Mitt Romney, the nominee of the United States Republican Party to the 2012 presidential elections, has strong words against the frontrunner in this year’s nomination race, Donald Trump.
“The prospects for the safety and prosperity of this country will be greatly diminished (under a Trump presidency),” he warned his fellow Republicans in a speech in Utah right after Super Tuesday, where Trump won seven states, solidifying his lead over his rivals.
Trump has put forward controversial proposals like building a wall separating US and Mexico to address immigration, banning Muslims from the US and tearing up trade deals. He has refused to denounce the leader of the white supremacist group who had endorsed him. His statements on national security have been described as uninformed and dangerous.
Romney said Trump was a phony and a fraud, with questionable temperament and judgment. The bullying, the greed, the misogyny and the absurd third-grade theatrics are not personal qualities one would want to see in a leader.
“His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University,” Romney added, referring to the numerous failed ventures of the billionaire. Romney pleaded with his fellow Republicans to not allow Trump to secure the nomination; they should instead choose any of the three other candidates to go against the Democrats’ nominee, likely Hillary Clinton, at the end of the year.
In response, Trump reminded Romney how he had begged for his endorsement four years back. “I could have told him to drop on his knees and he would have done that,” Trump said.
Entertainment value notwithstanding, what’s happening among the Republicans these days gives us a good taste of what party politics should be like. While many things can be said about the individual nominees, the process of selecting whom the party would field against the Democrats’ bet is established and transparent. This is why other Republicans like Romney are panicking. No single person among them can stop Trump’s run, however, desperate they are.
Here at home, we know too well how political parties work—or don’t, more accurately. “Parties” select not necessarily the most qualified members but those most likely to win.
Those who have been planning to run for the top post for years may be asked to give way to a more popular colleague. Sometimes the parties don’t even pick homegrown members; they adopt the winnable candidates after looking at survey results and calculating the pros and cons of throwing their support. Party bigwigs woo those who appear strong among the people, and then assail them and say they are no good, even challenge their qualifications when they refuse.
Worse, there is talk of secret candidates, endorsing one but putting tangible support behind another in an attempt to protect the incumbent’s interests after his term.
As the US parties move towards deciding who would represent them in the polls, Filipinos largely ignore the parties—and the consequent defined policy positions on crucial issues—as they focus on individual strengths and quirks of the candidates.
We will continue to watch the US elections for their instructive value, but perhaps it is also good time to deliberate, not only on whom to vote for, but on how we eventually get to that decision in May.