mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
2016
How Deep Is the Rot?
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Pete

    “Our system contains a multitude of safeguards designed to block the ascent of incompetent, wicked or dangerous men. Trump has already cleared many of them,”

    That’s an ugly innuendo. Shame on The American Interest for publishing such dribble masquerading as political analysis.

    • PKCasimir

      Calling it dribble is being too kind to it.

    • Frank Natoli

      For me, the strongest evidence of how Trump is the right choice is the absolute hysteria of his critics.

      • John Schwartz

        For me, the strongest evidence of how Trump is the wrong choice is the fact that he’s a reality TV star with no understanding of foreign policy or even how the legislative process works.

        • Frank Natoli

          Ah. My comment implied that Hillary isn’t getting anyone really upset, and that for me is further evidence that Trump is right and Hillary is wrong. You provide some negatives about Trump, no concern about positives for him, no concern about negatives [or positives, which do not exist] for her, and formulate your conclusion on that basis alone. I get it.

          • John Schwartz

            Your problem is that you see this as Hillary versus Trump. Hillary would be a terrible President (and I really don’t like five Presidents with three last names , but she’s not the only other choice. There are about 150 million other people who legally qualify for the Presidency. Millions of them are decent, patriotic, hard working people who didn’t get million dollar loans from daddy, or build their real estate empires through cronyism and exploiting eminent domain. Certainly hundreds if not thousands of those people have a decent grasp on world affairs and can describe how laws are made. Trump is not one of those people.

            Personally I’ll probably vote for Gary Johnson or whomever the Libertarians nominate. I know third parties never win, but at least I’ll cast my ballot knowing that the person I’m voting for will take the Constitution more seriously than some billionaire from Manhattan.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Virtue-signaling notwithstanding, voting for Gary Johnson or some other Libertarian is an exercise in futility. Unless and until you can demonstrate that he would have some sort of realistic chance of winning an election (good luck with that…), the truth of the matter is that our electoral system is organized around a two-party system. This isn’t a parliamentary democracy, where coalitions are an option, and it would take quite a bit of tinkering to make that happen. Even if we were to agree on that being a good idea (and I don’t, but that is another debate for a different venue) that is not the way it is right now, and that is the reality we need to live with.
            I would prefer that there be someone other than Trump, but the truth is that we have the choice of him or Hillary, and that isn’t even a hard choice to make. Pretending that you don’t have to make it is simply silly. Yes, there are many people far better qualified than Trump (or Obama or Hillary or…. you get the idea), but until the happy day arrives where we follow WFB’s idea of simply choosing the first 200 names in the phone book, I am afraid that these are the two we get to choose from. You can acknowledge that, regret it, and move forward like an adult, or you can close your eyes, shake your head and pout like a petulant child.

          • Nevis07

            Personally, I’m partial to voting for Gary Johnson myself as a protest vote. But I don’t want to throw my vote away, so I just can’t bring myself to commit to it. It’s odd. We’ve come full circle in this country’s politics, in just about 10 years or so – when people start to seriously consider casting a counter-protest vote of the aforementioned first and now nominating ‘proper’ protest vote. *sigh* But as you say, we can whine about it, or we can participate in the process (it’s more than some people get) – but as I say, I still haven’t decided…

          • f1b0nacc1

            I remember many of my liberal friends complaining about George W, yet looking at me oddly when I pointed out that they had voted for Nader in 2000. A cluster of them lived in Florida, so this had some special resonance…
            My point is that the risk of HRC (and most of all, her impact on the SCOTUS) is simply too great to chance. If the Dems weren’t so tribal that I have little doubt that they will fall into line beyond HRC I would feel differently, but the last 8 years have convinced me that this is not so. I understand your concerns, and share them to some extent myself, but I have seen this happen already and am unwilling to dismiss the risk.

          • Nevis07

            Fib, I agree with you on both voting third party. I did write vote Gary Johnson in a previous election over similar anger – it was an unfulfilling experience, certainly not the cathartic one I’d hoped it be. You’re correct about the risks of putting HRC in office and SCOTUS. But to that point, I have similar concerns with Trump and our foreign policy (in fact this is my biggest reservation with voting Trump) – we’re navigating some extremely delicate situations, especially in the SCS but also elsewhere – I worry about Trump thinking he’s making some “great deal” when he can’t see more than one step ahead of him. Perhaps his only saving grace regarding this concern would be his presumed cabinet? If not for my foreign policy concerns, I think I’d be firmly in the Trump camp by now.

          • f1b0nacc1

            I don’t disagree with you at all here (please note, I am NOT suggesting that Trump would be a good candidate, only a less-bad one), but in all honesty, I am not sure that Trump would be a worse foreign policy candidate than Hillary. Hillary is simply corrupt, and (her reputation notwithstanding) not very bright. We are more likely to see a sleazy backroom deal with HRC, backed by Democrats simply out of tribalism. This has, after all, been the pattern of the last 8 years, particularly with Iran. There is absolutely zero in her background at State that suggests she has any sort of broader vision for foreign policy than Obama, and most of her appointments there were ignorant apparatchiks.

            Trump, on the other hand, will get no free pass from the GOP or the Dems, so his operating room (and hence his ability to do real damage) will be far more limited. The idea that a President Trump will use his phone and pen to circumvent inconvenient constitutional restrictions and get away with it because his party will shield him is not supportable by events, as it would be for Hillary. Finally, Trump’s rather ‘loose cannon’ reputation might work to our advantage. The Chinese (for instance, though we could point to Putin or the Iranians as well) have Obama’s measure, they know what they can get away with and do so. Trump is far less predictable, and thus would cause them to operate with more caution than they do now.

            Your concerns are not irrational, and I share some of them. I only argue that the alternative in this case is far, far worse. I regret that we are in this situation in the first place (I was a Cruz supporter, and Walker before that), but we are, and we have to work with what we have.

          • Nevis07

            Oh I hear ya Fib. I hardly think that HRC would be much better of a foreign policy president. My concern is simply with the unpredictability of Trump – operating a country in the defense environment we live in is not the same as running a business. You don’t get do overs with lawsuits. But as you say, who knows, he may end up doing some great thing on the foreign policy front… I get the feeling you and I are very close in our views on Trump, you may just be one step ahead in the ‘coming to terms’ with Trump department. Anyway, be well Fib.

          • Jim__L

            Reagan was held to be unpredictable and dangerous, and his approach won the Cold War for us. GWB’s critics (utterly irrationally) saw in his religiosity a relentless drive towards Armageddon.

            I think a lot of this is catastrophizing.

          • Jim__L

            Hillary was incompetent as SecState, and largely responsible (in that it was her job to make things turn out well) for things turning out so badly. Do I need to link Niall Ferguson’s Morning Joe appearance again?

            I don’t think Trump would be worse, particularly if he follows through on his statements about getting good people in to help.

          • Jim__L

            I would instead say that our party system is organized around our winner-take-all electoral system, but that discussion is a bit of a tangent.

          • f1b0nacc1

            Even parliamentary systems (and even those without first-past-the-post) tend to evolve towards two largish coalitions (parties by any other name) over time. Those that don’t (and there are some) tend to be come rather unstable, since in closely balanced systems small fringe parties can end up holding positions of power far in excess of their actual numbers. The best example of this latter case is Israel, where the various religious parties are badly overvalued.

          • Frank Natoli

            I understand the sense that voting for whom you think would be best for the country is your best choice. Here is what happened when other people thought as you did:
            (1) 1912. Teddy Roosevelt is furious with his Republican successor William Howard Taft, and runs against him as leader of the “Bull Moose” party. Result: TR polls the highest of all third party candidates ever, but not enough to beat Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Voters for TR, who would otherwise have voted for Taft, elect Wilson.
            (2) 1968. Eugene McCarthy is unhappy with fellow Democrats support for the Vietnam War and runs third party, in the process mortally wounding Hubert Humphrey and giving the election to Republican Richard Nixon. Voters for McCarthy, who would have voted for HHH, elect Nixon.
            (3) 1992. Ross Perot, with his charts, takes enough votes from GHWB to give the election to Bill Clinton.
            (4) 2000. Ralph Nader, with his Greens, takes enough votes from Al Gore, in Florida especially, to give the electoral college victory to GWB.
            In each and every case, the third party voters get exactly the reverse of what they want.
            Is that what you want?

          • ljgude

            I don’t disagree but the Truman Dewey election in 48 had Henry Wallace running to the left of Truman with the backing of the American Communist Party and despite Truman being in a lot worse trouble then papa Bush in ’92, because of the unpopularity of the Korean War Truman prevailed. I suppose this is a case of the exception proving the rule.

          • Jim__L

            If he doesn’t grasp how laws are made, he’s unlikely to get much of his agenda through. Anything he tries to do as Chief Executive that is truly unconstitutional, will be challenged and blocked not only by the Democrats but by Conservatives as well.

            Honestly, as long as people are willing to stand up to an Imperial President, we don’t have to worry much.

            Anyone who praised the passage of ObamaCare needs to be very ashamed, and very worried right now.

          • Jim__L

            Hillary has made a lot of people upset, who are responsible for our nation’s security. Her “rules don’t apply to me” negligence with classified information is likely to cost American lives — if it hasn’t already.

    • Tom

      Tell me what was false in that sentence.

      • Pete

        Tom,

        I guess you don’t understand what the word ‘innuendo’ means.

        Let me help: Innuendo: an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.

        • Tom

          I do understand what innuendo means, thankyouverymuch. I’m just not sure what was so offensive about that sentence to your sensibilities. Trump is pretty much all of these things. The only person in this race who he is acceptable compared to is Clinton.

          • Pete

            Well Tom, that’s really the choice — the battleaxe or the Trumpster. I’ll go with Trump.

          • Tom

            That’s no choice at all.

          • Jim__L

            The devil you know, or the devil you don’t? Wisdom is supposed to point to the one you know, but considering how many of Trump’s critics make a living off of panicking about Conservatives (Reagan is going to blow up the world! GWB is leading us to Armageddon!) I’m a bit more skeptical of their worst-case scenarios.

            That said, I really wish we had someone other than Trump to vote for.

          • Tom

            I agree that Trump is hated by all the right people; however, he’s hated by a lot of the wrong people, as well.

    • Jim__L

      Actually, most of our safeguards are Constitutional, and reserved for after the president is elected.

      Do I have any sympathy for the party that passed ObamaCare? No.

  • CapitalHawk

    If TAI thinks Donald Trump is not fit for office, please explain what makes a person fit for the office of President? Only holding another political office before? So, Dwight Eisenhower was unfit for office and a career politician like Richard Nixon would obviously be better, yes? Or, is it perhaps that they should only be nice and sweet to people? So, LBJ was unfit for office? What?

    • Andrew Allison

      A brown nose?

  • Andrew Allison

    Shame on TAI for publishing such utter drivel.

  • Nevis07

    It goes deeper than that. On so many issues and aided by the mass media at large, The Democratic party has in effect presented a zero-sum voting option to Americans. On immigration, they not only have effectively prevented any action that would first secure our southern border at which time meaningful immigration reform could then take place in a civil and fair bipartisan environment – but they gone further and insulted vast swaths of the American public by calling us racists and xenophobes for not accepting their fait acompli of the future of demographic voting – nevermind the very reasonable arguments from conservatives regarding drugs, violence and gangs, and the negative effect on local budgets and wages, and generational effects of amnesty. In effect, the Democrats have basically said either you’re with us or we’ll brand you an idiot and a racists – again, aided by the media. THAT is an extremist position; and now there is really no middle ground that the vast majority of Americans actually want to see. That strengthens Trumps position as a nationalist. Again, you’re stuck between two extremes.

    The same thing on Muslim immigration. The Democrats and some GOP establishment politicians say there is no problem with Muslim immigration. Obama won’t do his duty and protect America’s borders (let along use the term Islamist). So we’re left with demagoguery from Trump or insults from the two party establishments and so no moderate conversation ever takes places anymore and therefore no rational conversation on reasonable legislation ever is put in place.

    Trade deals is another one. You either have to accept the deals completed in backdoor discussions or you’re relegated to being an isolationist. Nobody ever asks if ever larger trade deficits for Americans is something we’re willing to tolerate.

    TAI talks about broken institutions. It’s true. Our politicians are broke, our parties are broke and in their places, we have corporations, their lobbyists, special interest groups and front step rallying of illegal immigrants all pressing and ensuring their agenda is the one that we continue to follow down the rabbit hole…

    • nervous122

      To take this a step further, the Democrats’ shameful race baiting over the past two decades has helped fuel Trump. Voters were tired of seeing the sitting VP tell African Americans that Mitt Romney, a moderate conservative (he was the governor of Mass for goodness sake!), would put them back in chains. So they’ve turned to someone who will fight back with equal sleaze.

  • Frank Natoli

    Everything, EVERYTHING, wrong with America is self inflicted. One party has done almost all the inflicting. The other party was a combination of scared of its own shadow AND kind of happy with preserving its own position and power that it concluded that doing NOTHING was the smart move. Trump has savaged both of them, impressing many Americans as the one guy who has it right.
    Trump is an unknown for too many issues. Hillary is a known wrong for all the issues. There is only one rational conclusion. He has my vote.

  • subtilior

    The underlying issue is the failure of the entire US elite, left and right, to achieve their primary duty of ensuring that the American people thrive and are successful. The Trump phenomenon is an attempt to tell them “you’re fired”. It remains to be seen if they get the message.

    • DiogenesDespairs

      It doesn’t matter whether they “get” the message, if it’s delivered via a bum’s rush.

      More and more people are repulsed by our political ruling class that has emerged before our eyes. Sanders on the left and Trump Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, et al., are the people clearing their throat and speaking. And starting to act.

      • f1b0nacc1

        Bravo

      • Matt B

        “Trump Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, et al., are the people clearing their throat and speaking. And starting to act.”

        Well said. I would add Sanders to that list.

  • rheddles

    Sounds like someone had a few too many martinis at lunch. The establishment, institutions, organs and the party are all blamed for the nomination of Trump. So little credit to the voters who are the ones responsible, one vote at a time.

  • Pait

    The fanciful construction that the Democratic Party is somehow responsible for the rise of the Donald reminds me of Brazil’s recently impeached president, who claimed that the economic collapse she presided over was caused by the campaign programs of the opposition.

    Not to put to fine a point on it, the argument is idiotic.

    • Tom

      Except that’s a terrible analogy for multiple reasons. The fact is that, as presented in this article, the race is Clinton’s to lose. If anyone BUT Clinton were the Democratic nominee, there would be no contest come November.
      But somehow, magically, the Dems and Republicans have managed to nominate the only candidates in this race who will make it an even fight.
      If Donald Trump wins the presidency, it will be the fault of the Democratic Party, much like Obama winning in 2012 was the fault of the Republican Party.

    • nervous122

      Hardly. The Dems have spent decades fostering identity politics and grievances. They called moderates like McCain and Romney racist. They call anyone who suggests we enforce our immigration laws racist, yet they don’t have the courage to actually call for open borders. Trump has embraced the mud slinging and engaged them on their terms. He won’t convince Dem voters, but he will likely bring out disenfranchised voters tired of the GOP electing milquetoast squishes who refuse to fight back.

      • Jim__L

        “Likely bring out”? How do you think he won the primary?

    • Pait

      Blaming one part for the other party’s errors is silly, whether done by the Brazilian left or by the American right. The advantage of following politics in more than one place is that patterns of silliness are easier to discern. The disadvantage is that the silly arguments arrive from all sides.

  • Anthony

    Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second!

    An inference from essay is that voting for Trump can be understood as embracing something rather than rejecting it, even if that something is viewed as insane or repulsive by polite society (ostensibly).

    “Voting for trump, it appears, is something white people do in the shadows. It’s a forbidden desire that is both liberating and self-destructive, not unlike the married heterosexual who has a same-sex lover on the down-low, or the executive who powers through the day on Crystal Meth and OxyContin. On some level you know the whole thing can’t end well, but boy does it feel good right now.” (kind of like Eros and Thanatos) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opinion/campaign-stops/how-many-people-support-trump-but-don't-want-to-admit-it.html?_r=0

    • Angel Martin

      “Voting for trump, it appears, is something white people do in the shadows.”

      Given the size of Trump’s rallies, and the consistency between polling an primary results, I’d say that it does not appear that this is the case.

      • Anthony

        We make our first judgments rapidly and we are dreadful at seeking out evidence that might disconfirm those initial judgments – though your disagreement is with author of description however you choose to interpret the case.

  • f1b0nacc1

    The sneering condescension that drips from this piece (and I say this as someone who loathes Trump) almost perfectly illustrates the sort of attitude that many Trump supports are rebelling against. Has it occurred to the esteemed Mr. Willick (and just what are his credentials that give him the status to pass judgement?) that we peasants are tired of being lectured to by our ‘betters’ in academe and the media?

    • Andrew Allison

      Well said!

      • f1b0nacc1

        Thank you

    • Ellen

      Right on sweetheart. And the nitwit Jonathan Chait who explained the Trump phenomenon by concluding that the GOP is filled with morons was one who thought that Barack Obama was going to be an epochal figure bringing progress and enlightenment. That’s how brilliant he was.

      I agree with Diogenes as a general comment on the whole situation. The entire elite needs to be removed. Here’s an idea: Keep their jobs here, and export all of them to Mexico. That would be the reverse of what they have done to the white (and black) working class.

      • f1b0nacc1

        The problem with sending the ‘elite’ to Mexico is that they would get their wish….they would have their wealth and live in a nation full of peasants. Exile might trouble them for a short time, but soon they would argue that the grapes were sour anyway, and that the peasants here were SOOOOOO much more cooperative…
        Defeat them, rub their noses in their impotence…let them live with that reality….that is revenge, and it is what they deserve.

    • bff426

      Why, his credentials are that he graduated last year from Stanford, after transferring from Berkeley. What other credentials does he need? Life experience? Wisdom that comes from 30 or 40 years of having observed world events, politicians and policy? Nah. A one-year-old political science degree should do just fine. Ah, youth. Perhaps he ought to have begun his piece with a trigger warning for us 60-year-old snowflakes who might’ve been offended.

      • f1b0nacc1

        He has excellent credentials for producing uninformed snark and unselfaware silliness, but little more. Not that one needs credentials to offer an opinion, but the entitled arrogance of his commentary is a disgrace to TAI.

        Let us oldsters not be too smug in our accumulated wisdom though….Hillary and Bernie are quite a bit older than I am, I don’t see that it has helped them too much (grin)…

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Another angry diatribe of unsubstantiated slurs against Trump. Have you learned nothing over the past year? Every attack has only made Trump stronger, as people all see the obvious unfairness of the slurs against him. Is he rude and crude? Of course he is, “He’s a New Yorker” they’re known to be that way. Is he a stupid clown? If so he’s a stupid clown with billions to his name, that he made on his own. Is he a Racist? A large number of Blacks are endorsing him so I’m going to say NO. Is he an Islamophobe? A “Phobia” is an irrational fear of something. Muslims murdered 32,000 people last year, taking prudent measures to protect American’s is a rational thing to do, and the “Duty” of the President of the United States. Saying he’s unqualified is foolish, as the Constitution enumerates the requirements to be President, and he meets them. Finally, Trump has been CEO of his own businesses for decades, he can’t possibly be a worse President, than Barack “The Worst President in American History” Obama.

    • f1b0nacc1

      You have a more favorable view of Trump than I do (reasonable people may differ, of course), but otherwise I can find nothing to disagree with in your comment….Good for you!

    • Jim__L

      I was with you until “can’t possible be a worse president”, at which point my imagination kicked in.

      Trump is a roll of the dice. Hillary is a known mediocrity-at-best and a probable felon.

      Do we stick to the devil we know?

      By the way, I’m intensely curious about what pivots Trump will make for the general election. The only thing I trust about the man is his ambition — his will to WIN. Where that takes him will be interesting.

  • Boritz

    How Deep Is the Rot

    An episode of South Park had Frank Sinatra singing Don’t P**s On the Moon but this would have been an equally good title.

  • GS

    “who is manifestly unfit for high office”- pretty ironic to read, after the years of obaa, and looking at hillary.

  • ljgude

    “Our system contains a multitude of safeguards designed to block the ascent of incompetent, wicked or dangerous men.” Or women I dare presume. But it didn’t block the ascent of George W Bush who was incompetent, or Barrack Obama who remains dangerous, nor will it block either Hillary who is wicked or Trump who is dangerious.

  • Fat_Man

    Raise your glass to the hard working people
    Let’s drink to the uncounted heads
    Let’s think of the wavering millions
    Who need leaders but get gamblers instead

    Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
    His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
    And a parade of the gray suited grafters
    A choice of cancer or polio

    “Salt of the Earth”
    Jagger/Richard
    1968

  • FriendlyGoat

    Yep, it’s the idiots. Far more than anyone expected. Not that we Dems don’t have some too. But the Trump supporters think that the GOP is somehow different with Trump on top of it. “Party Unity” will soon be Donald diluting down to nothing but the original GOP platform. I promise the Trump supporters that they do not get ONE thing from him that is distinguishable for the stock GOP bullsh*t. Not one.

    • Angel Martin

      Dream on FG.

      I think that the one thing everyone understands about this election is that Clinton represents more of the same, and Trump represents change.

      The change we get with Trump may be great, or it may be bad, or it may be destructive, but it will be change.

      • FriendlyGoat

        You are not going to get any “change” with Donald at all. He is going to CAVE on every single issue—-to the whims of the GOP establishment. He has already done it on abortion, NC bathroom bills and lower taxes for the richest people. He will CAVE on the wall, the deportations and the trade agreements. His supporters will never get “sh*t” on anything they thought was different about him. Nothing. He’s going to look just like little Marco and low-energy Jeb—–in a hat and a longer tie. That’s seriously it.

        • Angel Martin

          “You are not going to get any “change” with Donald at all.”

          if that is true, why are all the “respectables” telling us it will be the end of Western Civilization if Trump is elected ?

          • FriendlyGoat

            A recent pundit has ascribed Trump’s win so far as being because the GOP is filled with idiots—-more than anyone thought (and that “anyone” would include the other 16 who started to run and everyone who supported them). Before you get too excited, we can all agree our left side has idiots too.

            Trump is not going to build a wall, deport 11 million guest workers and trash the corporations’ dreams of trade agreements. People on both sides who think he is going to do those things are idiots.

            What Trump IS GOING to do is cave, cave, cave, cave to whatever his GOP donors for the general election want. His election, to leftists, of course, would still be a disaster for enabling the GOP agenda.

          • Angel Martin

            I may be an idiot, but I see that Trump is the first politician since George Wallace to completely defy elitist PC crap and refuse to back down regardless of the criticism.

            That sort of backbone is necessary, if not sufficient, to avoid being overwhelmed by “Permanent Washington”.

            The other reason I am optimistic about the success of a Trump Presidency is that his major proposals on the wall, deportations, banning muslims and even trade sanctions are all provided for in existing legislation.

            The missing ingredient has always been leadership, not new legislation.

            Now maybe I am wrong, and Trump has gone thru everything in the past year just to fool us, and when he alights in the White House it will just be like G. W. Bush’s third term.

            But I doubt it.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nothing to doubt at all. Trump has already”backed down” on half of his positions and will absolutely cave in on the other half. Consider yourself fooled. “The party” is not moving to Trump, they will move him. It’s already in the air.

  • John Stephens

    “Despite so-called “fundamentals” (including low unemployment and a relatively popular sitting president)…”

    Unemployment is NOT low, and the President is NOT popular. Numbers showing otherwise are deliberately false, as are all other government statistics (CPI, anyone?). The Federal government, the political parties and their media supporters LIE, and the people KNOW it. That is how you get Trump (and Sanders, for that matter).

  • Angel Martin

    Thinking more about this essay – the author is absolutely wrong.

    Far from Trump representing some sort of systemic political failure, Trump represents the potential for renewal and reform of a decaying system.

    Trump represents a reprieve that the citizens in a decaying polity usually do not get. In most cases the elites have an unbreakable stranglehold on power. The elites are usually able to prevent any reform, regardless of how much the overall system decays.

    History is filled with decaying civilizations. In almost all cases there was someone putting forward a sensible program of reform. But in most cases, the reformers never got a chance to act, and decay eventually turned into total collapse.

    Now, Trump may be a failure, or he may be a fraud (as many allege). But he has shown that reform is possible – and he has demonstrated a roadmap to get there.

    • Jim__L

      Well, one could hold that the old habit of Democracies to elect Tyrants (who are the enemies of the Oligarchs) may represent a failure.

      We will see if our political system is strong enough to restrain a Tyrant, as it was in fact originally designed to do.

      One way that everyone can help is to deflate the overwhelming power of Washington by any legal means available.

      • Angel Martin

        point taken. My own view is that oligarchies are much harder to dislodge than tyrants.

        In America, Ivy league law school graduates have dominated the Presidential election process.

        Trump has broken their gatekeeper role, and he is set to overturn their policy preferences as well.

        Agree about the power of Washington. I’m viewing this from north of the border where the Federal Government has no role in school bathroom policy (or anything else to do with schools).

  • Jim__L

    ” the Democratic Party is on the cusp of nominating a candidate who is
    also shockingly unappealing to voters—a woman who is accomplished and
    qualified”

    Please provide evidence that Hillary is either accomplished or qualified. What exactly has she ever done with the positions she has held?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service