Keywords or Terms: US Presidency; Frustrated Veteran Ohio
Governor; Campaigning Message; Hitlerish; German Reverend Martin Niemöller; Presidential Aspirations; Muslims; Hispanic
Immigrants; Journalists; Republican Party; Democratic Party; US President; Euphoric Multiple Announcements; Associated Socialistic Doctrinaire;
Nazi-like campaign structure; Arizonian Barry Goldwater; South Dakotan George
McGovern; Communist Party Earl Broder; Socialistic Party Darling Hoopoes; Progressive
Movement; Ultra-right and Ultra left Ideology
Ohio’s Governor John Kasich's
brief bid for 2016 White House appears to have abruptly come to an end. While
it lasted, the governor caught a glimpse
of attention from about three percent of Republican voters, rendering his enthusiasm
for the race and Office of US Presidency a second time around, remarkably
dampened and hopelessly perplexing. This unfortunate experience probably drove
the governor to release what is now considered in some quarters, an implosion
message or advertisement railing against the Republican Party front-runner, Mr.
Trump, on his way out. The relationship between the Ohio governor and Mr. Trump
has been remarkably tensed over the campaign season and probably climaxed to an
extreme tenuous point where the governor felt so chagrin with campaigning
messages and or Tweets from Mr. Trump, that he recently as of this week, categorized
and castigated Trump’s campaign for the 2016 White House as narcissistic and
Hitlerish.
The dominance of Mr.
Trump over the past six months in the polls appears to have frustrated the veteran
Ohio governor, and probably contributed to what is probably seen as an all-out
war against fellow Republican Donald Trump’s personality and campaign. Mr.
Trump was holding a campaign rally in the governor’s backyard the day the latter
released the scorching message of attack against the front-runner. With two
conference calls challenging – the elect-ability and burden of having Mr. Trump
as Republican party polls leader – the governor took to the media, an unprecedented
display of disgust for the brand of Trump’s campaign, throwing out courtesy and
brandishing discrediting message about what the Real Estate Mogul stands for in
the coming years, if he ever occupies the White House oval office. In his Political
Action Committee’s (PAC), bar-none and hold-no-prisoner released campaign
advertisement, the governor of Ohio likened Mr. Trump’s campaign to the notable
early pre-second world war quotation of
German Reverend Martin Niemöller: “First they came
for the Socialists (Muslims), and I
did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist (Muslims); Then
they came for the Trade Unionists (Hispanic Immigrants), and I did not speak out—Because
I was not a Trade Unionist (Hispanic Immigrants); Then they came for the Jews
(Journalists), and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew (Journalists);
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” The campaign video
advert was so moving and telling as dramatized by retired Vietnam prisoner of
War, Col. Tom Moe (USAF), that I once again give Fred Davis his due, as a
master of negative political advertisement in modern day American politics.
The graphic and vivid depiction of the scorching
Kasicak’s video advertisement, curling
from Reverend Martin Niemöller’s quote, are not dramatically coincidental; they are
probably meant to send a damaging blow to Mr. Trump’s ambition, liking his
brand of a campaign to the Second World War’s
Nazi propaganda to exterminate Jews. But the characterization, while an eye-popping opener, appears to be too late to
come; considered a sour grape among some Republican supporters of Mr. Trump’s
ambition; and, probably going to harden the determination of Trump’s campaign
to send out other dismissive messages. Going after a competitor’s credibility
is best when you are still in, not when you are on your way out the door. Governor
Kasicak’s PAC, New Day for America, compiled a couple of Mr. Trump’s campaign
messaging and turned them out to bombastic advertisements meant to undermine
further efforts from the front runner. Incidentally, New day for America is
being threatened to be sued by Donald Trump’s campaign.
Truly, the exit of Governor John Kasicaks from the 2016 White House race
may be signaling some unwanted news for other Republican contestants, the wallowing process is commencing for the
initially huge and wielding number of Republican aspirants. About half of the
remaining thirteen Republican contestants may soon be returning from their
campaign trails to their home state, some
from shallow pockets consequent to slower donations to their campaign chest,
others from possible self-examination of the possibility of their being the
2016 nominee of the party. In hindsight, many of these contestants have endured
a gruesome schedule of crisscrossing the states, testing and broadcasting their
ambitions and controlling message released
to the press; none of these ever dared to take on the US Press or antagonize
the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters, the way Donald Trump’s campaign has
done.
Last summer’s initially euphoric multiple announcements of ambitions to run
for the White House in 2016 by many aspirants are yielding, somehow gradually turning to be whimsical for some, or
overestimation of broad support from voters, by others. The party’s arranged
debates for the aspirants have not been boring, a few of them yielded
fireworks; others, a reevaluation of the possibilities on ending up as the
party’s eventual nominee. Although it is too early to predict the candidate
with the best chance, the fruits of efforts by one Republican candidate, Donald
Trump, while still bemoaned by critics, appear to be encouraging; for others,
Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christi and Carli Fiorina, probably
need more time to flourish or stand the test of time. For Democrats, barring the unforeseeable, Hillary Clinton
would probably be the nominee; and Bernie Sanders, the resurgent candidate that
can easily replace Hillary Clinton, were it not for associated Socialistic
doctrinaire, would have been an ideal candidate for many supporters of the front-runner for the Democrats. The far-left
liberal wing of the Democratic Party is alive and well; only time could tell,
if they will be able to sway the hands of the eventual nominee of the
Democratic Party in 2016.
For as long as campaigns for party nomination proceed, overzealous and
short-tempered aspirants may suffer a setback. As 2016 campaigning becomes
intense, states’ primaries get completed, loyalty would become divergent, many
supporters will shift allegiance, and competition will become somewhat of a cutthroat
contest; however, this is often the nature of the beast. Candidates who fail to
change with the tide, time and messaging, no matter how they perceive their
campaign’s entitlement, would suffer unfortunate voters’ revolt or setbacks. In
the chaos of presidential aspirants’ campaigns across the fifty states, polls’
leadership would go through multiple changes or shifting; and, the dynamism of
the process would willow out the weak from the strong, the flat-footed from the
resilient, and the unexpected as usual, would triumph over preconceived
certainties, on the road to the White House’s oval office. Further, the
acculturated call for unyielding support from leading candidature to supporters
will meet with some resilience or unfortunate news for a few of the aspirants;
and, the ideal party candidate will hardly triumph without some unscating brutalization.
And the threat of having a Nazi-like campaign structure or messaging will
dissipate as some candidates eventually realize the shortcomings of shooting themselves
in the foot with poor campaign messaging over the months. The initial
vociferous supporters of extremely spirited aspirants would take to their
heels, once they notice an uncharacteristic insanity in the position of their
initially favored candidate. It is difficult to say how many changes in the
polls’ leadership would be experienced in the course of a campaign cycle,
however, it is going to be difficult for an aspirant not to be reminded of his
chosen language at the beginning of the exercise. This is probably why no one
should be surprised, if a candidate that seem rather impermeable or extreme in
his views at the beginning of the campaign cycle, abruptly shifts his
messaging, once he or she becomes the party’s flag bearer. The shifting to middle ground messaging from the far right or left candidature, is often; if
not completely predictable, in each of the last forty years of Presidential Campaign
exercises and experiences. That Donald Trump will change his messaging after
being nominated the Republican Party flag bearer is probably a given, except he
is ready to lose the election to the other party’s candidate, or his supporters
insist on his continued radical and extreme position on many issues, and the
opposition candidate is unable to offer a better and hopeful messaging that
will carry more weight; and or, exploit the obvious weaknesses. For now, it
remains expedient, or appears easier, to maintain a radical or extreme position
when running in a somewhat extreme far-right supporter based party, in what is
a heavily weighted conservative Republican Party nomination process; however,
in a general election, it has always been risky to maintain an extreme nature
of campaign; either in a far-right of far-left position.
Historically, since the end of the Second World War, many extreme
Presidential aspirants, Earl Broder of the Communist Party and Darling Hoopoes
of the Socialistic Party in the 1950’s, Arizonian Barry Goldwater of the
Republican Party in the 1960’s, and, South Dakotan Democratic Party George
McGovern in the 1970’s have either fanned hate messages, used offensive language
or established campaign apparatus that fanned fears among the populace. The
story of a 1972 far-left extreme-candidature, coupled with missteps in the
choice of a Vice-Presidential candidate, from a US Press categorized, ‘reflective
liberal’ can down a campaign as can be told by the current 2016 front-runner
Democratic Party Nominee, Hillary Clinton, who was then, in collaboration with
her husband, worked in Texas on George McGovern campaign for the 1972 White
House. Once you are labeled a candidate of extremity, either amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot, just as was for 1972 far-left
candidate, George McGovern, or 2016 far-right, anti-immigration, anti-press,
xenophobic and anti-black candidature, Donald Trump, the likelihood of you
winning the White House is at best as 30.7%, factoring out the Watergate
influences of Richard Nixon, if not a landslide! That was how far an extreme
far-left candidate was humiliated in 1972. The same cannot be ruled out in
2016.
The precursor to the 1972 experience, Senator Barry Goldwater, the 1964
Republican Party flag bearer, espoused extreme right, American Conservative, and Libertarian Movement
messaging and virtues, that cost the Republican Party the White House that
year. His Democratic Party opponent, Lyndon B. Johnson, was able to paint Senator
Goldwater as a ‘reactionary zealot’ in the general elections; and, his initial
vocal crusade against Labor Unions, Welfare State and the Soviet Union met disaffection, in general, elections, which ultimately delivered the
White House to Democrats; and, a unanimous Democratic Party Majority Congress,
that ushered in the Great Society programs that many Americans still admonish
or dearly love till date. With Mr. Trump’s surging in early polls, what is
currently considered “the most outrageous lambasting comments about minority
groups in America” may turn out to be an opportunity for greater things to come
in general elections. Despite all the anguish among the Republican party establishment,
and what seems to be upsetting for some American minorities, the ultimate repercussions
of the extreme stance of a candidate, may
become a blessing in disguise.
Democrats on the corollary to Republicans aspirants have somewhat of a tidy
primary, with only three candidates standing before the very first state
primary in Iowa. The question for Democrats at this time, is whether any of the
three remaining candidates can corral the
mantle of Theodore Roosevelt ethos of the Progressive movement, delivering: “the perfectibility of man, and in an open society
where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic
future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or
worse.” This ethos is no more telling when you consider the issue of disparity
of wages between sexes, legal injustices,
and rising poverty among Americans. The Democrats under Barack H. Obama were
able to draw the union out of health poverty with the launching of OBAMACARE;
despite the Republican insistence to overturn the law.
Essentially, the rigorous and consecutively arranged state primaries have the
tendency of wallowing out politicians
that would not win out in a general election, because of their extreme
positions on the campaign trails, or some missteps or known inadequacies of both,
or either candidate on the ticket. 2016 Republican
Party Primaries may go the same way; however, if this fails to happen, the
chances of Aspirant Donald Trump winning out in the general election is rather
dismal, considering historical data and experiences. Further, if Aspirant
Donald Trump fails to win the Republican Party flag bearer status; and, he chooses
to be a third party candidate as he has intoned, because of reliance on his
wealth to launch a third party candidature, he still may not necessarily be
assured of the White House’s oval office. Historical performance and data of
third party candidates in general elections
have been often dismal. The blunt eccentricities and shortcomings of railing
against minorities, or holding the extreme
far-right opinion of a huge chunk of the electorate
are invariably undermining to any presidential
ambition. The comments of Mr. Donald Trump may look appealing at this time to
the far-right voting base of the Republican Party, the truth of the matter however, based on historical data and
experiences of US general elections, extreme positions and or comments that initially coral support to a fascist candidacy, has a way of denying the White House to the
offending party or candidate. What does this mean for the Republican Party in
2016, if it chooses to field Donald Trump? Your guess is as good as mine.
