Tuesday, July 05, 2016

The dilemma

Victor Davis Hanson:
Never Trumpers, then, face a sort of existential quandary: The more they attack Hillary Clinton, the more it becomes surreal to attack simultaneously (and far more frequently) Trump, who has attacked Clinton in a fashion never before seen in her long political history. And if Never Trumpers insist that the two candidates are of equal odiousness, what then is the point of daily reiterating their oppositions: On Monday attack Trump, on Tuesday Clinton, on Wednesday Trump again? Very quickly the message is received that the two are equally terrible people and therefore the election should not warrant any more commentary or interest, given that any outcome will be wretched. The logic of Trump voters trashing Clinton and Clinton voters trashing Trump is obvious; but what is the rationale of trashing both, other than a sort of detached depression that does not wear well in daily doses?
I write more about politics than anything else, although I really don't enjoy politics very much. If it were up to me, the politicians would all go away and leave us all alone. It's not up to me, though, so all of us end up in the arena, whether we choose to be or not.

The stench and corruption of the Clintons must be addressed. Every time I see Bill Clinton on television, he reminds me more of Noah Cross, the odious character played by John Huston in the movie Chinatown. There's always a threat hiding behind every statement. And Hillary Clinton is worse. The Clintons are evil in an almost existential way.

But do you simply call out the Clintons when their opponent is odious in dozens of different ways, or do you have a duty to call out both of them? As Hanson suggests, it's a rhetorical dead end. And it's a box for a largely political blogger.

No comments: