by Stoker
A long time ago, and in another place (alright, it was up to a few weeks ago and in the now sadly defunct Shaw Sheet magazine) I was wont to keep readers entranced by a monthly quick gallop around the complex racetrack that comprises American politics. And if any month and year is the heart-in-mouth moment of that subject it is this one, the last month before the quadrennial Presidential elections, due on Tuesday 5th November. So indulge me in a quick canter.
Only Connect readers will know everything from a soupçon to a lot about this present contest, but oddly it has featured little in the UK media [Really?! Ed]. The reason is probably because there has been, you probably noticed, an election in the UK recently, and very boring it was; and of course there is the super exciting contest (I jest) for the leadership of the Conservative Party playing at this moment. Don’t worry if you miss this latter, there’ll be another one along in six months or so.
But in the US of A things are reaching what is usually an almost unbearable level of excitement, aided by the show business nature of American electioneering. But somehow, not so much this time. As in the UK, it is fair to say that there is a popular disillusionment about politics generally, and a downright suspicion and dislike of politicians. Mr Trump, who is the Barnum and Bailey of our times, does have his true fans still, but his rallies are strangely muted compared with his 2016 and 2020 jamborees, and the Greatest President Ever (his words, not mine) seems to have calmed down. This is not necessarily a compliment; it was the wacky originality that made him seem like a showman, a showman who could be trusted to run a great show. But now he seems grumpy, humourless, not a man for the people, and, dare one say it, not quite so quick on the draw as he used to be, a little forgetful.
Also, oddly, although Melania seems to be backing him in her usual inscrutable way (she does have a book to sell, her new autobiography),The Donald’s family is notable by their absence from his side. Odd this; there is no suggestion of a falling out, indeed they seem as close as ever, but they are not around. Maybe they are busy, or just judging that if they wanted to run for high office in the future it is better to be seen as their own man, or indeed, woman.
This column has always thought Kamala Harris a more skilled politician than the media gave her credit for. Her campaign for the Presidential nomination in 2020 was a disaster it is true; badly prepared, a nervous candidate who had not worked up the polish enough to see off Joe Biden and a hostile media. And she was up against one of the greatest political operators of our times. Joe knew how to deal with upstarts from the west coast and had the press on his side. But now she is more confident, bright, human, friendly, funny. She is coming over exactly as the approved issue Presidential candidate should. Confident enough even to make fun of The Donald’s age and slowing down. She could not do that when working for Joe, but now the age gap is very much in her favour.
Which leads us to deviate to a story told us over a year ago. Kamala, so the story went, is both a very skilled political operator (ho-hum, well maybe) and a very ambitious politician (no doubt about that). She and a couple of very close advisors had what Blackadder fans will recognise as a cunning plan. This was to be Joe’s loyal lieutenant, however badly he treated her – and he did. The whole objective was to let Joe win the nomination, which he was almost guaranteed as sitting President and one of the few unifying characters in a party which is slowly splitting apart, losing its traditional blue collar base, and increasingly out of touch with many aspirational Democrat voters. Then, when he was safely tucked up with the nomination and when it was too late to do anything but take his Veep as the candidate – then attention would be drawn to his absent-minded shambling ways his inability to hold a coherent thought. And in would walk Kamala, waving and smiling. Could this be true? Of course not; of course not; do you think?
The story came from a Trump supporter. Pity, you might think, that if the idea had crossed any senior people’s minds that they did not apply it to Mr Trump. Mr Vance, his vice-presidential nominee, is more impressive than you might credit from watching US TV or reading the Washington Post. He is young, photogenic, has a brain, ambition, and a pleasing way with the voters. Which is more than you can argue for Mr Waltz, Kamala’s choice, though Kamala’s big problem there was to balance her ticket. There are not many impressive white male politicians from the Mid-West, or rather, there are but they tend to be Republicans.
To cover the campaign properly, we should say that there are candidates other than these two. We mention Chase Oliver for the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein for the Green Party, and also Cornell West, a feisty independent. We won’t mention the other nine, partly because they have no chance because none of them are registered in enough states and partly because they have no hope anyway. Neither have the named three, but we stick our necks out and put the Libertarian in third place and the Green in fourth. This is not all that bold, as this has been the pattern in previous contests. The Libertarians scored over four million votes in 2016, and do have a seat in the House of Representatives and in various state legislatures. But they have failed to excite the voters this time, and it may be a close thing with the Greens.
Which brings us back to the main contenders. Who is it to be? The polls suggest a close-run thing, but with Kamala in the lead. The problem for her is that Mr Trump is doing well in the states where Ms Harris ought to be well in the lead, such as Pennsylvania. What underlies this, which is too complex to begin to mull over here, is that the two main parties are undergoing massive changes in their core support. The Democrats are increasingly middle-class, academics, government employees. The Republicans, though still the party of business, at least of old business (the loyalties of the new e-industries’ employees and owners are, with the exception of Mr Trump’s new best friend Elon Musk, more difficult to call), are increasingly the white male workers party, those who used to be the backbone of the Democrats. It’s much more complicated than that; for instance the Republicans are stronger among ethnic minorities than might be expected. But the best summary could be that the Democrats are persons of education and some discernment, and the Republicans are hard-working vulgarians. And before readers write in protest, neither of those pithy descriptions is intended as complementary or insulting.
So who will win? We will tell you that in the November edition, or possibly not if the editor has had more than enough!
[He will gladly hear more. The next edition is out on November 11 by which time we will know the result…or will we? Ed]
1 Comment