The Guardian view on the Republican debate: Trump the traditionalist
|
Version 0 of 1. Plenty of other political party systems across the world are fragmenting under populist pressures both left and right. So might the same thing be happening in what sometimes seems to be the world’s last bastion of the two-party system – the United States? Donald Trump’s ego overshadowed the run-in to this week’s first televised debate of Republican hopefuls ahead of the 2016 presidential race. But the aftermath of Thursday’s debate has been dominated by exchanges that expose the very real possibility that, if Mr Trump does not get the Republican nomination, he may simply run as a third-party independent. If that were to happen, it would be very likely to affect the election outcome, splitting the Republican vote and making it easier for the Democratic candidate, widely expected to be Hillary Clinton, to win the presidency. But would it also mark a watershed in US party politics of the kind that many other democracies, not least in Europe, have experienced in recent years, with the US becoming a more multi-party democracy? And if that were to happen, what would the wider consequences for America be? There are good reasons for supposing the US two-party system will not exist eternally. After all, the US has experienced many of the same economic and cultural pressures that have battered old parties in other countries and thrown up new parties to challenge them. In addition, as the home of internet politics, the US also has the most highly developed online culture of disgust against mainstream politics (of which there is plenty to be disgusted by in the US) anywhere on the planet. There is also no shortage of rich people in the US who like the idea of either being or bankrolling a president, and controls over political spending are now almost non-existent. It therefore makes logical sense to suppose that, as the US becomes more diverse, then so may its politics. Yet the American two-party system has outlived many bigger challenges than Mr Trump in the past. There is nothing new about important third-party runs at the White House. Candidates as politically diverse as Theodore Roosevelt, Eugene Debs, Robert La Follette, Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have all made an impact on presidential election outcomes over the past century. Yet the two-party system has survived, not least because so many political players have so much invested in it. Moreover, unlike some of the above, Mr Trump does not stand for any new (or old) social movement; he stands largely for Donald Trump. And there are still more than 450 days before the election for the established parties to regain their grip. Nevertheless, Mr Trump had double-figure poll leads over his rivals going into this week’s debate. His success is partly an American variant on the global phenomenon of voters’ unwillingness to accept the range of electoral options offered to them – something that can be observed in many countries, including Britain. But there are plenty of differences too. Mr Trump is not trying to found a new party, like Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain. Nor is he exclusively focused on taking over an old party from within, as Jeremy Corbyn is attempting here. A third-party run is a very real option. Mr Trump may talk like an insurgent politician. But he is also a very traditional one, who would fit in the Republican party if his vanity permitted. As so often, American politics is just different. |