In the Washington Post this morning there's an op ed written by Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson which forwards an entirely predictable narrative...
Quote:Would a big Clinton win actually mean a mandate, though? In an election where voters are more disappointed than ever in the choices they face, where an astonishing number will cast a ballot primarily as a way to oppose a different candidate and where core issues have taken a back seat to tabloid headlines, even a legitimate landslide wouldn’t necessarily clarify what, exactly, Clinton had been sent to the White House to do.
Note that there are two parts to this derisable nonsense:
1) Clinton can claim no legitimate mandate because voters (an "astounding" number of them) did not vote FOR her, they voted AGAINST Trump
2) media coverage has concentrated heavily on non-policy issues therefore citizens haven't really had a chance to understand the candidates' policy prescriptions, so there can be no presumed mandate for any particular policy advanced by Clinton when President - even if she wins in a landslide.
Let's take 2) first because, as nonsense goes, this is an award winner. Whats wrong with it?
- media (most of it) always defaults to the sensational and simplistic. For every column inch or TV minute of airtime delving into policy specifics there will be ten or a hundred times as much dedicated to the horse race, to "scandals", to non-specific assertions, to attacks on character, etc
- a very small minority of voters bother to delve into policy specifics at any point in time. The present election is no different than prior elections in this.
- one candidate only in this race has laid out policy specifics (in more detail than most will begin to bother with) while the other candidate/campaign has been almost entirely without any policy prescriptions (ie on Obamacare; "just replace it with something terrific".
- for longer than just the last eight years, the GOP has spent at least 90% of its energies, staffs and monies on obstruction of policy implementation, laws and appointments along with countless "investigations" of their political opponents for propaganda reasons. The classic example is Obamacare; "We will repeal it and replace it" but then never laying out plans to replace it or submitting "plans" which don't include the math or which have math that doesn't add up.
- As McConnell openly stated years ago, "My number one priority is making sure Obama is a one term president" Not developing policy. Not communicating policy specifics.
Let's put the fine point on all this - there are very good reasons why smart political analysts refer to the modern GOP as "post-policy". Now let's look at point 1)
Back on the fourth of May, neoconservative Eliot Cohen had an op ed in the Post championing a third party. But in that op ed, he gave away the game:
Quote:"Even if a third candidacy still yielded a Clinton Victory, it would be worthwhile. It would, first, deny the Clinton Campaign the illusion of a mandate from American voters who would have, en masse, turned out to reject Trump"
As I wrote in an email exchange with the Post's Greg Sargent at the time:
Quote:Of course, his rationale here has nothing to do with a third candidate. That's irrelevant to what he's saying. Already these bastards are strategizing a media campaign to justify a blockade of whatever moves she might make when in the WH.
And, obviously, this same propaganda line is part of what Anderson, operating in her capacity as a GOP strategist, is forwarding in her op ed above. There will be lots more of this, so know what it is when you see it.
