That Orange Guy Defies Convention

Trump's Unconventional Style Means

We Have to Be More Careful

P. J. O’Rourke said it best. “She's [Hillary Clinton] wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

If you've read The Repeal of Godwin's Law and Call Him Hitler But Let's Be Fair About It, you know that I've been building to see if the Trump Candidacy is a threat to our democracy. His words are easily argued as demagogic (and I certainly will in another post), but reasoning on that line has proved tricky. Other politicians have been demagogic only not with the same intensity. There has to be more than that.

What is it that makes the Trump Candidacy feel so different? And by different I mean scary. Maybe it is what makes him so appealing, his unconventionality.

Trump supporters keep on asking why he has to answer questions like, “Do you disavow the KKK”, “Do you rule out interment camps”, etc. Other candidates don't. Well, he's proposed ideas like “banning Muslims” or blatantly describes a group as “criminals and rapists”, If another candidate did, than yeah. They get asked questions like that.

But perhaps another reason is that before the Trump Candidacy, presidential candidates were more conventional, and that made them accountable.

What many find disturbing (including myself) is that there seems no restraint on  the Trump Candidacy's speech or proposals. If another candidate had said any of the statements in question, their own party would discourage such behavior. And that candidate WOULD LISTEN. He (and she) needed his party. He needed the good will of donors, and he needed the support of activist. Or at least there was a history of services, government or military, where we saw such restraints.

But the Trump Candidacy brags about not being restrained or even willing to self-impose their own. That is part of the campaign rationale. No allegiance to a corrupt party. Not beholden to donors. Not belonging to special interests. And not, being corrupted by years of being a politician.

However, that means if the Trump Candidacy should win, what would stop such behavior in the White House? Yeah, there’s the Congress and the Supreme Court, but do we really want it to go that far. Saying 'We elected a dictator, but that’s OK. We can spend the next four years curbing him.' is not a comfort.

Now, this would be an issue with any outsider candidates. You could ask why there were no concerns about Ross Perot or even Ted Cruz. (Well, we had many concerns about them, but not the racist H-word thing. Well, maybe about Cruz). But these candidates showed restraints in other ways. They were loyal to ideologies and measures of decorum. 

Given that we are a democracy, expecting parties, donors, and activists to restrain a politician is well, undemocratic. The voters should be to who the Trump Candidacy is accountable. And given that the only time his behavior has changed is in response to low poll ratings, that seems his only limit.

But hey, that’s why I’m writing this. I'm talking to you, the voter. The Trump Candidacy is suppose to be earning our vote, and doing so humbly. He should act as if we are the boss, because we are the boss.

Sure a candidate can defy the conventions of his party, his donors, and ideologies. However, he can't defy our conventions. Being unconventional is cool, but that shifts all the responsibility to us. This is the time to be more skeptical and demand more restraint, not settle for less.

The point is that an unconventional and independent candidate is fine, but those conventions and allegiances are safeguards against bad behavior. Without those safeguards, that candidate needs to be examined more closely and held to a higher standard.

Should the press ask him more questions than the other candidate? Yes.
Should we have more specifics on his policy? Yes.
Do we get to criticize him more when he missteps? Yes.

Not only should we do this, we must do this. His unconventionality gives us no other choice.

And if the Trump Candidacy refuses, WE DON'T ELECT HIM. No restraints means no vote. Otherwise, as president, he has no reason to act differently, nor do politicians afterward.

Now it is up to us, because we are all that is left.