The counter-candidacy
If there is a cardinal sacrament in self-government, it is the election process. Candidates campaign in various ways to voters, who cast ballots based on their evaluations of the candidates.
That’s representative democracy: government of the people, by the people and for the people achieved through political selection.
Embodying several of the Bill of Rights, including free speech and assembly, the American election process has been a stunningly successful one despite occasional abuses. Voter fraud, cemeteries supporting a candidate, poll taxes, literacy tests, polling-place intimidation … the list might seem long, but in the big picture it pales against a far longer list of social, economic and civic triumphs achieved by the USA.
Even in De Tocqueville’s day, we had a penchant as a people for suffering divisive elections only to reunite once the ballots were counted. Our election process has a sacred quality that has encouraged vigorous public discourse and debate, but also acceptance and tolerance—till the next election.
But this year, in a troublesome trend that departs from both historical reality and prudence, a new variety of protest has introduced a form of counter-candidacy into the presidential campaign.
Those misguided souls wandering America’s social fringe who believe protesters built this country are nothing new. But traditionally, protesters seek to influence government policy or legislation—not to protest the exercise of freedom by any individual or group of citizens.
Yet in Campaign 2016, that appears to be the unapologetic goal of small but well-planned and publicized efforts to derail the Trump train. Whoever heard of protesters trying to shut down a presidential front-runner’s rally? And, by default, deprive attendees of their right to hear the leading candidate make his case?
It’s one thing to advocate for or against one party candidate or another. It’s altogether another to try and torpedo aspects of the election process itself in hopes of preventing a popular candidate from continuing to campaign.
Welcome to the 21st century version of the proverbial “shoot the messenger” mindset.
Whatever the contorted rationalization is behind ideas like disrupting traffic around a political opponent’s rally in hopes of causing a cancellation, it’s about as American as Stalinistic purges.
Maybe soon we’ll have protesters who don’t have the votes in a looming legislative act forget about trying to use the democratic process, and instead just try to block congressional roadways to keep members from voting at all. Or protesters fearing an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling who will give up on generating public support, and just generate obstructions that keep justices from arriving and being able to issue any decision.
It’s political narcissism and intolerance at its ugliest: The protesters know better than the people, but the people may be fooled if they hear a candidate’s message, so the candidate must be stopped from delivering it.
On top of being contemptible, these anti-Trump protesters are laughably hypocritical. They seem eager to adorn themselves with some sort of mantle of public service, as if somehow they’re a protected class undertaking some noble initiative for the greater good.
But there’s precious little “good” (in the virtuous sense) being promoted through their actions. News photos show protesters holding “Love, not Hate” signs in their hands, with demanding “or else!” attitudes written all over their angry faces.
This seething righteousness about trampling Trump supporters’ rights now has a poster child.
April Foster, 29, reportedly self-described as a transgendered “commie” feminist, was arrested and charged in Kansas City for allegedly slapping a police horse in an attempt to spook him. He/she may or may not be convicted in court, but public opinion is its own jury and the now-viral photos of him/her—teeth bared and arm outstretched in angry gesture—present a vivid and valid portrayal of the movement’s ground troops.
Like most other anti-Trump efforts, these latest shenanigans seem to be backfiring.
If I wasn’t convinced of consummate incompetence among the Republican ruling elite, I’d almost believe this whole non-Trump smear tactic to be a brilliantly staged reverse-psychology operation.
Remember that line in American Hustle? Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) is talking about how he uses feigned disinterest to sucker his conned clients: “The crazy thing about people, the more you say no, the more they want in on something. It is so stupid.”
What he’s really saying is, it is so smart—if you play it right.
Who has less credibility than a GOP weakling like Mitt Romney to try and discredit Trump? Sure, trot him out and give him talking-head time. Remember how persuasive he was in 2012?
Then gleefully watch as the polls for Trump spike in support.
Rouse up some vile, foul-mouthed protesters to obstruct not Trump, but our hallowed history of town-hall rallies. Sure, let them rage in loud, profane opposition. With enemies like that, who needs endorsements? Then pop champagne as Trump’s numbers soar even higher.
Truth is stranger than fiction, they say.
But nah, at the end of the nonfictional day, it really is just incompetent Republican leadership, intolerant radical protesters, and a uniquely popular and unconventional candidate who scares the Democratic establishment even more than his own party’s.