RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "The debate was almost solely focused on fear, and the main way the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from each other could be found in their race to determine who could best exploit and ramp up the audience's worst nightmares of imminent Armageddon."

The last GOP debate of the year. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The last GOP debate of the year. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The Lesson of the 5th Republican Debate: You Can't Out-Trump Trump

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

17 December 15


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: the fifth GOP debate, Ted Cruz's rise in the polls, and how the media covers the Donald — and the rest of the 2016 field.

uesday night's debate was the first time the GOP field has been on the same stage since the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino. How did those events change the way the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from each other?

The debate was almost solely focused on fear, and the main way the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from each other could be found in their race to determine who could best exploit and ramp up the audience’s worst nightmares of imminent Armageddon. (The exception was Rand Paul, the only candidate whose foreign policy is neocon-averse and not contrived to pander to the likes of the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the party’s Las Vegas host.) The problem with this focus is that you can’t out-Trump Trump, who runs the table when it comes to sowing fear, preaching xenophobia, and projecting bellicosity. You can’t beat a platform that consists of (a) promising to “bomb the shit out of them” and (b) barring all Muslims from entering the U.S. This is why Trump’s lead (among Republicans) has been growing in national polls, and why it is likely to continue to grow after last night, no matter how many observers ritualistically say he’s a terrible debater (true) and that surely by now he must have peaked. According to a CNN/ORC International poll this fall, some 43 percent of Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. Obama hatred is the parallel animus to Muslim hatred in the party’s base, and the genius of Trump is that he has fused them in a campaign that, let us not forget, began with his embrace of the birthers’ challenge of the president’s Hawaiian birth certificate.

Aside from Ben Carson’s hideous call for a moment of silence for the San Bernardino victims, the most shameless effort to beat Trump at his own game came from Chris Christie, the candidate from Morning Joe, who continues to emulate Rudy Giuliani’s ill-fated 2008 “noun + verb + 9/11” campaign. Giuliani was at least present at Ground Zero on 9/11; Christie seems to have spent most of that day cowering and emoting, by his own account. That Christie began his debate performance by trying to portray the morning’s purported threat against the Los Angeles school system as a sort of 9/11 mainly proved that he’s incapable of distinguishing between a hoax and an actual terrorist attack, which is unlikely to be tipped off with a phone message. Christie’s only real credential as an anti-terrorist warrior seems to be that he knows how to shut down a bridge — a valuable tool, to be sure, if that’s how ISIS plans to take out Weehawken. Like most of his rivals, Christie also took great pride in demonstrating that he, unlike the “feckless weakling” Obama (as he described the president), had the manly courage to enunciate the phrase “radical jihadist terrorism.” For the would-be commanders-in-chief of the GOP, saying some variant on “radical Islamic terrorism” is tantamount to having been in battle at Iwo Jima; these guys are nothing if not the greatest generation of chicken hawks.

For all the focus on terrorism at the debate, you’ll notice that no one mentioned the Christian terrorist who attacked Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. Also MIA in the two-hour-long event — a debate that Wolf Blitzer, its moderator, devoted in large part to what he called “world threats” — was climate change. By failing to bring up that subject so embarrassing to Republicans, particularly in the aftermath of the Paris accords, CNN betrayed a pro-GOP bias. But even without broaching climate change, the candidates presented a gloom-and-doom worldview that is the antithesis of Reagan’s “Morning in America.” The takeaway from the night was that everything in America sucks.

Pre-debate polls showed Ted Cruz to be leading in Iowa and surging nationally. Did the debate further his Ted-mentum?

That momentum may be overstated. Yes, he is surging in Iowa, a function in part of Carson’s implosion, and he should beat Trump there for a very simple reason: Cruz is as right-wing and anti-immigrant as Trump, but, unlike Trump, he appeals to the key Iowa constituency of Evangelicals, with a preacher father to help make his case. No one believes that Trump worships any deity other than himself, or that he favors any scripture over The Art of the Deal. So it’s fairly safe to assume the Des Moines Register poll is right and that Cruz will win in Iowa. That will mean as much for him in the endgame as Santorum’s Iowa victory meant in 2012 and Huckabee’s in 2008. (On the other hand, if Cruz should lose Iowa, he’s dead.)

Except by bloodying Marco Rubio on immigration, Cruz didn’t particularly hurt or help himself last night. He remains the guy who will inherit Trump’s natural following if Trump self-destructs. But perhaps the most significant news from the debate is that Trump has no intention of self-destructing. He went out of his way to say that he would not bolt the GOP and run as a third-party candidate. That will likely strengthen his already strong showing among Republican primary voters. And the Establishment still doesn’t have a candidate to take him down — or Cruz down, should he end up carrying Trumpism’s banner. Jeb Bush is getting high marks for being tougher against Trump last night, but he’s still not going anywhere: Someone should tell him that repeatedly using the word serious to describe your candidacy does not mean you are serious or that voters will take you seriously. Rubio remains the most glib and arguably well-informed of the Establishment candidates, but his brief senatorial history as an immigration reformer, in league with Chuck Schumer yet, has likely doomed him with the party’s base. His attempts to disown that bit of history at the debate were, well, feckless. Cruz may not exactly be surging, Iowa aside, but should Trump falter, he remains the only other Republican candidate who appeals to the grass roots and has a big bankroll besides. 

Earlier this week, press critic Jack Shafer penned a polemic against what he calls the "Trump blackout proposals" — the widespread calls from members of the political press to reduce or eliminate coverage of Trump's campaign — arguing that "the notion that the press has dreadfully overcovered or tragically undercovered a topic is the idiot's version of press criticism." What should be the goals of political coverage when campaign journalism has become a largely indecipherable mix of straight reporting, advocacy, and entertainment?

I agree with every word Shafer wrote and hope his piece gets a large readership. Too much of the press has bungled its treatment of Trump. There has been the now-notorious procession of wrong calls about the fate of his candidacy, and not just from pundits: Supposedly data-driven journalistic enterprises like the Times’ Upshot have made fools of themselves with “Dewey Defeats Truman” predictions dating back to last summer. Some analysts have tried to rationalize Trump’s success as simply a function of his disproportionate press attention, and writers at The Atlantic and The New Yorker, as Shafer enumerates, have literally suggested that restricting Trump coverage might be an antidote. That didn’t work, and the Huffington Post, which tried to quarantine Trump in the “entertainment” section, finally had to rescind that nutty decision.

Political coverage has always been an indecipherable mix of reporting, advocacy, and entertainment — this didn’t begin in the internet era — but the goal should always be the same: reporting what the hell is going on, not shielding readers from the uglier figures and movements in the American political circus. A press that turns up its nose at covering Trump only plays right into Trump’s hands by confirming his followers’ bitter resentment against the elites. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+44 # vilstef 2015-12-17 17:21
Interesting comments, as always from Mr. Rich.

One has to have a laugh at the expense of Jeb Bush. Serious?!? Seriously? With his Father a middling President at best and his brother arguably the worst President ever, not too many are willing to give him a dollar or hitch their horse to his personal klown kar.

The rest of the Republicans just keep shoving reactionary politics, or saying 'me too' to tRUMP's unending bigotry and race baiting. If this is the GOP's 'deep bench,' one wonders who might be unelectable?
+21 # backwards_cinderella 2015-12-18 05:58
I remember when G.W. was running. People were telling me that they were going to vote for him SIMPLY because they LIKED his father. "middling President at best" but the people who vote for these kinds of jerks aren't great thinkers.
+19 # tswhiskers 2015-12-18 09:09
I have a bumper sticker for my car. it reads; When it comes to thought, some people stop at nothing." A very apt picture of much of the American electorate.
+1 # bmiluski 2015-12-19 12:11
Let's not forget that the majority of the American electorate voted for Al Gore to be president. What a difference it would have made had we not had a corrupt supreme court.
+36 # Depressionborn 2015-12-17 19:29
Frank Rich, New York Magazine, should run for office. One of the last great reporters.
+47 # wrknight 2015-12-17 22:53
It's simple. If you can sell fear, you will win elections. Fear trumps reason every time.

Unfortunately, the fear mongers in our country are peddling their wares to a very large customer base.

Anyone who believes "we are the land of the free and the brave" has his head buried in his ass.
+64 # Farafalla 2015-12-17 23:00
The media coverage of Trump is also the systematic avoidance of covering a far more popular candidate, Bernie Sanders. Trump makes entertainment news. Bernie is about the real shit going down.
+11 # Texas Aggie 2015-12-18 09:14
Exactly. Trying to claim that ignoring Trump doesn't work when the MSM has been ignoring Bernie and in his case, it HAS been working. But if they ignore Trump, then Cruz is the one who benefits, and he's even worse than Trump in his own way.
+23 # wrknight 2015-12-17 23:05
"The takeaway from the night was that everything in America sucks." Well, maybe not everything in America, but it was certainly true about everything at the debate in Las Vegas.
+8 # dotlady 2015-12-17 23:37
I commented elsewhere before but here is the exact shot: could the set designer for the debate be a Democrat? Notice the glorified garbage-can effect, with litter rack at the top. It's subtle - but take a look at the photo above Rich's articulate piece.
+3 # mayordoug 2015-12-18 07:44
Hilarious!! Thank you for sharing!
+22 # henry8 2015-12-18 00:00
Why, O Why did the NY Times let Rich go? The Sunday times opinion page has for the most part been a bore since he left. Gail Collins is often a hoot and Paul Krugman is wonderful.The President consults with Friedman. But Rich is the direct successor to Walter Lipmann and James Reston. David Brooks is often sad and depressing looking for the Republican White Knight, and explaining how blacks should think. OH Frank. How much the Times need you back. Where is your patriotism? Your country needs you.
+6 # wrknight 2015-12-18 08:33
Isn't it obvious? The Times' owners are no longer interested in objective reporting or commentary. It has become the official organ of the Corporate Party which oversees both the Democratic and Republican Parties. The Times is now to the U.S. what the old Pravda was to the U.S.S.R. The only thing missing is the Party logo.

And the Washington Post isn't much better.
+14 # 2015-12-18 07:03
RE: Shafer's criticism of campaign coverage, where is coverage of Bernie Sanders, possibly the sole candidate in the 2016 presidential race who addresses substantive issues facing what's left of this democracy?
-18 # davehaze 2015-12-18 08:03
Frank Rich has become a bore. No insightful reporting here. How many times can you say noun+verb+Trump?

Reporters including Rich have turned up their noses at covering the Democratic race. All they say is Hillary has it.
0 # davehaze 2015-12-18 22:59
Thirteen negatives! It's nice to see that there are so many loyal Frank Rich fans of which I count myself one. I didn't miss a Rich article in the Times for decades. It is only with a sad heart that I can say that he is losing his touch.
+1 # intheEPZ 2015-12-18 09:36
what does noun+verb+Trump mean anyway???
0 # davehaze 2015-12-18 22:33
A play on Guliani's inability not to mention 911 in every sentence. That reporters on the left and the right can only talk of Trump. That and that Clinton has clinched the nomination -- tho they were wrong about that very thing eight years ago. So many reporters are unimaginative these days.
+2 # mebemo 2015-12-18 09:37
Someone ought to post Frank Rich's annual income before speculating on why he doesn't discuss Bernie.
+4 # reiverpacific 2015-12-18 10:59
Can't we, at least at RSN, just leave Trumpeter to his own devices?
The elections are still eleven months away!
I mean fer Gawd's sake, he's gettin' all the attention his tiny heartlessness desires from the Owner-Media, concurrent with their persistence in rendering Sanders, the only viable populist-progre ssive candidate, as the Invisible Man to the Lemming-like many-headed, as they guzzle plastic pizza, sugar-sickly pop or gassy, tasteless, pissy beer that the ads they're hypnotized by on their goggle-boxes tell them to consume in quantity, as they are led ever farther towards the edge of the cliff to emptiness.
Pleeze, purty pleeze, leave this git alone -his words will disappear like tasteless, odorless gas in short shrift, unlike those of (for instance) the recently departed John Trudell, and give us some FRESH, more significant news, public affairs and world issues.
After all, that's why I and most others subscribe to this site.
+1 # Shades of gray matter 2015-12-18 12:04
I'm a huge fan of Frank Rich, but I agree that this is a near useless piece.
I would rather have seen a piece asking where the San Bernardino ammo came from, and why DHS was not checking social media content of immigrant and visitor wannabes from Wahhabi terrorism bases.
0 # Nominae 2015-12-18 22:50
Quoting Shades of gray matter:
I'm a huge fan of Frank Rich, but I agree that this is a near useless piece.
I would rather have seen a piece asking where the San Bernardino ammo came from, and why DHS was not checking social media content of immigrant and visitor wannabes from Wahhabi terrorism bases.

Well, then perhaps you may care to exercise one of your remaining freedoms as an American and click on another page !

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.