I have a lot of mixed feelings about the downward spiral some believe we are on. I think the demolition derby we are watching has often been devoid of substance and hasn't always showed Americans at their best. Yet, to those who dismiss it all as just another sign of American decline, I'd like to suggest that they are missing something pretty important about how a lengthy, even nasty, process like this is pivotal in establishing a critical personal connection to candidates.
The Descent Into Political Oblivion?
I share the lament of many observers about the implications of the decline of civility in contemporary American politics. A lot of it has deteriorated into petty childishness unbecoming of a presidential candidate. Am I worried about the advent and staying power of Donald Trump? Yes. I think his unvarnished, sexist, xenophobic rhetoric represents the worst of American politics. And, I am genuinely worried about ever having to utter the words "President Trump" or the "Trump Administration." At the same time, I don't see it as anything particularly new in American political life. For example, is Trump's brand of populist nonsense really all that different than that perpetuated in the mid- to late-19th Century about the so-called "yellow peril?" For Trump, it's migrants from Mexico and the Muslim world. In the 19th Century, it was Chinese labourers and immigrants. Do any of you history buffs recall Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner in 1856? How about Aron Burr vs. Alexander Hamilton in 1804? Things get nasty from time to time.
 |
| Brooks Attacking Sumner on Senate Floor |
 |
| Burr-Hamilton Duel |
 |
| You know who |
Unfortunately, that doesn't make the contemporary rhetoric any more palatable. Mr. Trump's appeal might be appalling, but the resonance of his rhetoric among a relatively stable 30%-35% of the Republican Party should give us pause. Trump didn't exactly create the angst and anger among his supporters; rather he has shrewdly, cleverly, and deliberately (all words chosen carefully) tapped into and exploited it. Even more troubling, his Republican competitors have descended into the mud with him, promising ever tougher measures on, for example, immigration. Marco Rubio, for one, was once a centrist sponsor of legislation to fix America's immigration system, and bring many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows by offering some form of legal status. As the GOP primary contest has advanced, Rubio has run away from his centrist views as fast as he can.
All Sizzle and No Steak?
Judging from the political punditry on television and my unscientific observations of various Twitter feeds, a lot of people believe the GOP primary race has been devoid of real policy content. I beg to differ. Admittedly, teasing out the substantive differences among the candidates requires that you be able to get past the verbal barbs. However, the crowded field of GOP candidates represented vastly different visions on a range of policy issues, notably foreign policy.
Nevertheless, how many of us actually choose our favourite candidate on the basis of policy alone? It's not a great reflection on our decision-making capacities as voters, but we base an awful lot of our impressions about candidates on a pile of intangibles that have very little to do with policy; in fact, I wonder if policy differences are largely irrelevant? So, why do we have so many bloody debates? Why are there so many primary contests? Why does it seem like would-be presidential candidates are on our televisions 24/7/365 for more than two years prior to election day? It's all about shaping our impressions-- mostly non-policy impressions-- about the next president.
While there is a lot of interest in this year's presidential contest, how many voters have actually watched the debates? How many people have tuned into the nearly-limitless commentary on cable news channels in an effort to become more informed about "the issues?" How many people get up early on Sunday mornings to watch the various political talk shows?
By contrast, late-night talk shows, political skits on Saturday Night Live, or political commentary on the Daily Show or Last Week Tonight, are having a major impact on how we perceive our leadership. Many depictions are caricatures, but all are shaping perceptions in ways that are entirely out of the candidates control. Has anyone seen Larry David playing Bernie Sanders on SNL? What about Kate McKinnon playing Hillary Clinton? Who can forget Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin? Or Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton? Each has been devastatingly effective in shaping public perceptions.
Or, in many cases, politicians do it to themselves. Here are a couple of oldies from 1992 (ouch!!!):
Or how about the one that started it all, Kennedy-Nixon debate from 1960:
For those listening on the radio, Nixon was the victor. Among those watching television, Kennedy was the clear winner. Fair?
In part what we are doing is trying to establish some kind of connection with the candidate, a way to relate to them on a human level, a sense that they appreciate our problems and can represent us. We ask a lot of our presidential candidates. On the one hand, we want them to be among the best of us since they'll be representing us on the global stage. Yet, we also want the elites we chose as president to know what a grocery scanner is, how much a loaf of bread costs, and be able to sit down in a coffee shop in Iowa or New Hampshire with us about the issues. In 2008, Hillary Clinton learned a painful lesson during the Iowa Caucus process wherein she didn't spend nearly enough time doing the sort of retail politics that Iowans demand in order to get their votes. It was the beginning of the end. In the 2016 cycle, Hillary Clinton is again having problems with that personal connection to voters. Yet, her opponent, a 74yr old self-declared socialist, seems to be doing just that with a far younger generation of supporters. And what about Trump supporters? How is it that a billionaire, reality TV, real estate mogul who flies around in his own Boeing 757 is resonating with so many blue-collar voters? In part, it may be because he's been in the public eye for so long; you sort of know what you're getting with Trump.
Incivility Revisited
This brings me back to the incivility of the current campaign, particularly among Republicans. In many ways, the entire presidential election process is surreal. We put the candidates through the ringer in a series of staged settings and evaluate them, often harshly, on the basis of things other than substance. Yet, the presidency itself is an equally surreal job that arguably demands the kind of harsh vetting we are observing. How a candidate responds to attacks on substance or style, reacts under outrageous pressure-packed conditions, or is able to connect with people on a visceral level may say a lot about how they will handle the job of President of the United States. It is the toughest, nastiest, and longest job interview in the world. But perhaps it should be.
Presidents rarely get everything they want when in office, and how they react and adjust to adversity on the campaign trail tells us something about how they might react to the unexpected and adverse from the Oval Office. Jeb Bush is a case in point. Bush was an early favourite to win the GOP nomination, garnering buckets of money and support from establishment Republican donors. Yet, in the face of Trump's bombast, Jeb Bush has turned out to be a stunningly bad candidate. If Jeb cannot respond to schoolyard-style personal attacks from Trump, how will he respond to more serious challenges as president? I am among those who think Trump's support will never get beyond the 40% or so of the GOP he needs to break through. Trump has a lot of virtues, including some brilliant media instincts, but his offensiveness will come back to haunt him as the rest of the GOP field winnows. Instead, what's important here is how the rest of the field deals with Trump.
I wish there was more policy being discussed among the candidates, and I dislike the nastiness of the current campaign. But, the base vitriol is not unprecedented, nor pointless. Each of the candidates is responding in very different ways, each revealing qualities about themselves and their approaches to adversity that the public is watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment