The future of political parties in United States Part 2

The Republican establishment is to find a common language has almost cannot, so now he can’t distance himself from trump and not to support it. This is likely the peak of the conflict, with some perspective, my hope (you know why I engaged in the policy, not American) that it took this crisis, such an absurdity, to show the Republicans the responsibility they must bear for the policies that they were for the last eight years, in order to begin the process of healing, purification and some normal moving forward.

S.: The Western political system as a concept, and the American system in particular, is provided with a sufficient number of internal controls which prevent such stray candidates, not representing any enough feature point of view, candid populists to get into power and, moreover, to stay in it. However, judging by how everyone is now worried and most importantly, judging by how spectacular continues winning streak trump the States, there is a feeling that this system of valves in some point may not work. Alex, do you think?

B.: We see now that it doesn’t work. Increasingly, in publications in the US, the word appears in the letter “f” fascism. There is a conversation about how dying democracy, and this populist wave that picked up the trump, to be swept away by the democratic valves, you are talking about. It seems to me that such a democratic step the Republican party is from trump to give up. Trump makes a huge number of applications, it has no program, no team, no ideology. In fact, he’s practically a narcissist who tells all that he comes to mind today. Commentators laugh, I don’t know debate who the Trumps appear at the debate. The impression is that trump is a business, and the business model it gives its name to different developers, who build houses, skyscrapers, and then they are called “tramp,” although he has nothing.

Even there is a joke that trump just licensed his name to various candidates in red wings that come out, and each says something quite different. In principle, he has made a lot of statements that contradict the Constitution of the United States: in particular, discrimination against Muslims, what he said about journalists  that if he didn’t like how the journalists write, he will submit them to court. This is all contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and the Republican party should abandon him, not seeing him debate and speak, whether they support him or not. This is a man who has made enough statements that the guarantor of the Constitution the Constitution will be broken. It would be the first step to the system of checks and balance. But we do not see and hardly, I think, we’ll see.

G.: there is Simply no fact of the Republican establishment who could do it. All hope now rests on the cruise, that sinister enemy of the same establishment which is not friendly with anyone in the Republican leadership, which, from my point of view, no less a nightmare than trump, a nightmare of a different kind. There is no single point of view, solid lever, to realize it. If they could, they probably would have done it, but this “they”, “them” simply does not exist. The trouble is that the party itself created.

MS: Not to mention the fact that such cases in U.S. history was. Maybe anyone remembers Ross Perot. However, close to the White house he did not come, but was also an independent candidate, who did not need party money to his own campaign, he had a lot of personal. The actual problem with trump, I think, or the peculiarity of his position that his populist slogans give him sufficient grassroots support to, in principle, to go to the polls with chances of success, different from zero, even not relying on any political power for themselves. If the Republicans tell him: “You, Mr. trump, are no longer a member of the Republican party, because you trample on the Constitution, make statements that defame all of us”  in support of trump’s virtually no impact. Sam, do you think?

G.: In some sense we have to understand that support for trump is a very limited part of the population. I don’t think he has many chances to increase during the common campaign. The Republicans still have the fear that if they choose wrong, they only can push him to play the role of Ross Perot, who secured a Clinton victory. Thus, they probably think you need to be quite cautious: would be better if he honestly loses (though, in these primaries it never happens), and then he will somehow be eliminated from this process than to create a competitor, which will definitely then lead to the victory of any democratic candidate.

MS: Alex, what do you think?

B.: I would like to add that gradually in certain circles of Democrats and Republicans there is such a defeatist party, defeatist opinion. In fact, for thinking of the Republican establishment that controls the country or want to manage, the President trump would be an even bigger disaster than the candidate trump. So some Republicans believe that we need to lose, that is not with trump to win. For example, it is possible to expel from the party, and then it will be party candidate, the applicant will be trump. They of course will lose, but it will be better than if trump wins. In fact, even among Democrats there is an opinion that the President Trump have to lose, because to win with Sanders is likely to be a disaster, but Clinton is also not so good. Clinton promises us a third term of Obama, and the voters after two terms pretty tired of Obama, although it is certainly more popular than any of the existing candidates.