Perhaps this was the best Pence could do—certainly for himself. But, by the end, the dominant figure of the debate was neither of the combatants, but Tim Kaine’s version of Donald Trump. And such excuses as Pence offered for Trump’s statements were so patently false that, in retrospect, they sullied his own performance.
Kaine also made his points on Social Security, the environment, and Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy. While the overall menu was catnip for the base, it also was serviceable for the less committed. And by invoking Ronald Reagan’s concern about some madman armed with nuclear weapons, he drove home the theme that Trump is too unstable to be president. By the end, he had offered a decent account of Clinton’s worldview—and a dire account of Trump’s.
Pence had his own hit parade: the “war on coal”; emails; the Clinton Foundation; the “basket of deplorables.” But he seemed to contradict Trump on Syria, Putin, and how to deal with Russia. Overall he had less to say; what he said was less connected to Trump.
And so the ostensibly loyal Pence left Trump where he was that morning—a solitary figure in a deepening hole. By comparison, Kaine had helped sustain the greater enthusiasm for Clinton—particularly within the Obama coalition, and among independents—after she trounced Trump in the first debate. In the wake of Kaine versus Pence her edge persisted, notably in key battleground states Trump needs to carry. The message was clear: only Trump could salvage Trump, and Sunday night’s debate might be his last chance to do so.
This was a lot to ask of a seventy-year-old with the self-awareness of a seven-year-old. While his large core of supporters will never leave him, the voters Trump had to reach on Sunday—particularly college-educated women—needed to see a different Trump in both style and substance. And Sunday’s format made self-transformation no easier.
Town halls pose a very different challenge than moderator-driven debates. Audience questions favor candidates with a broad and detailed grasp of policy, and it does not do to act dismissive of an interrogator who is an ordinary person. In particular, this format favors candidates who can offer—or at least fake—a respectful interchange derived from genuine interest in the question and the questioner.
What it does not reward is personal attacks that the audience deems excessive. Yet, going in, Trump had signaled his resolve to turn Bill Clinton’s sexual history against his wife. Given the sensitivity of the subject and the volatility of their candidate, smart Republicans were holding their collective breath in fear of Sunday.
They did not have to wait that long. On Friday, Trump’s aggressive misogyny sprouted a toxic toadstool—an eleven-year-old videotape in which, among other excretions, he boasted of being such a “star” that he could grab women’s genitalia at will.302 All that surprised was that Trump’s bottomless vulgarity could still surprise. But the timing of his sleazy celebration of sexual assault spotlit his repugnance: his third wife, Melania, who he had married eight months prior, was pregnant.
His “apologies” were classics of sociopathy. His first effort expressed regret “if” anyone was offended—suggesting that, among many millions of Americans, Melania had once more slipped his mind. He then sealed his offense by asserting that “Bill Clinton has said far worse . . .”
This left Trump knee-deep in a mass revulsion he lacked the decency to grasp. His handlers, who did, spent the next ten hours imploring him to do better. Shortly after midnight, a palpably angry Trump gave us ninety seconds read from a teleprompter.
Dismissing the videotape as a “distraction,” Trump allowed that “I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” But not so much. After all, he went on, “Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims.”
For some Republicans this was—at last—too much. What followed was a mudslide of revoked endorsements and pleas to withdraw. Notably, Paul Ryan disinvited Trump to a unity rally in Wisconsin—upon which it was announced that Pence would take his place.303
This moral awakening was particularly loud among endangered Republicans in down-ballot races. And so, like lieutenant in Casablanca, all were shocked by the astonishing revelation that such an obvious creep had been captured on tape in his obviousness.
And what of Trump’s decorous toady Sancho Pence? His initial reflex was to recycle the lines he had used for all of Trump’s prior offenses, most recently regarding Alicia Machado. “They’ll say this time they got him,” he proclaimed, but ‘they’ would again discover that “Donald Trump is still standing stronger than ever . . .”
But ‘they,’ it turned out, were about to have good Christian company. A day later, the ostentatiously pious Pence discovered that his moral compass was pointing toward 2020. Abruptly canceling his appearance in Wisconsin, he issued a statement that suggested his political antennae had been born again.
“I do not condone his remarks,” Pence said of his erstwhile leader, “and cannot defend them.” Particularly rich was the unctuous blather he invoked to flee the scene: “We pray for his family, and look forward to the opportunities he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the nation tomorrow night.” With this Pence disappeared from public view, presumably to spend the interregnum praying for his own survival.
Or, perhaps, his immediate accession. Among panicky Republicans, a fantasy developed—Trump would resign, and Pence would take his place. And so Pence began playing a double game, leaking word of his moral anguish while avoiding the announcement of further public appearances. The message was clear enough: Pence would judge Trump’s performance, at the ready to resign from the ticket—or to answer his party’s call. In the process, Pence descended from righteous role model to palace schemer.
Trump reacted to all this with predictable fury, attacking restive Republicans as “self-righteous hypocrites . . . more concerned with their political future . . .” One could certainly see his point, starting with his would-be vice president. But Trump came to Sunday’s debate a man alone—stripped of cover from his party, having stripped himself of the moral authority to lead.
The overture to the debate was fitting. More tapes of Trump’s misogyny emerged, hours of repulsiveness adduced by Howard Stern that underscored his contempt for women. His oh-so-presidential counter—a press event, staged an hour before the debate, with alleged victims of Bill Clinton’s prior sexual behavior—presaged another tawdry chapter in his degradation of our political life.
It began with his “defense” of the appalling videotape. His apology, so perfunctory as to be meaningless, was followed by diversions that epitomized his barren psyche. First, why were we concerned with his behavior when ISIS is beheading people? Second, why are people talking about him when he’s placed the women who complained about Bill Clinton right here in the audience? Watching, one could only be grateful never to have met him.
He then proceeded to cement his own doom in a way that exposed his party’s bankruptcy. He did nothing to reach the unconvinced. Instead, he resorted to the red meat of unreason through which he, and the GOP, have reduced their hard-core base to the human equivalent of Pavlov’s dogs.
He promised to prosecute Hillary Clinton. He threatened her with jail. He accused the moderators of bias. He repeated his dystopian view of black America. He raised the specter of disloyal American Muslims. Having spewed his own venom, he said that Clinton “has tremendous hate in her heart.”
Instead of offering new proposals, he recited old grievances—Obamacare, emails, the nuclear deal with Iran. He recycled the lies his followers love to hear, asserting, as one example, that Syrian refugees are coming here by the “tens of thousands.” This reached an apex of moral idiocy when he claimed that the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians are our allies in fighting ISIS—when, in fact, they are slaughtering the Syrian opposition to the murderous Assad in a volume so horrendous that it constitutes a war crime.
Frequently, Trump blurred the line between mendacity and ignorance. Asked about the refugee crisis in Aleppo, he stumbled
into a morass of misinformation before retreating into a jumbled critique of military tactics in Iraq. And one day after the US government definitively stated that Russia was hacking American electoral systems, he suggested that there is no evidence of hacking—whether by Russia or anyone else. No one not already a loyalist could credit his alternate reality.
And, as ever, he was graceless. This reached the point of cruelty when he suggested that Captain Khan would still be alive had Trump been president, drawing a rebuke from Khan’s family.304 Nor did he neglect Pence. Asked about his running mate’s call in the debate for a harder line against the Russians in Syria, Trump said coldly, “He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree.”
His presence was equally off-putting. He made no attempt to engage with his audience. He did not address the concerns of women or minorities. His entire focus was attacking Clinton.
The result was a debate depressing in tone and, often, substance. At times Clinton looked off-balance when confronted with hard subjects—her emails and Wall Street speeches. But overall she turned in a solid if lower-key performance, engaging with her questioners, offering policy proposals on taxes and the economy, and giving knowledgeable responses on issues like Obamacare, Syria, and ISIS.
The impact was unsurprising: the two scientific polls taken after the debate showed her winning by a decisive margin and, among women, by a landslide. Trump had blown his last chance by being the worst and only thing he could be—himself.
But the GOP was stuck: by stunting his appeal to the voters that he, and the party, so desperately needed, Trump had rallied the base. Any effort to push him aside at the eleventh hour would stoke their fury to new heights, tearing the party apart. The GOP had become like a man in a catatonic trance—conscious of everything around him, but unable to speak or move.
The best evidence of this was the craven tweet through which the pusillanimous Pence tried to clamber back on board: “Congrats to my running mate . . . Proud to stand with you as we #MAGA.” Standing with Trump, Pence once again looked as small as he is, a walking rebuke to those who had seen him as the party’s last hope.
Reappearing the next morning on talk shows, the ever adaptable Pence granted Trump absolution: “He showed humility and he showed strength and he expressed genuine contrition.” And then, in imitation of his once and future master, Pence attacked Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky. While not an uplifting testament to the power of prayer, this was a vivid testimonial to the dangers of temporal ambition in a man too small to contain it.
Not to mention the dilemma of Republican leaders who, in contrast to Pence, are burdened with actual integrity.
After the debate Paul Ryan had, at last, seen enough. In a conference call Monday morning, Ryan informed House Republicans that he would no longer defend Trump—instead, he would dedicate himself to preserving control of the House. His recompense for this pragmatism was fierce attacks from his own caucus for abandoning the base.305 In miniature, this captures the dysfunction of a GOP caught in the rhetorical trap it had set for voters—who repaid it with Donald J. Trump.306
Never has a political party so richly earned its plight. For months the GOP insisted that this comprehensively ignorant, mentally unstable, narcissistic, racist, and misogynist moral midget would save us from the horror of Hillary Clinton. But the real horror is theirs alone, and it is too late for them to escape him. This is not merely poetic justice, it is outright operatic—a soulless, choiceless party forced to carry its stillborn candidate to term.307
Apocalypse Soon
Imagining President Trump
OCTOBER 18, 2016
This year’s presidential campaign is awash in bogus claims. But, to me, the worst is that it makes no difference whether we elect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
The reasons for this assertion vary: disgust with the system; dislike for both major candidates; a craving for transformational change; the need to rationalize staying home; the desire to cast a protest vote. Perhaps the recent exposure of Trump as a serial groper will vitiate this sentiment. But the national polls remain uncomfortably close, and the claim itself betrays a profound failure of imagination about who Trump is, and the power he would have to impose his toxic vision.
Only one of two candidates can win. Only one is an emotionally unstable narcissist. Only one is possessed by malice, ignorance, and impulse. Only one could, by his very being, endanger America and the world.
Anyone who argues otherwise should pause to imagine President Trump.
Imagine him issuing executive orders unimpeded by Congress. He can renounce the Iran nuclear deal or the Paris Agreement on controlling greenhouse gases. He can start a trade war with China. He can unleash the Justice Department on his political enemies. He can turn ICE loose on Mexicans or order surveillance of American Muslims. Take your pick. But it’s his choice, not ours.308
Imagine his appointments to the Supreme Court: anti-choice; anti-LGBT rights; pro-NRA; pro-corporate; pro-Citizens United; pro-expansive executive power in the hands of Donald J. Trump. Every new Justice—every new federal judge—would be his choice, not ours.
We do not have to imagine his contempt for freedom of speech and the rule of law. He threatened Hillary Clinton with prosecution. He said that a critical commentator should be barred from television. He threatened the owner of the Washington Post with prosecution by the IRS. He threatened Judge Curiel with investigation. He repeatedly violates the laws regulating charitable foundations. He advocates changing the libel laws so that he can sue his enemies. For Trump, there is no law but his—not ours.
Nor need we imagine his misogyny. His contempt for women and obvious predation are appalling and, in a presidential candidate, shocking. But it is well to imagine what electing such a man would say to the new generation of American women.
His racism is equally blatant. He rose by attacking the legitimacy of our first black president. He portrays black neighborhoods as undifferentiated hellholes. He implies that minorities will perpetrate massive voting fraud. He deputizes his followers as racist poll monitors. He tars undocumented Mexicans as criminals. His road to power is paved with bigotry.
President Trump would be bigotry in action—a prescription not just for injustice, but violence. Hillary Clinton denounces systemic racism; for Trump, racism is a law enforcement tool. The discredited tactic of stop and frisk policing would be merely a down payment. Trump has elevated racial dog whistles to a fire alarm that would precede the fire—racial divisions stoked to conflagration by an American president for the wider world to see.
Equally incendiary is the prospect of mass deportations. That is what he has promised his followers—and it is central to sustaining President Trump. So imagine America as an anti-immigration police state. A growing deportation force. Using IRS files to hunt down undocumented immigrants. Diverting more state and local law enforcement to raid suspect workplaces. Expanded internment centers for apprehended immigrants. All this is within his power—his choice, not ours.
Another promise to his base was profiling Muslims and spying on Muslim neighborhoods. This is not simply racist. It is stupid: counterterrorism experts agree that alienating loyal Americans will promote terrorism, not stop it. And it is dishonest: Trump’s claim that “political correctness” prevents law enforcement from investigating suspect Muslims is a poisonous lie. Only one candidate would, as president, drive a dangerous wedge between American Muslims and their country.
His environmental policy is just as clear—and it is an existential threat to us, to our children, and to the globe. Clinton advocates clean energy policies at home and cooperation abroad. Trump says that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. He would gut the EPA and pull America out of world efforts to stem global warming. Only President Trump would be an agent of global oblivion.
Not to mention economic ruin. No doubt Americans ravaged by automation and globalization need our help. But economists of all stripes agree that Trump’s “solutions”—protect
ionism and trade wars—would trigger a recession so deep that it would wipe out millions of jobs.
Trump’s tax plan would deepen our financial collapse and threaten our fiscal future. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that his tax cuts for the wealthy would explode the deficit by $4 trillion in a decade. By comparison, Clinton’s proposals provide tax relief for everyone else, while increasing revenues by $1.4 trillion. Only President Trump would gut our budget and shred our social safety net for the sake of people like Trump.
This captures something fundamental: the degree to which President Trump would eviscerate our sense of community. Clinton calls for a commitment to national service to help revitalize our states and cities. Trump shows no interest in a sense of common citizenship or communal compassion, whether realized through government or Americans helping each other. Instead, he turns Americans against each other to advance his own ends. A president who cares nothing for others would—by his actions and his example—diminish what binds us together.
So imagine President Trump as our face to the world. He calls for a wall between United States and Mexico. He advocates torturing suspected terrorists and murdering their families. He disdains our alliances and scorns the Geneva Convention. He shuns refugees from the horrors of Syria. He speaks blithely of nuclear proliferation and of using nuclear weapons. He scares our allies and emboldens aggressors like Vladimir Putin. Never has America elected a president so ignorant, so careless, so dangerous to us and to everyone else.
His attachment to Putin309 evinces his unfitness to serve. American intelligence agencies have briefed him on Russian hacking—not just of the Democratic Party, but of our electoral system. Yet in the latest presidential debate Trump blatantly lied, suggesting that the idea of Russian hacking might be a ploy to discredit him. Only this is true: Russian hacking discredits him.
Fever Swamp: A Journey Through the Strange Neverland of the 2016 Presidential Race Page 34
