The 2016 Republican presidential nomination contest has taken an ugly turn as the contenders appear to be more intent on savaging each other than on discussing the issues of the day.
Donald Trump appears to be on the path to the Republican nomination, although the bumps in the path are getting larger. Mr. Trump’s current chief rival is Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. Mr. Cruz is a slick, Ivy League lawyer who somehow ended up back in Texas after an early career in Washington. He has mastered all the precision of language which have so far has eluded Mr. Trump, and he uses it to build mountains of heretical positions out of Mr. Trump’s casual phrases — to devastating effect.
For example, Mr. Trump said, in discussing health care, that “I’m not going to leave people dying in the streets.” From that, Mr. Cruz deduced that Mr. Trump advocates a single payer national health system, which not only will not repeal Obamacare, but will vastly expand it, with disastrous effects on the national debt and taxes. Having built his straw man, he then launches into a pious, impassioned vow to destroy it, and he sticks with his charges, no matter what Trump says in response.
Mr. Cruz has used this same method on a number of key Trump positions. Another example: Mr. Trump mentioned that our NATO allies should be paying their share of the nuclear shield and military protection Americans have been providing since World War II. Mr. Cruz promptly interpreted that to mean that Mr. Trump wanted to pull the USA out of NATO. He then mounted an impassioned defense of NATO and condemned Trump as an isolationist.
Not only has he succeeded in misrepresenting Mr. Trump’s positions for his own benefit, but he has provided grist for the mill of all the anti-Trump players in the press and the political class. The only way to refute these slanderous attributions would be to engage Mr. Cruz in a lawyerly debate. Another Cuban American lawyer named Marco Rubio tried that, and merely proved to his regret that Mr. Cruz is a very effective litigator.
Mr. Trump is anything but a lawyer. His way of fighting back — in addition to picking at Mr. Cruz’s character in unflattering ways – is initially to stand by everything he says, no matter how casual or offhanded. His monologues are a steady stream-of-consciousness, which are highly entertaining, and which further his acceptance as very honest and sincere. In fact, his speaking style is one of the keys to his popularity. But without a due leveling of prudence and discretion, his style is also part of his problem.
His carelessness and thin-skinned lack of simple etiquette along with his seeming lack of interest in providing more of the “how” he intends to boost the economy, provide jobs, reduce the national debt, solve the immigration problems, fight terrorism at home, and defeat ISIS in the Middle East – has raised serious doubts about his suitability for the presidency.
Thus we come to Gov. John Kasich, Ohio Republican. Mr. Kasich has one major advantage over all the candidates in both parties. He has experience in solving the most pressing problems of the American economy — balancing the federal budget and lowering taxes and regulations — both in Washington and in Columbus. His second major advantage over Republican rivals is his apparent electability over Hillary Clinton, as seen in poll after poll.
His major disadvantage is that he is 600 delegates behind Mr. Trump with only 882 delegates yet to be chosen. Short of a withdrawal from the race by Mr. Trump, or major successes in the remaining primaries plus Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio dropping out and ceding their delegates to Mr. Kasich (all highly unlikely), he cannot be nominated on the first ballot of the 2016 Republican Convention. It is very possible that he cannot even have his name put in contention.
Many of the Republican “establishment” see Mr. Kasich as the best compromise candidate to beat Mrs. Clinton in the general election, but others of the anti-Trump group favor Mr. Cruz in that role. This is a dilemma with significant irony The choice between two “anti-establishment” candidates is so grating that some floated the name of Speaker Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, but he came out and said he won’t run.
The basic problem is this: If Mr. Trump arrives at the convention with a substantial slate of delegates, even if a few short of the 1237 committed delegates required for the nomination, but does not end up as the nominee, the Republican Party could face a revolt of the Trump voters — no matter what Mr. Trump himself did. They could start a third party, or even just stay home. In either case, the Democratic nominee would win the election.
Secondly, the rebellion might end the Republican Party as a viable national party, destined forever to be in the minority. This loss of the Trump presidential voters would almost certainly have a ripple effect on the congressional races, jeopardizing Republican control of one or both Houses of Congress. Loss of the Senate, in addition to the presidency, would undoubtedly result in the packing of the Supreme Court with up to four more liberal Justices in the next presidential term.
The next four years could then very well seal the fate of the nation in the “democratic socialism” propounded by Bernie Sanders, since Mrs. Clinton walks down the same path, only more slowly. Either way, the 2016 election could be as transformational as the election of 1932.
So, what is the solution? The best possible outcome for Republicans – and perhaps the country — would be for Mr. Trump to mature as a statesman and be nominated by a unified Republican party. Because, in spite of his popularity, American voters are not going to elect anyone they perceive as a casual or careless or uninformed guardian of their future.
However, the question of whether Mr. Trump can now launch a positive campaign to overcome the widespread negative perceptions his “scorched earth” strategy have induced is still open. He keeps saying that that transformation will have to wait until after he has defeated his current rivals for the nomination. This thinking may well cause him to miss the window of opportunity which seems already to be closing to repair the harm he has already done to his reputation, especially among women and minorities. Bad timing and lack of the ability to adjust quickly to rapidly changing events caused Ross Perot to fail in his presidential bid. The same challenge is facing Mr. Trump.
Short of Mr. Trump growing into the office he is seeking, the next best outcome would be the coalescing of support around Mr. Kasich. Why not Mr. Cruz? Because Mr. Cruz is an untried, first term senator (and Americans have had enough of that), whose negative reputation in office would surely be used by the opposition as evidence to disqualify him as president, because of his well-known inability to work with Congress.
The major reason for not choosing Mr. Cruz, however, is that Mr. Kasich is closer to the Mr. Trump’s message of reviving the American middle class, balancing the budget, saving Social Security, and re-thinking America’s military obligations than is Mr. Cruz. While not as sweeping as Mr. Trump’s positions on the major issues, the Kasich message is close enough to Mr. Trump that he may be able to pacify Mr. Trump and keep up the momentum Mr. Trump has generated with his movement, particularly if Mr. Trump would campaign for Mr. Kasich.
Also, Mr. Cruz has made a mortal enemy of Mr. Trump, and, by extension, all his legions of followers. If Mr. Cruz were to end up as the nominee — no matter the process — no one in heaven or earth would be able to convince Mr. Trump that Mr. Cruz’s nomination was the result of a fair choice. That may also be true of a Kasich nomination, but a Kasich nomination would leave at least a chance of the Republicans coming out of Cleveland unified.
The key to today’s political challenge is the use of government to re-invigorate the American middle class. The answers to that challenge do not lie in political philosophy but in a pragmatic approach to getting things done. There is wide consensus, certainly among Republican voters, but also in the population at large, about what has to be done: cut taxes, reduce the national debt, defeat the Islamic State, eliminate terrorism at home, and bring manufacturing jobs back to America. The candidate who can get these things done is the one we should elect.
There is only one candidate in either party who has proven he can get things like these done, and that is Mr. Kasich. Mr. Cruz has proven he can argue cases before the Supreme Court, but this is not litigation.
Mr. Trump has proven he can build a huge company, but governing is different from entrepreneurship. His credential is better than Mr. Cruz’s because there are many similarities between running a big business and running the government. Another factor in Mr. Trump’s favor is that he alone has repeatedly raised highly significant issues which get to the heart of the middle class resurgence. His principle qualification, however, is his proven ability to be a strong leader.
Where this nail-biting campaign for president goes next, and how it comes out, only time will tell. All the public can do right now is wait, watch — and hope.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.