Looking only at one candidate, we can learn several lessons about all candidates.
Anyone following the current national reality show, which is Republican Presidential politics, is probably amazed at Jeb Bush’s precipitous fall in the polls. On the ground, I imagine Jeb Bush is also amazed. Indeed, it is amazing from a qualifications viewpoint. Bush does have some impressive credentials complete with executive experience.
In the Bush camp, it is not a stretch to conclude that Donald Trump is viewed there as similar to the elder Bush’s nemesis, Ross Perot. It cost the election for Bush in 1992. So it was decided to attack Trump. An attack was launched with his “Chaos candidate” remarks made at the last debate. It has intensified. Is it working? Doesn’t seem to be. Bush is now developing a last stand policy in Florida, seemingly ignoring Iowa and New Hampshire. This strategy reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani’s similar Florida policy in the previous cycle. It did not work.
Experience. This is not the only problem. It is true Bush has little foreign policy experience, but the others have a similar flaw. However, our current President found himself in office with the same lack of experience. Perhaps, the mood of the country was such that “foreign policy is easy;” so just be tough. Or accommodating? Or accepting? Whatever is was, the country was dead wrong. So, suspicion about foreign policy concepts by any candidate should be foremost on our minds. Secretary Clinton, on the other hand, does have foreign policy experience, but it is the experience linked to the President’s, and most Americans believe his policies to be incorrect. Even many Democrats agree. So, Bush and Clinton have problems but of different varieties, virtually bipolar.
Lesson 1. If the candidate is vague on foreign policy, this indicates he or she has little depth of understanding. Electing such a person puts him or her into a league of foreign experts, i.e. other world players. The obvious conclusion is that making Presidential foreign policy leaves little time for OJT. It can result in fragmented policies, changing frequently as the President learns. Risky this in, as history has shown.
Instincts. When it comes to electability, it is an easy jump to believe most candidates believe that voter instincts simply judge on whom to vote on the basis of perceived candidate instincts. In consequence, many candidates appeal to voters on such a basis. Are they tough? Are they resolute? Do they understand opponents? Are they honest? Can they get things done? All these are vague, and all are NOT measurable with any real metric. In this we note, it is not clear to me what Bush’s instincts are. He often retreats behind defined policies, seldom revising them, seldom revealing any depth of understanding. Trump, though, survives and thrives on voter perceived instincts.
Lesson 2. When you vote on the basis of perceived candidate instincts, think carefully. Many instincts, untempered by experience, are dead wrong. Voting by instinct based upon a candidate’s instincts is at best risky, and at worst just plain stupid.
Presentation. Putting Trump aside, the other top candidates on the Republican side are Cruz and Rubio. Both are articulate; both are excellent at debate; both connect with voters. None have any real experience at working the long, hard road of achievement. Both have defined policies and programs that live only in their minds and those of their supporters, but not in the hard-scrabble world of accomplishment. Neither show evidence of this form of strength. They do demonstrate a personal resolute nature. Bush does have this, but it does not affect his dwindling support. Bush is not really articulate in the sense of Cruz and Rubio. Indeed, few of the others are either.
Lesson 3. When you are seduced by those articulate or by sound bites, or by slogans, you must expect little more than exactly that. People in office use the same techniques they used to get them there.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.