There is a system in place. It takes a billion dollars to get elected president and we get only the choice between two in the final vote. The complex primary process allows anyone with the money and resources to attempt to make the finals, but in the American sports tradition the game always comes down to the top two teams. This year the top two teams appear to be Hillary and the Donald.
What does this say about the system? What does this say about the people who elect the winners?
On the democrat side it has become clear that the system is designed for the insiders. The shear number of “super delegates” unbalances the electoral process in the primaries and the various rules and odd selection criteria serve to make these super delegates the main force in the final selection. I cannot remember a Democrat Party election where the final winner of the nomination was not the best connected, connected to the party apparatus, not the voters. This year the most connected is Hillary and it seems at this point to be a done deal. I’m not sure how many states are left, but the pundits seem convinced that her challenger needs 95% of the remaining delegates to win. That is not impossible. On the other hand it is nearly impossible given the level of division in the party and the people over the left and more left choices the Democrats have chosen to offer their supporters.
On the Republican side it started out as a free-for-all. Seventeen candidates made a serious attempt at the nomination. A few were never taken seriously by the voters. Most were rejected by the voters. It seems strange to me that all of the defeated primary candidates had one factor in common: they were all more connected to the GOP establishment than the man who finally won the contest. This year the voters who have become more disillusioned with the Republicans with every passing election have shown a depth of distrust for the Establishment that surprises most of the pundits. The depth of this schism is so great that many in the Establishment are still desperately planning ways to deprive the winner of his winnings.
Here’s a different take. For the first time a true outsider is in a position to win the final contest in November. Whatever else one may say we must recognize what it is about Trump that has carried him to this point. It’s not his radical statements because those statements are not really radical. He is only voicing the thoughts of the majority of the people, you know, those of us who don’t do government as a career. It sounds radical when a politician says we need to build a wall, but to most Americans it sounds like common sense. It sounds radical to say ban Muslim immigration temporarily, but to most Americans it sounds like common sense.
It’s all in the view. It is something I call “political speak”, a way of speaking that hints at solutions while never actually saying what any of those solutions should be. The real strength of Trump in this primary election is the fact that he does not do political speak. He does business speak, a more direct, less secretive way of talking.
And that is one part of the American Tradition we have not yet lost. As a nation we all value the honest person who speaks truth. This is Trump’s strength and it appears that the year of speaking the simple truth in a straightforward manner is about to begin.
His propensity for speaking his mind is his strongest feature and it is also the real reason the career politicians hate him. They fear honest talk. Perhaps Trump is naive to the realities of politics in Washington, but for the time being he is the only one to simply say out loud what most Americans have been thinking for years.