Every four years the presidential race tightens. A twenty point lead in August becomes a ten point lead in September. A five-point lead in October becomes neck and neck by the first week in November. This phenomenon of politics is built into the American political system, and is largely a product of the structure of news coverage which is dominated by the necessity to attract readers and viewers and to sell advertising space. To do this news outlets must tell a dramatic story of conflicting parties and personalities, while at the same time appearing objective.
The result is a narrative in which both candidates are flawed, and both parties are corrupt. In this narrative, there is little that distinguishes the candidates. Clear-cut differences of policies or philosophies are blurred, and undecided voters have little to base their decision on other than personalities.
In the final days before an election, candidates’ personal characteristics become more important than their policy proposals and their political and social philosophies. The presidential election of 2016, more than perhaps any other in recent history, is a referendum of the candidates’ characters.
To understand what the candidates actually believe and what they would do if they were in the White House, a little history should help. Over the course of the twentieth century, and perhaps earlier, the politics of personality increasingly gave way to an iniquitous politics of character assassination. Some people trace the origin of this toxic political environment to the rough-handling of Robert Bork in his failed attempt to join the Supreme Court in 1987. Others blame Richard Nixon’s “enemies list,” and his forced resignation from office in 1974. Still others trace it back to the original conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Clearly it has a long history, and neither side can say, “he/she started it.”
One thing is clear. This election cycle is unique in modern history. There is the growing sense that everything has been turned upside down.
The Democrats, traditionally the party of “the little guy,” are now seen by many as the party of the establishment, of stability, and the status quo. The Republicans, traditionally the party of “big business,” meanwhile, under Donald Trump, have been lifted by an up-swelling of populist, anti-government sentiment. Republicans who have traditionally believed that everyone should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” now put their faith in a charismatic individual whose personal powers alone can save them in a faltering economy. Somethings have remained the same. While the Republican Party has undergone a seismic shift in its policies and philosophy, Democrats still believe that the federal government, working with the private sector has the responsibility and the power to help every member of society.
One other thing has not changed. Over the course of the past thirty years, Republicans have distilled a dislike of Hillary Clinton into a toxic poison of hatred. They have engaged in a three-decade long campaign to discredit and vilify her. They have spent millions of dollars of private, and public funds to investigate every aspect of her life. Public prosecutors, Congressional committees, private investigators have subpoenaed, scrutinized, examined, inspected, and analyzed, virtually everything Hillary has ever said or written. The names, Whitewater, Travelgate, Benghazi, and many others have become part of the American political lexicon. All of these investigations have led us nowhere. Liberal and conservative commentators oftetn comment saying, “there is no conclusive evidence so far of wrong-doing.” It would be more accurate to say, “There is no evidence.”
Where evidence of wrong-doing has been absent, however, Hillary’s critics have resorted to rumors and outright lies. These usually get started on social media sites on the internet, and then are picked up by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, and ultimately end up in common circulation.
The “vast right-wing conspiracy” to discredit her is still alive.
Certainly, Hillary is not blameless. Like everyone she has made mistakes. Like every politician she has compromised when she perhaps should have stood her ground. (Her biggest mistake was probably voting for the Iraq War in 2003.)
The cloud of scandal that surrounds Hillary is not an accident. It has been carefully created over the years by her political rivals aided by a media adjective.
Every new piece of (mis-)information feeds the culture of suspicion, and becomes more evidence that the rumors are true.
The irony is that Hillary has been working for the past forty years to make American lives better, for people to have health care, for women and children, etc. etc. While there is a plethora of evidence that her opponent has actually been involved in corrupt business practices. Bribed an Attorney General in Florida not to investigate fraud in his Trump University, and then hid evidence of the bribe in misreporting on his tax forms (paid a 2,500 fine by the IRS.
The Clinton Foundation, working around the world to improve health conditions, save lives from HV Aids.
Upside down.
alexanderboulton 