The Politics of Trump: Fear and Anger

Last week, one of my blog readers wrote:

“I can find nothing in US politics to make me smile. The extremism and intransigence of all views from all colours of the political spectrum makes for a disturbed and disturbing society that frightens me.”

The political campaign by Donald Trump exemplifies one form of worrying extremism. He appeals to some have-nots, to conservatives who hate anyone but their own and to those who believe that in America greatness is achieved by bullying and “kicking ass.” He is loved by some gun-toting, beer-swilling voters who want no immigration, no foreign aid and no contact with the outside world. Isolationism has been a factor in American politics almost since the country was born, so nothing new there.

The Republican establishment expected to destroy Trump’s candidacy but is learning to live with him. Indeed, Tea Party favourite, Sarah Palin, openly supports Trump as the Republican nominee. According to The Washington Post, in private some veteran conservative Republicans have been reaching out to Trump and vice versa. Recently, Trump himself made overtures to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The Republican leadership has a difficult choice. Does the Party have a better chance of winning with Trump? The decision will have to come soon. The primaries start next month. Let’s assume the leadership decides to ditch him. Not since Ross Perot in 1988 and 1992 has an independent non-professional politician made such inroads. Indeed, since Perot, I cannot recall a non-professional politician making any headway in a general election. Yet there are other precedents. For example, in the five Presidential elections between 1900 and 1920, the trade union leader and socialist Eugene Debs ran as an independent. In 1912, he achieved 6% of the popular vote.

The essential difference that distinguishes Trump from the other Republican contenders is that he is not a professional politician. It is increasingly unlikely that Trump will be kicked out of the Party. As an independent, he would split the Republican vote. However, independent challenges can be influential. Almost 90 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had his hands full with critics and three figures, two of whom were also non-professional politicians, opposed his administration and FDR regarded each of them as a potential threat, in varying degrees.

Father Charles Coughlin, “the Radio Priest,” attracted public attention from the late 1920s. He denounced President Hoover as “the Holy Ghost of the Rich.” By the end of 1933, Coughlin denounced Roosevelt’s New Deal as “a government of the bankers for the bankers by the bankers.” He criticised FDR as “a man in the pocket of the rich.” Coughlin set up the National Union for Social Justice to push for redistribution of wealth, reduction of poverty and curbing the excesses of the rich. However, he failed to put process behind policy and as the 1930s wore on, he ceased to enjoy any popular support.

Dr Francis Townsend was a different proposition. A retired medical doctor, he promoted the “Old Age Revolving Pension Plan.” All citizens over the age of 60 would be paid a pension of $200 per month by the federal government, provided such citizens were not convicted criminals, gave up all work and spent their pensions within 30 days. There were other factors including making pension money available to the 60 year old plus pensioners from a 2% Transaction Tax, i.e. a sales tax. The flaw in the plan was the large transfer of income to the elderly, who represented less than 10% of the population. Nevertheless the Plan attracted many supporters. In 1936, the Movement presented a petition to the government with 20 million signatures. The Movement’s popularity stemmed from Great Depression desperation amongst the voters. Ultimately, the Townsend Movement got nowhere politically but for a few brief years, he was a threat.

The third figure to challenge FDR was one of the most interesting, dynamic political figures in American politics. Huey Long was driven by ambition to help the people of Louisiana where, as a Southern Democrat, he was elected Governor in 1928. He made sweeping promises to build roads and bridges, create jobs and improve healthcare and education. Controversially for his times in a deep Southern state, Long did not play the race card. In 1932, he went to the US Senate, after installing a puppet government in Baton Rouge. He proposed and formed Share Our Wealth Societies with supporters creating an anthem from the song, “Every Man a King but no one Wears a Crown.” Long’s plan was to avoid economic slavery for the masses by capping personal fortunes so each US family would be worth no more than $5,000. Oddly, Long’s policies were hardly held to account by the national media.

“The Kingfish,” as Long was known, was motivated, crude, obnoxious, loud but nevertheless popular. Does this sound like a current Republican hopeful? By 1935, there were more than 27,000 SOW clubs across America and Long represented a serious political threat to FDR. The threat was removed when Long was murdered in 1935. I do not imply that FDR and his people were involved. The Kingfish was shot by a doctor who was jealous of Long’s success with the ladies!    

     

Trump’s politics aren’t new. There have been many politicians who thought that they could get elected by making people fear the future. In 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee. He was the hero of the radical right, an evangelist of extremism, a man who defended the John Birch Society, argued for making the Social Security system voluntary and mused aloud about defoliating Vietnam with nuclear weapons. He famously said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.”

It is difficult to envisage a man like Trump achieving the Republican nomination for President. It is harder imagining him being elected President. I hope the Republican voters of America come to their senses in the primaries and tell this vile, prejudiced man he has no place in American politics.