The inability of the Republican field to combat the campaign tactics of the Republican front-runner, Donald Trump, is both incomprehensible and daunting. From that field--now a field of four, perhaps the most intelligent of the group, Ben Carson, having dropped out of the race--not a single candidate has even identified the tactic Trump uses for the voters of the party, and that is essential to undermining the devious mountebank's efforts. Trump is a bully, and as such, he uses personal attack, and virtually nothing else, to domineer his adversaries rather than dominate the conversation about policy and philosophy. He has mentioned immigration and thus taken the low road to the votes of the lowest common denominator in Republican politics, and he has claimed to be able to make "the greatest deals" that any of us have ever seen, though the fact that deal making is what got us into the mess started in 2007 and 2008 by a bunch of other people who thought that they were smarter than everyone else, doesn't seem to have dawned on his dubious constituency. But overall, he simply snaps off a glib comment about the ears, or the lack of energy, or some other perceived shortcoming in anyone who questions him and the question is forgotten. That tactic is called "ad hominem." It focuses on the person rather than the issue, and by using it, Trump has managed to capture the hearts and minds of the plurality of the Republican electorate without taking a single comprehensive stab at solving any of our problems. His appeal to the lowest common denominator in politics with his claim that he will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it is preposterous, but it never-the-less seems to persuade his contingent. Yet, the way in which he has beaten down his opponents isn't with outlandish promises. It is his ad hominem attacks that have put him in the "catbird seat." If any of the candidates recognized that, Trump would already be a has been.
Consider, for example, Jeb Bush's confrontation of Marco Rubio over his failure to attend Senate sessions, preferring instead to campaign. Rubio responded by claiming that the question was Bush being opportunistic and following the advice of one of his campaign advisors because he thought he could gain political advantage by asking about it. Bush stumbled and repeated himself a couple of times as if by doing so he was somehow responding to Rubio, but he wasn't, and he abandoned that line of questioning because he couldn't seem to figure out how to make his point that the people of Florida were paying Rubio to cast Senate votes and be in Washington doing their business. All Bush had to say was, forget who or why the question was asked, answer the question. He could even have said, you're right, but it's still a good question; answer it. But instead, he saw himself as having failed and he abandoned the question...a good one in light of the fact that the failure of Rubio and other candidates to get out of the race to make the defeat of Trump more likely--Trump being by consensus a menace to both the party and the nation--demonstrates that personal ambition and self-aggrandizement are their motivations, not service to a grateful nation. Calling Trump out on using ad hominem tactics rather than answering questions, just like calling Rubio out on it would have, is what would disarm him, but instead, Trump's most viable opponents within the party have sunk to the same tactic.
Were I a candidate, I would give a speech, or perhaps even start every campaign speech, with a description of ad hominem rhetorical tactics and point out to the voters that attacking the source is not responding to criticism or answering questions. Mtt Romney is scheduled to give a speech today in which he apparently will disavowed Trump and his candidacy, and Trump's response to word that the speech was forthcoming was to claim that Romney had "begged" Trump for his endorsement in 2012, and then to criticize Romney for being a "terrible candidate" rather than responding to Romney's anticipated assertions as to why Trump should not be the Republican nominee, and those assertions are widely known as Romney has been talking out of school. If Romney, or anyone else in the party leadership is smart--a questionable proposition to start with--they will persistently reiterate Romney's criticisms pointing out that their source isn't the point...That the criticism is valid, whether it is or not; that the issue isn't whether Romney was a terrible candidate. It's whether Trump is.
Confronting Trump's underhanded way of winning the argument wouldn't be an overnight success. It would take concerted, persistent effort and repetition to succeed, but eventually, at least the responsible members of the party would have effectively warned his constituents that they were making a terrible mistake. But unfortunately, Republicans are so dogmatic that they will probably continue to be constrained by conventional Republican thinking, which is in some respects an oxymoron in the first place. So, suggesting that Republicans do the smart thing may be like telling your dog to take dictation. It may just not be in the cards.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment