More punches thrown at Trump rallies
A person at a Trump campaign rally in Arizona kicks and punches a protester being escorted out of the premises.
PT0M47S 620 349- Republicans' 100-day plan to stop Trump
- Trump refuses to condemn supporters of violence at rallies
- Keith Richards threatened Trump with a knife
With his primary victories last Tuesday, Donald Trump is now the only candidate with a reasonable chance of winning the Republican nomination before the convention in July. In the war for control of the GOP, party leaders now face an unwelcome choice: allow Trump to lead the party to ruinous defeat in November, or launch a preemptive strike against his nomination.
On Wednesday, The Washington Post editorial board came out resoundingly in favour of the latter. They called for party leaders to do everything in their power to force an open convention and then deny Trump the nomination. A few days later, the New York Times detailed the efforts of a group of Republicans organising a "100-day campaign" to do just that.
During his campaign, Donald Trump has shown disdain for the democratic process. Photo: AP
But party leaders should think carefully before committing themselves to a preemptive strike against Trump. Not only could it cost them the election – it could cost them the party itself.
As the authors of the preemptive strike doctrine that triggered the Iraq war, Republican leaders should by now be well-versed in its many problems. Even if they successfully deposed Trump, GOP leaders would still be stuck with a fractured, fractious party. Trump supporters would view any move against their candidate as the action of an imperious and undemocratic establishment denying the will of the people. They would not be wrong.
The Trump and anti-Trump factions would be at each other's throats at the convention, with little hope of reconciling in time for the November election. Indeed, the party would devolve into an all-out civil war, with the Trump insurgency splitting off for a third-party run. True, Trump signed a no-third-party pledge back in September. But there is little doubt Trump will shred that non-aggression pact as soon as it no longer serves his purposes.
With the party's vote split, both the Republicans and Trump would be smashed in the November election, and party leaders would shoulder the blame for their role in denying Trump the nomination. And that's the best-case scenario.
That's because there is a very good chance a preemptive strike at the convention simply wouldn't work. To stop a Trump nomination, party leaders would first need to prevent him from getting the required 1237 delegates before July. There is no reason to think they can. Party leaders have been trying to stop Trump from acquiring delegates for months.
They have blamed their failure on a divided field, arguing that the large number of candidates has prevented the consolidation of the anti-Trump vote. Yet, this line of reasoning has never been borne out. The field keeps shrinking and Trump's vote share keeps growing.
But let's say Trump enters the convention without the required delegates. In that scenario, there are any number of rule changes that GOP leaders can employ to try to deny Trump the nomination.
Getting support from the delegates and the general public to make those changes, however, is a different story. While such chicanery was a hallmark of brokered conventions during their long and storied history in the United States, the tradition of delegate-swapping and backroom-brokering disappeared more than 60 years ago in favour of the current primary system.
Voters now expect a democratic process. As a John Kasich supporter said, in order to explain why the leadership should not try to stop Trump: "They want to control the election because they don't like Trump. And I understand that. But you have to let the people speak."
A preemptive strike, then, is a hazardous move with limited odds of success. The political calculus favours letting Trump fail on his own, allowing his defeat to pave the way for a Trump-free Republican future.
Yet there is one argument left for a preemptive strike against Trump: the damage that could be done to democracy should he remain poised to win the presidency.
During his primary campaign, Trump has wielded political racism and political violence to build his coalition. He has shown disdain for the democratic process, heaping praise on dictators and threatening riots at the convention.
Winning the nomination of a major party despite all that would confer legitimacy on Trump and Trumpism. And it would place Trump in a position to win the presidency. While the odds are long, any number of unforeseeable events – a terrorist attack, a market collapse, a Clinton indictment – could springboard him from candidate to president. And that's an alarming prospect. As a candidate, Trump's willingness to muzzle the press, track Muslim citizens and shred international alliances is, for the moment, just rhetorical. As president, he would represent a serious threat to US democracy.
With so much hanging in the balance, the long odds against unseating Trump should not dissuade Republican leaders from trying. If they care not only about their party but their country, stopping Trump is now a moral imperative.
Nicole Hemmer is an Age columnist. She is a research affiliate at the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney and a visiting research associate at the University of Virginia's Miller Centre.
53 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed