The Hillary Theme: Trust her ability to govern

Hillary is Trustworthy where it counts

Donald Trump calls her "Crooked Hillary."   I watch enough Fox News, in bits and pieces while I empty the dishwasher or slice a melon, to see that they are a 100% nonstop infomercial on Hillary's untrustworthiness.   Democratic Convention speakers did not try to repair her reputation on email sloppiness or Goldman Sachs speeches or whether she murdered Vince Foster.

Click here: Link to the NY Times article

The NY Times noted this, and Guest Post writer Thad Guyer expressed disappointment. 

Guyer: "The Ds went with "competence" which has not really been in contention in my view.  The convention ends without anyone saying she's trustworthy and as this NYT piece says, weve conceded the issue. I think that was a big political mistake, that Michelle and Barrack should have proclaimed her integrity, but perhaps this NYT analysis is right that the trust mantle is simply "beyond her reach". 

Competence has its virtues as a basis for electing Hillary Clinton

Humans compartmentalize.   The chocolate is fattening, but it tastes good.  Steph Curry cannot defend big power forwards, but he hits threes.  Ulysses Grant drank but his armies won, George Patton was bold and got a lot of men killed but his armies advanced, Tricky Dick Nixon seemed corrupt somehow but would bring law and order.  Hero Achilles was sulky and petulant but was the Greek army's greatest warrior.  The Bible's beloved King David conspired and killed to get another man's wife.   Sometimes the people necessary for the time and place have flaws.   They are still your heroes.

If Donald Trump wins a majority a great many people will think: he is an undisciplined showoff, but he will shake things up in the direction I want.  People will compartmentalize away his being un-presidential.

People open to voting for Hillary will acknowledge she screwed up on the emails and she  got rich as a political celebrity but will recognize she is competent where it matters, in how to govern.  The convention made governing competence the standard.

But does she say what people want said?   Will she competently lead the country in the direction voters want it to go?

The battle lines got drawn and the trench lines dug.   Trump is anti-immigrant in tone and anti-illegal-and-suspicious immigrant in policy.   Hillary is the candidate of inclusion.  Trump caught a huge wave of anti-immigrant anti-Muslim feeling, combined with a suspicion of financial elites, a populist revolt from both right and left.   Guyer suspects she is on the unpopular side of this argument:   "I admire Hillary for her bold if not "in your face opponents!" open borders advocacy and amnesty for anyone who can make it here. She has elevated that not just to policy but to moral principle. Only criminals will be sent back. So open borders will now be submitted to the jury of the electorate."  

But this blog isn't about admiration.  It intends to study political craftsmanship.    What campaigns are attempting and what works, not what should work or what we like and admire.    

There is a tidal wave of insecurity in the public and Hillary may be tone deaf to it, which helps explain why Trump and Sanders both did so well.  People distrust political and media and financial elites, even more than usual.  Eric Canter lost his primary.  Senators Lugar and Bennet lost theirs.  Sanders nearly beat Hillary.   Voters are ornery.   

Muslim

But she is not entirely tone deaf.   She understands that she is not the best spokesman for inclusion and diversity.

The speakers last night included dark skinned policemen in uniform speaking about their desire to serve and protect their community.  It included Kareem Abdul Jabbar, a familiar, trustworthy, Muslim convert of quiet demeanor who engenders enormous trust and respect.   Trump's broad brush attacks on Muslims end up including Jabbar--an outcome few Americans want.  Another speaker was the deeply dignified father of a Muslim soldier, killed in Afghanistan when he stepped forward and exploded a bomb, saving his unit: a war hero.   Hillary Clinton put a very sympathetic face on victims of Trump's campaign themes.


Hillary Clinton is accused of being a hawk by the dove-left, and correctly so.   Hillary is dug into the trench of inclusion but she is not defending or excusing jihad.  Her heroes are the American soldiers of Muslim faith who fight and die out of pride and patriotism for America.  This is the spear-tip of her attack, voiced by Khizr Khan:

"Go look at the graves of brave Americans who died defending Unites States of America.  You will see all faiths, genders, and ethnicities.   You have sacrificed nothing."

We do not need to trust Hillary on emails when we can see that broad brush xenophobia of the kind that Trump expresses when he is most careless and provocative goes too far.   She is competent where it counts, and she may be more trustworthy on the issue of immigration and inclusion.  Trump goes too far.

Voters who do not trust Hillary or Trump have to decide whether they trust Jabbar and Khan, and she chose well.   If they are the face of immigration and inclusion and diversity, Hillary wins.

But events may work for Trump.  Somewhere, it is certain, some person is planning some new act of murder somewhere in the world.   And some black American will be videotaped throwing rocks at policemen, or something worse.   Events of everyday life, people working, students going to school, lives lived--these are not newsworthy.  An explosion would be.  Events will help Trump more than hurt him.