Terror in Nice: Hillary is Heartsick, Trump is Angry

Trump and Hillary communicate very different emotions.

Hillary uses words like "Heartsick" and "Tragedy".    Trump uses the word "War" and "Cancer"

It is one of the Great Truths bandied about by political observers that Michael Dukakis blew his large lead over George H W Bush when, in the debate, he answered the question about how he would respond if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered by saying that he would oppose the death penalty in that case.  Viewers thought, "He's a robot, not a human."  He plummeted in the polls.

A husband--a president--is supposed to have heart and feel emotions.

We are having a Dukakis moment here in the 2016 election.   Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each had a high profile opportunity to communicate how they felt about the truck terror incident in Nice, France.   Hillary is acting like Dukakis--or Hamlet.  Trump is different: we are in a fight.  He is taking arms against the sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.   Or at least that is what he is saying. 

This is not good positioning for Hillary.

Click here to see the Trump/O'Reilly interview

Trump said "this is war.'

Trump says Americans are under attack right along with the French, and that he is going to do something about it right now.   Americans are in danger.  "It is out of control. We have a president that doesn’t want to call it what it is. And you know you look at World Trade Center, you look at San Bernardino, you look at Paris, 130 people killed and so many injured in Paris from that attack, and you look at Orlando. It’s out of control. And Bill, unless we get strong and really strong and very, very smart leadership, it’s only going to get worse.”

"You have to get all the NATO countries to say we are going to commit forces, both ground and air to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth.”

Trump takes action.   He identifies a danger, relates it to Americans, and posits a response that eliminates the danger.

Can it actually be done, would American forces be effective, do we really want ground troops, is this just big talk but bad policy?  All good questions Trump does not raise.   He focuses on an intent: eliminate the danger.  His interviewer, Bill O'Reilly on Fox, also doesn't raise questions of constraints or costs or effectiveness.   Big problem with fast solution: wipe them out.

Hillary describes a "tragedy" and "puzzle."

Hillary:  "Sick at Heart"

Hillary acknowledges the terrorist injury, empathizes with the victims, and describes the situation as a hardship to endure and a long project to undertake to remedy.    


Speaking on CNN to Anderson Cooper:  "First, Anderson, let me just say that I am sick at heart about what's happened to the French people. . . .   It reminds us very vividly and tragically that we need to stand with our allies, that we need to strengthen our alliances including with NATO.   I have proposed a series of measures to combat these kinds of attacks       including launching an intelligence surge. . . .     Watch her yourself.

Anderson Cooper says we are pushing back ISIS in the Middle East but elsewhere, "if anything, it seems those attacks are escalating."

"Well, I think, Anderson, you've put your finger on the, uh, puzzle we, uh, have to, uh, figure out how to, uh, undo.It is true that there's been progress on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq, uh, territory is being, uh, taken back, air strikes have been consistent, relentless, but I think it's also clear that as a result, uh, these, uh, advances against ISIS and their headquarters in Racca, their urgent desire to, uh, inflict terrorists attack elsewhere has led them to accelerate reaching out, not only directly, but indirectly, through the radicalization on line.  I've been saying for months we've got to do a better job combating them and their uh, hateful ideology on line and we need to enlist the help of more nations and institutions to do that."

I include the "uh" hesitations because they are an important element of her presentation.   Hillary seems unsure of herself and perhaps hesitant and deliberate because she sees a complex, multi-dimensional problem without easy clear solutions.   

Is, in fact, this a complex, multi-dimensional problem without easy clear solutions?  Yes, of course.  Hillary is only confronting and acknowledging an obvious truth that Trump and O'Reilly themselves would acknowledge privately.  Hillary is correct but will win few votes for communicating this.  The optics are that Hillary has a plan and expectation to endure terror in a long struggle in which we enlist reluctant allies.   

Hillary is communicating something difficult and likely accurate: success would be fewer terrorist attacks in the upcoming decades.   There will always be crazy people with guns, explosives, trucks, and planes.   Trump is communicating that success would start with decisive action, killing the terrorists, and the result would be America enjoying a safe and prosperous future, a Golden Age like the one in our imagined past.

Trump's impetuous and undisciplined manner is a problem for Trump, but it has an upside.   His unpredictability and out-of-the-box manner give him credibility as someone who can do the unexpected and implausible.   It would be unexpected and implausible that America could reverse skirmishes in a religious war that has persisted for 1400 years, but doing the unexpected is the Trump brand.

Hillary's brand is to toil on, making slow progress on intractable problems.

If voters perceive the race as a choice between success and toil, they will choose success.

Note to Readers:  I want to reiterate that I am attempting to describe the campaign objectively, with a close look at messaging, informed in part by having watched the body language of the candidates up close.   I am not cheering for Trump, when I observe that he is doing something politically effective.   I am not reflecting dislike for Hillary Clinton when I say that her positioning on this comes off as weak.   I am trying to describe political craftsmanship.