To Trump a Trump

       With the recent state visit of the President of the United States to the U.K. and all of the media circus coverage of this event saturating us with details of his failures in protocol; as a change of pace we may reflect seriously on the past, present, and future of Trump as President as a new election cycle is already gaining momentum back in the states. It may be useful to first consider how we reached the present moment before then turning to the near future as Democrats begin their selection process to determine who will face-off against Trump in the 2020 election.

       From the early nineties with the election of Bill Clinton as president, there began a shift in what was expected from our politicians. With Bill Clinton’s predecessor George Bush, the period of the life long career of distinguished service, which culminates in the occupancy of the White House, came to an end. Clinton was elected as a breath of fresh air; he appeared to be a man more like us. He played the saxophone on television, he ate at McDonalds, he was slightly overweight; he spoke directly and warmly to individual people applying his policy points to their lives in relatable ways. For the baby boom generation he was their man of the people. 

       Where Bill Clinton appeared educated and fluid with his speaking, George Bush appeared limited in his vocabulary, slightly uninformed in regard to the world, and he would speak with a Texas drawl. Though he came from a family of privilege and political importance, his tendency for using unintended words, mispronunciation when speaking, and a general air of simplicity was appealing to many voters who saw him as relatable in his many flaws. 

       When the 2008 election cycle began, it became very clear that the expectations of the voting public were shifting dramatically. When Hillary Clinton began her first campaign for the presidency she was viewed as being the natural choice to return the United States to the former period of general peace and prosperity of the pre-Bush nineties.  Nevertheless, the fresh junior senator Barack Obama began to overtake her campaign with a message of change and hope. The momentum his campaign achieved made short work of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and then republican senator John McCain’s more traditional throw back campaign. When McCain attempted to introduce a more modern element into his campaign with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, the move backfired as the public viewed this as a cynical attempt to appeal to more progressive tendencies.

       Obama was elected as the first black president of the United States. His election on a campaign of change spoke directly to a new generation of voters which were eagerly sought to elect young and dynamic politicians better representing their views. They were seeking some one that would help guide the country to a future that would be more inclusive, more responsive to their needs and would look more like their own aspirations.

       Following a history of families becoming political dynasties, years of war, a financial crisis which was catastrophic for average people while the rich managed to become richer, and eight years of partisan politics that lowered the political dialectic and caused political gridlock; the people had reached their limit with the political class.  

       As Trump launched his 2016 campaign for the presidency, he was an unconventional candidate that appeared to easily tap into the zeitgeist of the time.  As he joined in the republican debates, he would systematically reduce the debates to the level of personal insults and name calling. As different candidates would attempt to talk to point on various issues, Trump would effortlessly turn the subject of dialogue to himself , insult his competitors, and thus draw them off topic, effectively making the entire event about himself.  For those watching, even if they were not republicans, the spectacle of career politicians being relentlessly pummeled, insulted, and being shown to be incapable of outmaneuvering Trump’s bullying was spellbinding. Trump treated the other politicians exactly the way many Americans wished they could treat them. This in itself gained Trump a very large support. Based on his attacks against politicians and the Washington establishment, Trump was able to present himself as the right candidate to go to Washington and shake it up.

       When various stories of Trump’s previous inappropriate behavior would surface, his supporters would leave this aside as simply part of the character of an unconventional candidate. They did not support Trump for who he was toward women, or what he had done in his business dealings; they supported him because he would go to Washington and represent them against the political class. In this way, whatever else he had done, or would do, was of no great consequence. Trump for his part realized that as long as he gave his supporters what they wanted, he could do whatever he liked. 

       Hillary Clinton began her second attempt for the office of the presidency with the assumption that her time had come. She had studiously prepared herself and she had previously been promised that 2016 would be her year to be president. As she campaigned for the presidency it soon became apparent that Bernie Sanders was the most inspiring democratic candidate.  Sanders, though a long time Washington figure, campaigned far to the left of Clinton. In the same way Trump appealed to many republicans eager for a dramatic upset to the status quo, so Sanders appealed to democrats who felt betrayed by the political elite; those who felt that the politicians mainly pandered to the people to win an election only then to abandon the people to pursue policy that would mainly benefit those with money. The Democratic Party leadership manipulated its rules to diminish the effectiveness of the Sander’s campaign in favor of the Clinton candidacy. When this manipulation became public it hurt Clinton’s campaign as many democrats felt that it would be better not to vote for her or even in some cases to vote for Trump instead.

       When Clinton lost to Trump there was an immediate sense of shock in the Democratic Party followed by a prodigious amount of finger pointing as to who and what was responsible for the upset. Clinton in part blamed Bernie Sanders for pushing the Democratic discourse farther left from where she had historically stood as a politician. To blame Sanders that the policies he stood for were more in tune with what voters wanted pointed to the fact that Clinton was out of tune with what voters were looking for. Others blamed misogyny as the reason that Clinton lost. And yet, being a female candidate was one of the main reasons many were ready to vote for her. As a candidate Clinton focused a lackluster campaign in two areas unconnected with any policy: she was not Trump so people should vote for her, and she was a woman so they should elect her to be the first woman president. Though many did vote for her as an alternative to Trump and because she was a woman; she was unable to convince people that she would bring the seismic change to politics that they were searching for.  In short, Clinton did not inspire democrats as much as Trump inspired republicans.

       From the moment of Trump’s unexpected election, ineffectively, there has been a constant barrage of negative media against his presidency and his supporters. In shock, the media and a vocal public have documented each moment of his ineptitude for the role of President and the failings of his administration. He has been investigated for possible crimes surrounding his election and during his presidency. Every mistake he has made has been subjected to magnified criticism. Yet with the unprecedented amount of negative attention focused on him, absolutely none of it has seemingly had the slightest effect on the level of support he receives from his supporters. The more stringent the attacks become the more steadfast his supporters seem to be.

       There has naturally been increasing talk to impeach him, with many of the present democratic candidates advocating for this course of action. However, the current speaker of the house, the democrat Nancy Pelosi, has admonished her party to tread carefully in such a pursuit. She has noted that Trump himself seems to want the democrats in the House of Representatives to attempt to impeach him. From her standpoint, the benefits to Trump are several fold: if the democrats impeach him, then the republican controlled senate will most likely vote in his favor and thus the threat of impeachment will have been removed; the arguments that democrats resort to for impeachment will become irrelevant.  Trump will be able to point to the democratic effort to impeach him and use this as a rallying cry to bring his republican supporters together and to encourage them to vote for him again in 2020. The major consequence of the attempt to impeach Trump will most likely be to see him elected again for a second term as president.

       If Democrats want to effectively run against Trump and have a real chance to win, it is time that they take the lessons from the last 30 years and put them to good use. They must realize that the times have changed; people want candidates that truly talk to their issues and do not simply seek election to find a place among Washington elites. They want candidates that seek election to get things done, not simply to play political games. They want candidates that earn the people's vote with a strong proactive message that speaks to what the people are most concerned about. To win, candidates need to speak to embolden and uplift their supporters, not simply to seek the vote as a default alternative to the opposition. If the candidates believe they can win an argument with Trump, they will certainly lose; the way to beat Trump is to ignore Trump. If democrats continue to focus their energy on Trump instead of developing their own strong positions and visions that they can offer the voters, then they will be weak opponents when compared to Trump. For all the talk about how awful Trump is, he is actually very good at giving his supporters what they want, which is why they support him so strongly; democrats must do the same if they are going to have a real chance to beat him. 

       The political climate has radically changed over the last 30 years. Love him or hate him, Trump is very much a reflection of the actual state of politics at this moment. Though so many denigrate him and dismiss him, he has very effectively understood and actualized this understanding to accommodate the spirit of our times. Going forward, it would be more useful and to purpose for democrats to stop focusing on how horrified they are by Trump and start to get a grasp on what he actually does well, learn from it and apply it to their own candidacies; stop focusing on Trump and start focusing on what they can do for the people whose votes they seek.