
It’s hard to think of a comparable situation in this country to someone like Trump seeking to become PM. I suppose we have an equivalent gobshite in someone like Kelvin McKenzie, but he’d need a Richard Branson-like fortune to complete the comparison. He’d have to be elected as an MP first, of course, then spend a few years on the back benches, then maybe gain a nondescript job as a Junior Minister, even possibly a minor Cabinet post when the government is a few months away from a General Election. The likelihood of him gaining high office would be remote to say the least. After all, there are numerous well-known politicians in the UK who are familiar faces via ‘Newsnight’ and ‘Question Time’ that will never get anywhere near No.10. By comparison, the US system seems closer to ours as it was prior to the 1832 Great Reform Act, where privilege and personal fortunes count for more than actual ability, and political parties are incidental to individuals. Westminster is hardly crammed with those destined for canonisation, but given a choice, I know which system I’d rather have.
Petunia Winegum
-
August 8, 2015 at 10:45 am -
Don’t quite know why, but I’m minded of a story I read possibly 50 years ago, in Astounding S.F. , I think.
A very ordinary man named George Abnego, selected as the man to run the USA because he was a very ordinary man.
A long time ago so I could be a bit confused.Is the sense of proportion of a man inversely proportional to the length of his comb over?
-
August 8, 2015 at 11:43 am -
A similar theme runs through ‘Being There’. A simple gardener whose innocent worldview is untained by cynicism is taken for a philosophical genius and utilised by politicians. The Forrest Gump character was a bit of a rip-off.
-
August 8, 2015 at 6:59 pm -
The thought popped up that the name Abnego was of course the clue; must cut down on the Oxford Gold.
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 1:28 pm -
“Is the sense of proportion of a man inversely proportional to the length of his comb over?”
I suppose Bobby Charlton is the exception that proves the rule.
-
August 8, 2015 at 6:57 pm -
A very fair point Engineer.
-
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 10:46 am -
Fascinating. I’m reminded of the scene in Back to the Future where Doc asks Marty “Who is the President of the United States in 1985?” With the reply “Ronald Reagan,” Doc goes off on one about who is the Vice President? Jerry Lewis? and Jane Wyman? On the other hand, Reagan was a highly effective president, and Obama is – well, Obama is a pratt, and Hilarious Clinton is his female equivalent.
So what if Trump is unlikeable? Is he competent, that’s the issue.
-
August 8, 2015 at 12:29 pm -
As someone who was, once upon a time, actively involved in domestic (UK) politics, I tried to understand the American electoral system, I gave up fairly quickly because it all seemed highly complicated, and in some ways more importantly, rather un-democratic. From what I read it appeared that some states carry more weight than others – and some states with relatively small populations compared to others had “more say” in who the party would adopt as their presidential candidate. Those with a better understanding may well correct me if I’ve got that wrong – I very well might have done, like I say it all seemed convoluted and over complicated and far from “one man one vote”.
Donald Trump may well be a complete arsehole as a human being, but without doubt he’s a very successful business man – and that could be a very attractive quality as far as US voters are concerned.
-
August 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm -
I remember during the disputed 2000 Presidential Election first hearing of ‘The Electoral College’. It sounded like something straight out of the age of powdered wigs and knee-breeches. Our system is far from flawed, but at least it has changed over time – slowly, yes; but nobody could really accuse it of being stuck in the late eighteenth century.
-
August 8, 2015 at 7:44 pm -
The late 18th century was a pretty good time. It was the great century of liberal philosophy. David Hume rather reasonably described England as having the greatest liberty on Earth.
Look at us now.
-
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 1:05 pm -
the US system seems closer to ours as it was prior to the 1832 Great Reform Act, where privilege and personal fortunes count for more than actual ability
Size matters. The US system’s biggest flaw is that it was designed for a time and place when just sending a letter across a land mass quite a few times larger than Wales could be measured in months (a tradition the USPS still proudly upholds). I seem to recall reading that in the 1500s a letter could be sent from, say, Nuremberg to London in under 12 days. How long does it take to ride from the top left hand corner of Wales to the top right hand corner of Norfolk (not that anyone in their right mind would take a horse into Norfolk-at best it would only be eaten)?
Every technological advance in communication (Railways, telegraph etc) has meant their electoral system lurches towards it’s own 2K at a speed of 140 characters per nanosecond.
-
August 11, 2015 at 11:46 am -
More to the point, there was atime when one could post a letter in the morning, and it would be delivered in the same town later the same day. I recall a couple of years back, when the then boss of the Royal Mail was vociferously denying there had ever been a “second post,” a mail enthusiast appear on BBC Breakfast with examples of postcards and other posted items from decades back that clearly demonstrated the multiple deliveries that used to take place.
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 1:10 pm -
He is also the only politician even amongst the republicans, to point out that latino immigration at the current scale will turn great swathes of the US into Mexico pretty quickly.
It’s telling that even Fox News are trying to kick the shit out of him for saying it.
-
August 8, 2015 at 1:26 pm -
Well, there’s a lot of grumbling about senior politicians with PPE degrees, extensive experience of political bag-carrying and no idea about the real world; at least there is in the UK. Trump offers an alternative to that. I’m not going as far as to say it’s a palatable alternative, but it is an alternative.
Do we need a Third Way?
-
August 8, 2015 at 7:02 pm -
I don’t remember people cheering in the streets about the prospect of Reagan, but it didn’t turn out too badly.
Might have been different with say Charlton Heston.
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 2:30 pm -
Four of Trump’s companies have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 which has led people to suggest that rules him out as a candidate. I would have thought he was perfect to run a bankrupt country with $19 trillion (and counting) of debt. At least he’s had experience of it. \sarc off
-
August 8, 2015 at 2:57 pm -
While there are some out there who will have concluded that the US system is SO flawed as to be unfit for purpose in the 21st C., others may not have done. The proper contrast here is NOT between the US and UK systems, though of course, being a UK blog, it is forgivable that the author does so.
Rather, the contrast should be between the US Dems and the US GOP, where on the one hand you have a clearly-corrupt old bat who seemingly will waltz into her Party’s nomination– and a rough-and-tumble free-for-all on the other side, with enough candidates for a football side and substitutes, with STILL some left over; you cannot say the GOP voters have NO choice. Perhaps they are surfeited at this point, to be honest. But Hillary Clinton’s CV leaves much to be desired, in addition to her unpleasantness as a person– and yet, many think Her Inevitability will become the next President simply because, well, she would be the first President with double-X chromosomes. Hence, no serious opposition to her in her own party.
It has been said that was the GOP which always used to nominate candidates based on “It’s his turn this time,” and now we have the spectacle of the DEMS doing that very thing! Donald Trump, being the dealmaker, undoubtedly is in this more for the “extortion” value of his candidacy– “I COULD be persuaded to leave the race, but only if I get a say in, amongst other things, the immigration plank in the Party’s platform, etc. etc….”, which bespeaks more being the kingmaker than being the King as being his ambition. To defeat Hillary, the GOP must defeat her with someone more likable, and The Donald ain’t he. And I’m sure, even as bombastically self-obsessed as he is, he has the political nous to know this– this is ALL a business move on his part. He sees his opportunity, and he will seize it–to be a Master Shot-Caller, having ALL of the fun of being a political leader with NONE of that nasty responsibility of, y’know, actually GOVERNING…
-
August 8, 2015 at 3:52 pm -
Just wait till the actual election where the choice may be between Trump and a gal whose main qualification is that she parlayed “Hi! I married a famous husband who cheated on me and now I’m rich ‘n well-known!” into a term in the US Senate where she smiled a lot.
I wanna vote for Bonzo (Ref fer da Brits: Ronald Reagan’s old movie, “Bedtime For Bonzo.”)
– MJM
-
August 8, 2015 at 4:50 pm -
I am interested in why you say that the ex-governor of Florida, the ex-governor of Texas, the governor of Wisconsin, the governor of New Jersey, the ex-governor of Arkansas, the ex-governor of Virginia, The Governor of Louisiana, the governor of Ohio and the ex-governor of New York, lack political experience. Admittedly the other candidates are merely senators plus one brain surgeon, and one girl who worked her way up from secretary to CEO, but who knows, maybe she has some capabilities. And then there’s the Donald of course.
-
August 8, 2015 at 5:12 pm -
Senators and congressmen are always present in the mix (which I mention), but it’s more the likes of Trump pushing himself forwards that highlight the difference between us and them. He’s never even been Governor of anywhere. That just wouldn’t happen in the UK.
-
August 8, 2015 at 10:00 pm -
I seem to recall that, within my living memory in the wake of the Profumo affair around 1963, a certain Alec Douglas-Home became Tory prime minister despite not even being a sitting MP, but rather a hereditary resident of the House of Lords. He renounced his peerage to take up the ‘lower’ position (courtesy of the process originated by Tony Benn, aka Lord Stansgate), and was then promptly bumped off by Harold Wilson in 1964.
It may not happen again in the UK, but there’s no definitive rule against it – anyone can become prime minster, it just makes Wednesdays’ PMQs a bit tricky if they’ve not got a seat in the House. It could be Branson, Cheryl Cole, Simon Cowell, Gazza, anyone – if we accept that the ‘B’ Movie actor Reagan proved far more successful than the career politician Obama, maybe we’d probably be better off with Gazza – it would certainly be more fun.-
August 9, 2015 at 7:19 am -
Anyone can be UK PM?
Just recently, a local MP and unwanted was ‘unelected’ to the highest office by his own party.
What a wheeze it all was, by personal decree in a pious fog of self importance “I was born to rule”. Achilles heeled, he wrested the top job and was undone by a wonky compass borrowed from a manse, of grandiose visions but ultimately was just a vacuum of ideas and of any clue what to do when he had arrived. The Kirkcaldy streak of dreich, Gordon the moron empowered himself and via the backdoor signed us all into ignominy of the EU
constitutiontreaty of Lisbon – [how can that be legitimate, I wonder?].Brown, he now goes on and on, about the world and telling all how wonderful he still is, the hilarious thing, the astonishing thing, is that, people will pay to hear him orate long on his inadequacies and once more we can marvel at the corporate [herd] world’s group think and ever boundless, mankind’s collective stupidity.
-
-
-
-
August 8, 2015 at 5:44 pm -
Are you suggesting that had UKIP won a majority that Mr. Farage would not be prime minister? Of course, as it turned out UKIP didn’t- but the Donald hasn’t yet, and I’m willing to bet that he won’t.
-
August 8, 2015 at 7:42 pm -
The Americans get a direct democratic choice for leader; ours is indirect and almost nullifies our constituency vote. Nobody gets a shot at PM unless they have connections, backing and lots of money behind them, whether from business or unions or other special interests, it’s just laundered a bit via the party.
Complaining that a system is bad because it lets an outsider in with a chance is a strange criticism. Even if you think he’s a nut. At least the American public will get a straightforward vote for him- and still be able to separately vote for a local representative (two, actually, in the different houses, plus their local State politicians). Us, we get to vote for one of two people by an indirect proxy that lumbers us with whoever their party put in our constituency; the candidates for “president of the UK” being purely predicated on their ability to work their party’s system. We’ve nothing t0 boast about.
And one can make a good argument that Britain was a freer country before the 1832 Reform Act, which fired the starting gun on a new type of Parliament plagued by “reformer” types who have sucked away our liberty like an alcoholic sucking a bar towel.
-
August 8, 2015 at 10:19 pm -
So there’s a new Trump scandal, is there? Well, we did know that he’s no fan of Political Correctness, and maybe he was right?
-
August 8, 2015 at 10:32 pm -
What we’re seeing in the USA now with Trump is similar to the scenes across Europe, with the likes of Farage, Le Pen, Grillo etc., even Corbyn too. They represent an anti-politics feeling, whereby the voters are becoming bored with the dismal droves of grey-suited, greasy-pole climbing, career politicians, all speaking in PC soundbites. Anyone who presents with a completely different image seems to attract support from across the piece, not just their own natural types, just because they’re different. Whether this voter-rebellion will last until Nov 2016 in the USA remains to be seen but, if it does, it will continue the shock-waves currently rolling through most Western democracies.
It may be that, by 2020, our own UK parties have read the writing on the wall and have elected ‘character’ leaders to address the problem – looks like Boris against Dennis Skinner then.-
August 9, 2015 at 8:13 am -
Mudplugger – we may well be bored, repelled even by the on message & ‘grey-suited’.
For me though the greater issue is ‘their’ relentless approach to reaching goals I don’t agree with, the EU for one. And for all the party hype it’s difficult to see much practical difference in outcomes. I suspect I’m not alone.
Back to Trump, I think there is a difference in national character between the US & the UK -respectively ‘we can do this’, vs ‘here are all the reasons why we can’t or shouldn’t & let’s be sniffy about the colonials’. And a generous helping of envy of the successful.
-
-
August 9, 2015 at 7:24 am -
Donald Trump seems the perfect Republican who says exactly what many Republicans think but dare not say. So on the one hand he looks like a dangerous maverick who risks revealing just how nasty Republicanism can be. On the other hand he taps into a deep seam of individualism, selfishness and crackpot religion that can be used to garner votes. So the Republicans have a problem, Trump is a great advertising man but can he hold on to the viewers until 2016 – or will he prove utterly repellant to the entire Republican project?
Then suppose he became president. He actually makes George W Bush look sane. Hold on to your seats, it will be a bumpy ride
-
August 9, 2015 at 8:58 am -
I suspect that Trump also says exactly what many Democrat voters (and democrats) think but certainly dare not say. The UKIP vote in Britain started gathering from the ‘right’ but, as the message spread, and despite increasingly desperate efforts by the mainstream to de-rail it, then taking hold in the traditional ‘left’ constituencies, particularly in the post-industrial North.
Don’t be surprised if Trump’s appeal similarly broadens over the next 18 months and starts to attract significant electoral support from the ‘huddled masses’ and, if that happens, it certainly will be a bumpy ride, particularly for the right-on political classes.
-
-
August 9, 2015 at 7:46 am -
If it became a straight choice between Sarah Palin and Hillary?
Sarah Palin, all day is honest, loves her country and her family, will work and work and does not bear the cross of total obeisance to the mafia of the Internationalist programme. Sarah Palin, does not lipsynch Socialist double-speak. Sarah Palin would not lie about “coming under sniper fire” at Sarajevo Airport, use her office to constantly clarion her own credentials and abuse the privilege ad nausea. And of the Libyan disaster, Sarah Palin would have made sure her diplomats had far greater protection, because, Sarah Palin does not trust and love Araby like the Internationalists do.
Sarah or, Hillary…that’s no choice.
I think that, Trump is deliberate in all that he does, and of the rest Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker speak much sense and small government [it’s the only way]. I like Ben Carson because I respect his sincerely held beliefs.
I am agog, at how one President has been able to do so much damage to the US political equilibrium by bypassing the Congress and attempting to subvert the Supreme Court. By using executive order “if I don’t get my way” at every juncture – that’s not democracy, that’s autocracy and so typical of, a personification is Obama of all left wing nutters.
-
August 9, 2015 at 11:39 am -
Obama seems to have intriguingly reversed the 100 days concept. Whereas it used to be that any new Pesident felt he had to set his seal in his first 100 days, Obama seems to have made his presidency to determinedly do or say nothing very startling until his last 100 days and so we are getting gay marriage and the executive greening of America. The ultimate Black Hole President – a spinning void. But they do say Black Holes are the engine of the Cosmos.
-
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }