Donald Trump is hosting a Republican debate in Iowa in late December.
Let that sink in for a moment.
In a primary process already resembling something no less absurd than a Lars von Trier film, candidates have created an atmosphere of one-upmanship, competing for the best sound bite instead of the best policy.
The audience, of course, hasn’t been much help, openly applauding statements endorsing extremes that ultimately wouldn’t have any bearing in a presidential election. Herman Cain’s assertion that he would build an electric fence or Rick Perry’s record of executing inmates are evidently wildly popular with the GOP base, but ultimately won’t have any bearing on a presidential election that will likely focus on the economy.
The fact that Donald Trump, who is more commonly known now as a reality television host than a successful businessman, is hosting a debate speaks to the party’s desire to continue down a path that delegitimizes whatever candidate emerges before the actual presidential campaign even begins. It’s more telling, then, to look at who isn’t attending the debate than who is. Both Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul have openly refused the invitation to participate in the Trump-moderated debate, and both have made it very clear the reason is Trump.
Paul went so far as to call out Trump for contributing to what will be “an unwanted circus-like atmosphere” and said his selection “flies in the face of [the Presidential] office’s history and dignity.” Which, by all accounts, is true.
Trump, instead of leaving it at that, responded by saying that “few people take Ron Paul seriously and many of his views and presentations make him a clown-like candidate.”
Trump’s response did nothing but reinforce Paul’s claim; his words spoke to his own ego and pettiness, and leads one to wonder what kind of a spectacle the debate would be if Paul attended. Newt Gingrich, who is so far the only candidate to accept the invitation, said he is attending for the entertainment value if nothing else. If entertainment is the ultimate goal, or at least an acknowledged one, it’s not unreasonable to think that Trump would treat Paul with a certain level of contempt as moderator.
Jon Huntsman, for his part, declined in a more dismissive fashion. Huntsman’s campaign spokesman Tim Miller stated in an email to Business Insider, “We look forward to watching Mitt and Newt suck-up to The Donald with a big bowl of popcorn.”
To me, these two politicians represent the only reasonable individuals in the entire Republican field almost for the sole reason that they declined the invitation. Instead of campaigning on cute idioms like “the anti-Romney” or “the political outsider,” Paul and Huntsman place their identities on policy: Paul is the guy who wants to end the Fed and Huntsman is the guy who wants to dismantle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And despite whether one agrees with either of those campaign points, one should at least respect the two candidates’ refusal to pander to a political base that is going to vote Republican no matter who’s on the ticket.
Huntsman and Paul’s refusal to play the game – specifically, Donald Trump’s game – speaks to a maturity that has universal appeal. Throw someone like Mitt Romney (who by all accounts appears to be a robot) or Newt Gingrich into the mix come 2012 and the race basically boils down to which party has more registered voters.
These two, though, at the very least have political stances that would foster the discussion of new ideas or new approaches to old policies. That is what I want to see more than an Obama re-election or a Republican victory, and it can only be accomplished by competition between candidates that represent ideas, not parties.
John Davis is the Chief Copy Editor of The Crimson White. His column runs on Mondays.
