The US primaries system is confusing, convoluted and apt to confound those who like their democracy short, sharp and certain. Yet for all it’s flaws and eccentricities, there is much to inspire jealousy in an Australian observer — especially if that spectator happens to vote Liberal and reside in North Sydney
An American presidential election is always of worldwide importance. This is especially true of the 2016 election. In many ways it could well be a turning point, with a series of crucial issues for determination.
Will the US continue the Obama policies and become little different from a European welfare state, gradually relinquishing its leadership role in the world? Will it continue to be ruled to a considerable extent by a committee of un-elected judges who have decided that the Constitution is what they say it is, and not what the nation’s founders intended? Will the federal government continue to be the taxing-and-regulating leviathan it has gradually become, emasculating not only the states but the traditional freedom of individual Americans? Will the borders of the United States be made as secure as they once were, with illegal immigration brought to heel ? In summary, will the United States return to being the constitutional republic it was intended to be and once was?
As in Australia, the election is marred by the mainstream media not so much reporting matters but advancing their political agenda and concentrating on personalities. Their games may be different in the two countries but the agenda is the same – diminishing the chances of any candidate for leadership who is perceived by them, and the political class, to be too conservative. In Australia , the target was Tony Abbott. In the US it is Senator Ted Cruz.
The mainstream media seems to be holding off recalling Trump’s business and personal record, investigating the inconsistencies between his stated policies and his previous positions. Above all, there is scant attention to the question whether he has the gravitas and, above all, the character to be the president and commander-in chief. Some observers even suspect that the mainstream media is holding off subjecting Trump to a rigorous investigation unless and until he becomes the Republican nominee, and then only to ensure a Democratic victory.
Similarly, they have avoided reporting on Senator Marco Rubio’s apparent betrayal of his Republican Tea Party constituency over his attachment to an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Border security and illegal immigration are even bigger issue in the United States than they were in Australia before John Howard and then Tony Abbott resolved the issue.
Thus, whenever Cruz referred to Rubio’s role in the “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill or his indication that as president he would not immediately revoke Obama’s executive amnesty, Rubio’s reaction has been positively Trump- like. Instead of answering the charge, he has unleashed the all-purpose mantra, ”That’s a lie!” This has been reported by the mainstream media, but without any investigation as to whether Cruz’s allegations are true. So the constant themes have been that Cruz is accused of being a liar, or that Cruz is indeed a liar. Rubio’s other tactic has been to allege that Cruz even supported his amnesty bill, whereas on all the evidence it is clear that Cruz was one of its strongest opponents. This again was reported but rarely investigated.
In the meantime, it seems likely that the Democratic nominee for the general election will be Hillary Clinton, subject to there being no proceedings against her concerning alleged breaches of official secrecy laws, or that the Clinton Foundation received money from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. The authorities seem reluctant to act in either case, in marked contrast to the speed with which they moved against General David Petraeus, a person of some eminence and achievement, for having revealed classified information to his biographer, who also happened to be his mistress.
