In the Rob Reiner film The American President, Michael J. Fox's character says, "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand".
Isn't this pretty much a perfect explanation for Trump's nomination?
Nope. This is the last election cycle where Republicans will have any chance at all. Henceforth it will be demographically impossible for a repugnican to win La Casa Blanca.
When was there last a president that actually 'walked the walk' of republican political thought? Nixon, no. G.R.Ford, yes. Reagan, no. G.H.W.Bush. partly. G.W.Bush, a parody.
The success stories are few and far between. The republican party have steadily become more and more about "our good old days" and less and less about "our future".
I think the evolution (or devolution?) of the party is pretty interesting. Once they adopted the anti-civil rights stance in the 50's and 60's, and then took up the "pro life" cause in order to appeal to those who identify as Christians, seems they completely lost sight of their "small government" philosophy.
Yep, seems that now, they only have appeal to those who think that the days of inequality and intolerance were "good ole days".
Thank you for your response!
Probably not but then will the Democratic party ever produce a viable candidate for President? For the last several years that wasn't the case. Nor does it look to be the case in the future. So here we are, a two party circus that P.T. Barnum would be proud of.
Possibly, but Trump is definitely not the right candidate for the job.
1) The much maligned 'Tea Party' was the rank and file's last gasp at small government...and I think we all know what happened to that idea.
2) Inequality and intolerance comes in many nasty forms. There are those who would readily abandon the lessons of history and heap the same oppression on those who've now fallen out of political favor. Try being vocal about (actually) small government now and see what happens.
People give lip service to leadership, but when they find some, they don't trust it. They want drivership: someone to FORCE everybody to be good, or at least to do everything the way the central authorities command. (The central authorities are never identified.) That is why the people always elect the sleaziest candidate they can find. The Republicans have trouble finding somebody sleazy enough. It was 1928 the last time the GOP won without a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket.
And, since some nitwit always challenges that, here is the list:
Herbert Hoover March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933 NO BUSH, NO NIXON
Ike January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961 VP Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
Ronald Reagan January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989 VP George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
George W. Bush January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
More precisely, I think it's the next part of the comment that applies. "They don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."
As long as Twitter and Facebook are among the main sources for what scarce research is actually done out there, the American public with simply allow themselves to be told where to look, who to pay attention to and why.
I don't think there is going to BE a Republican party pretty soon.
