Keywords or Terms: Divisive Strategy;
White House oval office; New Yorkers; South Carolinian; Canadian-Born Ted
Cruz; American-born Donald Trump; New York Post Editorial; Advocated Trump’s
tariffs against China; US Navy; Iranian water; Marco Rubio; Ben Carson; Jeb
Bush; Chris Christie; John Kasich
For close to a
century, the politics of race baiting, to differentiate American Political
Landscape, has been exploited by both political parties; however, the
Republican Party has benefited most especially in this realm, as its leaders had
fanned aura of hate, divisions and or divisive variables that appear to have
heralded their ticket to the White House Oval Office on a number of occasions.
As the nature of this strategy appears to have worked rather well for
Republican Presidential Aspirants in the past, one of the current front-runner for
the 2016 Republican Party nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, attempted the strategy
at the Sixth Republican Party debate holding at North Charleston, South
Carolina; only this time, pitching the values of New Yonkers against Southern Carolinian came out flat or undignified. The strategy, based on long-standing
apprehensions or bigotry, significantly modified to undermine another candidate's dominance of the race in the 2016 Republican party contest, nearly re-defined
what it means to be cautious and circumspect as you attempt to bring down your
opponent in a race.
A strategy Aspirant
Donald Trump, a proud New Yorker, shut down with the following: ‘When the World
Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have
handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York’; and, the New York Post
editorialized with this: “that line aimed to get Iowa voters to contrast him
with Donald Trump and Hillary … rings pretty odd, once you know his history
with at least two big New York Banks.” Both responses to division politics or
political idol baiting were not only ineffective in the debate, they left the
New York Post's-credited Canadian-born US Presidential Aspirant, running home with
his tail between his legs. For once in the Republican Party, fanning flames of
division, either by known demagoguery or self-chosen political prejudices that
readily served bigoted or discriminatory politicians, turned out to be an
albatross that may heighten questions regarding the qualification of Senator
Cruz for the presidency of the United States. Simmering prejudicial problems
have solutions, including demagoguery; and those who fan hate, occasionally find
the guts to question that same affinity when found in their competitors.
At the beginning, Aspirant
Ted Cruz would have loved to benefit from usual republican party strategy of
pitching one group against another, or one prejudice against an unknown, a
strategy that has been adopted ever so often by many Republican Presidential
aspirants or candidates, including the party’s touted 2016 front-runner
candidate, Donald Trump; however, this time around, the strategy that has often
fueled Republican politics, was found abhorrent by same party member, past
accustomed to demagoguery on the campaign trail, and one not shying away from
making outlandish statements about minority groups. How about shutting the
doors against Muslims and making American Muslims register in a new registry?
Did you recall something about building a big and fanciful border against Mexican
rapists coming from the southernmost borders of America; or, “probably some
Black Lives Matter folks called them [Group of Black Pastors] not to support me,”
as advanced by the front-runner candidate. However, with New York Post asking
Senator Cruz to go back to Canada where he was born and offering the middle
finger of lady liberty, one can only imagine how offensive this type of
strategy is, especially with those at the receiving end of the dig. Maybe this
occasion might make Presidential Aspirant Trump reflect on his strategy of divisiveness
in the race for the White House; including other credited divisive comments of
his campaign that appear to have catapulting him to the front-runner status
among the slate of Republican hopefuls. One thing was absolutely clear and true
on Thursday’s night tit-for-tat rhetoric between Senator Cruz and Real Estate
Mogul Trump, the divisive strategy backfired big-time, as the latter invoked
what would go down in the annals of Republican Party Aspirants’ debate as a ground-shaking
smack down of a Canadian Texan over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on
American soil.
Frankly, the salient
and unchanging fact of prejudicial altercations between or among presidential hopefuls
is that, party presidential aspirants’ debates cannot be attested as resolute
in serving the needs of Americans, if aspirants are not able to articulate and
discuss problems that directly impact the lives of Americans without pitching
one group against another; or, running one group down for personal expediency or
political point. The tit-for-tat rhetoric between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is an example of this assertion or
affirmation. While often you have witnessed the frustration of presidential
aspirants on the status of governance in the past five Republican debates, and
probably got the intuition that many Republican party presidential aspirants
for the 2016 White House race wore their frustrations on their sleeves rather thinly,
the inability of many of them to stay laser-focused in deliberating issues that
truly matter to American lives in the debate, practically undermine the
essence of the deliberations and or quality of the discussions and debate.
You can hardly attain
magnanimity in advancing arguments tainted by attempt to undervalue your
opponents or deride their credibility. Further, you can also hardly advance
newer frontier or reasoning in resolving burning national issues of widening
income inequality, unfair judicial system, sporadic or galloping unemployment,
domestic and international terrorism; or, design best strategies to combat these
and other problems, when all your choice of words or reflections are laden with
unfounded prejudices and unwholesome classification of the positions of your
opponents. If your political rhetoric is laden with innuendos and an attempt
to hoodwink the public regarding your campaign finances or nation of origin,
maybe it is in your better interest to advance statements that are not demagogic
or wish-washy. Maybe you are better off interpreting the constitution as inclusive rather than exclusive; or specifically favoring desirable outcomes
that are cost-effective for the management of public finances and national budget. To put it in
Senator Marco Rubio’s words to Senator Ted Cruz: “This is not consistent
conservatism, but political calculations.”
As in past Republican
Party Presidential debates, the onus or challenge is to draw a clear difference
in the campaign message of the individual aspirants, to develop a coalesce
around consistent ideologies and further a fellowship of consistencies on most
matters of social, political and economic priorities. However, if this fifth
debate was meant to enhance chances of one candidate over another, one came out
further confused regarding how each of these Republican aspirants defined their
candidacies, as many if not all of them, left voters with unclear or little
understanding of their positions on many national political issues. How about Donald
Trump’s advancements or arguments for tariffs against Chinese products? Instead
of taking the initiative to advance vigorous arguments for an alternative
economic solution for challenging or reforming the trade surplus in favor of America against China, aspirant Donald Trump either confused the audience further or
failed to secure a better understanding of what exactly he is proposing, and
whether the former forty-five percent credited threshold as articulated by him
in other forums is actually feasible or reasonable, to assuage this problem. Indolent
or unimaginative arguments on public policies are never convincing to the
seasoned mind. Even for the average mind that are slow to recognize when they
are about to be hood winked, some of the emerging responses to questions from
the moderator, showed an attempt to be evasive by some of the Republican
aspirants. How about Governor Chris Christie’s allusion that Tin Pot dictators
were taking over US Navy Ships or Senator Ted Cruz’s braggadocios that any
country that makes US Service members get on their knees will feel the full
force or the fury of the USA? Are we about to go to war again as envisaged by
someone who never served in the US military? How do these advances address a
circumstantial suspicion of incursion of American sailors into sovereign Iranian
waters? Would Chris Christie and or Ted
Cruz take America to another war for a minor international disagreement that was
resolved by diplomacy under twenty-four hours, using more disciplined communication tactic?
Maybe Americans
watching the sixth republican party debate suffered some rude awakenings that
some of the arguments advanced by the Republican aspirants were either disingenuous
or close to being delusional? Did you hear Neurosurgeon Ben Carson comment: “We
have the world’s best military, even though [President Obama] has done
everything he can to diminish it?” OR
Donald Trumps’: Our military is a disaster? How about, every weapons system has
been gutted from Governor Jeb Bush? It is on record that the US is expending
more of its GDP on militarization, than the next eight nations collectively
with huge military spending based on both public and private records of
military equipment and ammunition builders' expenditures in America. How can these aspirants counter the fact that many military investments have been expended by the Obama’s
Administration on special operations to combat the new faceless religious
fanatical movement across the globe, which is using theocratic jihad-ism to
fight western civilization? The choice to counter this canker-worm or close to
universal world’s problems, by redefining where our military spending goes, has
very little to do with the broadsided statement from Senator Marco Rubio that
President Obama is undermining our military.
In case some of these
Republican aspirants are forgetting, it is with inputs from Joint Chief of
Staffs and professional experts in this realm that presidential positions and
decisions are made, especially with the reorganization of the military and building
a more agile force that can respond to issues of hostilities across the globe.
The Military Honchos have recommended the modernization of all the arms of American
Military, including re-allocation and increased expenditures in some key areas
to solidify our progress and re-position our new military might to fight the new
frontiers of hostilities or modern mayhem. How an uninformed or slimly
debriefed shallow campaign staff of governors and senators running for the
Office of the Presidency on cuts to military spending can be adduced to destruction
of American military is not only baffling, but rather misguided, especially when
made without justifiable facts. Maybe these Republicans want to look at how
much harm they caused over 2011 defense budget, or the role they played in
bringing America’s Military might to their whimsical discredited junction, especially
the question of sequestration. Besides, both the old and new America’s military
spending realignments are consequential to the need to re-purpose our military
for a modern warfare; one that is agile than before and better responsive to
hostilities across the globe.
Reasonably interpreted
from the debate is that some Republican Party aspirants have embraced divisive
strategies and embraced demagoguery to advance their candidacy in the race
towards 2016 White House. What we witnessed at the sixth Republican Party debate
is that, one leading aspirant is nervously trolling the same strategy as the
most advanced leading Republican aspirant at the polls, based on divisive
principles. This strategy is hardy new and has long been used by other
Republicans who came before these new presidential political fortune seekers. History
of presidential political campaigns is hardly written or explained by political
misspeaks or delusional assertions at debates that could hardly stand the
litmus test of fact-checkers. Many American voters are not oblivious of what has
taken place in the last Republican and current Democratic Presidential
Administrations. American voters may not be exposing their personal choices at
this time; however, they are also not oblivious to some of the utterances and
strategies coming from presidential aspirants, especially, debate responses that call to question the suitability of some of these candidates for the White
House oval office come January 2017. Barring new initiatives or developments in the
coming months, one thing that American voters are relatively certain, is that Americans
do not want leaders with uncertain political baggage(s), those who are shallow in thoughts, those who have chosen demagoguery
to advance their candidacy and those with undefined qualification for office,
based on the constitutional provisions; neither are the voters interested in a leader
with encumbering divisive profile and excessive militarization principle in foreign
policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment