Keyword or Terms: Civility; CNN; Governor Kasich; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Ted Cruz; and Billionaire Donald Trump; Cuba; Transpacific trade; Climate Change; Whitehouse; Mundane and Docile response; Substantive and Elegant debate; unconventional coup d’etat; American Political Party; North Carolina, Illinois and Florida
Contrary
to what has obtained in eleven Republican Presidential campaign debates, the twelfth
one, was a water shed from the past. Even the Republican polls’ leader and
chief provocateur in the shouting matches of the debates past, Donald Trump, agreed that this
CNN moderated debate was the most substantive and elegant of all the debates.
There were no snipers or name calling; neither were there candidates talking
over each other like kindergartners. Concurrently, not only did Governor Kasich of Ohio
agreed that this last one was good and congenial, he acknowledged how far the
Republican aspirants have come on the debate rostrum to an after-debate rendezvous
with one of the CNN announcers.
As
issues of immigration, trans-pacific trade, foreign policy, mostly with respect
to normalization of relations with the country Cuba, and Climate Change were
being trashed out, you sense a type of civility long absent from Republican
debates for the White House oval office this year. American viewers of the debates
had become so accustomed to the shouting matches between Republican aspirants
in the past debates, that it was generally assumed – at least among citizens
and establishment Republican party members – that the Coral Gables, Florida
debate, was going to be another raucous reality show experience, with
name-calling, body parts’ denunciation and little political communication
decorum and decency. Instead, about thirty minute of debate time, the former
discourteous aspirants, with their probable ring leader, were so taken aback by
the level of initial civility that the uncharacteristic Aspirant Trump
referenced: “So far, I cannot believe how civil it’s been up here.” The ever so missing
courtesy in aspirants’ interaction was junked for a more civil interaction, and
the usual put-downs, somewhat entertaining for some viewers, if not disheveled and
classless for others, was a thing of the past. Even when Ted Cruz, the second polls leader among the Republican aspirants,
attempted to stir up the pot with, “Trump would be a disaster as the republican
standard bearer”, you get the sense that Mr. Trump was either tired of the
raucous communication and would not be drawn into the usual shenanigans, or
someone finally advised, he needs to move away from the usual inflammatory and
or conflagration language and start being, Presidential. When Ted Cruz further
added, “If we nominate Donald Trump, Hillary wins”, Mr. Trump just ignored him
and moved the discussion to other sphere of public interest.
With an acknowledgement that it was time to move on from
the usual rowdy forum, the atmosphere in the debate venue was congenial, with
opportunities for easy jabs and casual insults passed over for more disciplined
and sometimes, mundane and docile response. How about Marco Rubio’s acknowledgement
that past adversarial strategy in the debates was not working for him or family
and most essentially, his wife and daughter, consider his past antics during
the debates, below their family’s accepted standard of decorum in communication
and debates. The fact that all the jabs that he had directed against Donald
Trump, the polls leader, had back fired, probably advised a more germane and
respectful atmosphere, with ample time for give and take to questions from the CNN
hosts. Even, where and when there were ample opportunities for electrifying rabble rouses or differences of opinion on issues of immigration and employer
sponsored work visas manipulation, many of the candidates who were ready to topple the front
runner and leader, just ignored the admission by Donald Trump that he is a
business man taking advantage of the lapses in the law on books, and no one
must begrudge him for either, not being patriotic or doing what other American
businesses continue to do, to benefit their business investments.
In contrast to Marco Rubio’s stance, Ted Cruz, was more
interested in engaging Donald Trump; inexorably pulling and forcing Donald
Trump to come into the ring, as the polls leader and real estate magnate,
understanding what was at stake, pulled back, hardly wanting to directly engage.
Even when Ted Cruz chastised him about his temperament and harsh language
against the Islamic religion, he refused to take the bait, offering what is
probably a foreign policy statement, that he will send up to thirty-thousand US
troops to the Middle East to fight ISIS, if he became President. And unlike the
usual trading of insults of the past, the choice of the aspirants on the stage engaging
in relational communication, strengthened the discussion points and arguably,
upgraded the level of communication; with aspirants appearing well informed
about what they were talking about. With the reluctance to engage Donald Trump
with former hostilities and demeaning language, the entertaining aspects of
past debates were relegated to where they belong, the “low information”
supporters of the front runner. For once, there was a strong sense that change
has finally come to the Republican debate for the White House; and when discussion
digressed once again to the laxity in the issuance of HB-I visa and work
permit, Donald Trump emphatically said: “I’m a business man and I know the system and I am the
only one that can fix it”.
Marco
Rubio’s attempt to unleash vitreous statements that could upend Trump’s
restraints in language appears fragmented or insignificant even when he
retorted, “The problem is presidents can’t just say anything they want, because
it has consequences here and around the world”; and, “Mr. Trump’s temperament
is a subject of deep anxiety among Republican Party leaders.” Mr. Trump either
ignored or surreptitiously
avoided immediate reaction, choosing to emerge as the real front runner to beat,
among the Republican aspirants. What has pained so many aspirants in the race
for the Republican nomination is the inability, or difficulty in pinning the innocuous
and venomous comments from Mr. Trump and supporters, including some rather
rowdy and dangerous episodes of punching and verbal altercation with protesters
at Mr. Trump’s campaign rallies, on the front runner. The fierce attempt on the part of Mr. Trump to
absolve himself and campaign from any accountability, probably resulted in him
making comments at the twelfth debate that, he does not like it; and, such behavior
should be adduced to an unbelievable anger which he cannot control or held
accountable. Frankly, the atonement of substantive and elegant debate may not
be completely credited to the aspirants on the debate rostrum, if the polls’
leader and probably culprit of the raucousness of past debates, quarantine
himself and campaign from the often, volatile and unwelcome violence from his
supporters at his political campaign rallies, and none was able to hold him remotely responsible. Mr. Trump’s unwillingness to
completely and whole hardheartedly disavow many of the unwelcome violence at his rally, is now characterized by some political observers, a new normal, a
socio-political upheaval in presidential campaigns that were once considered
foreign or absent for campaigning for the US Presidency.
Mr.
Trump is unceremoniously unapologetic for his characteristic denouncement of
the Islamic religion. He strongly believes, Muslims hate America and America
has to do something before America suffers another possible experience like the
disastrous September 11, 2001 mayhem. He vehemently and characteristically
blames Islam, insisting there is no need for political correctness in the
manner of consideration of the Islamic religion. As Marco Rubio elected to declare
that Mr. Trump’s comment is un-presidential, Mr. Trump just ignored his
comebacks or characterization of what he believes Mr. Trump was attempting to insinuate. If Mr. Trump carries the Republican nomination and ultimately, wins
the White House, there are enough statements from him to believe, Muslims or Islamist extremists or jihadists are going to have a tough time with his
administration. Mr. Trump’s venturous denunciations of the Islamic religion reminds
us of terrorists’ attacks in Europe and possibly impending terrorist attacks in
America. The perversely planned terrorists’ attacks now deified as destabilizing
in Europe, are probably the events Mr. Trump is alluding to, without funfair or
diplomacy, in his characterization and campaign messaging. Whether this is appropriate
or out of place in American Presidential Politics, depends on who you ask; however,
nearly all the three standing Republican aspirants and party’s establishment, denounce
the demonization of Islam by Mr. Trump’s campaign.
The
sobriety of the twelfth Republican party debate for 2016 White House oval
office appears somewhat girded and a shift from the usual raucous debates of
the past. There is a wide and probably open denunciation of Mr. Trump’s characterization
of Islam and Islamists, as the enemy of America. American voters who probably see Mr. Trump as fanning hate, somehow admonish a degree of significant reflection
in considering policy issues or talking about constitutionally protected right,
that is somehow eroded with Trump’s denunciations of Muslims. Maybe the next
two debates will come through with the degree of civility of the twelfth; however, for Mr. Trump, while not objecting to
more debates, concluded to an interviewer that their slate of aspirants
probably have had enough of these debates. Interestingly the twelfth debate
happens to be the last high profile encounter that may either determine who
will go home or who will stay on the trail. What is known for now, is that
Donald Trump has double digits’ polls’ advantage in North Carolina, Illinois
and Florida; and the inability of the other aspirants to shake down the front
runner at this last debate may end up being a Waterloo, for even the
establishment preferred candidate till the debate.
Finally,
the battle for 2016 Republican party nominee has been unconventional and
sometimes paradoxical, even for those long and seasoned in American Politics
and Presidential campaigns. However, what many observers consider a crash
course in unconventional coup d’etat in taking over a major American Political
Party, is now a classic case of how to interject personal racist and religious bigotry
in campaigning for party nomination; and by default, the US Presidency. The relatively
tranquil campaign messaging of the past by both major political parties’
candidates, is now superficially questioned by Mr. Trump’s brand of campaigning.
What other Republican candidates consider as “un-Republican” or “un-conservative
enough” are characteristics embraced by many supporters of Trump’s campaign and
a relatively new normal; one that has not only entertained so many in the past
eleven debates, but propelled the protagonist to greater success in political
campaign and presidential ambition. Why now a change? Was there something unnaturally offensive to the
average Republican, or is Mr. Trump unnecessarily being scape-goated for sake
of being politically incorrect by running an unconventional campaign?
After
the tranquility in the twelfth debate, maybe a coalition of the “Anti-Trump”
campaign strategists may help save face for establishment Republican Party. The
supporters of the real estate mogul may well carry the day, if Trump pulls an
upset in Ohio, by winning over the State governor; or, winning in Florida,
thereby sending home the newly accepted establishment hometown candidate. The
fragmentation of the Republican Party, which would likely ensue with Trump’s
upset of John Kasick and or Marco Rubio, would probably end up being the
greatest spoils of all time; and a parody of manipulation of the democratic
process in the nomination of a party’s flag bearer. If you do not want to miss
any ensuing fun, and the potential power play game of 2016 Republican Party
presidential nomination process, just come back!
No comments:
Post a Comment