Republican and Democratc Debates

It certainly is more fun watching the Republican than the Democratic debates. Lots of fireworks. Last night's CBS South Carolina debate was like WWE.

The president properly has very little real power. All he can really do is persuade. This, in any case, is the essential talent for any effective leader. The most important qualification for the job, therefore, is to be a good communicator. Without this, one may get the office, but one changes nothing. You just follow polls; anyone could do the same. Being a great communicator was the secret of a Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, FDR, Thatcher.

The last few outings, the Republicans have been I'll - served in this regard. It is not so much that Romney spoke conservatism only as a second language, as that he was a manager, not a communicator. His instinct was to seek board consensus and go from there. This is why I preferred Gingrich. He could make the case for change.

This time out, Rubio seems the most talented communicator. When he made the case not long ago for religion in public life, I wanted to stand up and cheer. When, last night, he defended George Bush and the invasion of Iraq, he was the only candidate who said what needed to be said. Whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and whether or not Bush knew, was not terribly relevant. This was not the legal basis for the war. It was that Saddam was violating the ceasefire.

Rubio takes a lot of heat for co-sponsoring the "gang of eight" immigration bill. Bush and Kasich also get flak for being too soft on illegal immigration. By contrast, Trump rocketed to the top of the polls on this issue, by calling Mexican migrants rapists and murderers and promising to build a border wall.

Truth is, I agree with Rubio, Bush, and Kasich. First, as the establishment knows, the Republican party does not have a bright future if it alienates the Hispanic demographic. Second, while it might appeal to the working class at first glance that competing with cheaper Mexican labour is undesirable, keeping illegal migrants out cannot solve the problem. It is easy enough just to move your plant to Mexico. In fact, in order to compete and keep revenues, incomes, and the economy up the best thing to do is probably to throw the doors wide open. Third, basic principle: the average person produces a lot more wealth than they consume: people are the most valuable resource.

Rubio did very well this time, and probably erased the memory of his disastrous performance last debate. His problem is that Bush and Kasich also had very good night's. I like both Bush and Kasich; both are very strong candidates. But if the non-Trump, non-Trump vote does not consolidate behind one option soon, the race will be bet between these two.

I really do not like Trump. In essence, his case and his appeal is proto-Fascist. He reminds me distinctly of Benito Mussolini. His selling proposition is simply that he is much smarter than anyone who is doing politics now. This is obviously unlikely. It is also the good old Fascist leadership principle: the leader is a great genius, and everything is left to him.

The hair is different, but the chin is the same/

Neither do I like Cruz. He has now been accused by Carson, Trump, and Rubio of multiple dirty tricks in the three contests we have seen so far. Where there is smoke, there is probably fire, and it troubles me that his congressional colleagues to a man and woman seem not to like him. The most fundamental requirement in a leader, more basic than being a good communicator, more basic even than mere competence, is honesty. The problems of the Third World are easily explained: a corrupt ruling class.

Much less interesting to watch was the recent Wisconsin Democratic debate. Clinton was distinctly more subdued and less aggressive this time than last. My guess is that her own internal polling confirms our impression that this tone hurts her and helps Sanders. As a results no fireworks; and no gaffes. Unfortunately, when she is not on the attack, Clinton is terribly boring to listen to. The problem is that she is so transparently calculated in everything that you already know what she is going to say before she says it. Hillary reminds me uncannily of Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, she seems prepared to say anything, if it is to her advantage, and you get the feeling she thinks she is clever to do it. Not a moral being.

Sanders' ideas may be crazy, but his sincerity contrasts well with this. I don't care about his politics so much as I like him more personally. I think for most people that's more important. For me, it is more important.

A note: the problem came up in the Democratic debate that blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population. This is in itself apparently proof of discrimination. "Clearly," says Sanders, "we are dealing with institutional racism." Not mentioned is the plain fact that males are even more disproportionately represented. If the one fact proves discrimination, so does the other.

Clinton vs. Sanders

Reaction to the Democratic candidates’ debate has now split into two definite camps. The political pros and commentators all believe Clinton won hands down, probably clinching the Democratic nomination in the process. All over but for sweeping up the confetti. On the other hand, a focus group of ordinary Democrats hosted by Fox News, and Drudge Report’s online poll, both think Bernie Sanders won by a wide margin.

I think they are both right, in different ways. The policy wonks think Clinton won, because she won in terms of a formal debate. She had the strongest answers, she had the best command of the facts, she was never stumped or put onto the back foot. Sanders won the likability contest. As I have argued before, the likability contest is what really matters in terms of votes. So I give the win to Sanders.

At first glance, Sanders was doing it all wrong. His manner reminded me of Queen Victoria’s complaint about Gladstone: that when he addressed her, he addressed her as though he were speaking to a public meeting. Sanders had no notion that he had to tone down the voice and the gestures for TV. On the other hand, perversely, that might have helped him on likability. Lack of slickness can be a plus.

In declaring their winners, both sides focus on the same moment, the moment that will live in history. It was when Sanders volunteered that he and the voters are sick of hearing about Hillary’s “damned emails.”

To the politicos, this was, as Sanders himself called it, a political blunder. He threw away his best card against Hillary, as they see it. They ask if he really wants the nomination.

But didn’t it make him look like a good guy--refusing the chance to calumniate against an opponent? No dirty politics. Not acting like a politician at all, in a cycle when everyone seems to be fed up with politicians. Why wouldn’t you love him for it?

At the same time, it also made him look like a grown up, and everyone else, including Clinton, like children. At that moment, he owned Clinton. He was the kindly father or grandfather coming to the aid of a little girl. So who looks presidential now?

There was also a certain shrewdness to it. Sanders said everyone is tired of hearing about the emails, and wants to talk issues. Now, what is really the best way to put the email issue behind us? Who is talking issues in this campaign? Answer: a) don’t nominate Clinton, and b) Bernie Sanders.

In any case, Sanders does not need to talk about the emails. Everyone else is. In fact, by refusing to, he ensured that the emails were the lead-off story coming from the debate. Crazy like an old grey fox.

Some say Sanders also stumbled in refusing to agree to tougher gun control. Again, these would be people who think his main appeal is ideological—that his constituency is the left wing of the Democrats. No, I think his appeal is that he is prepared to say right out, for example, that he is a socialist, as he did again during the debate, when this is understood to be a suicidal move politically. This marks him as honest and principled, not a cynical politician. By the same token, diverging now and then from the far-left line reinforces this perception, that Bernie Sanders is in politics for principle, and not for power.

Many of those pros who think Hillary won also believe that the other contenders were weak, that they would have been buried in the Republican debates. That may well be so. Those on the left are less often challenged on their beliefs, notably by the press, and so they do not learn to think about them closely and are not that well-equipped to defend them if they ever are challenged.

But I think Sanders would be formidable.