The current issue of The New York Review of Books includes an article discussing the ongoing Presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The analysis is wide ranging and intelligent. The story begins:
We can read the polls, which are more reassuring than not, and Nate Silver’s probability calculations, which have consistently shown since the summer, with fluctuations, that Hillary Clinton is far more likely to be elected than Donald Trump. We exhale and even allow ourselves to daydream a little when we read reports that Clinton is close or occasionally ahead in states like Arizona and even Georgia, where wins would ensure a resounding rejection of Trumpismus.
Hope continues to reign for many of us, but is that realistic in the light of today’s media environment?
... these points are somehow never quite as reassuring as they ought to be. They struggle for traction in a media environment that helped Trump during the primary season and that has continued to do so, not because any leading news organizations are openly for him,1 but because the “objective” American press doesn’t know how to deal with a man who says something false nearly every time he speaks (and gives much more offense besides).
Our media today is ruled by the short attention span and by sensationalism. For far too much of the time readers are treated as uneducated boobs more interested in entertainment than in factual reporting. Trump caters to that mentality and functionality at every opportunity.
The effect is to make the provocateur seem somehow normal.
This is the main obstacle that Clinton—who, as we know, has her own set of problems—will face from now until November 8. Can Trump’s lies, about her and about the world, be effectively countered and contained?
How indeed? We may hope Trump continues to behave in his usual irrational manner. But what if he appears in the first debate as a rational and believable candidate? The media coverage of reality in terms of his underlying bigotry may be forgotten by the bulk of viewers.
Clinton has much to lose in these debates, and Trump much to gain. The stakes were made all the higher after Clinton’s health scare on September 11 and diagnosis of pneumonia.
The media has continued to play to the Trump tune far too often. In the interest of “fair and balanced” reporting every adverse story about one or the other candidate requires some measure of adverse telling about the other. With the overwhelming amount of Trump adversity Clinton suffers from overplaying the tale far too often.
At the polls in November another set of issues:
But here is a paradox. Republican grandees may not want Trump to win, and yet they need him to come close, because whether he loses by three points or seven points may well determine the fate of the Senate. It might therefore be in the self-interest of some Republicans who have heretofore kept their distance from Trump to help pull his voters to the polls.
Voters over the course of time too often fail to split their votes between parties. That leaves Democratic Senatorial and Representative candidates at a disadvantage. Turning out Republican voters is paramount for the party despite the feeling of adversity demonstrated by so many prominent leaders.
Clinton has to make the case for herself and the case against Trump clear. But really, no one’s made the case against him clearer than Trump himself.
It behooves us one and all to continue to press the flesh and spread the truth. Too many people in our nation live busy and complex lives in which analysis of political issues may not be first on the agenda. We as responsible citizens are obligated to push the truth in simple terms and to continue to expose the Trump campaign for the abhorrent positions it espouses.
Peace.
