For the second day in a row, I’m writing about “Trump” and “foreign” “policy”. This whole run to November is going to be much harder to watch than I thought it would be. Watching Trump step into the moment, start acting presidential. Republican office holders slowly coming around to supporting him.
It’s entirely possible that at any moment we’ll switch this blog over to sports or food or comparative religion. Any Democrats licking their chops at the prospect of Hillary running against Trump and dreaming of a 40-state romp in November had better wake up and realize what time it is. He’s going to be very hard for Hillary to beat. The foreign policy speech demonstrates a few reasons why:
How low can you go?
It would be literally impossible to set the bar any lower for Trump on foreign affairs. He is getting enormous credit for just showing up, reading a teleprompter, and not sounding like a crazy person. When George W. Bush debated Gore on foreign policy, he made it through the debate without falling down or crying, and that was all it took to put him on equal footing with Gore. Anyone who thinks that she will run circles around him in a debate is kidding themselves.
Close your eyes and listen
During the 2000 election, I was listening to a lot of NPR. Which lead me to develop my radio litmus test. Watching a candidate on television, you can’t help but viscerally respond to them. But, on the radio, it’s just their voice. And if you suspend your policy preferences for a few moments, you start to hear how swing voters might assess a candidate. In this test, Bush came across as the better candidate than Gore. Listening to Trump’s foreign policy speech without looking at him . . . and he suddenly sounded very plausible. That is all the average voter needs.
War! what is it good for?
On foreign policy, he’s going to run to Hillary’s left. And right. At the same time. She’s spent her entire career insulating herself from Republican neo-con attacks from the right. And, now she’s facing a candidate who’s thoroughly denounced George W’s invasion of Iraq. Disavowed all the neo-con adventurism. But, he can also stomp around about strength and make her look weak and feckless. She has a record to defend; he has nothing. She’ll be on the defensive the entire time.
He can win. He really can
In at The End of The World 
Yeah, we love to think that smarts and experience are self-evidently superior and forget things like authenticity, trust, (the appearance of) character. I’m not sure what word I’m looking for, but there’s something about scrappy, mixing it up, brawling, giving back as good as you get, and just having more wit than “America’s already great.” I still think she’ll win based on women, African-Americans, Hispanics, loyal dems, and assault charges after he punches that editor I mentioned. But we should all stop cackling about her mopping up the floor with that guy.
LikeLike
I’ve never thought “Trump is such an obvious joke that there’s no way he can win.” People said that about GW Bush–and about Reagan! I hope demographics do simply beat him down and stay at-home lefties aren’t a factor (that will hurt worse than in ’68), but there’s no way experience and seriousness have any natural edge here. She will, I believe, be very strong in the debates–not as a debater, because you can’t debate him–but as a presence. But those who want him, and those who hate her, are not to be swayed. It’s got to come down to women, African Americans, the rest of us, and bringing out the vote. And yes–his totally losing it.
LikeLike