The Nevada caucuses took place yesterday. For those not following the American news, these gatherings of voters across the state of Nevada are the latest stage of the process of choosing candidates for the Presidential Election in November. It seems a foregone conclusion that President Trump will be the Republican candidate running for another four years in office. However, on the Democrat side a candidate is far from clear.
A field that once numbered at least 24 has been whittled down to less than a dozen, among whom there is no obvious front-runner. Mrs. Clinton was the clear party favorite back in 2016, but had to fend off a strong challenge from Mr. Sanders, an independent who has represented the state of Vermont in the US Senate since 2007.
Mr. Sanders is running again and if by chance he should win the nomination and be elected in the fall, he will, at age 79 become the oldest president in US history. He’s an independent who joins the Democrat party at times when it is convenient; namely to run for presidential office on the Democrat ticket. He describes himself as a Democratic Socialist, and his radical policies probably place him to the left of all his Senate colleagues. For this reason he touts his independence.
Mrs. Clinton was the winner in Nevada in 2016; Mr. Sanders won the most support yesterday. Nevada is only the third state to vote in a selection process that will last until a winning candidate is nominated for the Presidency by a convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in July.
Another clear winner in Nevada yesterday was Tyson Fury. The Gypsy King from Manchester, England, who first shocked the boxing world in 2015 by beating long-time Heavyweight World Champion, Vladimir Klitschko. He later surrendered his titles and retired unbeaten from boxing. Two years later he made a comeback and drew a challenge match against American world champion Deontay Wilder in 2018. Fifteen months later Fury was back in the ring for a rematch in Las Vegas against Wilder. He won, while presenting what the media have described as: the most destructive performance of his boxing life.[i]
Fury may have won in the ring; I want to suggest that fury is winning in American politics. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 unleashed streams of vitriolic attacks from both the Democrats and segments of the media. Mr. Trump has not helped his cause with his mastery of Twittering ineptitude. The Mueller Inquiry, the Kavanaugh hearings, and the recent impeachment process have all given the spirit of anger an opportunity to expose itself.
I watched the Democrat candidates debate on stage in Nevada last week. Six of them qualified for the debate including billionaire Michael Bloomberg who is self-funding his campaign, rising in the polls, and has yet to participate in any of the state voting. I was immediately struck by the lack of civility as candidates appeared not to pay attention to the moderator’s rules, spoke over one another and were often harshly critical of their fellow participants. But more than that I regret that I saw little real statesmanship at work. A tired former Vice President, an angry progressive socialist, a strident college professor who wants to levy a wealth tax to provide massive injections of government spending, and a former mayor of a small mid-Western city are among those who join Mr. Bloomberg among the choices. Speaking of former Republican Mr. Bloomberg, and independent Mr. Sanders, noting that neither are long-time democrats, former South Bend, mayor, Mr. Buttigieg observed: Most Americans don’t see where they fit if they’ve got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks money ought to be the root of all power. He went on to say: Let’s put forward somebody who’s actually a Democrat. We shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out. We can do better. [ii] But that comment was one of the rare moments of civility, albeit highly critical, in an evening filled with what might be regarded as hate-speech if it came from the mouths of others.
I realized that four of the six on stage last Wednesday evening are over 70 years old, and wonder what the chances are they will all still be alive come inauguration day in January next year. Prolonged anger and the associated stress are rarely attributes for longevity.
I also wonder how the headlines will read if Mr. Bloomberg does gain the nomination to challenge Mr. Trump in November’s election. His Wikipedia entry states: Throughout his business career, Bloomberg has made numerous statements which have been considered insulting, derogatory, sexist or misogynistic.[iii] It would be sad if the only person the Democrats could agree upon to challenge an incumbent billionaire New York businessman who has been accused of racism and misogyny was an even wealthier billionaire New York businessman who has been accused of racism and misogyny.
Following the last presidential election, an article entitled The Culture of Nastiness appeared in the New York Times. Teddy Wayne wrote: Despite efforts to curb hate speech, eradicate bullying and extend tolerance, a culture of nastiness has metastasized in which meanness is routinely rewarded, and common decency and civility are brushed aside.[iv] Donald Trump’s reference to That Nasty Woman, and Hilary Clinton’s statement that half of Mr. Trump’s supporters could be placed in a basket of deplorables only emphasize the thesis of the article. Many of the comments last Wednesday evidence a further decline in civility and a departure from true statesmanship.
Last night in Nevada, Fury was the winner. I pray that fury, with all its accompanying anger and rudeness is not the winner in November.
[ii] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/19 (accessed 2/23/2020)
[iv] The Culture of Nastiness – Teddy Wayne in the New York Times – February 18,2017