I hate the presidential choice the American electoral process has produced. Choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like having to decide on the method of one’s execution: will that be a quick firing squad or slow bludgeoning? One is facing a no-win scenario either way. One path leads to a litany of lies and half-truths and relentless parsing of words all with the distinct impression that we are not being told the entire story; the other option is to be subjected to outright falsehoods, fantastic theories without evidence, as well be constantly confronted with baseless, fact-challenged accusations and assertions.
The reality is that each of these candidates has so much negative baggage that come the day after the election on November 8th, whomever wins will face a divided Congress and the fact that 50% of the voting public who will never warm to them. The next four years will be marked by hyper-partisanship, incremental change (at best) and chronic gridlock unless the Democrats and Republicans find some way to return to cross-party collegiality for the national, not parochial, interests. In fact, with so little prospect for getting anything meaningful done one could legitimately argue that next four years will be about political would-bes and also-rans jostling for position in the next election cycle.
The other likely truism is that this first presidential debate will solidify Clinton/Trump’s respective bases whilst leaving the undecideds either relatively unmoved, or just as confused and uncertain, as before. No one made a gaffe, yet no one scored a decisive blow, or caused a memorable moment on the scale of Jerry Ford’s “there is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe” 1976 howler. This kind of effect is both good and bad, for it freezes the race exactly where we were before pre debate, with the electorate at a 42/42 spilt and the balance of power held by those who still have two more presidential debates to decide whom they dislike more and who is the “safer pair of hands.”
On points (if one were scoring that way) Hillary Clinton was cogent, clear and detailed in her plans to tackle America’s litany of challenges. She appeared in command of facts, figures, counter-punching effectively - even occasionally flustering - her opponent. Trump was aggressive, strong with improvised one-liners and pithy attacks, whilst demonstrating that he could hold the stage against a formidable interlocutor like the former First Lady and Secretary of State. Her most effective attack lines raised doubts about his non-publication of tax returns (“What’s he hiding?” and temperament (i.e. provocative comments on women, immigrants and racial diversity); his, the fact that she is a career politician who has been ineffective (“You’ve had thirty years to change things and you haven’t”) and serial policy flip-flopper (i.e. being in favour of the TPP, then against it).
On intangibles Clinton came across as smart, in command, calm and presidential. Yet she also appeared wonkish, wooden, occasionally smug, dismissive and haughty. Trump managed to duck every attempt of the moderator’s and Clinton’s to be specific on policy details whilst shifting into his trademark attack mode far less smoothly then on previous debating occasions. I think this is a detail almost as important as how Richard Nixon’s 4 o’clock shadow and politeness ‘lost’ him the crucial first 1960 debate. Trump is most effective as an attack dog, and his modus operandi in debates has been to overwhelm his opponents with an onslaught of invective, sly asides and innuendo. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio all seemed dazed by his firehose-like ability to spray verbiage, but not Hillary Clinton. She was steely, swatting his attacks dispassionately, almost with contemptuous amazement. And his inability to pummel her into a stupor with shock and awe (way more shock, less awe), unnerved him.
The first 20 minutes or so were Trumps as he charged out of the gates with his most effective attack, that the career politicians had messed things up, and that it was time to try something different. He also scored with reminding viewers of her TPP flip-flop, something which will resonate with Bernie Sanders’ supporters still smarting from the Democratic National Committees shambolic favouritism.
Then the Empire struck back. She coldly eviscerated him on the subject of taxes, racism (i.e. not letting go of the absurd ‘birther’ accusations for five incredulous years) and experience (what has he done on a scale comparable to her record of service).
One watched his hands grip tighter on the lectern, eyes narrow into a feral glare as he sipped furtively from a water glass – all body language signals that he was, at the least, nervous. Unlike the polite, befuddled opponents he’d faced during the primary debates, Clinton had been compelled to practice face to face against the much more effective Sanders. Moreover, unlike those ciphers, Hillary is infinitely more focused and ruthless an opponent than Trump has ever faced. He will need to be far more prepared, self-assured and yes, presidential at their next verbal battle. Evidence suggests the opposite: he will double-down, becoming far more aggressive, which makes for better political theatre, but allow her to goad him into appearing thuggish. She will then manage to cobble together and cement with bandaids enough elements of the Obama constituency – yuppies, women, blacks, latinos, and win where it counts the most – no matter the closeness of the popular vote. He will lose the electoral college by something like 347 votes to 191.
That is, assuming she neither gaffes out, nor passes out on the stage. Or he changes his act, becomes a whole lot more presidential, restrained and focused. Which, in this wild year, just might happen (that is, assuming he actually wants to win).
In the final analysis, this first debate, watched by a Super Bowl-sized audience, halted his rise and her slide in the polls. Not a whole lot of substantive policy discussion but great television spectacle. It reminds us that western countries do have way better political theatre than their eastern equivalents. No staid, wooden politicians giving stilted speeches to listless parliamentarians who will ultimately rubber stamp legislation here.
Yes, American democracy is messy. It is much like the country itself – loud, brash, argumentative, cocky with hints of hubris. The contest for the presidency is long, brutal, undignified and unwieldy. This is freedom unvarnished, the unforgiving television, internet and print lens exposing with clarity and unsentimental brutality the stew of personal ambition, special interests, shenanigans, base machinations, and pandering to special interests which fuels modern politics.
Yet the spectacle is also strangely inspiring to behold. No other country lays bare in such a raw gladiatorial format the sound, fury and clash of ideas and personalities of those who would lead. Every candidate’s foible is exposed, every weak point highlighted. The wisdom (or lack thereof) of their approach is pored over with the same scrutiny like the high priests of ancient times inspected animal entrails. On occasion voters have to hold their noses and make a choice which offends them least.
Sometimes the search for modern presidents seldom leads to a Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jefferson or Reagan. Those men were outliers. What we are looking for these days is someone with the street smarts, inherent toughness, and driving ambition to shape the next four years for the US, and by extension, influence much of the world. If they are mere humans with feet of clay and the occasional propensity for pomposity or churlishness, we’ll take that.