spectator.org
The Backstories of Tonight’s Debate
Politics always has backstories. Often, they are more interesting, and even more important, than the headlines.
The backstories of today’s “debate” are somewhat different than those of previous ones. If any new policies are enunciated, they probably will be because of misstatements by the incumbent. They will be unspun in the subsequent Spin Room — another feature of the contemporary version of debating. What are the backstories?
Who pulls Biden’s strings?
Nobody with a pulse across the entire continent believes that Biden has formulated, or can with clarity describe, the fine points of the administration’s positions on the border, the economy, foreign policy. Three-minute statements are the luckiest things to happen to Joe since he was allowed a Mulligan in law school after being suspended for plagiarism. In a broader scenario, viewers will look for virtual “strings” when he makes claims, cites facts, and recalls dates — who has prepped and propped him? Will he be State of the Union blustery again — a wind-up toy wound too tightly? Who will come to his rescue in the aftermath?
Who will succeed Biden, and when?
This is a backstory, or back-of-the-mind question, that will eclipse virtually every other reaction to Joe’s performance. Will a poor performance accelerate his “retirement”? Will he quell the brooding mutiny? How many Democrats will be rushing to polish their announcements and measure the White House drapes? Oklahoma Land Rush redux.
Who will be Trump’s running mate?
In the context of “pulling strings,” it is astonishing, really, how Donald Trump has transformed the Republican Party and the national discourse. One is reminded of how Theodore Roosevelt roughly described his acquisition of the Canal Zone — “I took Panama; and while debates about me go on, so does work on the Canal.”
Trump’s virtual string-pulling has resulted in the unprecedented demolition of a primary field he did not even enter. He has moved issues where even many conservative “leaders” have feared to tread to center stage. His “strings” have figuratively strangled rivals who once were perceived as mortal enemies — hardly footnotes, anymore, are Liz Cheney; the Bush Brood, Nicky Haley; Chris Christie; Adam Kinzinger … not to mention the tsunami of impeachments and lawfare.
As a master of what plainly is his own domain, the timing of this “debate” is serendipitous between two candidates who are not yet formal nominees. The major backstory is who Trump will chose as his running mate. If he happens to triumph against Biden, an announcement of his choice will be icing on his cake.
If he happens to stumble or overreach, or if Biden’s new IV cocktail makes the incumbent an Energizer Bunny for 90 minutes, then an announcement of Trump’s choice will suck all the air out of that topic.
A backstory to that backstory regards one of the few swing factors in the faceoff. Factions within the GOP jockey for whatever influence they can grasp; crumbs from the Don’s table. Legatees of the e-GOP, whatever remnants remain of the establishment, the country-club set, the corporatists, and Globalists still cling, almost in rigor mortis, to every war into which America might intervene. On Trump’s putative “short list” are politicians who want to commit their country’s next generation, and treasure, to such adventures. The governor of Florida might top that list; and the many arms of the Murdoch family promote him.
At the other end of the tug-of-war’s rope are those who passionately feel otherwise; and they are people who often were weaned on Trumpian foreign policy. They would be followers, also, of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Their representative on the VP “short list” would include J D Vance.
This is a futile battle — at least in the sense that Trump has always been his own chief adviser; and there is the feeling that he bristles at the presumption of outside influence. So the tug-of-war, whether behind the scenes or in public blather by talking heads — can be counterproductive.
That the presidential debates this year are reduced to Trump’s “strings” — his views, his prerogatives, his agenda — is an illustration of a maxim in politics and all human interaction: the center. Leaders change public opinion, not so much by convincing the fringes of one’s views; but rather by “moving the center” of policy discussions.
Most people are, rightly, concerned primarily with the business of life. Making a living. Managing a household. Jobs. Families. Next month’s bills. Not every citizen is a sheep … but human beings by nature often consider the extremes and then settle somewhere in vague center.
Donald Trump has moved the center. The “Center holds,” as W. B. Yeats illustrated in “The Second Coming.” It has shifted, but people still seek their comforts there. And that — even more than Biden’s gaffes and Trump’s vice presidential pick — is the backstory of the upcoming debate and campaign. Voters, finding their center of gravity, will hold.
Rick Marschall is a former political cartoonist and frequent commentator. His 75th book, The Most Interesting American, about Theodore Roosevelt, recently was published by Post Hill Press. His weekly blog is MondayMinistry.com/blog
The post The Backstories of Tonight’s Debate appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
