A recent editorial in the Washington Post made the case against Clinton, one that Trump could have done but failed to do in the debates. Charles Krauthammer wrote:
The most sensational disclosure was the proposed deal between the State Department and the FBI in which the FBI would declassify a Clinton email and State would give the FBI more slots in overseas stations. What made it sensational was the rare appearance in an official account of the phrase “quid pro quo,” which is the currently agreed-upon dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable corruption.
He is not making an "equivalency of evil" argument between Clinton and Trump. That bird has long since flown the coop with the revelations about the Trump foundation and the unmistakable smear of "quid pro quo" in his contributions to a Florida prosecutor, his allegedly illegal use of Trump Foundation monies to pay legal fees, not to mention his legal problems with Trump University or his potential legal problems with the women who have come forward to dispute his denials of groping. There is no real equivalency of evil. Krauthammer admits, "I could never vote for Donald Trump."
And besides, there really is no "quid pro quo," unlike the contribution to the Florida prosecutor where the contribution was directly followed by an action favorable to Trump. As Krauthammer also admits,
This is nonetheless an odd choice for most egregious offense. First, it occurred several layers removed from the campaign and from Clinton. It involved a career State Department official (he occupied the same position under Condoleezza Rice) covering not just for Clinton but for his own department. Second, it’s not clear which side originally offered the bargain. Third, nothing tangible was supposed to exchange hands. There was no proposed personal enrichment — a Rolex in return for your soul — which tends to be our standard for punishable misconduct. And finally, it never actually happened. The FBI turned down the declassification request.
He calls it a "warm gun, but nonsmoking." One suspects that, like many other conservatives, he hopes the next dump of 30,000 emails will contain something truly damning, but I'll call their hopes and raise with my skepticism I continue to doubt that the real smoking gun will appear. If all this is a Russian hack in support of Trump, he desperately needs a real change of momentum, as Obama might say, "right now!" So far, nothing that damning, and every day that passes without a photo of Clinton standing over the corpse of the constitution with a smoking gun simply increases my doubt that it will ever happen. Having said all this, Krauthammer will not be voting for Clinton either. He promises to write in a candidate. And why? He cites "the bottomless cynicism of the campaign and of the candidate."
Before I go on, let me admit what might be apparent -- Clinton is not my idea of the ideal candidate either. I have scratched my head for someone to more closely represent that ideal candidate, but I come up short every time. It wouldn't have been Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren, both of whom would have been flawed candidates in their own rights. It wouldn't have been Bernie Sanders either. He might have been a good vaccine immediately following the Reagan years, but Sanders today seems to be an expired vial of penicillin against an emerging political superbug pandemic. So who? I'm open to suggestions, but I've long since outgrown any sense that there is an "ideal" candidate, one who carries the charisma and the cure for all our ills. I suppose I'm somewhat "cynical" myself, and I will be voting for Clinton, and not simply because she is so clearly "the lessor of two evils," but because I actually agree for the most part, as Krauthammer put it, with "her worldview and the policies that flow from it."
In an adversarial political system, one can expect each candidate to advocate for themselves and against the other. If we wonder why politics always seems to go negative, and focus not on "policy" or "issues," but on "charisma" and "identity," it's because one simply cannot advocate for oneself on the basis of "policy" alone. Policy is complex and would require a deep level of bureaucratic understanding, and even most well-meaning Americans have neither the time nor the inclination nor the patience to ferret through what a change to the earned income tax credit might entail. One cannot advocate for oneself on the basis of "issues" either, in part because most of the hot button issues like abortion rights are simply irresolvable and, consequently, already well entrenched along party lines. Republicans are anti-abortion, democrats are pro-choice, and given one's predilections, one takes a side, end of story. Consequently, in our adversarial system, all that is really left is humbly accepting the praise of surrogates and heaping the "negative" on one's opponent. The latter has more credibility and lingers longer. Consequently, over the course of a long campaign season, we come to know the flaws of both candidates rather intimately, which only increases the sense that we are voting for the "lesser of two evils," when for the most part we are really voting for one or another flawed human being. So it goes, and one suspects that many Americans -- those who want an "outsider" to come in and purge a "corrupt" system -- are harboring the hope for someone without sin, or failing that, someone "strong" enough to do away with our adversarial system once and for all. The former is not realistic, the latter is not democratic, and so neither really is particularly helpful for those of us who live in the real world of a democratic system. Besides, despite his bluster, Trump is proving himself too weak to do away with our adversarial system.
Krauthammer finds himself in the unenviable position then of being unable to support his party's candidate. Setting aside those republicans who support Trump because of the litany of character flaws that follow each Huffington Post article, there are those who continue to support him because he takes the "rightish" side on most conservative policies and issues. Putting a benign spin on it, they concede the "lesser of two evils" argument and want to distance themselves from the particular candidate, but still support him because he [mostly] supports the agenda of the republican party, at least where it counts, on abortion, on guns, on taxes. To his credit, Krauthammer cannot take that line and has repudiated Trump as a candidate altogether too flawed as a human being to serve. That does not mean he will vote for Clinton. He dislikes her, not only because he "disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it," but because he has "watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness."
The first piece of evidence (he actually gives evidence!) for the "bottomless cynicism" that renders her unfit is what he calls "the Qatari gambit." He writes that "Qatar, one of the worst actors in the Middle East (having financially supported the Islamic State, for example), offered $1 million as a “birthday” gift to Bill Clinton in return for five minutes of his time. Who offers — who takes — $200,000 a minute? We don’t know the “quid” here, but it’s got to be big." OK, but a quibble, an absurdist metaphor, and another confession. This is another warm gun, not a smoking gun. As his reference to the Post goes on to point out, "It is not clear whether Bill Clinton ever met with the ambassador or whether the official presented the check." In the absence of clear evidence of a "quid pro quo," Krauthammer is still just wishing for the scandal. I have the sense that Krauthammer and other conservatives see Clinton as a fan dancer. The potential president has no clothes, really, or so they want to believe, but the emails fan out to both promise and conceal a glimpse here, a tantalizing glimpse there, but never really a full on view of Clinton's naked corruption behind all the fluff of those feathers, and if they did. Well. No doubt it would be disturbing, and I am certain I, for one, would not want that image in my mind.
So far as the confession goes, Krauthammer asks, who offers? Who takes? I would have. Let me explain. As the chief academic officer of three public colleges, I cannot count the number of times I met with potential donors to the college foundation. Very often, I was asked to do so by the college president because the donor "had a great idea." Usually that meant an hour of my day where I would sit with furrowed brow, feigning interest, while they rambled on about "on-line education" or "ethics education" or "how I made my first million" ... choose your favorite hobby horse. On occasion, they would actually want to "teach a course" (more often wanted someone else to teach a course they designed) that would reveal the secret to their success. Still, these were sincere people, who deserved a hearing. No matter how benighted their ideas, they simply wanted to do what they believed would be good for education, and I don't recall one instance where a meeting with a donors had any real, actionable, outcome. They had money, and that money bought access to one of the college leaders, and sometimes faculty would smell a rat because of it, but that was about as far as it went, and not because I was the model of intellectual and academic integrity. I was honest enough. I would explain (and hide behind) the "curriculum process," set out in Regent's policy, elaborated within College Board policy, and elaborated even further by Faculty Senate by-laws. To outsiders must have looked like a bureaucratic version of American Ninja Warrior, but to insiders, it was simply an assurance of thorough "peer review." They were often surprised that I, as the Chief Academic Officer, couldn't simply demand that the faculty adopt their ideas and teach their course. I couldn't. No one person in the college could approve a course, not even the president. So who gives? People with the wherewithal to give and those who want their money to do their version of "good" in the world. Would I take their money, even knowing that I wouldn't and couldn't give the "quid" to their "pro quo" beyond a few minutes of time? You betcha, because I believed in the College and its mission, and the money would facilitate that mission.
So, how cynical is that? I honestly don't know. Just as I believed in the mission of my college and its foundation, I feel relatively sure that the Clintons, the whole lot of them, believe in the mission of the Clinton Foundation. By all accounts and by independent review, it has done some good in the world. One can always argue the viability of the "good," but one can follow the money to see if it is being applied to that "good" and is not serving as a slush fund for the Clinton family. As FactCheck put it, at least "one independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity." Knowing what it costs to run a charitable foundation, that only 11% goes to administrative costs points to an efficient operation, and none of the money goes to a Clinton family member. So, with that in mind, the ambassador of Qatar wants to give one million dollars to the Clinton Foundation for five minutes of time with Bill. Just as many potential donors to the college wanted me to enact some curricular reform, let's assume there is some big and nefarious "quid" for the "pro quo" of that gift. Could Bill Clinton enact it? If it concerned the foundation mission, perhaps. Could Bill in turn influence Hillary to modify US policy in exchange for the gift? If it's in sync with on-going US policy, perhaps. One might disagree with that policy, and the outsize influence wielded by a country like Qatar, home of the Al Jazeera Media Network, but it's just grist for the mill. If it's not in sync, however, as Secretary of State, Clinton would need to be overcome the whole machinery of the US government, not to mention that pesky person in the white house, to enact a particular favor. While we might imagine many nefarious "deals," one would also need to imagine a direct power not given to the Secretary of State. While a one million dollar "quid" seems large to the average American, and one suspects it's worth a few minutes of Bill's time. The remaining $890 after over-head would pay any number of staff "to train rural farmers [in Africa] and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops," but would cover little else in the cosmi-comic trillion dollar world of middle-east politics. Is it cynical to accept the money from a country known for terrorism and civil rights abuses? Perhaps, but it is a cynicism doing grunt work of idealism.
Not enough? As Krauthammer goes on to write, "A governance review by an outside law firm reported that some donors 'may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.' You need an outside law firm to tell you that? If your Sultanic heart bleeds for Haiti, why not give to Haiti directly? Because if you give through the Clintons, you have a claim on future favors." Krauthammer is right. There is an element of "no-shit-sherlock" about the assertion that donors may have "an expectation of quid pro quo," but "may have" is not the same thing as "did have based on promises made." And besides, the donor's "expectations" are more or less irrelevant, particularly if untoward expectations are not fulfilled. Although there were meetings with donors that left me needing a shower, I could still assume -- because neither I nor anyone else in my presence promised otherwise -- that those donors were donating to the work of the College, nothing more, nothing less. Likewise, unless Assange or conservative watchdogs can produce evidence of "promises made," one should assume donors to the Clinton Foundation were donating to the work of the charity, nothing more, nothing less, not some nebulous "claim on future favors." So far as donating "directly to Haiti," what exactly does that mean? To the government of Haiti? As Wikipedia points out, "Corruption in Haiti is a serious problem. In 2015, Haiti ranked 161 out of the 177 countries measured on Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index, the lowest ranking in the Caribbean region. On the Corruption Perception Index, Haiti ranked 163 in 2014 and 164 in 2013." You can donate directly to the Haitian governmenti, but I'll refrain. So what then is "Haiti" that I might donate "directly" to it?
As an aside, too on "sultanic heart?" Come on now, really? One might despise the government of Haiti and feel for the people of Haiti at the same time, but I'm not sure why one would need a "sultan's heart," or have ambitions of becoming a "sultan," or be sympathetic to "sultans" in order to give to the hapless people of Haiti. I'm not sure just what a "sultanic heart" might be, but I'm pretty sure I don't have one, though perhaps I'd resent the accusation less if I didn't have to read the sentence twice (with some incredulousness) to correct for my initial reading of "satanic heart." I'm sure there's cleverness at work here, but it's a cleverness that falls completely flat on me.
Back to Krauthammer's argument, and the crux of it I think. He goes on to write, "The soullessness of this campaign — all ambition and entitlement — emerges almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign is about. In one largely overlooked passage, Clinton complains that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or rationale. Isn’t that the candidate’s job? She asked one of her aides, Joel Benenson: 'Do we have any sense from her what she believes or wants her core message to be?'" From there, he suggests "It’s that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the embarrassing about-face on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds swung decisively against free trade." Point by point. First, I'm not sure I'd want a president that wasn't "ambitious." What would an "unambitious" president look like? We'll never find out. Second, one may feel "entitled," but as the now flailing campaign of Trump reveals, a campaign even more marked by misplaced ambition and overweening entitlement, one's "entitlement" to power must ultimately be sold to the American people, and they are, blessedly, sometimes a tough sell (though perhaps not tough enough).
Third, though I'm sure Krauthammer would admit that a certain level of ambition, if not entitlement, is necessary to a presidential run, it's also pretty clear that Krauthammer wants something else beyond just that. He calls it "soul," and for Krauthammer "soul" is something inviolable beyond "negotiation" and beyond "political calculations." I suspect that Clinton does have those positions, and they can be found, not in the economics of any particular trade policy, but in a statement from the Clinton Foundation: "We believe that the best way to unlock human potential is through the power of creative collaboration. That's why we build partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, leaner, and better; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow." If it took some grinding in the sausage mill to come up with the encapsulating phrase, "stronger together," then so be it. If it takes even more grinding negotiation and political calculation (aka "creative collaboration") to advance her particular areas of concern -- global health, girls and women, climate change, and economic opportunity -- then so be it. Although there is a paradox at the idea of "inflexible belief in creative collaboration," I would say it counts as soul, even by Krauthammer's definition.
Beyond that, however, I am also pretty sure that Krauthammer, like most conservatives, wants "soul" to manifest itself as uncompromising inflexibility, one capable of standing firm, a big beautiful wall of principled concrete against "the popular winds." Although Krauthammer finds Trump repugnant, for good reason, Trump is nevertheless a manifestation of this desire for a politics of "soul" beyond the machinations of the so-called "elites." Such has been the hallmark of conservative politics now for some time, but to yearn for an uncompromising politics beyond mundane political calculations, one that disdains to gauge the strength and the direction of the "popular winds," is to yearn for a politics that is no longer representative of the popular will, that is no longer democratic in any recognizable way. It is to yearn for a strong man whose authority transcends petty politics and ultimately imposes a clear moral vision on the nation. Trump read the leaves in the tea party cups, but despite his protestations, he has neither the strength, nor the vision, nor the moral compass to satisfy the likes of Krauthammer, though his yearning for the strong man remains.
In the end, those who celebrate democracy should likewise celebrate Clinton's shift away from global neo-liberalism to a polity more centered on domestic economic opportunity. It suggests that she has listened to the Sanders supporters, and for that matter the Trump supporters, who have called NAFTA and the TPP into question. Whether this is merely a cynical political calculation or the sort of empathic listening necessary to "creative collaboration" can be questioned, and perhaps should be questioned, but her personal authenticity is ultimately beside the point. So what if her shift is inauthentic? It is still time we had a polity more centered on domestic economic opportunity, particularly for the growing numbers of under-educated poor in the rural south and west, a polity that helps develop middle class jobs without cynically suborning the environmental devastation we see in Louisiana, a polity that is culturally sensitive without cynically playing our worst instincts of racism and xenophobia for votes. How do we do that? By attending, my friend, to what's in the popular winds without succumbing to empty populist demagoguery. Can Clinton make it happen? I don't know. I really don't. Part of me doubts it, not because I particularly doubt Clinton herself, but because I don't see the congressional obfuscation and intransigence coming to an end. Still, given the way things are shaping up, it is looking more and more like we'll have the opportunity to find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment