WHAT COULD A TRUMP, CRUZ OR A SANDERS ACHIEVE AS PRESIDENT?

The current Presidential Primary contests have laser like focussed on the justified anger society that has manifested towards their elected representatives and a political system dripping with the influence of money. The conclusive victories in New Hampshire of anti establishment Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and the unexpected good showing of Iowa caucus winner Cruz, in their respective primaries, has translated this anger into electoral triumph.  The public debate focuses on legislators ignoring their consituents needs and opinions, compromising on principles, not following through on campaign promises, following the bidding of their corporate backers and lobbyists and their lack of integrity in public life. Conversation is around personal characteristics such as honesty, commitment, trustworthiness, self service, ignorance and incompetence and further illustrate the frustration that society is manifesting against elected public representatives. 

These early results, albeit in atypical electoral states, are a culmination of the disconnect between legislators and the electorate they serve. Just look at two statistics: Firstly, key presidential wannabes are non politicians, Trump, Carson and Fiorina or hellbent on destroying their parties establishments as exemplified by Cruz and Sanders. Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent Marc Rubio and Kasich are the only conventional candidates that are exhibiting any traction at the moment.  Secondly, Congress approval rating is at fourteen percent. 

Two of the leading candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have attracted record crowds whipping up emotion by attacking what they abhor in the status quo and offering differing radical solutions. (While there have been such candidates in the past, they have by and large run as Independents).

POLITICIANS AND ACTIVISTS

For argument sake let us accept that both of these candidates are sincere in their objectives in revolutionizing society with radical agendas. Such major social change is usually agitated for outside the political arena. In the normal course of events those advocating and leading what is in effect a movement have the advantage that they do not have to compromise a jot in their message. This is because they have the luxury of not having to gain a majority of support in the legislatures to make laws. The group who do make the laws have to compromise to get them passed and are also subject to pressure groups and as such cannot afford to adapt the attitude of “It’s my way or the highway”. They are  the politicians. The faction that agitate for a revolutionary or transformatory agenda are called activists. It is fair to say that Sanders, Cruz and Trump in this political race have not tailored or diluted their activist stances to the customary political reality. In fact that is part of their mantra.

ACTIVISM AND POLITICS

This whole discourse highlights a misperception that certain sections of society has of how politics functions and fails to recognize the difference between activism and politics. The failure of politicians to represent their constituencies is confused with the process or how politics works per se. So in this debate there is a failure to clarify two issues:  Firstly, there is a situation where politicians ignore their constituents needs for whatever reason and secondly, there is the confusion between activism - the societal agitation for change - and politics which is defined as the art and science of government i.e. effecting the legislation for change. The former is the mobilization of society to influence government and the latter is the process whereby government translates into law what they perceive society wants. Put another way societal activism cannot enact laws as they have no power to do so, only the formalized political infrastructure that has the power to do so and that is the political process. 

This failure to understand the difference between the politics of agitation and protest versus the politics of power is resulting in a lack of clear thinking by sections of the electorate and leads to unrealistic expectations. 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTIVISM AND POLITICS

The difference between activism and politics is best illustrated by real life examples. In the USA Martin Luther King lead the civil rights movement. He agitated on a scale similar to Ghandi and Mandela in the twentieth century. King’s movement resulted in landmark legislation that changed the course of the country. Ghandi’s passive resistance lead to the British Parliament passing the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Mandela’s resistance, philosophy and dignity was parlayed into the elimination of the apartheid discriminatory laws from the books. In all of these instances it took the legitimate political process to effect the change. In fact it can be taken one step further, very few would argue that without Mountbatten and Attlee India would have  obtained its independence in 1947, sans Lyndon Johnson it is unlikely that the far reaching civil rights legislation enacted would have seen the light of day and absent Frederick De Klerk’s leadership there would not have been the peaceful transition to a non racial South Africa. These represent successful marriages between the influence of activism and the power of politics.

In modern times sadly there has always been happy endings to activist populist movements. The most obvious example was the Arab Spring with the exception of Tunisia. The Egyptian movement for democracy and the Iranian Green Revolution were denied political success. The former because there just wasn’t the democratic infrastructure and or statesmen to effect it and the latter because it was brutally crushed. In the late 1980’s the Chinese protestors for democracy were mowed down in Tienemen Square. 

Put another way to effect change democratically you need the political process. Failing that you need an armed insurgency or a violent revolution. It is as simple as that.

HOW ARE THE ACTIVIST PRESIDENTIAL WANNABES GOING TO EFFECT CHANGE ?

It is patently obvious that society is utterly disgusted with the current legislative process. It is becoming more and more apparent that the elected politicians are not reflecting or representing their respective constituencies needs or wants. One can look at the attitudes of three of the chief contenders in the Presidential race, who have transformed their campaigns into activist movements. It is important to note what these three feel about the respective parties whose nominations they seek. Then more importantly let us take a look at how they plan to effect change.

It is interesting to note that one of them Donald Trump, a brand new member of the Republican Party, has already smashed the fabric of his newly adopted home, another Ted Cruz, who has from his entry into the Senate attacked the Republican Party and its leadership, while Bernie Sanders,till very recently an Independant, labels as "Establishment" all Democrats that oppose him, (grudgingly exempting Obama).  All three thus have no truck with the parties whose nomination they are seeking. They wish to change Washington, acting as activists, but they fail to show how they will do it. They fail not only in providing detailed plans and their costs but by not explaining the political process whereby they are going to effect it. 

To effect legislation in this current environment you need a House majority and sixty votes in the Senate. Bearing in mind their attitude to the parties they supposedly represent and their low opinion of their colleagues how they are going to be able to even persuade them, let alone hobble together a bipartisan group to enact their agendas? Trump is the great negotiator, he argues, but he will have work cut out to get consensus among his newly adopted party. Cruz, to quote the Donald, has not one friend in the GOP. Bernie is building his campaign by alienating himself from all his colleagues that have sheltered and enabled him, as an Independent, to function these passed few decades. This is not Westminster this is the American system and elected members of Congress owe nothing to the President even of their own party - especially if he has maintained that they are inter alia, stupid, liars or beholden to Wall Street. Now in order to negotiate you need at least your own party’s votes let alone the opposition. Again this is the US Congress not Westminster. You need bipartisan support to really get stuff to be done unless you have whopping majorities. 

Bernie has at least stated that his election to the Presidency will be accompanied by such a massive groundswell of unanimous electoral support that Congress will have to go along. Seriously? The country has never been more polarized. No one but no one is predicting that the House of Representatives will be regained by the Democrats and that the Democrats would obtain sixty Senate votes and if they did, by the activists’ own arguments the majority would be “stupid” “liars” or “corrupt”. For example Nancy Pelosi the current Democratic leader in the House is on record on saying she is not starting all over on health care reform. 

Trump’s modus vivendi to turn his activism into political reality is two fold: He is a businessman that can get things done and a great negotiator. In the former he can fire you if you don’t listen - he is the boss, and in negotiations there is an assumption that both sides have a common goal. Let him try to get the GOP caucus to adapt universal health care or change their policy on the drug companies setting their own prices for example. Cruz has not suggested a process whereby he can suddenly persuade his colleagues to follow him.

So these three are trying to persuade the electorate that by opting out of the process they can change the process! All this is tautologous nonsense and it gains more and more traction because the media shows no responsibility in exposing the inherent fallacy of the movement. On the contrary they feed into it cover it almost exclusively as it feeds their ratings and sells their customers' soap. When Trump refused to participate in a GOP debate and held his own sideshow the other networks covered the freebee instead of ignoring it. By not educating their audience in basic civics the media are abandoning their responsibility as the custodians of society.

In short in the unlikely event that any of Trump, Cruz or Sanders were elected as the POTUS they are even less likely to be able to effect any of their agendas, whatever their merits may be. To illustrate this point let us look at Barak Obama’s record and what he has to say - Obama being  recognized or vilified as the President with the most transformative agenda in recent history. 

OBAMA ON EFFECTING CHANGE

Obama’s entry into politics and his failure to enact most of his ambitious agenda has been a source of sadness and reflection to the Commander in Chief. Let Jay H. Ell repeat what he wrote about Obama in an earlier blog. “ It appears to be a distant memory the expectations that Barak Obama engendered with his historic campaign and election. If it needs reminding, to accommodate the crowd of 75,000 for his Democratic nomination acceptance speech in 2008, a football field was commandeered. His Presidential inauguration oration, in 2009, saw the entire length of the Mall opened for the first time to squeeze in nearly 2,000,000 citizens as he expounded his vision for home and abroad. Just 6 months prior to his inauguration, he addressed, at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, ecstatic crowds that far exceeded any seen since JFK addressed the Berliners".

The new political rock star spoke of his New World Order. Audiences of tens of thousands were the order of the day wherever he  made a major speech - and this charismatic eloquent orator rarely disappointed. The anticipation and hope that this iconic trailblazer brought to the world was epitomized in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009”.

So Obama whose activist and intellectual credentials and support stand like a colossus in comparison to our latter day activists couldn’t get it done. Furthermore he had the advantage of being an unashamed standard bearer of the Democratic Party. It is instructive to see how he views what characteristics he would like to see in his successor to build on his legacy. 

OBAMA ON HILLARY AND REAL POLITIK

Obama recognized from early on if his transformative agenda was to be translated into change he needed a politician to do it and set about anointing Clinton. Following her tenure as Secretary of State Obama he took the unprecedented step to appear with her on Sixty Minutes to tell the world what a jolly fine chap she was. Then just in case it was unclear where he stood he gave an interview to Politico, just prior to the Iowa caucuses where he spelt it out that Hillary had  the nouse for the job. His assessment of Clinton, “She is extraordinarily experienced and wicked smart. She knows every policy inside out and sometimes that could make her more cautious and her campaign was more prose than poetry”. He added, “Hillary recognizes that translating values into governance and delivering the goods is the ultimate job of politics”. 

Well Obama has to be feeling the pain that sheer weight of, populism, intellect and rightness of a cause is not enough. Hillary also learned the hard way. She was entrusted to reform health care in Bill’s administration in 1993. The chances of success on the surface had to be good. One of the reasons, that this relatively unknown Governor had prevailed was health care reform. He had received unprecedented support from business. Lee Iacaco the automotive icon had maintained that America could not compete with Japan when their health care costs per motor car were several multiples more. Hillary failed because she had no support from any of the players. Obama prevailed with a far less ambitious plan because he compromised with the Insurance and Drug industries as well as the American Medical Association. And then it was because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bust a nut and delivered the votes in Congress.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

By now it must be obvious that the answer to what could a Trump, Cruz or a Sanders could achieve in the Presidency is - not too much. 

As matters stand they can each hope if their message resonates, whether one of them prevails or not, is to influence the debate and therefore have legislation enacted.