A Republican presidential election debate is ongoing as this is written. As with the preceding Republican and Democratic campaign speeches that have previously pretended to be debates, the presentations are crafted more as entertainment than as political substance.
A new feature appears to be a concerted reaction by the Republicans against the well-established Left leanings of the TV host network. CNBC vs GOP comes to mind, rather than CNBC setting the rankings for the GOP, as may have been intended. The Republicans circled their wagons, leaving an image of a TV network as an ungracious if not inept host. The media questioners were left looking like they had brought a knife to a gunfight.
CNBC appeared unprepared for this, seemingly having forgotten that an attack can be the most effective defense. Candidate Cruz summed it up, saying that obviously, none of the CNBC hosts would ever vote for a Republiccan, for which said hosts had no replay.
It was, for one tired of endless political hornswoggling, fun even if hardly serious.
However, as usual in these affairs, no one mentioned the unsustainable debt or perrennial deficits with any concrete solutions in mind. None alluded to the Federal Reserve’s policies in any constructive way nor were the reductions in available work and pressures upon middle class status held up for discussion.
That obviously resulted from the oncoming impoverishment that government is accelerating but cannot prevent at this point. The hordes of immigrants will lower the earnings of Americans, so will the anti-fossil energy and other government programs beloved of the Left. On the world scale, Americans are now overpaid; competition with China and India will resolve that, though Americans will not be pleased. Economics is called the “dismal science” for a reason.
AS these candidates spoke, we wondered how their televised attitudes would play out in the Congress that has just pleased both Democrats and Republicans by electing Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House?
“Divide et impera” has been appreciated by the candidates; they will no longer present targets of opportunity on TV, to be defeated in detail. But their maneuvers remain more entertaining than substantial and all the candidates, including Hillary Clinton, must anticipate the likelihood that they will find themselves the next Herbert Hoover. We will be surprised to hear any politician level with voters on the economy until after the coming financial crash. And then, they will lie about their prospects for reducing the pain.
Of necessity then, we see the coming election as more or less a charade with reality carefully hidden on all sides. We are not going to like that reality when it arrives and none of the candidates will raise that possibility. It’s no way to win an election, right?
So we should anticipate a campaign of continued and hopefully increasingly professional entertainment. It may not provide confidence but it should be fun.