Talking heads have been analyzing who won last week’s GOP debate hosted by Fox News. I, on the other hand, had no problem at all picking a winner right away: It was the mastodon not in the room, Donald J. Trump (a.k.a. Prisoner No. P01135809).
It’s true. What was
billed as the first GOP Presidential Debate actually could have been called the
GOP Vice-Presidential Debate. And
even as such, nobody on that stage
came away a winner, with the possible exception of Nikki Haley, but only in
terms of the debate, and certainly not in the primaries. In one of the most
lackluster debates of its kind in history, what viewers mostly witnessed was a
lot of bickering and schoolyard banter, and an utter dearth of substance
regarding domestic and international policy.
Many commentators have tried to squeeze some differentiating plus out of the squabbling mess, but the best they’ve been able to do is claim former everything Nikki Haley stood her ground. But how much merit is there, when you’ve been a governor and UN ambassador, in coming out on top in a pillow fight with an absolutely inexperienced nobody like Vivek Ramaswamy?
I would have to give
Haley points, however, for calling out her party (Trump’s party, actually, but
she, like the others, was borrowing it for the debate) on the utter hypocrisy
of their position on spending—which, could be summed up as, It’s okay when we
do it, but not when Democrats do it.
More specifically, Haley
said, “The truth is that Biden didn’t do this to us. Our Republicans did this
to us too. When they passed that 2.2 trillion-dollar COVID stimulus bill, they
left us with ninety million people on Medicaid, forty-two million people on
food stamps.
“They need to stop the borrowing.
They need to eliminate the earmarks that Republicans brought back in, and they
need to make sure they understand these are taxpayer dollars.
“And while they’re all
saying this, you have Ron DeSantis, you’ve got Tim Scott, you’ve got Mike Pence
— they all voted to raise the debt [limit]. And Donald Trump added eight
trillion to our debt. And our kids are never going to forgive us for this.
“And so, at the end of
the day, you look at the 2024 budget. Republicans asked for 7.4 billion dollars
in earmarks. Democrats asked for 2.8 billion. So, you tell me, who are the big
spenders?”
This definitely places
Haley on the moral high ground in the debate outcome, but it’s unlikely it will
do much to endear her to her fellow party members—especially not the Washington
leadership. She also called on her experience as UN ambassador to go after Ramaswamy’s
simplistic view of Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine—to wit, that
the US should stay out of it. Haley accused Ramaswamy of wanting to “hand
Ukraine to Russia” and “let China eat Taiwan.”
“You are choosing a murderer
over an ally of the US,” she said. “You have no foreign policy experience and
it shows.” That statement got her a round of loud applause.
Other analysts tried to
spin Ramaswamy’s performance as stellar. But if this were a boxing match and I
were covering it, I’d have to report that all he managed to do all night was
feint and cover, as he was tag-teamed by nearly all the other candidates.
Nor did the other
candidates shine in their attacks on him, which were unworthy and disrespectful
at best, and ad hominem and vaguely racist at worst. Two candidates who, in my opinion,
seriously damaged their own images in their rabid verbal assaults on Vivek were
former Vice-President Mike Pence and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
About all that Pence has
going for him is his “evangelical”-based governorship in Indiana, and the fact
that he served as vice-president of the United States, since he is a remarkably
unimpressive and indecisive politician. Throughout his entire four-year term as
VP, he limited his performance to being a yes-man for Donald Trump, never
showing any character of his own and failing to call out his boss’s bad behavior,
even when it crossed the line into uncharted and possibly felonious waters.
Pence’s one shining moment was when, in his role as Senate President, he for
once, and crucially, refused to give the president’s bad conduct a pass, and,
as it turned out, risked his life in defiance of Trump’s mob, by carrying
congressional certification of the presidential election Trump lost to
fruition. But afterward, even after it became clear that the former president’s
reckless behavior had put his life and those of other members of Congress in
mortal danger, Pence remained wishy-washy in his placement of blame where it
belonged until he had already launched his own campaign for the presidency.
But despite all that, all
has been forgiven for Pence in both the old-time Republican and moderate Democratic
camps, since he has been touted as “a hero of democracy” for, basically, doing
the job he was morally and legally obliged to do under the Constitution,
instead of joining his boss’s criminal conspiracy to virtually overthrow the
established order and remain in power as a de facto president.
It would have been wise
for Pence, who is one of the blandest politicians in history, to have basked in
his former VP status and remained above the fray in the debate, concentrating
on grass-roots conservative policy and on separating himself from Trump instead
of on engaging in head-butting and eye-gouging with the most inexperienced
candidate on the stage. He could have provided an example for others by
treating all candidates with equal respect, debating on substance rather than
personality. But that was clearly too much to ask of a man who appears never to
have had an original idea in his life.
Pence, who has an
obviously naïve idea of today’s United States “conservatism”, still sees his
party as the party of Eisenhower and Reagan and allowed himself to be goaded by
Ramaswamy’s ironic tone when the young candidate sought to remind him that
today’s climate is no longer the one Pence recalled from the past. The US,
Ramaswamy pointed out, was in the grip of a national identity crisis. Pence
came back with his “Mr. Rogers” view of the country, saying, “We’re not looking
for a new national identity. The American people are the most faith-filled,
freedom-loving, idealistic, hard-working people the world has ever known.”
Innocent though many of
us may find that church-bulletin, blue-sky view of a troubled nation, it is
indeed what sells among Pence’s natural conservative peers—white, Middle-American
people of fifty-plus grown weary of the drama, who would like nothing as much
as to return to “the good old postwar fifties.” Pence is unlikely to find
support among radical Trumpsters who consider him a traitor to their
personality cult, nor is he likely to attract young and up-and-coming
Republicans who think all “boomers” should go home to tend their flower gardens
and leave straightening out the mess the world is in to the people who are
going to have to live in it for decades to come. So it would have made sense
for him to stick to his good-ol’-days narrative, since he clearly has no idea
what contemporary “conservatives” are looking for, nor does he care. He
apparently thinks the young should listen to their elders and re-found a Reaganite
America under his leadership.
Vivek wasn’t buying it.
He said—in a disparaging reference to a Reagan era slogan—“It is not ‘morning
in America’. We live in a dark moment. And we have to confront the fact that
we’re in an internal sort of cold, cultural civil war.”
Pence could have gained points by calmly and cogently
explaining how, in his view, what was wrong with conservatism today was
precisely that it wasn’t the
conservatism of Reagan, but had instead taken a sharp turn toward right-wing extremism.
But he chose instead to dismiss the other candidate’s view on the sole grounds
of his youth, saying, “Now is not the time for on-the job training. We don’t
need to bring in a rookie.”
His belittling of Ramaswamy tended to indicate that he was dismissing
him because he saw him as a credible threat. That gave Ramaswamy more
importance than he merited. Pence had a chance to continue “schooling” the
thirty-eight-year-old candidate and gave it up to schoolyard banter, rendering
him, “just some guy” on the stage instead of the only one with somewhat presidential
credentials.
Chris Christie, for his part, also decided to surrender his
“experience advantage” by launching the same sort of ad hominem attack as Pence
did on Ramaswamy. The former New Jersey governor probably did a lot to boost
Vivek in the polls by seeking to dismiss him, saying, “I’ve had enough already
tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT standing up here. And the last person
in one of these debates…who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What’s
a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here?’ was Barack Obama. And I’m
afraid we’re dealing with the same type of amateur.”
By saying that instead of slamming Vivek on things he needed
to be slammed on—like his incredibly surreal assertions that climate change was
“a hoax”, that more people were dying because of anti-climate-change policies
than because of climate change, that racism was a thing of the past and that
white supremacists in America were as rare as unicorns—Christie employed the
peevish “young whippersnapper” defense, which lacked substance.
Had Christie left it there, at least, he would only have been
shooting himself in the foot with something smaller than a double-barreled twelve-gauge.
But the comparison to Obama and the “amateur” status of both him and Ramaswamy
was way over the top. Vivek is basically a nobody, no matter what he might end
up being in the future, while Obama, no matter what far-right Republicans and
their white-supremacist cousins might think of him, remains ranked by
presidential historians as one of the most popular presidents of the postwar era,
listing on a footing with such names as Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan.
It made Christie look weak, defensive, clueless, and even
slightly racist. It is one thing for men of color like Obama and Ramaswamy to
refer to themselves as “skinny guys with funny last names,” but quite another
for a white guy to do it. Especially when it was a backhanded attack on a
highly popular and respected leader—the first non-white ever elected to the
presidency—for whom many people voted across party lines in both presidential terms
that he served. Moreover, it was tantamount to throwing a jab but leaving his
guard down for the hard uppercut Ramaswamy delivered when he responded, “Give
me a hug just like you did to Obama, and you’ll help elect me just like you did
to Obama.”
In all fairness, both Christie and former Alabama Governor
Asa Hutchinson were addressing a hostile crowd. As the only two who are dead
set against Trump’s ever again being a GOP presidential candidate, they were
setting themselves up to get booed by the clearly overwhelming majority of
Trump apologists in the live audience. As two of the three lowest
candidates on the totem pole, they would clearly have done well to be prepared
to let their listeners judge them on policies, not their politics. Alas, they
didn’t.
The other fellow who barely made the stage, North Dakota
Governor and gazillionaire businessman Doug Burgum, ensured his continued
anonymity—to make the forty thousand donor tally he needed to join the debate,
he reportedly offered a twenty-dollar gift certificate to anybody who would
donate a dollar to his campaign—with his non-performance. In fairness to Burgum,
however, he really was not prepared for a political brawl. His whole campaign is
based on energy strategies to strengthen the US in the face of rising
aggression from China and Russia. He probably figured there would be some segue
that would permit him to expound on that, but there wasn’t, so he ended up
looking like he had nothing to say.
Nor4 did Tim Scott get a chance to tout the conservative
policy logic that separates him from Donald Trump—or, thus, a chance to move
the popularity needle further in his favor. But I blame Scott himself for that,
as I have from the outset, since he has refused to go after Trump in any
meaningful way, which makes him look weak and acquiescent.
Unfortunately, Scott is not alone in that regard. And that
was where the debate, across the board, demonstrated itself to be more
vice-presidential than presidential. Ramaswamy, for instance, may have gotten
noticed—more by being obnoxious than for any other reason—but in answer to one of
the questions asked, he said that Trump was “the best president of the
twenty-first century.” The natural follow-up question for the Fox moderators to
have asked should have been, “So, why the hell are you running against him?”
But they failed to ask it.
I think I know the answer to the unasked query. At
thirty-eight, I figure Ramaswamy is running to get noticed, since he has no
political credentials. The main person he is trying to impress, I feel, is
Donald Trump, since there is essentially no difference between his running platform
and Trump’s. A successful businessman, he probably feels his profile will
appeal more to a man like Trump than a politician’s. So it would make sense
that he would hope to be Trump’s vice-presidential pick. Being VP to Trump,
should Trump get another four years—in the White House rather than in prison—could
give a man as young as Vivek the street cred he would need to run for president
in the future, or at least that might well be his calculation.
The big loser of the night was Ron DeSantis. Believing his
own campaign’s hype about how he was going to be receiving “all of the
incoming” in the debate, as holder of the distant second spot to Donald Trump,
he ended up seeming to be at a total loss for anything else to do, when,
surprisingly, all fire from the other candidates appeared to be focused on
Ramaswamy. The Florida governor, not at all his usual brash and boastful self,
spent a lot of time looking like a deer in headlights. The only time he really
came to life was when Fox News moderator Brett Baier put a Trump question to
him and he bristled, asking if the debate was going to be about Trump or the
future. Trump, he indicated, wasn’t relevant. Baier bristled right back and
indicated that with Trump’s voter intention rating running at least twenty
points higher than anyone else’s on the stage, he was clearly relevant, whether
DeSantis liked it or not.
Not only did DeSantis, to his discredit, hem and haw and
waffle when he was later asked if Mike Pence had done the right thing in
certifying the 2020 election on January 6th 2021, but he also proved
just how true Trump’s relevance was when all candidates were asked to raise
their hand if they would vote for Trump, assuming he was the candidate, even if
he had been convicted of a felony. The Florida governor looked left and looked
right to see what everybody else was doing and belatedly raised his hand (as
did Pence). It was a chance for him to definitively separate himself from
Trump, and he blew it.
In total, six of the eight candidates on stage raised their
hands—in doing so, Nikki Haley undid all of her refreshing earlier
disqualifying criticism of Trump—thus demonstrating that Trump still owns the
GOP, since not even his rivals for the presidency will throw him under the bus
completely, even if he is a convicted felon. Chris Christie timidly raised a
finger (had it been the middle one it might have been taken as a no, but it wasn’t),
but later reneged, saying he wouldn’t vote for Trump. “Someone," said Christie, “has
to stop normalizing this conduct.” A response that was met with loud
booing from the audience. The only candidate who left no doubt about his
position was former Governor Hutchinson, who made no move to look at other
candidates to see what they were doing, or to raise his hand.
With that single exception, it was a moment in the debate
that continued to put Trump above the law. Never did Trump’s controversial
statement in the 2016 campaign to the effect that he could “shoot somebody on
Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes” seem more apropos. In the end, then, Trump
won the debate hands down without being there and the other eight demoted
themselves, from the outset, to “also-ran” status, in their failure to cut the
umbilical cord to the Trump base and to start reaching out to the other
sixty-plus percent of Republican voters.
3 comments:
Good analysis, but I do think Asa H needs more respect for his stance. Unfortunately, Nikki H undid her stance!
Thanks for your comment, "Anon". Perhaps more attention, but I lacked no respect for Hutchinson. And although I'm not in agreement on a lot of his politics--particularly his firm stance against women's reproductive rights and for the state's overstepping into the lives of individuals--I do indeed commend him for his firm anti-Trump stance and for seeking to bring logic back to the GOP. That said, his debate performance underwhelmed and he simply isn't a contender in any real sense of the word.
i think Ramaswamy won the third debate. He was the only one who said NO to any war. He also has a unique way to chop away at the size of the government. If he doesn't make the ballot this time around, he will in four years. He appears to be the only candidate who has nobody telling him what to say. As witnessed by his heels remark. He was having fun at the expense of the other hawks.
Post a Comment