The
Guardian view on Hillary Clinton: fit for the job, but is she fit for
the contest?
Editorial
The Democratic
nominee would embody America’s progress as president. Her opponent
would reveal and deepen its problems
For better or for
worse, history will be made when the United States votes this
November. Should Hillary Clinton win, she would embody the progress a
society can make in a lifetime; the electors of the first female
president would include those born before women gained the right to
vote.
Her victory would
demonstrate how unthinkable ideas can become first conceivable and
then a matter of fact. So too, unfortunately, would the triumph of
her opponent. A Donald Trump presidency might well demonstrate how
quickly a society can unravel. The symbolism of a female president
matters much less than the impact her leadership would have on the
lives of women across American society compared with that of an
unabashed misogynist. Should she lose – and it is not yet clear
whether her party truly grasps what a very real possibility that is,
despite worrying polls and her powerful speech in Philadelphia on
Thursday – the US will have chosen a man who threatens not only the
dignity of women and the security of religious and racial minorities,
but democracy itself in America and stability beyond its shores.
Never in living memory have electors faced a starker choice, as Mrs
Clinton deftly reminded them.
Her opponent is not
only a bigot and a bully, but a thin-skinned braggart – and “a
man you can bait with a tweet is not a man you can trust with nuclear
weapons”. He is ignorant on both immediate political issues and the
state of the US and the world. He leaves behind him a trail of shabby
business dealings. He supports nuclear proliferation, has justified
torture, called for a ban on Muslims entering the US and this week
appeared to invite Russia to hack into and publish his rival’s
emails. Yet he remains buoyant. Absurd men, “little men … moved
by fear and pride”, may be as dangerous as more apparently credible
menaces.
The Democratic
candidate is by instinct more hawkish than Barack Obama. Her promise
to protect Main Street from Wall Street sits somewhat uneasily with
her list of donors. She was pushed into adopting more progressive
positions because of the stronger-than-expected challenge from Bernie
Sanders. She has tended to shut out those beyond a trusted inner
circle, a trait that was perhaps reflected in the controversy over
her use of a private email server as secretary of state. Though she
escaped prosecution, the FBI’s director described the handling of
messages as “extremely careless”.
Such concerns,
though real, are trifling if set against the prospect of Mr Trump
winning. They exist in part because of her years in vicarious,
elected and appointed office; as Mr Obama pointed out, no one has
been more qualified to serve as president. Equally, it is hard to
think of anyone less suited than her rival. Faced with an occasion he
could rise to, he invariably lowers the tone instead.
Advertisement
By normal standards,
and despite some lingering and vocal resentment from supporters of Mr
Sanders, this has been a successful convention: neatly choreographed
with clear and consistent messages. Having won her party’s
nomination, she now fights for the nation’s trust. Supporters have
had to portray a potential commander-in-chief as a hug-loving,
kiss-blowing grandmother – and, most tellingly, as “a girl” –
to counter perceptions of successful women as less likeable. An
experienced political hand, the prospective Democrat successor to a
two-term Democrat president, is recast as “the best darn
change-maker”.
Mrs Clinton’s team
has deeper pockets and should be able to count on an efficient
on-the-ground campaign. But neither the media nor politicians have
yet fathomed how to challenge Trumpian “post-truth” politics and
address the suspicion, fear and rage fuelling his rise, and their
causes. Framing and messaging are not enough, and nor is the promise
of sober proficiency. Her choice of Tim Kaine as her running mate is
pragmatic but uninspiring.
Mrs Clinton must
convince the public that there are reasons to vote for her, and not
simply against Mr Trump. She acknowledged that her party hasn’t
shown “that we get what you’re going through, and that we’re
going to do something about it”. It was reassuring that she talked
policy too, including a pledge to introduce the biggest jobs program
since the second world war in her first 100 days and to invest in
infrastructure projects. The oddity of today’s politics, and the
broadly felt concerns behind them, means that policies pressed on her
by the leftwing insurgency – notably opposition to the Obama
administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal – may sway
some of those tempted to back her rival.
Britain has already
seen how understandable anger and estrangement from traditional
politics can fuel a hunt for scapegoats, and convince voters there is
no point playing it safe when you have nothing to lose. Opponents of
Brexit woke up to the threat far too late. The US cannot afford a
similar error. Mrs Clinton’s speech was a good start, but there is
a long way to go in a few short months.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário