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.
