Serious, if true. But despite the media-generated firestorm, there is no sign that it is.
The major ingredient was a story from the Associated Press, preceded by its breathless announcement that: “More than half of those who met Clinton as cabinet secretary gave money to the Clinton Foundation.” There was one not-so-small problem with this: the AP’s math left out all officials of foreign governments, or our own.
That rules out almost everyone Clinton met with as secretary of state. The relatively minute sample remaining included, among others, a man awarded the Nobel Prize for his services to the poor, and representatives of a charitable foundation interested in a public-private partnership to combat AIDS. Other supposedly questionable emails included a request that diplomatic passports be given to aides accompanying Bill Clinton on a trip to secure the release of journalists by North Korea. As for evidence of wrongful “pay to play,” none has surfaced.
None of which prevented a host of commentators from going down the rabbit hole of unsupported conjecture—“the appearance of” or “potential for” unknown and unspecified improprieties, based on the gauzy assertion of “preferential access.” When these outlets include the New York Times, the line between speculation and truth blurs in the public mind, creating the aura of a “scandal” without any proof of one. Thus a recent poll shows that six of ten Americans believe that Clinton granted special favors to foundation donors.
All this conjuring of would-be misconduct not only nourishes the metanarrative involving Hillary Clinton, but shows how that narrative influences—or distorts—the coverage of Clinton’s campaign.
It is perfectly reasonable to scrutinize the Clintons as part of rigorous political reporting—for instance, their relationship to money, personal and political. As one example, Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of large speaking fees from Goldman Sachs was a bad idea, and her stated reason for not disclosing the speeches—that other politicians don’t—evades the point: Who else was getting paid like that?287 But the standards of fairness that apply to any public figure—including that suspicions should be rooted in substance—should apply equally to Hillary Clinton.
Which brings us back to Donald Trump.
As compared to the ephemeral speculation about the Clinton Foundation, the recent story about the Trump Foundation involves hard facts suggesting the existence of “pay to play.” At a time when the Florida attorney general’s office was investigating charges of fraud against Trump University, Attorney General Pam Bondi solicited and received a $25,000 campaign contribution from Donald Trump. Bondi claims not to know what her office was investigating; Trump asserts that they never discussed the matter.
But the contribution itself was channeled through the Trump Foundation, effectively obscuring its origins while violating IRS regulations. Trump says that all this was an oversight, not intended to conceal an effort to influence the investigation. Perhaps this is so; perhaps the fact that the Attorney General’s office subsequently dropped the investigation is another instance of happenstance. But if one cares about “pay to play,” the sequence of events deserves a good look.
It did get some attention. But a recent article by a Clinton supporter asserts that, to date, there were thirty-four times more articles about the Clinton Foundation than the Trump Foundation’s illegal gift. One need not check the numbers to observe that the volume of the media reportage was, with respect to the two foundations, in inverse proportion to the known facts. This becomes more curious in light of several prior instances where Trump concealed political donations or circumvented campaign finance laws.
Whatever the reason for this disparity, it cannot be Trump’s reputation for honesty. The New York Times and Washington Post have done good work in reporting a number of questionable business practices. This history includes casino bankruptcies where Trump protected himself at the cost of his investors; nonpayment of contractors; allegedly fraudulent educational or self-improvement programs directed at vulnerable consumers; charges of housing discrimination; and use of undocumented workers. A handful of other articles have documented sworn depositions where Trump told numerous and demonstrable lies.
Trump’s business record is his basis for seeking the presidency—indeed, it is the only credential he has. Yet his record of dishonesty in business has received scant attention from the media as compared to Clinton’s emails. Once more, the metanarrative that Clinton is untrustworthy has obscured on important question—whether the hard evidence of a lifetime shows Trump to be pervasively dishonest. And so, according to polls, voters continue to believe that—at least in relative terms—Donald Trump is more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton.
This seems all the more anomalous when one considers the candidates’ statements during the campaign itself. Fact checkers consistently find Clinton to be much more truthful in her assertions than most candidates, while crediting Trump with historic levels of mendacity. But given the nature of the coverage to date, these findings have not penetrated the public consciousness. However one feels about Hillary Clinton, her complaint that the media writ large has helped create a false equivalency must be taken seriously.
But this raises an equally important question: In casting about for scandal, calling the horse race, and focusing on the Clinton metanarrative, has the media slighted the most important subject of all—the candidates’ preparedness to hold the most powerful, and potentially most dangerous, office in the world? Has it, in other words, become a weapon of mass distraction, detracting from its efforts give us the information we most need?
To be sure, the scrutiny of Trump’s statements and qualifications since the primary season is far more intense than the generally indulgent coverage that preceded it. In the last month, especially, the media is looking hard at his veracity, his behavior, and his positions with respect to important issues.288 But Clinton has always received such attention—often with the utmost skepticism—and much work remains for the media’s examination of Trump to catch up with the man himself.
For on matters of substance, too, the double standard lingers on.
Perhaps by inadvertence, CNN’s Dana Bash identified one reason. Asked about the debates, she said, “I think the stakes are much higher . . . for Hillary Clinton because the expectations are higher for her because she’s a seasoned politician. She’s a seasoned debater.” By comparison, Bash continued, “Donald Trump . . . is a first-time politician,” concluding, “[m]aybe it’s not fair, but that’s the way it is. The onus is on her.”
But is “the way it is” the way it should be? If anything, should not the media be especially zealous in exploring the positions and qualifications of a candidate with so little relevant experience? Yet, all too often, Trump gets outsized credit when he reads canned speeches, with scant exploration of the content or the knowledge behind them. To the extent this occurs, it involves more than a double standard—it is a fundamental failure to seek the information voters need.
And want. Polls show that the issues that most concern Americans are the economy and national security. The press should focus on what the candidates propose in these areas, all the more so in case of Trump, about whom so little is known—including what he actually knows. The same is true in critical areas like the environment, race relations, and nuclear proliferation. Yet the media spends far too little time exploring these issues.
Even Trump’s remarkable embrace of Vladimir Putin, though widely reported, requires much more probing. What are Trump’s commercial relationships in Russia? Why is his leading military adviser, Michael Flynn, so closely tied to Russia and its government? What plans, if any, does Trump have to counter Russian expansionism? How does Trump view Russia’s role in Syria? What is Trump’s understanding of Putin’s suppression and even murder of dissidents? These questions, and more, deserve at least some of the energies expended on Clinton’s emails.
This is also true of Russia’s role in hacking emails. What do our intelligence analysts know about this? Why has Russia t
argeted Democrats for hacking? Why have they hacked electoral records in several states? And is there a concrete reason to believe that Russia is conducting these activities to tilt the election in favor of Donald Trump?289 That these questions must be handled sensitively and responsibly only enhances the need for responsible journalists to explore them, for they go to the heart of the stakes in this election.
Beyond doubt, the stakes are serious. The choice of a new president occurs at a critical juncture, in which we face grave challenges both at home and around the world. And yet the common metanarrative about this crucial decision is typified by a tweet from Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post: “This election is about voters choosing the least worst candidate. That’s where we are in our politics.”
This is glib, and it is lazy. This election is about far more than that. And the media must do far more to spell that out.
They can start with a more intense and probing inquiry about the issues—including, critically, in the debates. One can only hope this happens. For, thus far, the Clinton metanarrative has consumed too much space, throwing the coverage off balance.
Whatever her strengths and weaknesses, as a candidate for president, Hillary Clinton deserves better. More important, so do we.
Clinton vs. Trump
Black Swans and Perfect Storms
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Supporters of Hillary Clinton have long feared the “black swan”—that cataclysmic event that gives Donald Trump more than a puncher’s chance to knock her out. But more discerning worriers conjure a perfect storm of circumstances that, coalescing at just the wrong time, dismantle her edge in the electoral college.
Two weeks ago the skies seemed clear enough. The month started with a more comfortable candidate taking questions from reporters, giving good and measured speeches, and dismissing the feverish rumors about her health with a few amusing quips. She was reaching out to disaffected Republicans while attacking Trump with an air of presidential confidence. The most concrete concerns focused on turnout and demographics and, even here, her superior ground game gave her several paths to 270 electoral votes.
Still, it was possible to imagine a demographic breakdown that, although unlikely, would place her on the razor’s edge between victory and defeat.
In theory, Trump’s gift for repelling blacks, Latinos, women, young people, and college-educated whites gave her a daunting advantage. So why were the polls tightening? The simplest answer was Trump’s massive lead among whites without a college degree—particularly working-class men. Here, Trump’s attacks on free trade and immigration, and promises to preserve entitlements, gains him a larger and more loyal following than Mitt Romney enjoyed in 2012.
True, this demographic is shrinking as opposed to those where Clinton leads. This gives her the potential to overwhelm Trump’s narrower base. But, in itself, changing demographics means much less than intensity of support—who actually shows up to vote. Thus a gifted pessimist can imagine a scenario where, despite her organizational advantages, turnout goes absolutely haywire.
Start with what appears to be a passion gap. Polling shows that more than 60 percent of the registered voters who support Trump are following the campaign closely, and more than 90 percent say that they are certain to vote. Clinton voters are less attentive—45 percent—and a full 20 percent are less committed to voting. Thus polls of likely—as opposed to registered—voters erase Clinton’s edge.290
There are reasons to question this model, and it overlooks the distribution of votes in the electoral college. Still, to win comfortably Clinton must reassemble the Obama coalition: the minorities and young people—otherwise disinclined to vote—who turned out to elect and reelect America’s first black president. So far, it seems, she is falling short.
Obama is working this demographic hard, and the Clinton campaign is deploying Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren to help. But millennials, particularly blacks but also other minorities, seem less drawn to Hillary Clinton than to the president, and young African Americans are harder to reach than their parents and grandparents. The question is less who they vote for than whether they vote at all.
A depressed turnout among her potential supporters would jeopardize Clinton in crucial swing states where the race has tightened, leaving her more vulnerable to defeat. And a less enthusiastic voting base leaves her vulnerable to unforeseen events—as this weekend’s bombings reminded us yet again.
Even so, to have a chance of winning, Trump needs to turn out a bunch of less-educated white Americans who almost never vote. Here, too, passion is important, and events may matter—these otherwise disaffected people have to believe that Trump can win and that, as president, he would be a human Powerball ticket, transforming their lives for the better. While a massive influx of new voters seems unlikely, it is not inconceivable—as Trump’s recent rise in Ohio suggests.
Still, this alone is not enough. Trump also needs more Republicans to come home—including suburban and college-educated whites. To some degree, polls suggest that this is already occurring. Indeed, given that our politics are polarized, our candidates polarizing, and our information compartmentalized, the grip of old loyalties will only intensify. But to garner all the Republican-leaning but wary voters he needs, Trump needs to look normal or, more accurately, to create the illusion of normality.
Finally, there is the impact of third-party candidates—Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Trump not only needs them to outperform expectations for such political outliers, but to drain disproportionate support from Clinton. And, as of now, polls suggest that third-party candidates are hurting her more than Trump. The question is how many, and how much?
But suppose all that happens: overwhelming blue-collar support for Trump; depressed turnout for Clinton; a host of new Trump voters; a massive restoration of party loyalty among Republicans; and third-party damage to Clinton in key states. Further assume that virtually every important event between now and November breaks Trump’s way—including, contrary to right reason, the debates.
It then becomes possible to imagine a Trump electoral college victory, of necessity based on winning Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and, least likely, Pennsylvania. Or even that nightmare of improbabilities: a 269–269 electoral college tie. That would throw the election into the House of Representatives, which could give us President Trump.
This is the sequence of horribles that worries Democratic pros. For with the economy still flagging for too many Americans, the GOP should have the advantage of a “change election.” What they need is for their candidate to become thinkable for a sufficient plurality of Americans.
This is why thoughtful Democrats have started sweating the polls, near even despite an overwhelming advertising assault by the Clinton campaign. They fret that all the negative media about emails and the Clinton Foundation, however skewed, is tarnishing the positive image of Hillary Clinton that emerged from her convention. They wonder if her campaign has focused too much on denouncing Trump instead of inspiring voters. They fear the unknown that is yet to come.291
Then stuff started happening.
The first warning shot was fired by the moderator who couldn’t shoot straight—Matt Lauer. During back-to-back appearances at a forum devoted to military matters, Lauer consumed much of Clinton’s time aggressively relitigating the email controversy. In embarrassing contrast, he allowed Trump to deliver a series of lies and idiocies with his usual bluster, largely unimpeded by any references to reality.
This drove home some pitfalls awaiting Clinton in the “debates”—a word to be used advisedly. First, the quality of discourse depends greatly on the skill and resolve of the moderator. Second, absent a determined interlocutor to call him to account, a self-assured ignoramus like Trump can appear “presidential” while reciting nonsense. Given that the expectations for Trump are so low, in such a permissive environment he might be deemed the “winner” if he simply completes most of his sentences.
Then Clinton ma
de an unforced error that confirmed the existence of a double standard—one for Trump, the other for everyone else. Speaking at a donor event—ever a fallow ground for folly—Clinton tossed half of Trump’s followers in “the basket of deplorables”—the “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it.” A pretty effective list of adjectives if directed against the man himself. But against a chunk of the public, not so much—at least if you’re running for president.
Such verbal slips are nothing new. Obama described a Republican base “clinging to their guns and religion”; Romney told a gaggle of rich folks that 47 percent of their fellow citizens were moochers. They both paid—Romney in particular, because it fit his caricature as a heartless plutocrat.
To some degree, so will Clinton pay. For those Democrats keeping score, it was a reminder that this year’s playing field is far from level—Trump spouts far worse things with such metronomic regularity that nothing he says seems to stick. Except, ironically, to Hillary Clinton.
Potentially more worrisome was her literal stumble at a Sunday event to commemorate 9/11. On Friday, it transpired, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia. Given the rigors of campaigning, this was no surprise. But her decision to “power through” her schedule without disclosing her illness led to a ruder surprise—an alarming piece of film followed by several hours of delay before the campaign fronted her pneumonia.
This created two problems, both predictable. For a moment, at least, it fueled all the health hysteria fomented by the Trump campaign—including that she is suffering from cerebral damage. More lasting, it fed the usual trope about Clinton’s lack of “transparency.”
Her campaign has put out more health information—which, along with steadiness during the debates, should help put this to rest.292 It also appears that, as he did with the aptly named Dr. Oz, Trump will continue to vamp about his own superlative health, rooted in the benefits of Big Macs and insomnia. Still, this incident was another unpleasant reminder that, in presidential campaigns, surprises happen—whether or not provided by the Russians in October or, as just occurred, by terrorists from New Jersey. And it kept her off the stump for a few precious days.
Fever Swamp: A Journey Through the Strange Neverland of the 2016 Presidential Race Page 31