Another long-winded political treatise, election 2016 edition

Greetings, history students of the future.

It’s the Sunday before election 2016 and I wanted to put a few thoughts down for posterity. Disclaimer: I was encouraged in this endeavor by my wife, which scenario has not always worked to our advantage in the past. Be that as it may…

As a clearly frustrated man once painstakingly explained to a roomful of confused members of the press, “There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.”

Conventional wisdom at the time was that this fellow was speaking gibberish, but we didn’t know yet what we don’t know now.

For instance, we actually don’t know as of this writing who is going to succeed Barack Obama as president. We don’t know for a fact yet that if Donald Trump is elected, America as a free and open Democracy will come to an end. Perhaps he could turn out to be just like any other lying politician and betray his supporters by governing in a fair, wise and impartial manner. We don’t know if Hillary Clinton is elected, the number—even rounded off to the thousands—of investigations upon which Congress will immediately embark, only that the Republican party leadership has already promised to do so should she be elected.

All we know we know is what the candidates have done and said up until this point.

Or do we?

Both candidates have been public figures since at least the 1980s. Both of their lives have been documented in real time and exhaustive detail. 

As regards Mr. Trump, he has never made any secret of the fact that he is a perennial leering frat-boy. It has always been essential to his carefully-cultivated public persona prior to his run for office. Far from being a liability, that kind of reputation was desirable to young movers-and-shakers of the era. Watch “Wall Street” (1987) again and imagine any of those young Trump contemporaries, grown to age 70 and running for president. Oliver Stone should do a sequel set in a dystopian future about Charlie Sheen’s character’s presidency. I have little doubt Mr. Sheen would be able to find a hole in his schedule to accommodate the film’s production.

Be that as it may…

The problem with Mr. Trump’s candidacy—as one who has a problem with it but doesn’t claim to speak for any larger constituency—is that his personal character has not grown and matured over the years into something more seemly, more in touch culturally with what is actually going on in the world right now. 

Unlike most well-adjusted adults who adapt to changing ideas, social mores and global realities as they are legitimized, Mr. Trump has always exercised a firm, consistent refusal to do so. That’s why he appears to think it’s still funny to comport himself like a freshman at a frat party, tipsy from his first beer. He demonstrates an unwavering inflexibility that makes it all but inevitable that he would fail to move America forward by finding common ground either domestically or internationally. He doesn't compromise with opponents, he crushes them. His brand is built on winning, not finding common ground.

Everything else flows from that fundamental character flaw. The casual misogyny, the dog-whistle racism, the amusement at the violence at his rallies, the comically broad reverence alternating with outright dismissal of poll numbers depending on how well they reflect on his candidacy, even the curiously effective tactic of turning around every well-founded allegation about the deviance of his personality and activities and applying them to his opponent… He’s all about being the golden boy who can’t fail, a phase most people fortunate enough to pass through grow out of by their eighth decade.

His unfitness for office comes down to his unflinching mental and emotional inflexibility. That’s this reporter’s problem with Mr. Trump.

What does 30 years in the public eye tell us about Secretary Clinton? We know she didn’t follow protocol with her email server and due to sophisticated hacking that even secure servers are falling prey to these days, state secrets might have been compromised. We surely know that four Americans died during an embassy attack in Libya while she was Secretary of State. Like most high-profile political figures, we know she gave speeches for big money—in some cases to widely-disliked audiences—after she left office. She chose not to leave her husband when his philandering humiliated her on the world stage. And we know that before she became First Lady, Secretary Clinton spent her civilian career advocating in the courts for the rights of children.

Like Mr. Trump’s past, we know all this because it is part of the public record. The facts I’ve cited regarding Secretary Clinton are universally known and accepted, as are the facts cited about Mr. Trump. Both candidates have acknowledged them.

So a reasonable historian might ask, “However did a trust-fund billionaire with anger issues get anywhere close to beating an almost comically overqualified public servant in the presidential race of 2016?”

This is not an unknown. The Clinton campaign's critical miscalculation, its Achilles' Heel, was a known known going in, yet the powers-that-be went in anyhow.

Specifically, anyone who follows politics at all knows the Clintons are radioactive to conservatives. Hard-right, squishy-right, even RINOs, one thing they find common accord on is absolute loathing of the Clintons and everything with which they are associated. This is a first-hand report; I’ve seen it with my own eyes since moving to the hinterlands. And after living among the ‘Hillary Haters’ for the past few years, I understand what Hillary must, too:

Something (the topic for a whole ‘nother column) about the Clintons just plain pushes the right-wing’s buttons. Bill Clinton’s was the first presidency in my lifetime that was portrayed by his opponents as illegitimate from the get-go. And in the years since, opposing all things Clinton has become a cottage industry within the right-wing; people go to work every day, punch a clock, and sit down and write crazy stuff about the Clintons and their enterprises. Example: There are a surprising number of Americans who have actually been convinced that Secretary Clinton has had dozens of people killed on her ‘path to power.’ I just read this morning about something called ‘Pedophile Island’ that Secretary Clinton is reported (“…some say…”) to frequent. Wild stories that are right up there with Sasquatch and dead Elvis eco-humping a baby seal on a polar icecap, but they are widely regarded as credible revelations. To support this belief system, it is further held that the whore-like, ratings-driven mainstream media has neglected to cover these heinous crimes because, what, the cable news shows don’t care for ratings now that they have become profit hubs for their networks? This breathless ‘fan fiction’ doesn’t even appear on Fox News, but most of the rank-and-file accept it as an article of faith. 

This brings me to my real issue with Hillary Clinton—not as president, where I think she’ll be excellent, given the chance—but as a candidate. President Obama says, nowhere will we find a more qualified candidate than Secretary Clinton, but he leaves out the fact that nowhere will we also find a more divisive candidate. The Democrats have chosen to field their most qualified but least viable candidate ever, at the exact point in history that has witnessed the wholly unanticipated rise of Mr. Trump and the coalescing of the alt-right behind a major-party candidate.

“Perfect storm” is such an overused phrase, I won’t even dignify it by including it in this column.

And after considering all of that, this was the year we as Progressives thought it would be a good idea to rip the scab off decades of metastasizing fear and loathing of the Clintons? This year, when historically, two-term presidents are rarely followed by a president of their own party? When there’s an open seat on a Supreme Court already packed with doddering octogenarians? When social media has lent wings to hatred, misinformation and intolerance? When we had a kick-ass candidate in Martin O’Malley who nobody knew from Adam, for whom the GOP would have had to start from scratch with oppo research, instead of the decades’-worth of trash talk about the Clintons, instantly capable of resurrection and meme-worthy? I cannot emphasize this enough: the entire right-wing thinks Secretary Clinton is literally the devil, or at least actively in league with him. 

I like Secretary Clinton. I like her positions, generally speaking. But I was very angry when she announced she was going to run—both times. If I could foresee the political vulnerability her candidacy would represent, why couldn’t she? She had to have known. So just like I’ve taken the license to analyze Mr. Trump’s motivations, I’ll favor Secretary Clinton with equal time. Underneath what may be loads of good intentions, I see hubris with a capital HRC; she’s been patient, done her due diligence and dammit, it’s her time now. She’s too smart not to have seen the Congressional impasse (and likely Constitutional crisis when the House passes articles of impeachment) that's guaranteed to dog any potential Clinton administration. But she went for the golden ring just the same.

I suppose hubris is something every presidential aspirant must necessarily possess to think they alone are best qualified to solve the problems of the world. But to think the position is owed to them, like Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton seem to, is beyond hubris. They have both taken the concept and practice of entitlement to a Wagnerian extreme.

But only one is ready to tee America up to fiddle as the world burns. And light the match. And pour gasoline on the flames. 

And that’s why I’m with her. Because my insane narcissist has the portfolio that suggests she can fulfill the requirements of the job, and will not be tempted to burn the country down just because it will generate the biggest ratings.