Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
One of the great speeches of Hollywood cinema is delivered by Marlon Brando, playing Terry Malloy, a longshoreman who dreams of being a prize fighter, in "On the Waterfront" (1954). His brother, Charlie (Rod Steiger), lieutenant to a powerful mobster, has ruined Terry's promising boxing career - instructing him to throw a crucial bout so the mob could bet on his opponent. It proved to be the end of Terry's hopes. Near tears, Terry confronts his brother: "I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am."
It's a speech Donald Trump will not have to utter. Those who are nominally his mob - that apparently powerless entity called the Republican establishment - tried to get him to throw the bout. He hasn't. And it now seems too late to get him out of the ring. Super Tuesday's results, in which Trump won seven of 11 states, mean he is a contender. Certainly no bum. Class, though, is more debatable.
Trump achieved this through bile, prejudice, insults and money. That was Act I. Act II has followed hard on its heels: No interval. It opened with his news conference in Palm Beach, Florida, as the Super Tuesday results rolled in. Like Benedick in Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing," who has railed to all who would listen against the entanglements of desire for women, he's suddenly ready for love of Beatrice.
Trump is ready now for love of all. He's a reacher-out, a generous foe, a unifier. He's not a bum at all: How could we have thought so?
If a substantial number of Americans view this with trepidation, it cannot match the horror of Europeans. I can think of no major news organization that expresses anything but fear of a Trump presidency. If Democrat Hillary Clinton falters, or the blitz against her that Trump has promised works (she's the one great heretic in his unification church), Europeans and others, who still depend on the United States for stability, protection and a basic shared morality in world affairs, will likely be even more fearful than they are already.
The view has been much rehearsed in the primary season that Trump's mastery of reality TV, his showmanship, his "You're fired!" ease of dealing with any and all problems have endeared him to millions determined to see politicians as a lost, even a malign cause. The entertainment-ization of politics has proved overwhelming and pulled the most serious of politicians onto the vaudeville stage.
Look, for an illustration, at a "roast" of Trump, broadcast by Comedy Central in 2011. It was a dinner devoted to comic insults - harsh, libelous and hilarious - of Trump. The comedian and actor Seth McFarlane issued a stream of putdowns of Trump's monstrous ego - the funniest claimed that, even when having sex with a beautiful woman, Trump was fantasizing about himself. Trump had volunteered for the roasting and, sitting a few feet from MacFarlane, maintained a look of amusement.
In his 1987 autobiography "The Art of the Deal" - now a necessary read - Trump wrote, "Good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells."
One reason Trump accepted to be roasted was that he was considering running for president in 2012. He didn't. But that was just a postponement.
In March 2014, President Barack Obama, perhaps following the same thinking, appeared on the popular web program "Between Two Ferns." Host Zach Galifianakis conducted a mocking interview. He asked Obama, for example, how he would feel when he left the presidency and people wouldn't let him win at basketball any more. Galifianakis made an elaborate display of boredom when the president spoke about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. ("Is this what they mean by drones?") Both Fox News on the right and Stephen Colbert on the left accused Obama of demeaning the presidency. Meanwhile, the program has gotten (to date) 13.5 million views on YouTube. This is what matters to the White House communications people.
Trump knew - and the White House learned - that ritual, high-profile disrespect can work to the advantage of the disrespected. It shows they can take a joke, and so are rounded people. In a way, it's a tribute to their status. It makes them look cool, especially to the young.
Norman Mailer, in his 1963 book "The Presidential Papers," wrote, "Politics is arithmetic, but politics is also rhetoric, passion and an occasional idea to fire the imagination of millions." He expressed despair that then-President John F. Kennedy (not the least charismatic of the occupiers of the Oval Office, one would think), was too wedded to arithmetic. Mailer was probably not thinking about someone like Trump. (He would be thinking, as ever, more about himself.) But Trump is the one who fits his bill.
Trump has expressed passion - or at least convincingly acted passionately - about a number of ideas: deporting what he calls criminal, rape-inclined Mexicans; temporarily barring Muslims from entering the United States; repealing Obamacare and bringing in "something much better."
In "The Art of the Deal," he writes, "I play to peoples' fantasies a very effective form of promotion."
This is why he appeals to people. He is where he is because people vote for him - sometimes tongue in cheek, but often because it seems that his aggression, desire to be "the best" and wealth will be at their service. Trump isn't a politician, has no experience in elected office and enjoys the support of President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Yay! He's not one of them.
As one Trump supporter, Ken Magno of Everett, Massachusetts, said: "This isn't about whether he's going to do a better job or not. More or less, it's the statement: Listen, we're sick and tired of what you people do. And we're going to put somebody in there - now that it's our choice, we're going to put somebody in there that basically you don't like."
A sizable part of America, many millions strong, is putting the finger up to the political class - right and left. They are responding to what Mailer thought he was calling for - passion, rhetoric, new ideas, "firing the imagination of millions."
Having done all that, the nomination is Trump's to lose. It's more and more likely that he'll be in a face-off with a woman who can do the arithmetic but finds showmanship far harder.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.
29 Comments
Login to comment
kcjapan
“I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.”
In “The Art of the Deal,” he writes, “I play to peoples’ fantasies a very effective form of promotion.”
The last uniter destroyed the Middle East, gave Americans a thirty-seven year mortgage on his falsified wars and this one hasn't a chance to deliver much different. Trump sells lies with the same vigorous appetite for deception as George W. Bush.
(Currently, Trump has earned only 23% accuracy in his panoply of racism, prejudice and misogynist condemnations. Americans already know what that creates, disaster.)
shonanbb
kc: You think Hilary is better?
SenseNotSoCommon
Donald doesn't ruminate.
commanteer
"we’re sick and tired of what you people do. And we’re going to put somebody in there - now that it’s our choice, we’re going to put somebody in there that basically you don’t like"
I think that sums it up well. The people have lost any control over their government. Republicans feel this especially, because everyone they elect promptly forgets why they were sent to DC. So if democracy no longer works and people can't effect change, at least they can gum up the machine. The nakedness of Trump's aggressiveness and, to a degree, Sanders' as well, at least shines a bright light on the smoothly polished hypocrisy and smooth talking of Washington. And that's worth something.
theeastisred
He will unify American voters behind Clinton.
lostrune2
People have long memories, in and outside the US (foreign policy)
katsu78
Very likely true. Clinton doesn't exactly energize voters on her own, but Trump's primary campaign has basically written her post-nomination campaign for her.
kwatt
When Trump became President, no doubt he would not make it to keep his office for next 4 years. It seems that all bills would not pass through the congress at all.
sangetsu03
Obama has not been much of a unifier. Obama said this back when he was a senator:
“Our politics are dysfunctional, and something that I said earlier serves as a warning to us: and that is, societies don’t work when political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”
But after he was elected, right after his inauguration, he said this to the republican minority in congress;
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
Hardly what anyone interested in unity would say. But Obama could afford to disregard the minority in congress, after all, his party controlled both houses, that is, until the very next mid-term election. Once he lost his majority in congress, and then later in the senate, it was the turn of the republicans to say "Elections have consequences, and the end of the day, we won".
Trump is a lot of things, some good, and some bad. But he is a man with a life time of varied experiences, success, failures, and more successes. One doesn't become a billionaire by one's self, it takes a great deal of help, and a lot of working with other people.
yakyak
Yes, He will be a unifier. He has 4 years to complete his mission. After that America will be great again.
katsu78
This is a shall we say, highly selective retelling of what happened. For one thing, one hardly expects an elected President to then implement the opposite of their agenda, which is the only thing that could possibly have pleased the GOP. For another, the GOP was so obstructionist that even when Obama gave them policies that were for all intents and purposes identical to their own (before Obama became president our current model for the Affordable Care Act was known as 'Romneycare') yet they still opposed him. Conservatives openly stated their intent to oppose everything he did, no matter what he did, in order to make his presidency seem like a failure to the unaware.
If by "great deal of help" you mean "a pantload off money from your rich father and a job at his real estate company," then I agree. But having rich parents isn't exactly a qualification to lead a nation.
sangetsu03
The republican majority were no fans of Bill Clinton, but they worked quite well together, and managed to get a lot of good things done. Reagan also got a lot done despite the democrat party controlling both houses of congress. In principle, these presidents and party majorities had opposing viewpoints, but both were able to compromise and do good work. Even Nixon was able to work with democrat majorities in both houses of congress.
But Obama has not been able to work with the republican congress and senate, and vice-versa. Whose fault is this? You can blame the congress if you like, but when electing a president you must make sure that the man you are electing is capable of leading in the face of opposition, and doing what needs to be done. Obama has not been able to do that. The president is the leader, but if he can't or won't lead, you can't expect congress to work with him.
As Obama said himself when his party lost the congress, "the buck stops with me".
As a supporter of many people in both parties in the past, I don't think Trump will have as much trouble getting things done as Obama has.
Kurobune
You're joking, right ?
sangetsu03
Having poor parents isn't exactly a qualification either. And not much became of Trump's inheritance, he has been bankrupted more than once. The interesting thing is that despite bankruptcies, he never quits, and the greater the setbacks he hits, the more success he turns them into.
Trump's companies employ many people, from minimum-wage part time help, to Ivy League educated professionals who earn 7 figures. Any person who can overcome multiple bankruptcies, colorful divorces, and the cutthroat business environment of New York and create a fortune in the process is exceedingly well qualified to be a leader. He wasn't handed billions of dollars by anyone, that money was earned, and one doesn't earn any large amount of money without a lot of hard work, good judgement, and the ability to negotiate. A little luck helps, but in the real world, scant few people are that lucky.
I very much agree that qualifications are important. How about Obama's qualifications to lead the nation? Before becoming a senator, he had never worked at a real job. He had never served a day in the military, he had never hired or fired an employee. He no experience whatsoever in economics, or diplomacy. He got his first US passport while he was running for office. In his two years as a senator, his attendance record was spotty at best, and he didn't sponsor a single, solitary piece of legislation. In short, he had no leadership experience at all.
In short, if Obama could get elected on the merit of his experience, Trump should have no trouble at all.
kyushubill
Aw who cares, he's good comedy.
bass4funk
With all that's said and done, Ido be live despite his attitude Trump wants the country to be unified, if he is the legitimate nominee, opposing him would be not of his doing, but because of the Washington establishment that doesn't take him seriously. So the ball is in Washington's court.
nath
Yeah, he wants the country to be unified around the exclusion of Mexicans and Muslims.
bass4funk
That's an outright lie, full on BS. Trump doesn't want any ILLEGAL ALIENS and he wants more surveillance of mosques to ensure the safety of the country and to combat radical Jihadist that want to harm and kill as many Americans as they can. I agree and have absolutely no objections to this. That is the difference.That's not racist, that's being cautious and shows you care about the country and if foreigners or outsiders don't like it, oh, well......
nath
Interesting how what you say Trump wants is so different from the words Trump uses.
Anyone trying to say Trump doesn't want to unify the (white) Americans around the exclusion of Mexicans and Muslims is not listening to what Trump has actually said, and is hearing what they want to hear.
Wc626
Yeah, like the cartel criminals bringing in the meth & heroin over the US-mex border. The MS13 / 18 Street thugs from central america. NOT the legal ones who have green cards and work for an honest living.
Yeah, someone needs to stand up to "radical islam." Most american don't trust muslims (already in the US) anyways.
bass4funk
Trump never said, he didn't want Mexicans in the country, nor did he say he didn't want Muslims.
Here we go again with liberal possible and could be said subliminal scenarios.
You guys are a crackup!
nath
Um, you do realize he said he wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans, and that Muslims should be banned from the US, right?
The only way your above quote is correct if you mean he didn't use those exact words, because he has most definitely said both those things in other words.
bass4funk
Yes, he wants to build a wall to keep out illegals, he should, I fully support it and it doesn't only apply to Mexicans, but anyone that wants to enter the country illegally. Now if you want there are lots of sound bytes where he knows people like you and the MSM will make it seem like he wants No Mexicans in this country. And as for Muslims, yes, we should be extra careful, good on Trump, if he is president, we don't have to at least worry about taking in thousands of refugees. Let me know when you want me to post it. It's waiting.
Only liberal progressive moonbats would believe that. ROFL.
nath
Things like: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best, they're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."
He talked about building out walls. He talked about the Mexicans sending rapists, drugs and crime. He didn't say anything about those being illegals. He said it about Mexicans.
Ok, so you do agree with my comment where I said "he said ... that Muslims should be banned from the US"
So now I've shown how you were wrong about the first point, and that you aren't even denying the second part.
So I repeat my original claim:
bass4funk
In a way that's true or more like, the Mexican government couldn't care less who is coming to this country, but Mexico does make about $25 million a year with the border open. We understand why they want to leave, but if they come here, they need to do it legally, No exceptions.
The mules and coyotes do and a lot of it on the backs of people that are seriously looking to come here to have a better life, of course these people do, a lot in fact. That is not over generalizing, if you lived near the border, you would know this. When Kate Steinle was brutally murdered by an illegal and a person that was kicked out before and came back and then this president that wouldn't sign Kate's law and put it into action and in doing so, reaffirms my original position that Obama cares more about illegals than US citizens. But we're talking about Obama, why am I not surprised?
Many do.
Ok, so that's how you take it, I understand it. Some people also believe Elvis is still alive.
He never said that all Muslims should be banned. I do so love how hard, so desperately hard you libs try.
The only thing you have shown was that you are trying to put words in the guys mouth and take aways from that what YOU want to in order to make your argument look a bit rational.
That he wants illegals out? He should and I hope so!
Checkmate!
kcjapan
And he (Trump) defended his supporters: “People come with tremendous passion and love for the country,” he said. “When they see what’s going on in this country, they have anger that’s unbelievable.”
Trump would never let his friends from The American Nazi Party or KU Klux Klan down, Trump wants to pay them to beat up protesters by promising to pay all legal fees for their assaults,
Donald J. Trump's idea of job creation is paying for racists to beat up blacks. The RNC apparently agrees with Trump's job creation plan..
Wolfpack
Imagine if the Democrats did not use super delegates to ensure that the establishment candidate wins? You would have Sanders nearly even with Clinton in the delegate count. What is so interesting about this election is that both the Left and Right in America are in turmoil - at the same time. Party realignment usually occurs in (one) party every 25 years or so.
Of course Trump is not going to unify Americans. Look at the racial tension after two terms of Obama. Look at the fiscal crisis Americans are in from the Federal government's debt to the decline in wages for the middle class. Trump steps in at this point and all those average white citizens sickened by Obama's hatred and condescension towards them as 'bible and gun clingers' are fed up and flocking to someone offering change and hope to make the country great again. They do not want America to be 'fundamentally transformed'. They are not afraid of the "other". They are afraid of losing their future and their children future. The Federal government uses it's power to advantage corporations and the wealthy. Obama did not even attempt to prosecute any of the executives that he blamed for the 2008 financial meltdown.
No single leader can unify America. Not even a huge 9/11 style terrorist attack will bring Americans together again.
nath
Not really. Sanders and Clinton aren't comparing penis, sorry, hand sizes, and they aren't sitting around insulting each other non-stop. They are debating the issues. And most democrats are ok with the idea of voting for whichever one wins the nomination, even if they were gunning for the other.
Whenever Republicans claim that the democrats are in the same state of turmoil that the republicans are, it's so that they don't feel alone in a party that is imploding upon itself.