In 20 years, will we look back on the Trump presidency as an aberration or a precursor?
I want the answer to be "aberration" but I worry that I'm wrong.
"Precursor" is very vague, which makes it more likely. It doesn't necessarily mean Trumpism will win. It might mean the country swings harder in the opposite direction.
"Aberration" means we go back to electing candidates from the political establishment and never again consider unqualified demagogues. I wish I believed this.
I think the 2020 Democratic candidate is more likely to be a Kamala Harris/Elizabeth Warren type (not demagogues; but not the most experienced either), or even Oprah, than a Tim Kaine. And I think the reason is the Internet.
It used to be that cabinet-level experience was a ticket to the white house. That is the only reason Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position. If she believed staying a senator offered better presidential prospects she never would have taken the job.
However, in the Information Age, I believe that type of experience is a detriment. It probably makes you more qualified, but less electable. It makes your record public and allows your choices to be picked apart by the opposition.
Obama was a relative outsider and Trump had no experience. Rather than a flaw, this acted as a shield. It meant there were more opportunities for their opponents to get picked apart.
Clinton's time as Secretary of State and the scandal/not scandal involving her email server and Benghazi did nothing but hurt her. She probably would have been better off staying in the Senate.
That is why I think the trend of Washington outsiders will continue. I think Trump is a precursor that will lead to more candidates with less experience who pick apart the hypocrisy of established candidates and take advantage of voters.
No comments:
Post a Comment