Even for those trying hard not to notice, it's just about impossible to not feel bombarded with daily blasts of both politics and nonsense arising out of "the filth and the fury" preface to the upcoming presidential election of our neighbours south of the border. Now, while it may seem slightly extreme to use a term coined to describe the ascendance and behaviour of a since-celebrated iconic punk band in the seventies, I might vouchsafe that the antics of certain individuals in the Republican nomination race very closely resemble those associated with a group of punks!
Never has the run-in to such an election been so rambunctiously raucous and ribald, and I don't think anyone could even attempt to explain that in terms other than the words "Donald" and "Trump". With Super Tuesday just around the corner, his sustained presence and unexpectedly (by many) meteoric rise to the very forefront of American politics is not only changing politics in heretofore unforeseeable ways, but may have changed it irreversibly. We've gone down so low so far, that it may well simply become the new norm - and it's far from over yet.
The current Republican nomination race has become a race to the bottom, sadly, and if the Donald makes it as the candidate, you can bet your bottom (American) dollar that the Democratic-Republican race will reach ever-new lows. That will be particularly true if, as expected, Hillary Clinton makes it as the Democratic candidate. The Trumpster is going to go for the jugular every chance he gets, and one way that he will do that is by using one major aspect of Hillary's appeal, against her.
The USA has had eight years under the leadership of its first black President, and many are anticipating that Hillary Clinton will be America's first female President, not least because of the enormous support she is quite naturally building up from that section of the electorate. But her nightmare will be going up against the Trumpster, and he has already not been shy (as if that word was ever associated with him) in using Bill Clinton's history against Hillary, in terms of how inspiring she is (or isn't) with regards to abuse of women.
The Trumpster may end up making Ken Starr look like an angel by comparison, and you can bet that neither Clinton looks forward to debates with him. He knows almost no bounds particularly when he is cornered, and you can forget politics-as-usual because not only does he not follow the rules - he doesn't know what the rules were to begin with - and that would be because he's not actually a politician. He has zero experience and clearly extremely limited knowledge of politics, period - whether that be state politics, domestic politics or international politics - and this should scare people more than it apparently does.
It has been said that you can never win a debate with an amateur; the amateur will always win because the amateur never plays by the rules. I honestly thought that the "entertainment" provided by Trump's early run for President would have been behind us by now, and yet here he is as the likely candidate. Although that is almost inexplicable, there must be something in his bluster and stated intent to "make America great again" that appeals massively to the disadvantaged, the marginalised, the unemployed, the forgotten, and generally anybody with an equally massive chip on their shoulder.
It has been said that you can never win a debate with an amateur; the amateur will always win because the amateur never plays by the rules. I honestly thought that the "entertainment" provided by Trump's early run for President would have been behind us by now, and yet here he is as the likely candidate. Although that is almost inexplicable, there must be something in his bluster and stated intent to "make America great again" that appeals massively to the disadvantaged, the marginalised, the unemployed, the forgotten, and generally anybody with an equally massive chip on their shoulder.
For those working in drug discovery and development, and big pharma, this election has some serious significance, not least because of recent troubles the industry has faced under the current regime, involving names such as Michael Shkreli and Turing, Valeant, Ovation and Questcor, among others. That spotlight and its associated stress may well have played a part in the hospitalisation of Valeant's J. Michael Pearson with severe pneumonia at year's end, in fact.
Congress itself has subpoenaed some of these players, and both democratic candidates have taken swipes at what they see as excessive greed in the pharma industry. Quite what the stage would be like with the Trumpster at the helm is open to interpretation, but given his hunger for making money it is possible that it might look more favourable. Only time will tell on that one, as inconceivable as a Trump presidency might be.
Canada itself may feel more fallout than imagined from the shenanigans south of the border for a less-than-obvious reason. The apparent popularity of the Trumpster, and the unpredicted success of his blowhard approach, the unprecedented rise of both neophyte and demagogue, has clearly impacted if not actually inspired a similar TV personality up here north of the border.
We are of course talking about Kevin O'Leary, a talking head (or to many a loudmouth) investor who like Trump has made his name as much for his TV performances as anything else in recent years. It now transpires that Mr. O'Leary has shown an interest in running not only for the Conservative leadership spot, which raised eyebrows inandof itself, but as usual he wants to keep his options open and has not ruled out running for the Liberal leadership either! He recently predicted that there will be an opening in that party also, even if Justin Trudeau may have something to say about that.
For sure, O'Leary and Trump have a lot in common, both being brash TV personalities and both have a "healthy" appreciation of (corporate) greed, in total contrast to a Bernie Sanders or even a Justin Trudeau. I read a scathing report yesterday on how much O'Leary's success as an investor has been overstated and romanticised by TV show chest-pumping, while the reality is a lot less financially healthy or glamorous.
O'Leary Funds didn't even make it to the five year mark (not that he was ever licensed to manage other people's money in the first place) before being evaporated by Canoe in the wake of redemptions of the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, and Mattel's acquisition of O'Leary's TLC flagship was referred to by Businessweek as "one of the worst deals of all time". Both Mattel CEO Jill Barad and their shareholders probably agree too; the former was forced out less than a year after the deal, which at its worst saw the latter face losses in value of some $2 billion, in a single day!
Quite why such types have the capacity to garner so much adoration is something that one could dissect for hours, but the bottom line has to have something to do with their bottom line. Yes, they may be greedy, and nasty, and in love with themselves, but they have made vault loads of money, so then their antics are easier to stomach especially if they are seen as working class joes who railed against the system, stuck it to the man and rose above the masses. Notwithstanding the fact that they often overpromise and underdeliver, they are full of confidence and bluster while proclaiming to the populus from the pulpit that they are the nation's new saviour.
O'Leary Funds didn't even make it to the five year mark (not that he was ever licensed to manage other people's money in the first place) before being evaporated by Canoe in the wake of redemptions of the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, and Mattel's acquisition of O'Leary's TLC flagship was referred to by Businessweek as "one of the worst deals of all time". Both Mattel CEO Jill Barad and their shareholders probably agree too; the former was forced out less than a year after the deal, which at its worst saw the latter face losses in value of some $2 billion, in a single day!
Quite why such types have the capacity to garner so much adoration is something that one could dissect for hours, but the bottom line has to have something to do with their bottom line. Yes, they may be greedy, and nasty, and in love with themselves, but they have made vault loads of money, so then their antics are easier to stomach especially if they are seen as working class joes who railed against the system, stuck it to the man and rose above the masses. Notwithstanding the fact that they often overpromise and underdeliver, they are full of confidence and bluster while proclaiming to the populus from the pulpit that they are the nation's new saviour.
And if you saw it on TV, it has to be true, right? And unquestionably, such types don't get to where they are by being modest nor by being wary of adding some extra layers onto the cake. But as much as reality TV can often be seen as pure fantasy, we are now witnessing the emergence of the crowd-pleasing and entertaining rabble rouser as serious political figure, and that's a worrying trend. The even more worrying thing about it is that the trend seems to have already crept north of the border, and we may have seen the birth of our very own Donald Trump!
No comments:
Post a Comment