Donald Trump and Frankenstein’s Monster
“I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life.“
- Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
Let’s begin with one of the few (perhaps only) statements politicos of every variety concede: the 2016 Republican Primary upturned all expectation and prediction. From the Baltimore-bred Ben Carson, a neuro-surgeon by trade now exchanging barbs with top-tier campaigns, to Jeb Bush’s befuddled attempt at the presidency, pundits and politicians alike have found themselves scratching their heads once, twice, and then forevermore. But, the most phenomenal, huge, terrific story of them all takes form in the ascendency of the media’s favorite candidate and salesman extraordinaire — Donald Trump.
Having now maintained the GOP frontrunner position since late July, Mr. Trump stands in elite company. Since 1975, or the dawn of modern surveying, the GOP poll leader in the latter half of the pre-election year has secured the eventual nomination six out of eight times. Notably, the two elections that disrupt trend occurred in the last eight years. In 2012, no candidate mustered a consistent lead up through the Iowa caucus. The 2008 race, meanwhile, offers the best-last-hope for the anti-Trump Republicans. Right up until Iowa, Rudy Guliani held a commanding lead in national polls. With Mike Huckabee’s victory in Iowa, Guliani quickly lost ground, giving rise to John “Maverick” McCain’s triumph.
All the history to say: the months prior to Iowa is the most critical bellwethers for the nomination outcome. Still, especially in the GOP primary history, polls matter. During the same period in previous cycles, GOP frontrunners included — Gerald Ford (1976), Ronald Reagan (1980), George H.W. Bush (1988), George H.W. Bush (1992), Bob Dole (1996), and George W. Bush (2000).
Regardless of the results come August, Donald Trump’s staying power has confounded conventional wisdom, and infuriated no constituency more than the standard bearers of the Republican Party Mr. Trump seeks to represent. It’s no secret that elite party officials, including leaders in the Senate, House, and RNC cannot stand Mr. Trump’s bid. While liberals enjoy the entertainment of Mr. Trump’s bombast from distant observation (for the time being), Republican stalwarts are faced with the increasingly serious question, “Could this guy really be our nominee? Seriously?”
Cue Ms. Shelley’s epic work, Frankenstein.
Despite the deafening thud of dropped jaws left in Mr. Trump’s wake, remarkably few have tried to piece together a cogent theory explaining his surge. A half-baked notion chalks the race up to an “anti-establishment” zeitgeist, analogizing Bernie Sanders’ feverish popularity on the left to Donald Trump’s success. However, a quick glance at the Democratic polls dismisses the parallelism. Certainly more popular than expected, Mr. Sanders has yet to attain a consistent base of support to threaten Hillary Clinton. But more, Bernie’s world of politics, a utopic vision purged of all non-substantive distraction (Bill Clinton’s past affairs; Ms. Clinton’s emails), exists in stark relief against Mr. Trump’s everything-including-the-kitchen-sink strategy. Explaining Mr. Trump away with benign political catechisms may soothe Republican nerves, but fails to address the source of The Donald’s unrelenting success.
In truth, Donald Trump is anything but alien to the Republican Party — he is its creation.
Mr. Trump is no anomalous phenomenon. The rise and resilience of Trump’s popularity sources in a discontented constituency that has assumed an essential role in party politics for the last decade. The Tea Party, as commonly called, has upset Party elites’ designs since its public debut in the 2010 midterms. Manifestations of the insurgent faction’s potency include, but are not limited to: the House’s nigh obsession with passing (futile) Affordable Care Act repeal legislation, a sixteen-day government shutdown led by self-proclaimed rebel-rouser Ted Cruz, and, most significant, the innumerable public and private spats with Party leadership precipitating the nation’s third most powerful politician’s resignation in October.
While impossible to pinpoint the movement’s precise moment of conception, President Bush’s thwarted immigration reform effort provides a solid starting point. Scrambling to cement a legacy-defining achievement in hispresidency’s fourth quarter, President Bush sought a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants living the United States. The conservative backlash was immense. Despite a Democrat controlled Congress, the legislation fell prey to an awakened coalition of conservative voters.
And their influence snowballed. Long before the “Tea Party” appellation emerged, Republican presidential candidate John McCain was boxed into running a campaign catered to a conservative element contrary to his legislative career. As a Senator, McCain built a reputation as a Maverick willing to reject Party dictate to work with Democrats when personal principle demanded. But when confronted with the 2008 reality, McCain backed away from previous support for cap-and-trade, LGBT in the military, tax cuts and immigration reform — the same effort President Bush pedaled just a year earlier. Instead, America met a man who centered his electoral hopes on character attacks of the country’s first mainstream black candidate, and a blatantly ill-prepared, yet supremely conservative Vice-Presidential candidate in Sarah Palin. McCain did not change overnight. Former aides readily admit the Senator’s distaste for his own message. In fact, no moment better distilled the gaping divide between McCain, the man, and his constituency than his public reckoning with a real-live constituent in Lakeville, Minnesota. Note, the crowd booed.
Four years later — an even more incredible metamorphosis took place in Mitt Romney. Hailing from a decisively moderate background, headlined by a two-term governorship in the most liberal state in the nation, Mitt Romney ran a presidential campaign on “severely conservative” stances clearly contravening past beliefs. Topping the list, a reversal in the pro-life / pro-choice debate, sudden adoption of a “self-deporting” immigration policy, and most confounding, a “day one” pledge to repeal Obamacare, a policy directly copied off a law Romney createdas governor of Massachusetts. In the past two presidential cycles, Republican standard-bearers have championed positions counter to their record, and presumably values, in attempt to secure support from a highly leveraged new sect of the Party.
But why didn’t the establishment panic then? When McCain and Romney crafted hardliner personas on the campaign trail, GOP elders never expressed the sort of concern now directed toward Trump. Several explanations arise. Namely, both McCain and Romney carried extensive legislative records, indicating a flexibility and pragmatism in governing more convincing than rhetoric picked up for the election cycle. Extending from this thought, the party establishment had long histories with both McCain and Romney. In fact, McCain’s tenure in the Senate arguably qualified him as a Republican elite himself. I would argue that, to an extent, Republican politicos never took the conservative McCain and Romney seriously, reasoning both would revert to their former ways of governing once elected. While the Tea Party conservatives may have captured several statewide nominations (e.g. Ted Cruz, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Scott Walker), the presidential contest remained in the establishment’s control.
Yet in 2016, the two most establishment endorsed candidates, Governor Bush and Senator Rubio, collectively poll under 15 percent. But even more surprising, Donald Trump is not the obvious Tea Party darling. According to the narrative, Mr. Trump’s popularity should hinge on backing from the ideologically conservative wing of the party. However, polls show his Tea Party support hovering around 30 percent, neck and neck with Ted Cruz. Further, Tea Party activists refuse to embrace him fully, claiming Trump, “is not a true tea party candidate.” Indeed, Trump’s mixed record is not at all ideologically consistent with the Tea Party’s emphasis on small government, and constitutionalist ideas. As frustrated opponents have tried to point out, Trump has supported universal healthcare, abortion, and tax increases in the past. Still, support holds. But if the establishment isn’t for him, and the Tea Party signals ambivalence, why in the world is Donald Trump popular?
Once again, Ms. Shelley’s work offers insight. As Dr. Frankenstein misjudged his monster, so too did the Grand Old Party never truly understand its own base. Despite relying on the Tea Party constituency for the past several cycles, satiating their anger and discontent with hard-right policy prescriptions, the establishment fundamentally mistook the heart of their party. The new Republican is not a detached ideologue; he is emotional, driven by a fierce spirit — like Shelley’s monster — by the soul.
On the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, in hindsight the inflection point for radical Republicans and the Tea Party’s cotillion, then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear the Party’s top priority — defeat President Obama in re-election. Employ any means necessary. Discredit, defame, debase. Vitriolic negativity became brand-name. And the Republican Party evolved.
Of course, studying the establishment’s actions and rhetoric yields little more than one-off blusters. For the most part, mainstream politicos and policymakers worked within regular operational measures — displaying frustration, obfuscation, and obstruction in a rational framework. Rather, to fully appreciate the GOP’s attempted presidential coup, one must not only survey speeches made, but also look to the words unspoken. For as Republican politicians regurgitated the dry fare of conservative philosophy on C-SPAN, real voters tuned to a new education: the conservative media.
The warren of websites, radio shows, and cable news programs composing the Far-Right megaphone roots many years before our millennia, but its strength and power have no doubt redoubled in the past decade. Seen in Fox News’ perennial reign over cable ratings, heard from the multiplying talking-head hydra of Big Talker hosts, and absorbed through Drudge and Breitbart’s endless comment boards, a robust political apparatus now operates outside the realm of formal politics. And they abide no law save ratings. When their listeners expressed discontent with Mr. Obama, and the Party green lit the offensive, the conservative media held no obligation but to their constituents.
In the extra-political arena of media airwaves first came the dreaded “death panels,” the pro-contraceptive activist turned “slut,” and a roaring cry to “take our country back.” Not to mention an absurd “birther” movement, which eventually gained enough momentum to prompt a White House response. After watching the movement transform from incredibly ridiculous to ridiculously credible (to some), Obama actually released his birth certificate, ending the debate (sort of). A leading proponent of the falsehood? Who, but our very own Donald Trump. One of the (many) culpable bystanders? Primary runner-up Ted Cruz — incidentally, born in Calgary, Canada.
Importantly, the Republican establishment happily played bystander as a ferocious, at times downright bigoted, takedown of Obama and liberal proponents consumed its media. Consider John McCain’s 2008 defense of Obama’s religion and citizenship once more. A mere four years later, few Republicans dared utter a word to correct the record. As a matter of fact, more Americans, specifically Republicans, believe Obama to be a Muslim today than at the time of election. Almost half the Party.
The Republican Party has known of its deep divisions for some time. Republican Congressmen and Senators have feared primary challengers the past few cycles. Public handwringing has come to define the Party quotidian ever since politicians like Ted Cruz oath-swearing. However, the nature of the Party split remains fundamentally misunderstood. After years of being fed red meat, sensationalist, fact-less, emotion-filled news headlines and diatribes, the Republican base is not an ideologically conservative think-tank, they are angry. They are hungry for the same bold talk shouted on Hannity, Limbaugh, and Drudge. They are not the establishment’s vision of an ideologically Tea Party, but manifest of Rick Santelli’s tirade. They want now in their President what they have watched on their televisions. They want Trump.
Don’t allow the Republican establishment’s puzzlement cover the consequence of their creation. The same media that churned out midterm turnout propelling Republicans into Congress, that spewed the Party agenda for years, that bullied liberals with below the beltway blows, that torpedoed meaningful immigration legislation, and poisoned debate with exclamation over explanation — the media that worked part and parcel with the Party agenda for years — evidently carries side-effects. As it turns out, if you only feed the body garbage, then eventually, the soul will seek nothing but.
The monster must come from us.