US democracy can weather a political blowhard

His campaign for the Republican nomination has also been remarkably devoid of meaningful policy proposals. Trump’s avowals that “it will be great” or “it will make your head spin” are poor substitutes for an actual plan. His platform is based on ideas such as making Mexico pay for a wall at the border, and banning all Muslim immigration, which are either unattainable or patently absurd. And, as has been well documented, the man lies at the drop of a hat.

Either characteristic – bigotry or vacuity – should be enough to disqualify him from any political office, much less that of the US presidency. Instead, the TV reality show host-cum-political demagogue seems poised to win the most votes in the Republican primary. 

For most Americans, these are dire days, not to mention rather embarrassing in an international context.

Trump presents a face of US politics that is anathema to thoughtful and empathetic people across the world; just as importantly, his groundswell of support among, for the most part, white voters has exposed an ugly, bloated underbelly of American sentiment.

The chattering class in the US media was largely caught unaware by the Trump phenomenon – one Washington Post commentator now faces the prospect of literally eating his column in newsprint to fulfil a promise he made last year when he doubted Trump’s prospects. Indeed, when I was in the United States last year, I grimaced when I listened to Trump’s overtly racist announcement of his candidacy, and then chuckled, believing that a foolish showman had damned his own campaign at birth. Clearly the US media and most politicians (and me) were grossly oblivious to the concerns that motivate Trump supporters, who 

now appear to constitute a significant portion of the US electorate.

In light of that failure, it is important not to pigeonhole those voters according to stereotypes. Race is at play, but so is economics, with related ideas about stagnant working class wages and the perception of a United States in decline; security, framed in terms of fears about immigration and a frankly overblown estimate of the threat posed by Muslim-extremist terrorism; and deep disillusionment with the so-called political establishment.

And yet, the willingness of supporters to countenance Trump’s racism, whether or not they share those sentiments, suggests a grave misunderstanding of political realities, not to mention human decency. It’s like hiring a psychopath to be your babysitter because he makes a good sack lunch.

As appalling as the Republican race has been, there is little doubt that a Trump presidency would blow this out of the water. Multiple reports have concluded that the candidate suffers from clinical narcissism (which, again, is not meant as an insult, instead conveying a medical diagnosis made by qualified professionals). An influential study by Matthew MacWilliams, published in Politico in January, concluded that the trait that most unifies Trump supporters is a tendency towards authoritarianism.

Bigotry, vacuity, narcissism, authoritarianism. It doesn’t sound like a recipe for a successful presidency.

Most of the US media are understandably shaken by the prospect. Trump has been called the most dangerous candidate of a generation, and the 2016 election season as a political crisis of existential proportions. (Simultaneously, formerly prominent critics of Trump such as New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former presidential candidate Ben Carson have comfortably squatted in the frontrunner’s camp.)

Broadcast media have been blamed for propelling Trump’s campaign by providing disproportionate coverage of his controversial remarks, which have been so cunningly manipulative as to force a re-evaluation of an initial assessment of the showman’s crudity. It is true that the saturated coverage has been essential for what seemed like an improbable campaign.

The criticism, however, is misplaced – journalists have an ethical duty to cover politics and controversial figures. And, on a less high-minded note, we might as well accept as reality that sensationalism sells. “If it bleeds, it leads” is not just a cynical joke, it’s a fairly accurate metaphor for a business that far pre-dates the digital age.

In my opinion, there is a better criticism about the fear of Trump’s rise: a lack of historical perspective. All political systems, from autocracies to democracies, occasionally throw up unsuitable and even dangerous demagogues. There is no point in bemoaning this aspect of the human condition.

In the recent history of the United States, there was the abortive candidacy of former KKK member David Duke in the 1990s (Duke has recently endorsed Trump), the Vietnam War-era political riots in 1968, and the fear-mongering of Joe McCarthy’s 1950s witch-hunt that persecuted people regardless of the rule of law.

To their credit, US media have highlighted all of these events. For the most part, however, pundits gloss over the fact that the United States has repeatedly been plagued by parasitic, self-aggrandising and mediocre leaders, and yet the country remains the strongest in military and economic metrics, and arguably the most effective state proponent of human rights and international stability.

The self-evident explanation is democratic institutions. A longstanding and evolving constitution based on basic principles of individual rights and political limitations has, so far, maintained a polity with many accomplishments, and many flaws. Individuals can judge for themselves, and in their own countries, vote for themselves.

Democracy is a terribly flawed system, but it is the best available. Trump’s supporters, even those that espouse hatred of their fellow human beings, should have a platform. Bring their ideas out into the open air, let Trump and his followers try to defend them in an open debate, and set their ideas aside when they are proven wrong.

 

Jeremy Walden-Schertz is a recent graduate of the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy.