This post is the second and final
part of an essay dealing with the application of power in politics.
Part I addressed how, in the 1960’s, Lyndon
Baines Johnson interpreted the nature of power and of how he used it to push
through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, despite almost overwhelming opposition
from his own Democratic Party, and of how he unsuccessfully expanded the
Vietnam War.
Also, Part II of this essay describes
my understanding of how Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump view the
application of power, and of how their insights about it are not dissimilar to the
forceful manner by which power was employed by LBJ.
NEARLY SIX DECADES
AFTER LBJ, THIS IS WHAT POWER LOOKS LIKE IN THE QUEST FOR THE PRESIDENCY:
There are
early signs that the initial preparations being made by advisers for both
Clinton and Trump will result in a presidential race that has all of the
hallmarks of political warfare similar to that which LBJ employed to get his
results.
Hillary
Rodham Clinton is anticipating Trump’s no-holds-barred onslaught, but will not likely
respond in kind – she will leave that job to her proxies.
Expect that
she will attempt to maintain her composure during forthcoming debates, while still
pushing back very strongly against Trump’s fierce and fiery language, (if that’s
what he chooses to do) – a barrage of words not heard in public at this level
during my lifetime.
Nonetheless,
Trump is unlikely to change his approach materially, since it is what propelled
him to this point in his campaign.
However, his
previous strategy may not be effectively sustainable without behavior
modification. He is getting distracted
by self-inflicted forays that have nothing to do with his campaign, but are placing
him under an unfavorable spotlight, even among some of his high level
supporters.
The latest
incident was Trump’s comments about Gonzalo Curiel, the Federal Judge currently presiding over the Trump
University lawsuit – a completely tangential affair having no direct impact
whatsoever on Trump’s presidential hopes, but one that minimizes his judgment
and questions his ability to compartmentalize.