Full disclosure. "D" was the first letter that crossed my mind then thinking about this edition of the blog. "D" for "disgusted", as many Americans find the Presidential choices this year lacking. But that's not covering new ground, and stating the obvious isn't my intent, nor is it in any way interesting. What's been puzzling me, however, is precisely why people are disgusted with the choices at hand. Read on, gentle people. The letter of this election is "S".
Yes, Hillary Clinton is a liar, and yes, it's not illegal, despite the best efforts of Congress to try and shame her and trick her into falling on some moral sword. Ain't gonna happen, and quite honestly, Americans are quite comfortable with liars, and many have been elected President. Hypocrites, on the other hand, are looked upon poorly, but that is a topic for another post. Establishing the lying part as an accepted baseline, what is it then about Secy. Clinton that is so damning that this is still a contest and not a foregone conclusion? THAT'S the real mystery of this election.
I don't think it's the dishonesty, the blind ambition, the pantsuits, the shrieking, or even the first husband, that keeps a good many Americans from jumping on the Hillary train. No folks, I think the best "S" word that comes to mind when I try and think of why Ms. Clinton is political Kryptonite is "smug". She's smug. Her staff are smug. Her campaign is, in a nutshell, smug. And very few things in American life piss people off more than smug. Smug is the rich kid in elementary school that acted like they were better than you because they (thought) they had more money. Smug is the frat boy or sorority girl who thought that the Greek letters on their button-down shirts or plastered across their Soul-cycled butts made them somehow more entitled to a lofty place in society. Smug is this kid:
A friend reminded me of a great quote the other day, attributed to Barry Switzer (of Oklahoma football fame), "Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple". I mention the quote as a reference to being smug, not Ms. Clinton (IMO), as I personally think she's worked her ass off to get where she has, and to imply that she was given this or that is simply wrong.
Smug in the Clinton campaign is wrapped in the entitlement mentality that somehow, given her history of being first lady, Senator, Secy. of State, and fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation, that the Presidency is somehow "owed" her. But more importantly, that each and every step and action she's taken along this path is justified because it gets her to the goal she "deserves". Steps like the e-mail server, overnights the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation. The problem is, smug doesn't live in a vacuum. Smug needs people to react. Those who buy into the premise that the "smugger", in this case Hillary, is in fact deserving of the attitude, versus those who think, "who the hell does she think she is". I do acknowledge some weirdness in this analysis, because plenty of examples abound of successful people who are not viewed as smug. Usain Bolt comes to mind. World's fastest man, and damn proud of it.
People LOVE him, myself included. He's fun. Hillary? Not so fun. Methinks she presents too much of a "woe is me" persona (eg. "flat broke") that simply rubs many the wrong way. Like anyone worth less than combined estimated $110 million net worth for Bill and Hill. If that's "flat broke", what does that make everyone else? Maybe, like the guy who was turned into a newt in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "I got better". Better indeed.
So if Hillary is smug, what does that make the Donald? So many possibilities, but searching for a single word to encapsulate what makes Trump unsuitable for so many people. It ISN'T that he's a boor, a bigot, and chauvinist, or a blowhard (although some may argue). No, if you don't think Trump's qualified, I think the reason to look elsewhere is because he's shallow. Shallow of thought, shallow of mind, shallow of...pretty much everything requiring analytical thought for more than the blink of an eye. Beautiful women? Check. Rich folks? Check. Dictators? Check. "Skin deep" is the perfect description. He sees what's on the surface, makes a complete judgement, moves on. So why is that so wrong? Well, because sometimes...that IS wrong. "Don't judge a book by it's cover" isn't an enduring saying for nothing. I'd venture to guess that Trump is more shallow than most Americans. But not all.
The "smug vs. shallow" aspect of this election feeds into my thoughts on where the status of the election is this week. Since the conventions, polling has shows Clinton persistently ahead of Trump in pretty much all metrics (popular vote, electoral college, Pokemon Go characters, you name it), Hillary has smartly played the political version of Dean Smith's "four corners offense", ie. run out the clock. Boring, but effective. And legal (snark). It's premised upon you being in the lead (hint, she is), and not giving your opponent any opportunity to score against you in the closing minutes. Ultimately there are no lingering style points in an election, it's win or lose, everything else is gravy. Following this premise I do express some surprise that the Clinton campaign has been so gung-ho about the Presidential debates. I presume this is because they see it as a chip shot, a face to face between the "most prepared candidate for President EVER" versus "The Apprentice". I would be concerned. Overconfidence CAN be a weakness.
But at this point it's still likely to be a successful strategy. Trump winning (and not with the Charlie Sheen sense of irony), requires something that simply hasn't happened before in a modern election...well, except for eight years ago. IMO for the Donald to win the Oval Office he has to do with disaffected previous non-voters what then-Senator Barack Obama did with young people. Get them out to vote. MUCH easier said than done, but maybe not impossible. These so-called "low information" voters may not be the social-media/internet/new economy part of the population, and thus may not be as readily accessible as a simple Tweet or Facebook post can reach. In a perverse way of life coming full-circle, it is possible that the most efficient means of reaching the potential (but not yet voting) Trump supporter is simple old-fashioned "snail mail" direct mail marketing, the very means by which Karl Rove (remember him?) made his fortune. That'd be weird.
But don't be mistaken, Hillary still has a formidable lead, but not insurmountable for the Donald. And, as has been oft said this season, anything can happen. And will. As usual, thanks for reading, I'll try and keep it interesting. There's lots of material here.
No comments:
Post a Comment