I suggest that it is not wrong for this prime minister or any prime minister to criticize her predecessors, cabinet colleagues, back benchers, or fellow members of parliament—in private or in public. Going over the heads of members of parliament by calling a snap election or engaging in political speech is precisely what is meant by normal democratic politics. Seeking to constrain normal democratic politics by characterizing it as abnormal is precisely the sort of behaviour that made Brexit possible—if not an existential necessity to secure democratic rights for ordinary voters.
[. . .]
Professor AAA thinks an elected Prime Minister’s trying to pass a cabinet programme by directly speaking to her nation’s people is somehow a wrong—a threat. And that is why millions of people voted for Brexit, and—I might add—why millions of people voted for: Donald J. Trump.
Reagan made his case directly to the voters by giving speeches which the networks were forced to broadcast unfiltered. Trump does the same thing by using Twitter. Trump’s critics respond as did Reagan’s, by trying to discredit the speaker and distract attention from his message. Trump’s critics are unsuccessful in doing this, as were Reagan’s.
I see some similarities between Trump – and Reagan. And of course, some differences. Reagan was affable to everyone – even those who considered him to be a “dunce”. If someone crosses Trump, he’s like an attack dog. I think too he needlessly attacks and alienates his natural allies.
I am wondering if that vote by McCain – the vote that saved Obamacare – was meant as a personal snub to Trump. (it is also why McCain has so angered many conservatives – having pledged while running to get rid of it).
But.
Both, as you said, speak over the media and straight to the people. Which infuriates people in the media.
Reagan didn’t have social media – Trump seems to be a master at using it.
I can’t remember his exact quote but someone once asked him if he cared what the New York Times thought of him.
His answer went something like “I have 100 million followers on Twitter – how many readers does the Times have?”
Interesting times, and despite his flaws, love the guy. Not your typical politician, and results oriented (not endless and meaningless promises).