A New Republican Candidate

Donald Trump’s inane musings about the benefits of injecting disinfectants and the magically curative powers of ultraviolet light have made it almost impossible for him to be re-elected.

Photo Credit: Johnathan Ernst/Reuters

My sense is that he has finally driven away enough independent voters to tip the scale against himself.  Yes, the comments on the Hollywood Access tapes were more morally repugnant and he survived.  Yes, he has made many remarks that reveal no understanding of how our government works, which is notable for the person who leads it.  Shallowness, pettiness, an absence of self-dignity – all regularly evident, yet he has survived.  But there was something qualitatively different about his escapade in to the realm of carnival medicine man.  Maybe it was the striking contrast with the doctors around him.  Maybe it was the stark display of his belief that whatever crosses his mind is somehow worthy of the country’s attention.  Maybe it was the public demonstration that every person in America who has made it out of the 5th grade has a better understanding of how the world works than their President.

I think it is time (and there is not much remaining) for the Republican Party to find a new candidate, or more particularly to orchestrate circumstances that get Donald Trump out of the way.  There is also a possibility Mr. Trump will get himself out of the way through his refusal to wear a mask, or perhaps his foray in to the use of hydroxychloroquine while being a 73 year old, overweight guy with high cholesterol.  My intention is not to discuss possible circumstances that would bring about Mr. Trump’s political departure, but to look at a ticket that could succeed in a way that might benefit the country.  I start with a few assumptions:

1. Donald Trump was narrowly elected because he spoke to the financial interests of working people, many of whom were the base of the Democratic Party a few decades ago, and who are now unrepresented by the establishments of both parties.  Nate Silver’s fivethirtyeight.com estimates that 9% of Obama voters voted for Trump.  That translates to about 6 million votes.  It also translates to winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania–maybe even Iowa and Florida, all of which President Obama won in 2008 and 2012.  Those states all flipped in 2016.  Please note that I stated Trump spoke to the interests of working people – I did not say he has governed in the interests of working people
2. None of the 16 other Republican candidates for the party’s nomination in 2016 could have carried those states.  None of them could move working class voters and none could have won the election: not Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Lindsay Graham, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindahl or any of the others including Scott Walker and John Kasich who managed to get elected governors of Wisconsin and Ohio respectively.
3. None of those 16 other 2016 Republican candidates could carry the above-mentioned swing states this year, and would lose to Joe Biden as I believe Trump is now quite likely to do.  Nor can I think of a Republican currently holding office who would win.
4. American voters have the potential to re-align themselves around certain issues outside the current establishments of the two major parties,  for example;

Working people need a place to land.  Their former home in the Democratic Party is gone.  The Democrat establishment claims to be for working people while at the same time more vigorously advocating policies and an absence of law enforcement around immigration that essentially amount to open borders.  People who understand the the world know that it is impossible to be “for workers” and for illegal immigration at the same time.  The Democratic Party cannot suspend the basic laws of economics, including the law of supply and demand.  More workers leads to lower wages.  That has always been true and is no less so now that 38 million people have lost their jobs in the last nine weeks.  George Orwell, in 1984, defines “doublethink” as follows: 

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.  The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated.

The Democratic Party’s doublethink produces abandoned working Americans. The Republican Party has never, during my lifetime, directly concerned itself with their financial interests, arguing instead that some wealth will trickle down to workers if the government is sufficiently supportive of businesses both large and small.  Disregarded by both parties, some workers were willing to support Trump because he addressed immigration which lowers wages and trade deals which have the effect of exporting jobs.   My sense is that some of those voters will not support Mr. Clean this time around.

Anti-war people need a home. Maybe not even anti-war.  Maybe it is just citizens who believe our leaders should actually think before we invade a foreign country, and who also believe our foreign interventions should be guided by simple notions of morality. I think there are millions of Americans sick of watching their government kill people all over the Middle East and northern Africa in a variety of geo-political  maneuverings untethered to any meaningful notion of national security.  Forty years ago, those voters were more likely to be in the Democratic Party, although there were anti-war Republicans as well (Rep. Pete McCloskey, Senator Mark O. Hatfield among others).  Today, the Democrats, in a never-ending war against Trump, are more interested in defining Russia as “our sworn enemy” (whatever the hell that is – last I checked we did not have a procedure for swearing in our enemies) than in exploring options for arms reduction or mutually agreeable ways to reduce tensions.  The anti-war segment of the Democratic Party has largely collapsed despite the adventures going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen (which may be winding down) and the threats and provocations directed at Iran, which may be the ultimate neo-con target.   The Party is about to nominate the second presidential candidate in a row who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, Mr. Trump has surrounded himself with an array of neo-cons currently including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor Robert O’brien (protege’ of John Bolton), as well as Secretary of Defense and former defense contractor lobbyist Mark Esper.  This is not the stuff of which peace is made or maintained. Neither party provides a “safe space” for those of us who believe our country has a responsibility to consider the welfare of both the people on whom we drop bombs and the soldiers we send thousands of miles in our name.

A NEW REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE

Who has a national profile, can retain (likely expand) the voters who switched from Obama to Trump, can retain Trump Republicans, can even bring back to the Republican Party some of the Never Trumpers whose primary objections were around Trump’s vulgarity and ignorance, who has shown a degree of independence from Republican orthodoxy, would do well in debates, who is comfortable on television, is articulate, is knowledgeable on all major issues, and displays a degree of empathy and humanity that Mr. Trump never has and Joe Biden currently does not?

Tucker Carlson

The answer is Tucker Carlson.  Those of my older, liberal friends who are now snickering and sneering, need to take a breath.  Watch the opening monologue from January 2, 2019 (here) before you complain.  He presents  a forceful rejection of the Mitt Romney form of Republicanism that is designed to make the world safe for international banking while conducting a destructive, interventionist, militarily-oriented foreign policy.  Carlson recognizes human beings as more than agents of consumption kneeling at the altar of the so-called Free Market.  On these issues, Carlson sounds far more like an old Democrat than Hillary Clinton ever has.  What’s more, he is a reflection of a genuine anti-interventionist segment of the Republican Party (Rand Paul, Pat Buchanan, Daniel Larison) that has much in common with people like me who disdain the wars pursued in my lifetime and who have never been Republican.   I do remember the Carlson of old on MSNBC more than a decade ago – at a time when that network was more conservative-Republican than liberal-Democratic.  He preached a conservatism to which I had a visceral negative reaction.  He’s different now, regularly addressing the financial  interests of working people and frequently expressing his antipathy to the wars we have pursued over the last several decades.  He is quite skilled in disagreeing with a guest while having a meaningful conversation – something you rarely see on the rest of FOX, or on CNN or MSNBC.

Consider reading the introduction to Carlson’s book Ship of Fools.  It is available as a excerpt on Amazon.  He is a Republican who sees wealth disparity as a problem that needs to be confronted – not explained away.  He is opposed to illegal immigration without the Trump references to ethnicity or religion or any of the unnecessary baggage that gets in the way of clearly expressing a view that benefits American labor. He hates foolish wars almost as much as I do.

Gabriel Sherman had an interesting article in Vanity Fair recently where he was describing the FOX News chorus that was cheering on Trump’s happy talk about the spreading coronavirus.  He noted that, “Tucker Carlson was an important exception.”  Sherman explained that Carlson warned his viewers early (early February) about the need to be vigilant regarding the virus and that he realized Trump “failed to grasp the scale of the crisis”.  Although his practice was to give his advice to the president on air, Carlson sought a private meeting with Trump in early March.  That meeting occurred in Mar-a-Lago and wound up lasting two hours.  Carlson warned that the virus was an existential threat to both the country and to the president’s reelection.  A Republican operative commented that the conversation “seemed to puncture Trump’s bubble”.  Speaking truth to power is not a bad trait.

This is not to say Tucker Carlson is a perfect candidate.  For one example, I think he is too much a “We need to open the country up now” advocate.  But in a world of political imperfections, he offers some possibilities that could move the country in what I believe is a positive direction.

 

Tulsi Gabbard

Who should his vice-presidential running mate be?  He could win with Nikki Haley, but she is a neo-con of the kind whose influence in government needs to be reduced.  My answer is Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.  She has healthy and sincere disgust for the never-ending wars of the Middle East.  Of those who sought the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, she was the leading anti-war candidate, followed closely by Bernie Sanders.  Hilary Clinton asserts she is a Russian asset.  That assessment goes in the positive column.  Carlson has spoken favorably of her during his show.  There was speculation she intended to run as a third party presidential candidate.  She did not.

Would it not be refreshing for a woman to be chosen for Vice President on the basis of her beliefs, values and competence, rather than that she fills a few intersectional lines on the grid of the aggrieved through which Democrats now view the political world.  Sure, she would be the first woman, first Samoan-American, and first Hindu vice president.  So what?  That’s fine, but, if called upon to be president, she is smart, determined, and would come to the office with the strongest disposition against the  foreign interventions and forever wars that I have been against my adult life.