The Loser

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

   The storm warnings are there, and have been for many months, but it seems only now are Republican Party leaders acting on a pending disaster.
   Increasingly, senior Republicans are saying they no longer can support their own nominee, claiming that his rantings about women, minorities, immigrants, the handicapped, religious groups and others do not represent what their party is about.
   Really? The record shows otherwise. The difference is that Donald Trump has taken those positions to their natural extreme, and in the process has antagonized more people, more blatantly and in a shorter time than prior positions of other Republicans.
   But perhaps the most dangerous political statement was the warning during Sunday's debate that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his opponent's activities and see to it that she goes to jail. This reminded listeners of the "Lock her up!" chant heard at Trump campaign rallies.
   That's the kind of political retaliation common to dictatorships around the world, but not found in America.
   Yet.
   Can it happen here? Is it possible, or even probable, that a demagogue can somehow take the low road to the White House and then wreak vengeance on his opponents?
   Readers of this blog will remember that such a warning was posted four times since Trump became a national figure in presidential politics, most recently on 9 March of this year. Earlier comments were posted 20 October 2015, 21 September 2013, and 15 December 2012. Each posting cited two novels, one factual book and one true episode.
   The novels are "It Can't Happen Here" (1935) by Sinclair Lewis, and "The Plot Against America" (2004) by Philip Roth. A third book, "The Plot to Seize the White House," written by Jules Archer and published in 1973, documented a real conspiracy by isolationist radicals of the 1930s who wanted to close all borders and build a Fortress America.
   The Jules Archer book dealt with a plan by ultra-conservative corporate moguls to oust President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install their own leader.
   A second attempt to subvert democratic channels and initiate full control by the White House was planned during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, but it was foiled by close aides, led by senior advisor Henry Kissinger.
   All three of the books mentioned were based on events of the 1930s, when isolationist thinking and metaphorical wall-building in the form of high tariffs were riding high. At the time, the Smoot-Hawley tariff act imposed high fees on imports in a vain attempt to protect American products. But retaliation by other trading nations only raised prices for consumers everywhere, and all sides suffered.
   We now face an "America First" candidate who has borrowed that slogan from the isolationists of the 1930s and wants to build a real wall along the nation's southern border with Mexico and to expel millions of immigrants.
   During Sunday evening's debate, Trump said that as President he would appoint a special prosecutor to pursue allegations of criminal behavior by the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
   He made no mention, however, of the numerous formal legal charges pending against him about criminal behavior related to his business ventures. And despite much talk alleging criminal behavior by Mrs. Clinton, Congressional and FBI investigations have not found evidence enough to warrant formal charges.
   Does this mean they don't exist? No, it only means they have not been found. On the other hand, plenty of evidence of Trump's questionable behavior -- both criminal and moral -- has been found.
   But the final storm warning that caught the attention of GOP leaders was the release of recorded comments by Trump in which he bragged about his success in sexually assaulting women. "When you're a star, you can do anything," he boasted.
   That was the last straw for many Republican leaders, who are now abandoning their own candidate, with some even calling for him to quit.
   The term "quitter," however, does not seem to be in the Trump lexicon. Neither is "loser." But that, however, is what he is. Morally and ethically, he is already a loser. And come November, he is quite likely to be a political loser.
   Meanwhile, an even bigger danger is that he and his supporters will not recognize the results of a nationwide general election, and will instigate some sort of rebellion. After all, he has already been warning that the election is being "rigged" against him.
   What, then, will it take to convince him that he is, in fact, a loser?