RUTHFULLY YOURS

Any Republican has a difficult pathway to the presidency. On the electoral map, expanding blue blobs in coastal and big-city America swamp the conservative geographical sea of red. Big-electoral-vote states such as California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are utterly lost before the campaign even begins. The media have devolved into a weird Ministry of Truth. News seems defined now as what information is necessary to release to arrive at correct views.

In recent elections, centrists, like John McCain and Mitt Romney – once found useful by the media when running against more-conservative Republicans — were reinvented as caricatures of Potterville scoundrels right out of a Frank Capra movie.

When the media got through with a good man like McCain, he was left an adulterous, confused septuagenarian, unsure of how many mansions he owned, and a likely closeted bigot. Another gentleman like Romney was reduced to a comic-book Ri¢hie Ri¢h, who owned an elevator, never talked to his garbage man, hazed innocents in prep school, and tortured his dog on the roof of his car. If it were a choice between shouting down debate moderator Candy Crowley and shaming her unprofessionalism, or allowing her to hijack the debate, Romney in Ajaxian style (“nobly live, or nobly die”) chose the decorous path of dignified abdication.

In contrast, we were to believe Obama’s adolescent faux Greek columns, hokey “lowering the seas and cooling the planet,” vero possumus seal on his podium as president-elect, and 57 states were Lincolnesque.

Why would 2016 not end up again in losing nobly? Would once again campaigning under the Marquess of Queensberry rules win Republicans a Munich reprieve?

The Orangeman Cometh

In such a hysterical landscape, it was possible that no traditional Republican in 2016 was likely to win, even against a flawed candidate like Hillary Clinton, who emerged wounded from a bruising primary win over aged socialist Bernie Sanders.

Then came along the Trump, the seducer of the Right when the Republican establishment was busy early on coronating Jeb Bush. After the cuckolded front-runners imploded, we all assumed that Trump’s successful primary victories — oddly predicated on avoidance of a ground game, internal polling, ad campaigns, sophisticated fundraising, and a sea of consultants and handlers — were hardly applicable to Clinton, Inc. She surely would bury him under a sea of cash, consultants, and sheer manpower.

That Trump was an amateur, a cad, his own worst enemy, cynically leveraging a new business or brand, and at any time could say anything was supposedly confirmation of Hillary’s inevitable victory. Her winning paradigm was seen as simply anti-Trump rather than pro-Hillary: light campaigning to conserve her disguised fragile health, while giving full media attention to allow Trump to elucidate his fully obnoxious self. Her campaign was to be a series of self-important selfies, each more flattering to the beholder but otherwise of no interest to her reluctant supporters.

For insurance, Clinton would enlist the bipartisan highbrow Washington establishment to close ranks, with their habitual tsk-tsking of Trump in a nuanced historical context — “Hitler,” “Stalin,” “Mussolini,” “brown shirt,” etc.

Hillary would rely on the old Obama team of progressive hit men in the public-employee unions, the news ministries, the pajama-boy bloggers, the race industry, and the open-borders lobbies to brand Trump supporters as racist, sexist, misogynist, Islamophobic, nativist, homophobic. The shades of Obama’s old white reprehensible “Clingers” would spring back to life as “The Deplorables.”

Yet for all Hillary’s hundreds of millions of corporate dollars and legions of Clinton Foundation strategists, she could never quite shake Trump, who at 70 seemed more like a frenzied 55. Trump at his worst was never put away by Hillary at her best, and he has stayed within six to eight points for most of his awful August and is now nipping her heels as October nears.

“As Robert Kaufmann wrote recently,

A vote for Hillary Clinton is therefore a vote for Mr. Obama’s dangerous doctrine, which fears American power more than it fears our enemies. As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton contributed enormously to lowering the barriers to aggression everywhere—with much worse to come unless we reverse course.

Gates’ “pox on both your houses” rhetoric in the end leaves the door open to voting for Hillary, based solely on taking seriously campaign words while ignoring a 25-year-long record of dangerous deeds.”

Robert M. Gates, ex-CIA chief and Secretary of Defense for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, published a column in the Wall Street Journal last week criticizing both Trump and Hillary for their their lack of “credibility” on foreign policy. This seemingly even-handed critique, however, is in fact an exercise in an apples-and-oranges comparison that ends up as a back-handed endorsement of Hillary.

Gates begins with a well-known survey of the mess Barack Obama’s foreign policies will leave his successor. A surging China threatens the Far East despite the “pivot” to Asia. Vladimir Putin is expanding everywhere on Russia’s western border, and in the Middle East has replaced the U.S. as the number one power broker. Putin also has serially gulled our mediocre Secretary of State John Kerry with “cease fires” that give cover to his aggression, and exposed our president’s gutlessness by buzzing our naval vessels and taunting our military aircraft. North Korea has just tested a nuclear device and intercontinental missiles that can reach as far as Chicago. And ISIS continues to hold ground in Iraq and Syria, and inspire terrorist franchises and attacks in Europe, the U.S., and Africa. And of course, there is the disastrous appeasement of Iran on nukes, along with the mullocracy’s active support for terrorism and serial humiliation of the U.S.

For each crisis, Gates explains, neither Trump nor Hillary offer any specific strategy or response that can even start to repair this dangerous erosion of American prestige and influence. Rather, as Gates says of their announced plans for rolling back ISIS, both candidates propose what “in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch”.

Yet at this point Gates makes the same mistake (or employs the same rhetorical tactic) of the NeverTrump folks. He does not distinguish between Trump’s campaign rhetoric and Hillary’s long record of failure, only specifically mentioning one example, the intervention in Libya. No word of her active support of the “reset” with Russia that encouraged Putin’s geopolitical adventurism. Nor any mention of her role in the Iranian deal, easily the worst foreign policy mistake since World War II, given the stakes of allowing an apocalyptic cult to possess nuclear weapons.

Nor does he say a word about Clinton’s obvious character flaws––her long record of sacrificing the country’s security and interests to her own political and financial gain, as she did with her unsecured private server and her pay-for-play State Department. Nor does he mention Hillary’s numerous health issues that raise serious questions about whether she will be physically and cognitively able to handle a crisis.

“When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own,” Gates asserts. Yet his catalogue of sins refers to campaign rhetoric and personal style, and even then Gates’ take on Trump’s comments is tendentious. For example, Gates criticizes the wall with Mexico proposed by Trump, which would enhance security by making it more difficult for terrorists to infiltrate the U.S. Next comes the old tired charge that Trump’s suggestion we bring back enhanced interrogation techniques advocates “torture.” Waterboarding is not torture under current U.S. statute, as even Eric Holder told Congress in May of 2009. And as ex-CIA director George Tenet detailed in his memoirs, it delivered valuable information that prevented numerous attacks and helped locate bin Laden’s hideout. Gates here is recycling an old progressive smear against George W. Bush. As for Trump’s call for “killing [terrorists’] families,” what does he think Obama’s drone strikes do at times? And is Gates now morally condemning Allied strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, which killed nearly a million civilians?

Then there’s Trump’s offhand comments about Putin’s qualities as a good leader for a “system” Trump said he doesn’t like. We’re supposed to think Trump’s words are more consequential than Hillary’s and Obama’s appeasing deeds that empowered Putin’s aggressive foreign policy? Or more significant than Obama’s pledge to be more “flexible” with Russia after his re-election? And given that the U.S. has dealt with much more murderous leaders like Mao and Khrushchev, does Gates and other NeverTrumpers think future dealings with Putin will be easier or harder if Trump preens morally about Putin’s evil like the pundits and retired government officials free of accountability do? More likely, hard-nosed calculations of national interest on both sides will be more important than American presidential campaign rhetoric whether positive or negative.