Trump shows up flaws in the political process
The US presidential election is a sad spectacle. Both candidates are flawed, neither is much trusted or liked, and so we have to ask why one of the world’s oldest and most powerful democracies could not find any better material for its president. Britons have no reason to gloat: the UK has its problems, too. Across the world, politicians are letting the public down, with some parties not taking their constitutional role seriously enough. Yet there is no better example of this than the US Republicans.
The audio of Donald Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women – for that is what it amounts to – is shocking and disgusting. But were the revelations, strictly speaking, a surprise? No. Long before this story came to light, Mr Trump called all women gold-diggers and insisted that he was irresistible to them. He joked about dating his own daughter and commented on the sexual allure of an adolescent. He called women pigs, flat-chested and ugly. What’s truly surprising, then, is that the Republican Party knew much of this when they nominated him with the most votes ever given to a candidate in a Republican primary.
Those unfamiliar with Mr Trump may also be surprised by his non-apology. Normally this would be the moment to accept one’s failings and offer a genuine sorry; instead, he apologised for offence caused and moved swiftly on to attacking his election opponent. This, in fact, is classic Trump. The behaviour was identifiable in the Seventies, when a racial discrimination suit was brought against Mr Trump and Mr Trump was persuaded to hit back with a counter-suit alleging that the government was discriminating against him. If attacked, he returns fire.
Such conduct is normally associated with the playground, but at least there it should end up being punished by teacher. Instead, so many in the Republican establishment are grudgingly standing by Mr Trump. A fair number have condemned him; some have retracted their endorsements. Many have simply fallen silent.
One could argue that protest is a waste of time – that the election is going ahead, Mr Trump’s name is on the ballot, and vanity would prevent him from quitting. But, again, the likelihood of a Trump implosion was known well before he got the nomination. Why did the leadership not coalesce early in the primaries to defeat him? Why did they not pull out the stops to block him at the convention? And why did primary voters support him? He has raised issues that clearly touched a nerve: immigration, jobs, trade. But it is hard to shake off the impression that a relatively small proportion of voters have forced an unpopular nominee on to the wider electorate.
That sounds familiar. The British Labour Party has made a similar choice. Jeremy Corbyn is different from Mr Trump, of course. His chief flaws involve friendliness to the IRA and Arab terror groups and failure to take a decisive stand against anti-Semitism and sexist abuse within his own party. Again, though, what is striking is that Mr Corbyn’s supporters knew about his extremist politics before electing him – twice. For them, ideological purity comes before electability.
Their choice does not impact just upon themselves. They are denying British voters strong representation and a credible opposition. The same goes for Ukip, which has lost two leaders over the summer. Last week, one of the potential replacements – Steven Woolfe – had an altercation with a fellow Ukip MEP and ended up in hospital. This behaviour betrays everyone who ever voted for Ukip’s candidates, just as Labour’s absurdity betrays the millions who voted for a relatively moderate party manifesto in 2015, and Mr Trump’s crass sexism betrays the party that took a chance on him, too. We are lucky, here in Britain, that the Tories sorted out their leadership election swiftly, elevating a woman of substance and experience. Whatever disagreements there might be within the Conservative Party about her approach to immigration or Brexit, be in no doubt: we have an adult in charge of our country.
When venerable parties lose their moral centre or when they fly off to the ideological extremes, however, the entire democratic process is affected. Mr Trump’s new scandal has eclipsed proper scrutiny of the latest email leak concerning Mrs Clinton. This election is defined by partisan hatreds: those in the middle will probably decide how to vote based on who they dislike the least. In the future, good men and women must come to the aid of their parties and pick better leaders. Nations as wealthy and well educated as America and Britain must be able to do better than this.
The likelihood of a Trump implosion was known before he got nominated. Why did party leaders not coalesce in the primaries to defeat him? It is hard to shake off the impression that a relatively small proportion of voters have forced an unpopular nominee on to the wider electorate