By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, March 04, 2016
When losing to the star of a reality TV show, is it
really so crazy to resort to reality-show tactics to defeat him?
I’m not referring to Marco Rubio’s decision to fight fire
with fire with Donald Trump and return insult for insult. I, for one, thought
it was wholly appropriate for Rubio to give the schoolyard bully a taste of his
own medicine. The evidence shows that Rubio’s attacks, while tardy, paid off.
Voters not already enraptured with Trump are open to persuasion, and late
deciders broke disproportionately for Rubio on Super Tuesday in most races.
Indeed, once again, most voters voted against Trump, not
for him, and that’s where reality-show tactics come in.
Not counting Top
Chef and Naked and Afraid, I’m
not a big fan of reality shows, but I’ve watched my share of Survivor, The Bachelor, and even Trump’s own personal propaganda series, The Apprentice. It seems to me that in
many of these shows, the game is played the same way: Groups form alliances.
Sometimes these alliances are formal, often they are tacit and voluntary — but
they are all temporary.
At the end of the season, the winner is the guy or gal
who was in the right alliance until the alliance no longer served his or her
needs. Fans may be happy or disappointed based on who emerges, but it’s silly
to say that Tiffany stole the Bachelor from Rhonda. That’s simply how the game
is played.
Well, welcome to the big leagues. Trump has been playing
the game all along, and now that he’s ahead, he doesn’t think anyone should be
allowed to change their tactics to beat him.
If this had been a two-person race from the beginning —
as the Democratic race has been since Iowa — Trump would probably be as far
behind as Bernie Sanders is. But Trump took advantage of the fact that the
Republican field was so divided for so long. Nothing wrong with that.
But there’s also nothing wrong with trying to stop Trump.
Alliances are part of the game. The delegate system allows for it. And that’s
why Mitt Romney’s advice in his powerful anti-Trump speech Thursday was
entirely valid. If you’re against Trump and you live in Ohio, vote for John
Kasich. If you’re against Trump in Florida, vote for Rubio. If you’re against
Trump in a state where Ted Cruz is ahead, vote for Cruz.
Starting March 15, primary winners get all of a state’s
delegates. Losers don’t even get steak knives. In proportional Virginia, Rubio
lost to Trump, but Trump got only one more delegate than Rubio. If no one gets
to the convention with a majority of the delegates, the convention chooses a
nominee. It might be Trump. Then again, it might not.
This may feel like cheating, but it isn’t. It’s just that
conventions have been infomercials for so long, we’re not used to the idea that
one might actually matter. Also, for the last 50 years, any candidate who could
make it past Super Tuesday as a front-runner was acceptable to a majority of
the party, and the pressure to coalesce was strong. Things are different this
time because Trump is different. His supporters — many of whom are not
Republicans, Trump is fond of noting — may not like it, but the man is simply
unacceptable to many conservatives.
When you say this to Trump supporters, they reply by
hurling a word salad about a shadowy organization called “The Establishment”
that’s working to thwart the will of the majority. Talk-radio hosts rant about
this cabal’s effort to “steal” the nomination from Trump.
For instance, Romney’s speech was denounced by many as an
outrageous effort to sway voters. Similar criticisms were made when the
magazine I work for, National Review,
dedicated a special issue to opposing Trump.
“How dare you try to tell voters how to vote!” cried
countless pro-Trump cable-news commentators, pundits, and radio hosts. It’s a
fascinating complaint coming from people who make a living by offering their
opinions on how voters should vote.
It’s also nonsense. If opposing Trump is now the
definition of the establishment, then roughly 66 percent of GOP primary voters
are members of the establishment. The “silent majority” isn’t a majority and
most certainly isn’t silent. Alas, “The Loud Plurality for Trump!” doesn’t look
as good on homemade signs at rallies.
Trump is stoppable, according to the rules. And if he is
stopped and that makes you sad, don’t hate the players, hate the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment