Thanks to Donald Trump and company, US democracy won't be winning over its critics any time soon
Mike Rowse says the circus that was the televised debate between the Republican contenders for the US presidential race gave a poor account of America's democratic ideals
Those who claim that democracy is not suitable for Hong Kong, or at least not yet, will have been heartened by the antics in recent weeks of contenders for the US Republican Party presidential nomination. If even the standard bearer for democracy produces such shenanigans, what could such a system possibly have to offer a sophisticated city like ours? Meanwhile, American friends of all political persuasions have been cringing with embarrassment.
Let's start with the number of candidates: no fewer than 17 people put their names forward at the beginning of the process. In an attempt to avoid chaos at the first live televised debate, on August 6, the debate was split in two. The 10 candidates polling best up to that point would take part in a debate during prime time, while the seven polling less well would have a separate session earlier in the evening.
READ MORE: Donald Trump's unwarranted attacks on China a serious worry
The most striking aspect of the polling at this stage was that Donald Trump was leading the field. He had achieved that status by insulting people, mainly the Hispanic community. He categorised immigrants from Mexico as rapists and murderers, promised to build a wall along the entire length of the border to keep them out and make Mexico pay for it, and, to cap things off, would deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the 50 states.
Bearing in mind that America cannot even maintain its existing infrastructure, and that it would take many years and the army to deport such a large number of people, that was certainly a bold electoral platform. Moreover, a major reason Mitt Romney failed to unseat President Barack Obama in 2012 had been because he captured a relatively low share of the Hispanic vote. Such remarks seemed unlikely to reverse the situation.
When challenged by the media, our Donald compounded the problem by saying that he was not obliged to defend Obama when anyone attacked him. This response was totally dishonest, because it ignored the fact that the premises of the question were not a criticism of the president - they were falsehoods. By failing to correct them, Trump by implication endorsed them. Bear in mind also that Trump had been one of the original and most vociferous "birthers" until Obama was driven to publish a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate to put an end to what he called "this silliness".
READ MORE: 'Hill’s shrill': Trump brands Clinton 'sha-riiiiill', but insists he's no sexist
Now, if you were sitting in Beijing, having just seen the Singapore version of democracy in smooth action, and watching the American version with increasing incredulity, which version would you be leaning towards?