Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Machiavelli and 2016

We heard an interesting report yesterday in #H1 on Machiavelli and the election, but I'm afraid it may have left an impression of equivalence between the major party candidates that isn't born out by the record. One barometer of the difference between them: Clinton has received a raft of endorsements, including many from traditionally-Republican sources. Trump has not. 
We’ve seen endorsements by papers with conservative editorial boards for Clinton over GOP nominee Donald Drumpf. Papers that haven’t endorsed a Democrat in decades. Papers that have never endorsed a Democrat.
We expect endorsements for Democratic candidates by some newspapers, such as The New York Times. We don’t expect them from The Arizona Republic.
Many papers have yet to endorse. But Clinton has received the endorsements of more than 30 publications so far, including large and small newspapers and magazines; in the primaries, she received more than 80 endorsements. (The count is acompilation from Wikipedia; the Clinton campaign does not yet have a list of endorsements on its website, although it does tout the Arizona Republic endorsement on its campaign blog. But we might as well borrow some language from Drumpf and call it YUUUGE.)
In the primaries, Drumpf received the backing of four papers: The National Enquirer, the New York Observer, the New York Post, and the Santa Barbara News-Press, the only paper in California to endorse the Orange Menace. Keep in mind that David Pecker, the CEO of the National Enquirer, is a good friend of Donald Drumpf, and that the New York Observer is owned by Jared Kushner, Drumpf’s son-in-law. The Santa Barbara paper has faced several internal controversies over editorial interference from the paper’s owner, and the New York Post is, well, the New York Post. Outside of these, Drumpf has received ZERO endorsements from any major daily newspaper editorial board in the general election... (continues)
The conservative Republican editorial board of the Arizona Republic wrote:
The challenges the United States faces domestically and internationally demand a steady hand, a cool head and the ability to think carefully before acting.
Hillary Clinton understands this. Donald Drumpf does not.
Clinton has the temperament and experience to be president. Donald Drumpf does not.
An excerpt from the Times:
In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Drumpf, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Drumpf to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Drumpf.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them... (continues)

The editorialists have spoken, will voters listen? 

1 comment:

  1. I don't think the main idea of their presentation was really to compare the two candidates to one another, rather inspecting each of their traits individually to determine whether or not Machiavelli himself would approve of either as national leaders. He definitely wouldn't support Trump, on the grounds of him being too straightforward and unwilling to at least appear compromising sometimes. He might come close to supporting Clinton, but couldn't come to completely back her because of her carelessness with the security of her own sensitive operations; I imagine him saying something along the lines of "If you're going to rely on underhanded tactics, at least make sure you're good at hiding it". In the end I'm sure he would probably just say "screw it," and just run for office himself.