So much has gone on in the U.S. primary races in the last few weeks it's hard to know where to start but there are a few things that might need explanation. So I am taking this week to clarify why some of the pundits are so surprised about how the primary season is unfolding.
First, it is unusual to see how the Republican Party is attempting to undermine the presumptive nominee of their party: Donald Trump. The GOP "establishment" who, last year, did not take the Trump bid seriously is now taking it very seriously. "Why?" you may ask.
Because now it's serious.
MSNBC ran an interesting article on their website entitled, "Meet the Republicans speaking out against Trump" and the list was a long one: elected and former officials including senators and governors, conservative commentators and current and former campaign strategists.
Early in January, John McCain's "longtime aide," Mark Salter, wrote an article for Esquire in which he said: "I've always distrusted people who never question their assumptions or test their opinions against their critics' arguments. I believe empathy is the starting point of wisdom, and imagining things from an opponent's point of view is essential to solving problems in a closely divided polity. Yet on the subject of Donald Trump, my mind is closed. Slammed shut. Triple-bolted. Sealed like a tomb."
Salter was incredulous that people might choose to vote for Trump. How could salt-of-the-earth people have become so angry with politicians and so disillusioned with American life?
Neil Godbout got it right the other day in his editorial "Don't tread on me" when he wrote about the anger of the "non-urban, blue-collar worker."
But how does that resentment turn to a vote for Trump?
Well, he speaks directly to the consequences of free trade and the integration into a global economy when the government has little control to mitigate the impact on disenfranchised workers. Trump's suggestion that he can return Apple jobs to America sounds good on the surface but is wholly unrealistic. "Why can't we make those iPads here?" he asks.
This question may seem perfectly logical but is economically impossible to achieve under the current global economic regime.
He delights in saying that he can get a better deal for the American worker but these are flippant and unsubstantiated claims.
The American consumer is addicted to products from other countries made by workers with wages far below those of the U.S. The products produced elsewhere are a critical part of the consumer culture and of the expectation that wants are just as important as needs. Polls have shown that the labour vote in many states is going to Trump and to Sanders. They both appeal to similar demographics of workers.
The fact is that the "establishment" has opened up markets around the world. Free trade has provided more opportunity for these inexpensive, well-made products to enter the U.S. market. The quid pro quo is that these products are not likely be made in America and the irony is that American political culture resists government involvement in policies and programs that could help disenfranchised workers.
The Republican Party may not be able to stop the Trump nomination.
When Trump says that there might be riots if he doesn't get the nomination I think he may be stating a simple and frightening truth rather than a threat. Some voters really want him to be president because he has made them believe he can restore what they have lost.
Of course not all voters want him and here is where the U.S. primary process is interesting.
In the open primary in Ohio, Democrats were allowed to vote in the Republican primary. The rule is that primary voters choose which primary to vote in (Republican or Democrat). And Democrats did vote in the Republican primary. And they voted for John Kasich. And they did so, at least in part, to stop Trump from winning the nomination.
The Trump (and in many ways the Sanders) phenomenon is a measure of the anger directed to the American "establishment" that pushed to open up global markets.
Americans cannot turn back the hands of time on free trade but they could have an honest national dialogue about how they might mitigate some of its impacts.
