Credibility Gaps

At this point in the 2016 Presidential election cycle, the more credible consensus is that the only reason to vote for one of the mainstream candidates is because the alternative is worse, and a third party vote will just essentially be a vote for one’s opponent and therefore contribute directly to the destruction of our esteemed Republic.   

[This, of course does not apply to the diehard acolytes of either candidate, who actually ascribe Messianic qualities to their respective standard bearer[s], the diabolic character of the opponent either notwithstanding, or the driving catalyst behind the messianism, or both.]

I maintain that for 2016 there has been no preferable Democratic candidate since the debates: Clinton is inexorably tied to the abhorrent policies [especially foreign] of this administration, and that’s even before one gets into the credibility issues raised by the servers and the Foundation; Sanders’ socialist and terrorsplaining tendencies are now actually celebrated in many corners of the DNC; O’Malley’s success in “cleaning up Baltimore” is now belied by the DOJ reports that the BPD wasn’t so much racist or sexist as it was thoroughly unprepared and unprofessional across the board; and Jim Webb blew all his credibility defending the Stars and Bars.  No Democrat could have garnered my vote.

And, all that was before Hillary’s DNC coronation.  Once one realizes that her foreign policy is basically dictated by the Blumenthals pere and fils and George Soros, said policies are no longer misguided; they're outright malignant.

That would have left, in theory, whomever the GOP would have put forth as the its standard bearer.  Until Trump emerged from the fray and led one to discard the notion that he could be counted on to carry out, much profess to actually really believe, in the bulk of what’s in the GOP platform--at least, the parts that weren’t written by his lawyers. 

He also has continually undermined whatever credibility there might have been to charging Obama with being a “teleprompter President”.   The problem is every time he actually sounds credible, he seems completely like he’s chomping at the bit to lead another fan rally, which indicates a profound disconnect between the policies he might be purporting to promulgate and his true leadership temperament.  Or, in English that he could understand: he won’t be credible if he isn't scripted, but he won't win if he isn't allowed to be "Trump".

His other Obamanian penchant: laying down red lines that he could never fully hold to; never mind the Mexican wall—suspend ALL Muslim immigration?  Judging allies solely on their participation in America’s mission to root out Islamic terrorism?  What’s he going to do, fight the Saudis, Pakistan AND Iran while disengaging militarily?

While nowhere near the fascist he’s been made out to be, Trump's pronouncements, calculated for the maximum effect they would garner at that moment irrespective of whether they contradict any previously stated positions, might be paradigmatic demagoguery.  That definition might be further undergirded by the perception that his handlers—such as they are—don’t really have control of the messaging, such as when they make mistakes like Katrina Pierson’s Af-gaffe.  They just aren’t as good at the doublespeak, and when they’re called on it and they double down, they look worse than he does. 

At the same time, while Trump’s campaign would be nonexistent without digital technology and the attendant speed it has bestowed on contemporary media culture, there is little doubt that the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media is “in the bag for Hillary”.  The media can continually do this and maintain a veneer of credibility for two reasons.  One is because of Trump’s talent for inflammatory doublespeak; he gets punished twice over, by the trenchant PC culture pervasive in the media, and by the speed with which his contradictory statements can be discovered and published.  The other may have to do with a theory posited in Eric Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?”: that the MSM was too solicitous of Dubya’s aw-shucks charm and too critical of Gore and was therefore complicit in eight years of W’s warmongering and they now feel compelled to atone their collective grievous error by shilling for the more liberal candidate, every time.

At the same time, often the media will outdo itself and reveal its hand.  One example: the New York Times dedicated a news alert to Donald Trump’s ostensible $30 million tax break received when Chris Christie assumed the governor office in New Jersey.  One would assume that involves chump change compared to the transaction occurring in and out of the coffers of the Clinton Foundation where George Soros and foreign countries are concerned.  Once in a while, Trump may have a point.

Either way, there is no credibility gap between the candidates.  There are individual gaps between actual credibility and each respective candidate, and then between credibility and the media.  ALL media.