“Narcissus does not fall in love with his reflection because it is beautiful,
but because it is his. If it were his beauty that enthralled him,
he would be set free in a few years by its fading.”
W.H. Auden
Dr. Carson delivered his best line of Thursday’s debate in his closing remarks when he took a good natured jab at the other candidates’ constant self-aggrandizement in proclaiming how they are the only candidate that’s done this, or will do that, or has held this position, or can beat this candidate. Dr Carson pointed out that he was the only candidate that had separated conjoined twins, operated on a fetus still in the womb (without the intention to harvest organs), and performed a hemispherectomy; that is removing half of someone’s brain. That these things have little to do with being President, I think was Dr. Carson’s point. All the candidates have impressive resumes, but there is a difference between self advocating and self worship. Carson concluded his remarks with a reminder that freedom is not free for any of us, and as such he was hopeful that he would not be the only one who would pick up the torch of freedom. With this simple statement, the good doctor attempted to rouse us from our twilight sleep; there was no messiah on that stage, no single magical person who could fix all the nation’s ills, no perfect president. There is no single surgeon whose gifted hands can carry that torch of freedom alone, they will always need our help.
It was a banner night for narcissism. Ironically, Chuck Schumer, a man drawn to cameras like Wimpy was drawn to cheeseburgers, used the debate as cover to quietly announce his opposition to Obama’s Iran deal. With Schumer uncharacteristically hiding from the media, and President Obama busy packing for his latest vacation (does he ever actually unpack?), that left the people in the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland to vie for the narcissist of the night award. Of course, it really wasn’t a competition, and one person quickly monopolized the time, demanding the spotlight, far and away speaking more than anyone else on the stage… yeah, Megyn Kelly. Her giddy excitement is, I suppose, part of her charm; but seems more appropriate to the New Years Eve broadcast than to the serious business of possibly choosing the next leader of the free world. Instead of a Tim Russert type drawing out of the candidates’ responses, her aggressively pontificating style, and her subsequent analysis of the debate showed as much a preoccupation with the brilliance of her own questions as with the candidates’ answers. The debate seemed for her to just be another segment of the Kelly File, “Look at me, look at me!” Trump was only too glad to have another target for his crude comments; and Ms. Kelly is hardly guiltless in breaking a cardinal rule of journalism, becoming the story instead of reporting it. Congratulations Kelly, you’re the new girl in the Trump circus! What would Bill O’Reilly say?
The moderators seemed intent on giving Trump enough rope to hang himself with, and the Donald was given far more time to speak than any of the other candidates. I think that they probably were effective in doing so, but it’s going to likely not be a sudden neck snapping hanging, but a slow asphyxiating lingering type of demise, which is probably actually a good thing for the other candidates. Kelly ruined Rand Paul’s strategy of trying to become Trump’s new target, and came off instead as the kid that can’t get along with anybody… he was likely the night’s biggest loser despite making some good points in an unfortunate style. Bush did nothing to help himself, but along with Walker seems to be employing the Mitt Romney primary “last man standing” strategy; just wait for everyone else to flame out or run out of money. Kasich was popular with the home-town crowd and Democrats who appreciated a couple of his more liberal sounding responses. If liberals start voting in the Republican primary, he’ll do well… toss-up between him, Christy and Paul as to who Carly Fiorino will replace in the upper tier.
Carson did well, especially toward the end of the debate, but the bar is higher for this non-politician, and he will not be given a pass with vague platitudes and talking points when it comes to showing understanding of the issues, he will need to demonstrate robust knowledge of all subjects… back to the books Ben. I’m not sure even that will help his run. America may be ready for a non-politician for President, but it will probably need to be someone from an analogous background like business or military, not a poet or a teacher, and probably not a surgeon. Huckabee and Cruz were predictably solid, but that won’t be enough to lift them above the crowd. Cruz might be able to shake things up, but I think Huckabee only has the one gear; his job at Fox will be waiting for him. If I had to pick a winner besides Fiorino (who is at best really only an interesting Vice Presidential possibility), I would have to say Rubio probably carved out a couple of toe holds in his climb to the top. Besides Walker, he seems to be the candidate who could have appeal to both the warring segments of the party, which is the only path to victory.
All signs point to a victory for Republicans in the presidential election of 2016. Two terms of one party generally leads to the electorate being ready for a change, and two terms of Obama’s America has left many retching for one. Hillary is both a poor and damaged candidate. If she hangs on to actually be the candidate, she will be quite vulnerable. If her candidacy continues to implode, the Dems have no one waiting in the wings. Their second place challenger is Socialist, Bernie Sanders; the Democrats own version of Donald Trump. As Trump is not really a Republican, Sanders is not really a Democrat, he’s a socialist; though even DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz can’t seem to explain the difference anymore. People are less concerned with what these guys say so much as with how they say it, and how they’re not the same old same old. Like Trump, Sanders is a diversion; but also like Trump, you better hope he doesn’t change his mind and go third party! Who else do the Dems have? No one who’s currently running, Biden? ….Schumer? Just the same, 2012 proved that Republicans are perfectly capable of losing elections they should probably win.
IMHO: The divisions of the Republican party are the greatest threat to victory in 2016. Like Narcissus all segments of the party find their only satisfaction in their own reflection. The establishment wing just wants another Bush, and any candidate that wants to challenge the “safe” status quo is termed “crazy” or a “whacko”. On the other side, Tea-Party and Libertarian types are not just understandably dismayed with the typically establishment choices, but reject any candidate who in any way is not a perfect reflection of their own beautifully pure image. In their refusal to choose the lesser of two evils, they continue to suffer under the greater evil, and if the debates showed us anything, at least this time around, these are not all evil people. Although I have some preferences, I think I would take my chances with almost any one of them over staying on this highway to Hell. I look forward to the debates ahead, and to a lively contest, but in the end there will only be one candidate, and we won’t find them in our own reflection. It will be a time to build coalitions, swallow our pride, carry the torch of freedom, and let Narcissus drown.
