Satisfied and Stupefied in Philly
Hillary Owns The DNC Thanks Largely to Others. What Now?
Once the duke had taken over Romagna, he found it had been commanded by impotent lords who had been readier to despoil their subjects than to correct them, and had given their subjects matter for disunion, not for union. Since the province was quite full of robberies, quarrels, and every other kind of insolence, he judged it necessary to give it good government, if he wanted to reduce it to peace and obedience to a kingly arm. So he put there Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and ready man, to whom he gave the fullest power. In a short time Remirro reduced it to peace and unity, with the very greatest reputation for himself. Then the duke judged that such excessive authority was not necessary, because he feared that it might become hateful; and he set up a civil court in the middle of the province, with a most excellent president, where each city had its advocate. And because he knew the past rigors had generated some hatred for Remirro, to purge the spirits of that people and to gain them entirely to himself, he wished to show that if any cruelty had been committed, this had not come from him but from the harsh nature of his minister. And having seized this opportunity, he had him placed one morning in the piazza at Cesena in two pieces, with a piece of wood and a bloody knife beside him. The ferocity of this spectacle left the people at once satisfied and stupefied.
- (The Prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield)
We live in a republic, but our political parties are principalities by right of conquest. The quadrennial nominating conventions are our triumphal marches. The Democrats wrapped theirs in Philadelphia last night and, from a staging standpoint, it ended on a high note. The DNC raced hard towards the center, and even the center-right, on foreign policy to the acclaim of a media monoculture enamored of social liberalism, muscular foreign policy, and economic imprecision. “Is this the 2004 RNC?” more than one keen-eyed observer tweeted. The Acela corridor set applauded.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Your faithful correspondent was stuck in a restaurant in the Detroit airport. Delayed. So I watched people watch the convention. Sleepy-eyed business travelers and stressed out families took in the diverse array of war heroes and nodded approvingly at the tough talk. Many were visibly moved by Khizr Kahn’s speech. Strong stuff. But otherwise, Chelsea was Chelsea, Hillary was Hillary, and that was that. For all the impressive planning and emotionally-laden staging, the fact remains that the Democratic coalition is at an inflection point, and Clinton’s campaign is still trying to find its footing against Trump. She’ll almost certainly win, but don’t for a moment mistake victory as indicative of strength. Elections are zero sum propositions and the side that loses least wins.
To the first point, the opening two days of the convention saw larger and more fervent anti-Hillary protests than expected, with Sanders die-hards chanting “lock her up!” and Sanders surrogates getting shouted down by pro-Sanders delegates for making irenic statements. A trove of freshly released emails (courtesy, maybe, of the Russian security services) revealed that DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (henceforth DWS) has been loyally putting her institution’s thumb on the primary scale in favor of Clinton.
Proving once again that all political friendships are contextual affairs, Clinton booted DWS, who has been told publicly that she’ll have to win her primary without the help of the DCCC. Obama has long wanted to be rid of DWS and has had what can at best be called an “uneasy” relationship with the DNC. Feeling the heat from the White House, DWS has survived through brinksmanship. She has at various points insinuated to donors and reporters that Obama is an anti-Semite, and she implicitly threatened to scupper his efforts at a Persian perestroika if he moved against her.
Clinton’s ability to slough off somebody in eight hours who has been a pain point for the president for almost eight years was a solid play. It’s not quite a bloody block and a knife, but it gave team Sanders a head to parade through the square and it distanced Clinton from the DNC’s coercion scheme. However, it wasn’t enough, especially after Clinton gave DWS a campaign sinecure to smooth her badly bruised ego. Clinton got what she needed: Sanders played the good soldier for the first time in his life and his moment, which never should have sparked into a brush-fire, is done. For that at least, Clinton can be grateful. Thus did the political revolution end: with a harangue and a simper.
Yet Clinton forgets at her peril that she triumphed because of the work of others. It took the big guns — and monsoon conditions — to becalm the convention. Michelle Obama’s speech was central to marginalizing the anti-Clinton bitter-enders. Along with the First Lady, the President, the Vice President (once the greatest political threat to Clinton’s nomination), and of course the first President Clinton, were slotted in comparatively early in the convention. Perhaps the DNC’s planners didn’t want to upstage Clinton, who has never been mistaken for a beacon of forensic eloquence. But it’s just as likely the heavy hitters came early to raise the stakes of resistance.
So like Cesare Borgia in the Romagna, Clinton has attained the party via the arms of others and fortune. The Sandernistas came into Philly restless, and they stirred the pot, but despite the early dust ups the Democrats seem on the whole to be satisfied and stupefied by their nominee. As a new prince, Clinton would do well to move her political capitol to the vanquished regions of the Left and dwell there. Yet that is rough, craggy, and hostile country. Clinton is no mountain goat. She is instead seeking the comfortable, triangulating hills and dales of moderation. That’s a political mistake, however understandable.
Of course, standing between Clinton and victory is Donald Trump. Trump has done himself few favors, and his convention bounce will likely prove ephemeral. Like a rodeo that’s fresh out of goats, the Trump campaign is careening from amusingly ad hoc into obnoxiously unprofessional. This is a bunny layup for Clinton. She’s more than capable of blowing it.
Which brings us to the second point: messaging. The Democrats still haven’t decided how to hit Trump, but their effort to be the “party of the grown-ups” is wrong-headed. It’s a muddle and it plays to Trump’s strengths, such as they are. He’s a wild and reckless enough candidate, that it may not matter. But if the Clinton camp wants to beat Trump, rather than simply running out the clock playing not-to-lose, they’ll need to do better.
Americans view the two major parties differently. In good times, they like the Democrats and they trust the Republicans. The former throws the party and the latter makes sure you make it home alright if you’ve been over-served. Democrats lose when times are tough, or when they seem like buzzkills. Republicans lose when there seem to be few consequences, or when they seem reckless.
These electorally-imposed limitations encourage a certain over-compensating among the political types of each party. There’s a subset of GOP consultants and politicos that wants desperately to be liked. And there is, conversely, a subset of Democrats in corresponding positions who want desperately to be the adult in the room at all times, to be the party of foreign policy instead of the party of fifty foot joints and patchouli oil. Who can blame them? It’s a seductive idea to both fight the man and be the man. But choose, and choose you must. And Democrats would do well to choose being the party-party rather than being the scold-party.
The “better together” message that cropped up periodically last night is a good one for Democrats. It turns The Donald from a devil may care trickster into a crotchety old coot scaring away well-liked party guests and telling you to “turn it down already” two minutes after ten. As tempting as it may seem, calling him Dangerous Donald only helps him. It makes his casual bigotry look like the necessary choices of a hard man. Death for Donald is being relegated to the political equivalent of shouting at those damned kids to get off his lawn.
These factors taken together — intra-party factionalism and messaging — scream to me that Clinton would be better served letting her liberal freak flag fly. She expects to win. She picked Tim Kaine to be her VP after all, a governing (as opposed to a campaigning) decision if ever there was one. She clearly believes she has some latitude. Now is the time to do some constituency servicing that will give her greater flexibility once in office. That means shoring up her base first, and letting the center come to her. Cuddling up to disaffected Republicans at this stage is jumping the gun (not that I mind the flattery, but sorry Hillary, I’m not voting for you).
Neither side seems too thrilled about it, but the Democrats and Hillary are hitched to each other. If she wins, which looks likely, it’ll be interesting. The best play now is to make the union work, at least until November.
If you like what you see, sign up for my email newsletter and follow me on Twitter. As ever and always, if you’d like to send me angry emails about this essay, you can do so here.
