RUTHFULLY YOURS

Donald Trump’s approval rating is up nine points since Election Day in one survey, and one reason may be that he’s setting a tone of expansive leadership. A case in point is his apparent decision not to seek the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her email and Clinton Foundation issues.

“I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content,” Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC on Tuesday. Mr. Trump later told the New York Times that “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” adding about prosecuting Mrs. Clinton that “it’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

That’s the right move—for the country and his Presidency. We know from reading our email that many Americans want Mrs. Clinton treated like Mel Gibson in the climactic scene of “Braveheart.” Their argument is that equal justice under law requires that she be treated like anyone else who mishandled classified information.

But discretion is also part of any decision to prosecute. FBI Director James Comey was wrong to exonerate Mrs. Clinton before the election because that wasn’t his job and he let the Attorney General off the hook. Loretta Lynch should have taken responsibility for absolving or indicting her party’s nominee—and voters could hold her and Democrats accountable.

The voters ultimately rendered that verdict on Nov. 8, and being denied the Presidency is a far more painful punishment than a misdemeanor or minor felony conviction. Prosecuting vanquished political opponents is the habit in Third World nations. Healthy democracies prefer their verdicts at the ballot box.

Prosecution would also stir needless controversy that would waste Mr. Trump’s political capital. President Obama made the mistake of blessing then Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision in 2009 to have a special prosecutor investigate CIA officials over post-9/11 interrogations. This made Mr. Obama look vindictive and ideologically driven, and it was among the decisions that set the tone for the hyperpartisan Obama Presidency.

The press corps is making much of Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to name a special prosecutor for Mrs. Clinton, as well as the cries at his rallies of “lock her up.” That always seemed like campaign overkill, and Mr. Trump is now President-elect. His more important promise is the one he made in his victory speech to be the President of the entire nation, and democracy’s verdict is justice enough for Mrs. Clinton.

If you type “Hispanic turnout 2016,” Google will churn out a series of buoyant links, all along the lines of “Latino Voting Surge Rattles the Trump Campaign” and “Trump Awakens a Sleeping Giant: Record Turnout for Latino Voters.” Should you do the same exercise about Latino support for the two candidates, you will get “Clinton Trounces Trump in New Poll” and the like.

In addition to their topic, these stories have something else in common: Almost all of them were published before the 8th of November. After the election result, which was itself the biggest story, the second biggest story was that Latino turnout had remained the same as the 2012 Latino turnout, at 11 percent of all voters. And the third biggest story was that within the Latino electorate, support for Clinton had fallen slightly from Obama’s two highs (71 percent in 2008 and 69 percent in 2012) to a respectable but not election-winning 65 percent. In line with that, Trump’s share of the Latino vote rose two points above Romney’s, to 29 percent.

These figures come from the national exit polls. Those for the share of the vote have been challenged by other pollsters, who found Trump getting a low of 18 percent of Latinos. It may be that the exit-poll figures will be corrected, as sometimes happens. Bush’s 44 percent share of the Hispanic vote in 2004 was reduced to 40 percent when the pollsters examined their data in tranquility. But other pollsters doubt that will happen in this case.

And even if it were to do so, that would have the secondary result of suggesting that candidates can win a national election with very little Latino support — the opposite conclusion of all those “surging turnout” and “awakening giant” stories that dominated the campaign coverage. So there’s an interesting story here, even if not the story that reporters and analysts wanted to write.

What makes it even more interesting, if paradoxically so, is that it’s the same sequence of stories that have been written before and after the last five or six elections. The awakening giant is always going to surge before the election but then takes a nap during it and wakes up yawning. Several analysts on both sides of the debate noticed this and wrote about it while the election campaign was still cool. Roberto Suro was one; I was another here at NRO.

The Mainstreaming of Non-White Americans

Let me very briefly rehash Professor Suro’s argument and my response. He accepted that increases in the Latino vote lagged far behind the growth in Census Bureau numbers of Latino citizens. By January this year, when Professor Suro wrote, Latinos had apparently exercised very little influence on how the election was conducted. Signature Latino issues had been eclipsed by general economic ones. And, amazing to relate, the two most prominent Latino politicians in the race were conservative Republicans, namely Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, neither of whom ran on issues identified as specifically Hispanic.

“Cleverness is not wisdom.”
— Euripides, the Bacchae

At the height of the sophistic age in classical Athens, the playwright Euripides asked an eternal question in his masterpiece, the Bacchae: “What is wisdom?”

Was wisdom defined as clever wordplay, or as the urban sophistication of the robed philosophers in the agora and rhetoricians in the assembly?

Or instead was true wisdom a deeper and more modest appreciation of unchanging human nature throughout the ages, which reminds us to avoid hubris, tread carefully, always expect the unlikely, and distrust the self-acclaimed wise who eventually prove clever fools? At the end of the play, a savage, merciless nemesis is unleashed on the hubristic wise of the establishment.

Euripides would have appreciated the ironies of the 2016 election.

Millions of Americans, far from the two coasts, kept largely quiet. They either did not talk much to pollsters or they politely declined to reveal their true feelings. They tuned out talking heads and ignored blue-chip pundits. They did not listen to the shrill bombast of President Obama on the campaign trail or pollsters who ad nauseam declared Hillary Clinton the sure electoral-college winner.

They were not shamed or much bothered by the condescension they receive from the media and the Washington elite, who proved wrong or biased or both in their coverage. They believed that free trade was not worth much if it was not fair trade, that illegal and politicized immigration was as subversive as legal and diverse immigration was valuable, that real racists were those who used race and ethnicity to encourage others to break the law for their own political and elite interests, and that it was stupid to trust their job futures to those who never lost their own jobs while often losing those of others.

So, to return to Euripides, what really is wisdom in the 21st century?

Is it to be judged according to the values of those who inhabit the Podesta WikiLeaks archive? Is being smart defined as being on lots of corporate boards, having an impressive contact list of private cellphone numbers, name-dropping one’s Ivy League degrees, referencing weekends in the Hamptons or on Martha’s Vineyard, or being ranked in the top 100, 1,000, or 5,000 of some cool magazine’s list of go-getters and “people to watch”?

What would we do without psychological studies about sex and gender? We’ve had studies that most women are “part lesbian” and a lack of access to sports bras deters girls from playing sports. We’ve had a study showing that women are more likely to become lesbian if they don’t have ready access to men and a landmark study showing that female chimpanzees are more likely to be domineering feminists.

And now we have a new study concluding that white, masculine men are more likely to be mentally ill, conducted by Y. Joel Wong, a man who isn’t white, may not be masculine, and actually…who knows if he is really a man for sure?

Men who have “playboy” attitudes and believe in power over women may face a higher risk for mental health trouble than men who don’t, a broad new research review suggests.

The finding on sexism, and other so-called “traditional views” on masculinity, stems from an analysis of 74 studies conducted between 2003 and 2013. The studies included nearly 19,500 predominantly white male participants, the researchers said.

The research “looked at expectations about what it means to be masculine, and how that relates to mental health outcomes among men,” explained study lead author Y. Joel Wong.

“What we found overall is that the more that men conformed to masculine norms the poorer their mental health, and the less likely they were to seek mental health services,” he said.

Wong’s team focused on data concerning the embrace of 11 different types of so-called “masculine norms,” including the desire to win; to retain emotional control; to take risks; to engage in violence; to exert dominant behavior; to participate in a “playboy” lifestyle; to be self-reliant; to elevate work to the highest level of importance; to retain power over women; to maintain a disdain for homosexuals; and to pursue “status.”

Desiring to win = mentally ill. Retaining emotional control = mentally ill. Making work a priority = mentally ill. But I’m glad that at least these are traits associated with “masculinity.” I’m not 100% sure what a “playboy” lifestyle or “retaining power over women” means; by these twisted standards, it may simply mean a refusal to be subservient to women like these emotionally castrated guys.

There have been many excellent post-election analyses since Trump’s improbable win, most of have which have identified the disaffected working class and the failure of the Democrats’ politically correct identity politics as the driving factors.

But one thing that seems to be overlooked is the Tea Party, the reasons for its beginnings, and its underlying anti-establismentarianism in this election.

It was not just the failure of the Democrats’ urban-centric political focus on minorities, women, and income inequality that deep-sixed Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Walking it back, what has outraged so many grassroots conservatives was the phony conservatism under George W. Bush, culminating in the financial crisis of 2008. It pushed them overboard to no longer get fooled by the Republican establishment that had been basically a milder form of the big-government progressivism that had taken over the Democratic Party following the loss of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to Richard Nixon. It was that crushing loss that sent Democrats on a far-left trajectory for decades to come.

Bush did nothing to cut back the size and growth of government. Instead, he actually expanded it through his unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program and the “No Child Left Behind” federally mandated education program. There were no efforts at all to rein in spending and the size of the federal government. And the war with Iraq added untold billions to the ever expanding annual federal deficits.

Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was liberalism in disguise. From “Decision Time for the GOP Elite” at AT:

Remember that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush and yet nothing was done to control the size, scope, or cost of the federal government.

In a now forgotten column years back, a writer noted how times had changed in Britain since the 1960s. Back then, he wrote, it was the rock stars who filled the tabloids with their sex and excess. By contrast the British royals, raised on noblesse oblige, largely limited their public appearances to celebrations on behalf of hospitals, schools and other worthy causes.

The roles are now reversed. These days it is the British royals caught exiting nightclubs in the wee hours of the morning or captured playing naked billiards. By contrast, knighted rock stars emerge periodically from their landed estates to offer polite statements on the environment.

Something of the same has just happened this side of the Atlantic. At least since his victory speech promising to be president for all Americans—and notwithstanding the occasional tweet deriding “Saturday Night Live” as “nothing funny” or the New York Times as “failing”—Mr. Trump has mostly tried to sound positive and inclusive. Meanwhile, those who spent the 2016 campaign decrying Mr. Trump for his temperament and fascist tendencies are now exhibiting precisely those traits.
The most recent outburst came Friday night, when Mike Pence and some of his family took in a performance of the Broadway hit “Hamilton.” Having entered the theater to a mixture of cheers and boos, the vice president-elect at the end of the performance found himself lectured from the stage by the cast.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, who both wrote the musical and starred in it, tweeted that he was “proud” of the moment, which he characterized as “leading with love.” As Mr. Pence pointed out, cast members have a right to say what they please. But the rest of us likewise have a right to note how boorish and self-congratulatory they were.