Newscasters and commentators who analyze the candidates’
performance and the public’s reaction immediately after presidential debates
typically endeavor to express a unique point of view that gives a special
insight to what just occurred. Each pundit wants to shine with something
different or surprising to build her-his recognition and brand.
Not after the third debate, though.
For the first five minutes, flipping between the various
news programs, one topic and one topic
alone under discussion: Donald Trump’s explicit refusal to recognize the
results of the election in advance. Never before in the history of the United
States has a major party candidate been unwilling to endorse the voting and
Electoral College totals. It shocked many. Some Republican analysts said it
disqualified him from consideration as our next president. Everyone understood
that Trump was undermining a basic principle of American democracy, a two
century compact between the people and government: the peaceful transfer of
power from one regime to the next. Technically, Trump was probably committing
sedition, which Merriam-Webster’s defines as “conduct consisting of speaking, writing, or acting
against an established government or seeking to overthrow it by unlawful means; resistance
to lawful authority; conduct tending to treason but without an overt act.”
Wallace gave Trump a chance to change his mind, but the
Donald dug in, eschewing reality in favor of his fantasy world in which the
only way he ever loses is when he is cheated.
Speaking of Wallace, he did a fine job, certainly the best
of any moderator this election cycle. He kept the candidates to the issues and
kept them talking on point. He made sure both sides got their say and kept
order between the two candidates. Although he said he would not fact check, he
did correct Trump a time or two. He kept the audience under control. The only
disruption I heard was a loud rumble of laughter and sniggers when
Trumpty-Dumpty said “Nobody has more respect for women than me.”
After the debate, Trump surrogates tried to compare what
Trumpty-Dumpty said to Al Gore not conceding until a month after the 2000
election. To their credit, every reporter and pundit understood that refusing
to agree to the results because the election could be rigged weeks before the
voting is far different from Gore waiting until the results in Florida had been
confirmed, or in the case of the 2000 election, mandated by the Supreme Court. Once
the Supreme Court ruled, Gore wasted no time in endorsing the election returns,
even though it meant he lost despite a significant edge in the popular voting. And
Gore never said the election was rigged or threatened not to abide by the vote
in the Electoral College.
By the time Trump made his seditious statement not once but
twice, he had already lost the debate on merit. As in the first two debates, he
interrupted, he fidgeted with his mic, he tried to shout Hillary down and he
lost control and got angry. The longer the debate went, the more incoherent his
remarks became and the louder his constant sniffing became. He resorted to insults, the worst of which
was when he muttered, “Such a nasty woman.”
And Trump lied and lied and lied. He lied about the impact
of illegal immigration. He lied about the relative strength of the U.S. and
Russian nuclear arsenal. He lied about what occurs in late-term abortion. He
lied about the situation in Syria. He lied about the State Department losing $6
billion. He made unfounded accusations against his opponent. The fact-checkers found
many of his statements false, while confirming that Hillary has been the most
truthful candidate of this election cycle.
When the history of the 2016 election is written, I’m fairly
certain historians will focus on the Trump phenomenon, his insults of other
candidates, his dust-up with a Gold Star family, his infamous tape in which he
admits to sexually assaulting women and his refusal to pledge to honor election
results. Many will forget how masterful Hillary has been in these debates. Hillary
showed why she has never lost a presidential debate in her life—tied a time or
two, but never lost. Unlike the rambling
Trumpty-Dumpty, Hillary spoke with extreme efficiency and precision. Her
typical answer consisted of several parts: her stand, the facts to back the
stand, why her opponent’s stand was inferior and a dig at Trump. Her formula:
present the facts presidentially, then bait your opponent. Trump didn’t always take the bait, but even
when he didn’t, you could see him fuming and fidgeting. Clinton, by contrast,
laughed off Trump’s insults and accusations. She kept her poise while
successfully goading her opponent to lose his. She also had her share of clever
moments, my favorite of which was when she contrasted what she was doing in
each of the past four decades to what Trump was doing; e.g., in the ‘70s she
worked on behalf of poor children, while Trump was being sued for
discrimination in rental practices.
But most of all, Hillary was cool and Americans like their
presidents cool.
By cool, I mean her demeanor and temperament, not her sense
of style or her social position in high school (which is what Maureen Dowd
would mean). Americans tend to select as president the candidate who seems most
comfortable with her-his body and in her-his surroundings. They like the
candidate who stays in control, as long as that control comes easily and is not
the product of a visible internal struggle. They like
smiles over frowns, friendly over angry. Cool over hot.
Eisenhower was cooler than Stevenson in temperament and
demeanor. Kennedy was cooler than Nixon. Reagan was cooler than Carter. Bush I
was cooler than Dukakis, but no one was ever as cool as Bill Clinton. Certainly
not Bob Dole. Bush II was cooler than both Gore and Kerry. Obama was cooler
than McCain and Romney.
And the calm and studied Hillary is a lot cooler than the
strident and fumbling Donald Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment