The shock of Donald Trump receiving the Republican nomination coupled with widespread ambivalence about Hillary Clinton, generates worry this could be a close election.  And it raises a question about how this unlikely candidate has advanced so far?  We underestimate, I believe, the power of his unorthodox political style.   Trump does not act like a traditional candidate running for president.  The organizational disarray, the virtual absence of campaign advisors and the lack of notable fundraising underscore the fact that he considers himself to be the celebrity star of his own reality TV show, (a cross between Survivor, where challengers like Low Energy Jeb, Liddle Marco and Lyin’ Ted are voted off the island one by one, and The Apprentice, where each episode culminates with Trump telling someone they are fired), rather than a presidential candidate.

One of the more remarkable aspects of the Trump phenomenon is that he says many things that would demolish traditional political campaigns. If anyone else suggested Ted Cruz’s father was linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, raised the issue of Obama’s birthplace or wondered if Vince Foster was murdered, their credibility would plummet with their poll numbers. But unlike traditional candidates, Trump wants to shock as many as possible because his outrageous venomous remarks, delivered like National Enquirer headlines, boost the ratings of his personal reality TV show.  Likewise, Trump’s campaign rallies, filled with outright lies, empty slogans, rhetoric that smears his competition and offends broad swaths of the electorate, and even threats of violence against hecklers or protesters, have more in common with Jerry Springer episodes than traditional political events. On the one hand, the vulgar spectacle of his provocative statements fired off like verbal missiles offer the illusion of news that enables him to secure free press coverage. But at a deeper level, Trump’s inflammatory comments implore the public to stay tuned for the next episode of his tabloid campaign. And we remain riveted, whether appalled or thrilled by what he says, each of us wondering what else will come out of his mouth.

The problem, of course, is that Trump is actually running for president. The virtual absence in his tabloid campaign of any serious discussion about serious issues is unprecedented. Instead, we get bluster about building walls Mexicans will pay for, tough talk about future trade negotiations and bold predictions about the quick destruction of ISIS. Trump never provides details about how any of this will be accomplished. And given his success, why should he? He believes that wading into the minutiae of public policy is not good for ratings. Besides, his supporters experience a vicarious thrill watching him blow off steam. So it remains a better strategy to say whatever comes to mind. Trump keeps his reality TV show “relevant” with provocative free associations based on a canny intuitive feel for what has maximum shock value.

But Trump’s campaign, like any other, does not exist in a vacuum. His tabloid style registers because it responds to something in the air. And the underlying truth of this political year is that both Trump and Sanders, what could be deemed the “Bernie Trump” phenomenon, reflect an enormous rage and uneasiness many feel about their lives, whether marginalized, less educated, older white working class men and women who sign on with Trump or young college educated men and women who face an uncertain future and gravitate to Sanders. Too many people feel left behind or cast aside. So Sanders and Trump offer pushback to those who feel powerless against forces adversely affecting their lives, from globalization and international trade deals to shifting national demographics.

Can Hillary harness the widespread anger, resentment and distrust that many feel? While she might win in a landslide, her eagerness and ability to talk about the intricacies of public policy could lead many to be wary of her, because men still feel threatened by very smart women. While aspects of her personality fuel public discomfort, like her defensiveness and paranoia about the press and lack of warmth and charisma in large public settings, she knows her stuff. As Obama recently noted, she is arguably the most prepared candidate ever to seek the presidency, while even Mitch McConnell recognizes Trump is in over his head. But will it matter? This election should force us to reflect on important distinctions between leadership and demagoguery. Let us hope we have sense enough to vote for the former and to repudiate the latter in this pivotal election, that Hillary will not be the last one voted off the island and that the tabloid headline in November will read: “Nation to Trump: You’re Fired.” The alternative is just unthinkable.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.
Editor of Delano

Groups that endorse a literal reading of religious texts are characterized as fundamentalist.  For instance, the belief that God created the universe in seven days as written in the Book of Genesis. But any individual or group that remains loyal to an idea despite empirical data that refutes it, when loyalty to that idea supersedes adherence to actual evidence, may be said to hold fundamentalist beliefs.  In the contemporary world,  we associate fundamentalism with radical Islamic groups, but does the phenomenon exist in our political landscape?

Consider the fact that the American Republican Party is the only conservative movement in the world that denies the reality of man-made global warming. Other right-wing parties may differ with their more liberal counterparts about how to respond to climate change, but they recognize there is a grave problem. When discussing this dire threat, it appears that no set of data or degree of scientific consensus will ever persuade most Republican leaders to forsake their belief that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community to advance a “liberal” political agenda; one that would undermine the fossil fuel industry and adversely affect macroeconomic growth and cost jobs for American workers.

However, the denial of man-made global warming represents the latest expression of an insidious evolution in the Republican Party that began a generation ago under Ronald Reagan. The heart of the Reagan revolution consisted of a supply-side mantra that tax cuts spur a level of productive activity that generates additional tax revenues greater than those lost by the tax cut. The idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues and reduce budget deficits represented the infamous voodoo of Reagan’s economic plan decried by George H.W. Bush in 1980.

It is remarkable that Republicans still tout the magical properties of tax cuts as a cure for budget deficits and as a primary policy prescription to restore economic growth, even as considerable historical data clearly refute their proposition. A staunch belief in tax reduction prompted George W. Bush to maintain his signature tax cut even as military spending for two wars and an increase in entitlement spending exploded budget deficits. Accordingly, the Republican Party has not only veered to the right, it has maintained cherished beliefs despite strong empirical evidence challenging their veracity. In this sense, Republican Party ideology has shifted in a fundamentalist direction.

The fundamentalist tilt of the Republican Party has transformed our political culture. While it is commonplace to bemoan intransigent partisanship, increasing levels of intolerance emanates from the fact that Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers view themselves as political prophets; as the true guardians of the nation’s future against serious threats to its well being. Believing their ideology to be unassailable, these conservatives maintain that liberal and even moderate opponents espouse views that endanger America’s strength. In this context, political debate becomes a Manichean struggle between good and evil that renders compromise an unreasonable or unthinkable capitulation to those who would harm the nation.

Increasingly dominated by those who espouse views impervious to change and who consider themselves to be the true custodians of the national interest, the Republican Party has become adamantly opposed to the spirit of collaboration that remains an essential feature of any democracy. As a significant factor contributing to the poisonous partisan atmosphere inhibiting the two major parties from working together, the fundamentalist tilt of the Republican Party threatens the health of our democratic system of government.

Neal Aponte, Ph.D.

Editor of Delano