In response to an FT Debate on 7th May 2016, entitled ‘Should moderate Republicans rally around Donald Trump – the businessman is likely to get the GOP nomination, should others try to rein him in’
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/99abd44e-1388-11e6-91da-096d89bd2173.html#ixzz483TVT7Ai
This isn't a debate, it's a dartboard.
The debate I'd be interested in reading would be something like:
“The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the US; the upsurge of populist and fringe parties around the globe, says something about how the establishment elites have managed national and global affairs - what does it say, and how should the ruling elites respond?”
A few comments on individual contributions:
Edward Luce: ”In the unlikely event that Mr. Trump wins the White House" - it's not so unlikely
Courtney Weaver (On Paul Ryan): “Ryan’s announcement was brilliantly timed and tactfully brilliant. It allows him to appear as a man of principle” - America needs someone OF principle, not another empty suit who knows how to time appearing like one
Gideon Rachman: “Yet, at times, Mr. Trump has also expressed respect for mainstream, experienced Republicans — such as Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations” - The CFR are a group of globalists and elitists who seem to specialise in advising US Presidents on who to bomb and why - they usually get even that wrong. They are not mainstream, unless the river you're talking about is the width of the brook that runs through my garden.
Martin Wolf: “A moderate Republican should believe in limited government, a properly funded safety net, a balanced budget, liberal migration, an inclusive polity, an internationally open and domestically competitive economy, the maintenance of US alliances and, not least, the global role of the US as the bastion of democracy” - Mr. Wolf at least has a stab at addressing a major term of the debate. His description is pretty good, except I would add that a 'real' republican (slightly different) would emphasise the constitution and the vision of the founders, who were clearly against foreign interventionism (having just thrown off a meddling despot), and clearly for a small government that does not spy on its own people. In that respect the only 'real' republican that was in this race was Rand Paul, as evidenced by his total lack of support from Wall Street.
The FT continues to miss the point about the rise of Trump, and the others I mentioned at the top of this comment. At first I was convinced that they just didn't 'get it'. Now I'm beginning to think that the top writers are aware of the trend unfolding, and are equally aware of the corruption and mismanagement of the elites that has led to it...but are hoping it goes away. It won't...and 'whistling past the graveyard' will not make it so.