Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The Tag Team: Two Against One


By most accounts, Hillary Clinton won her first debate with Donald Trump.  She has been described as more professional, whereas he was blamed for becoming too defensive.  As a result, there has been no end of suggestions as to how Trump can recover.
But several things have been overlooked.  The first is that Trump was in a tag team match.  It was him against Hillary and the moderator Lester Holt.  Whenever Hillary needed a breather, Holt picked up the slack; whereas she did the same for him.  In other words, it was two against one.
When Candy Crowley took sides against Mitt Romney, she was roundly criticized.  She made a serious mistake in defending Obama and was later fact-checked.  Although Holt attacked Trump five or six times—and doubled down on several occasions—he was essentially given a pass.  Even conservatives described him as a nice guy.
Yet consider this, when Crowley put down Romney, Romney was critiqued for shrugging his shoulders and letting her get away with it.  This time Trump did the opposite and was faulted for that.  In other words, when the moderator is lined up against you, it may not be possible to win.
Granted that Trump overdid it.  His thin skin often gets him in trouble.  Had he pivoted to Hillary’s weaknesses, he would probably have been better off.  Nonetheless, there is a good chance that it would not have mattered.  When it is two to one, the one has to spend more time on the defense—which always looks bad.
There is, however, a silver lining to this cloud.  Well, there is if Trump takes advantage of it.  The nature of the attacks against him provides a glittering opening for the later debates.
Among other things, Trump was called out for the birther controversy and his business practices.  These became the subject of extended discussions.  If Donald is smart, should they come up again, he can dismiss them as old news.  This strategy works for the Clintons.  Why not him?
Meanwhile, Hillary got off lightly on a raft of subjects.  Trump was rightly decried for leaving low hanging fruit untouched.  Her attack on hackers should have been turned against her.  She should have been asked, if hacking is such a problem, why did you open yourself to foreign spies with a private server?
The good news is she can still be asked.  With more emails set to be released, the question remains relevant.  It is also possible to bring up Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and a whole host of lies—big and small.  What has not previously been scrutinized should be fair game, even if subsequent moderators refuse to bring them up.
Trump has already been suggesting that voters “follow the money.”  How, it may be wondered, was it possible for an ex-president and his wife to amass hundreds of millions of dollars in few short years?  What did they have to sell that was worth so much?  It is a pretty safe bet there was some pay-for play.
Corruption is corruption and sleaze is sleaze.  Pandering is also pandering.  When Hillary accused every American of implicit bias, alarm bells should have gone off.  In an effort to avoid insulting the police, while simultaneously fawning over African-Americans, she demeaned everyone else—except herself.  This was at least as bad as her basketful of deplorables comment.
For the moment, Hillary has scored a few debating points.  Moreover, the media megaphone revved up to make the most of them.  But how long can the glow of a perpetually smug candidate last?  Donald can be abrasive.  He is certainly no choirboy.  But do we really want four more years of Clinton slime?
The really good news is that while first impressions matter, last impressions make more of a difference.  In the end, the only ballot that counts is the one on election day.  If voters go to the polls with a bad taste in their mouths for a specific candidate, this may determine their choice.  I am hoping that Trump and his people understand this.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University

No comments:

Post a Comment