Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Of Donald Trump, Jeff Bush and the Rest: Are Ten Republicans enough for the 2016 Contest?
Keywords or Terms: Republican and Democratic Aspirants; White House Oval Office; Rich and Famous; US Presidency; Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency; American Voters; Political Dynasties; Spousal or Family Lineage Presidencies; Global World Trade Imbalances; Plurality of Opportunities; Mutual Restraints; and, Reciprocal Concession.
The unquestionable dilution of the number of Republicans seeking the 2016 nomination will profoundly change give another week. The number of announcements of candidacies in the past few months for the 2016 contest has offered new political characterization or meaning for those running for the White House’s oval office. “They’re Impressive, they’ve got a lot of youth, they’ve got a lot of energy, they’ve got some significant diversity and they’re no dummies”, if you ask President Bill Clinton?
As other Republicans in the pipeline indicate their intensions or ambitions, American voters are confronted and confounded with the divergence of views and reasons for running for the American presidency. Is the 2016 Republican Party Primary going to turn out to be a confusion; or, will the willowing process that leads to attrition, finally resolve the chaotic band wagering effect that seems to be the current dispensation? Perhaps it is just the perception; however, when last did we have so many Republicans seeking the lofty office of the Presidency? An Aristocratic or Imperial Presidency - with the power to overlord it over the Legislative and Judicial branches - has never been the norm or constitutionally accommodating; however, maybe that is the lure? Why then do we have one of the richest men in America, Donald Trump; and, the third succeeding child in the Prescott Sheldon Bush Dynasty, Jeb Bush, announcing within a space of one week, their intentions to gun for the oval office in 2016?
Perhaps there is nothing much to it; perhaps it is a chance to give American voters the opportunity to have choices; perhaps, it is the season for multiplicities, hence, the number of Republican Candidates as of date, who have shown Interest. However, these presumptions or presuppositions are inadequate; many voters are challenged by the construct of having so many candidates showing interest in becoming the President of the United States, without providing solid advances in their announcements that could be conceived of worthy consideration.
For example, here is a glossary of one-liners in announcements in the past month, beginning with the most recent: 1) Sadly the American dream is dead… but if I get elected President I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before – Donald Trump; 2) [America] is on a very bad course; and, I have decided to run for the Presidency [as a solution] - Jeb Bush 3) I want to be President to defeat the enemies trying to kill us, not just penalize them or criticize them or contain them, but defeat them – Lindsey Graham; 4) I’m running for the Presidency [because] this is our fight, we stand together for liberty – Ted Cruz; 5) I’m running for the presidency [because] I’ve led the most successful state in America – Rick Perry; 6) I’m running for the Presidency because I have a deep understanding of how the economy works – Carly Fiorina; 7) I’m a candidate for the President of the United States [because] I believe in our Constitution – Ben Carson; 8) I’m running for the Presidency, [because] working families don’t need another president tied to big government or big money – Rick Santorum; 8) Any drunken redneck can walk into a bar and start a fight; however, a leader only starts a fight he’s prepared to finish – Mike Huckabee; 9) I don’t need any expert to give me a crash course in [foreign policy] – George Pataki; and, 10) We have come to take our country back – Rand Paul
Excluding the ridiculous verbiage from Donald Trump – most successful person ever to run for the presidency, owning a Gucci store that’s worth more than Romney; Jeb Bush’s foot in the mouth statement, we are not going to clean up the mess in Washington by electing the people who either helped create it or have proven incapable of fixing it; and, other very off-the-curve comments from Republican aspirants at each of their launching, one can hardly tell, if these Republican aspirants have a long and lasting interest in helping America confront its socio-economic-political challenges in the next millennium. The need to confront global world trade imbalances, multiple years, against America’s interest; and, the changing dynamics of global terror and terrorism, are stubborn issues demanding an understanding of the intricate nature of leadership and presidential powers. Anyone ready for the job must articulate a new order of thinking, far outstripping one liner comments regarding the responsibility of the Office of the Presidency and or, one’s wealth or past achievements vis-à-vis the constantly changing roles of the occupant of the office.
The complex nature of the international world order has offered unprecedented opportunities and difficulties for occupants of the White House’s oval office. On the domestic front, the need to address issues of widening gap between the rich and the poor and job losses or growing unemployment, due to negotiated trade deals, and the ever so-alarming trade imbalances between China and the US, demand better preparedness of anyone seeking this lofty office. How about the chameleonic global and domestic terrorism issues? It is evident and essential that the occupier of the White House oval office, male or female, understands the interrelatedness of some domestic and international issues; and visualize himself or herself addressing multiple interrelated issues and functions, inherent in the occupancy of the office. Candidly, He or she must be able to build a bridge to the future while at the same time fighting domestic and global terrorism.
In the foreign arena, issues of political geo-strategy, defending Europe in post-industrial or information age, arms reduction and deterrence, maintaining peace in the Middle East, practical internationalism and maintaining America’s National Interests are all in play. Today, the change is moving towards issues of stability in the Arab World, Emerging Asian and African Economies and the slowing or non-performing economies in Europe. The old Southeast Asiatic regional hegemonic doctrine of the last century is dead, and no one must be dragging the nation back, in the context of the Arab World and or Africa. The new President come January 2017, must be able to seize the opportunities which these issues offer; and, cope with the difficulties of proffering solutions to many of them without losing his or her patience; or being perceived as overtly nationalistic. Thus, flamboyance, arrogance, untrusworthiness and loose talks, or inability to hold judgement before all facts are in, are not really qualities America wants in someone seeking to become President of the United States.
Coincidentally, the current spate of Republicans seeking the 2016 White House Oval Office have the American voters debating issues of the probability and possibilities of each of their chances. Some keen political observers are concerned over the occupancy of the oval office shifting between preeminent political dynasties and or spousal lineage, Kennedy’s Bush’s and Clinton’s. The unseeingly preeminence of fame and generational powers are acknowledged in the current context, with the advent of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a 2016 Democratic Presidential aspirant. However, other more conciliatory observers maintain there is not much to fear or worry about, since ordinary mortals as Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, with little name or no-name recognition, have risen from so-called nowhere, to occupy the lofty office. Further, these heroes and past or outgoing occupants of the White House, proved in many ways that money onslaught and traditional support of party loyalists and power brokers can be overcome in a presidential contest for the oval office. In addition, to the conciliatory observers, President Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama proved once again, what the fore-fathers admonished: a non-monarchial governance and a Republic of the citizens of the United States of America!
If Americans subscribe to plurality of opportunities, and are concerned about dynastic and or aristocratic Presidencies, there are chances for them to nominate candidates away from the Bush and Clinton in 2016. However, if either Jeb Bush or Hillary Rodham Clinton, become each candidate left standing at the end of the primaries for Republicans and Democrats, then the debate at that time will be merely intellectual. The issue for the future may then become how to prevent former spouses and progeny of past senators or senators from becoming the United States President. How to reinvigorate the plurality of candidacies for the White House oval office, without relying on the traditional power houses or families seeking to replace each other, would be a fascinating subject for political scientists and vote pollsters of the future.
Encouragingly or discouragingly though, the spate of Republican candidates for the 2016 are diverse enough for either party to put to rest whatever misgivings opponents of dynasties and fame aspiring to become President of the United States. The challenge today, according to critics of the current spate of Republican candidates is this, if the contest is about doctrinaire conservatism, anti-minority or immigrant prejudices, narcissism, religious awkwardness, maybe these spate of Republican candidates stand a chance. Incidentally, the 2016 contest is going to be more than these. This is probably, one reason, one should be circumspect in completely criticizing the famous, rich and privileged seeking to win the greatest prize in American Politics: the Presidency of the United States. Hopefully, these candidates will be admonished by what Charlie Black, John McCain’s 2008 Presidential Campaign Chairman articulates about a candidate, putting public service ahead of going out and making money and getting wealthy and getting really solid finances. Essentially, this is the ideal; this is what it means to be patriotic and nationalistic. Anything less, is selfish and wrongheaded.
Without sounding as trite on this very confusing topic, my favorite choice of candidate is anyone who is able to articulate a system of mutual restraints on both domestic and international front or issues, because it serves America better and afford for reciprocal concession on issues of governance.