In his 1984 tragicomedic novel
God Knows, Joseph Heller asserted
“The truth is whatever people will believe is the truth. Don’t you know history?" Over the course of the past eleven months,
the 2016 Presidential Campaign has unfolded all across our beloved country,
from the Great Lakes to the Great Plains, from the mountains to the valleys, and
from sea to shining sea. During that
time both Parties have experienced what by historical terms must be considered
unconventional races.
There are a number of reasons both races would
be deemed unusual by almost any benchmark or analysis. On the Democratic side of the Aisle, the
aspect that stands out most (at least to me) is that the principal challenger,
in fact the only one remaining, to the presumed favorite is a Democratic
Socialist, by his own appellation. After
victory in last night’s West Virginia Primary, he reiterated his intentions to
compete all the way to the Democratic National Convention, July 25-28, 2016, in
Philadelphia. He insists that he has a
challenging but existent path to catch the frontrunner, flip Super Delegates,
and win the nomination. While the math
suggests it’s improbable, Alexander Pope noted in, An Essay on Man,
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” Small though it may be, I suppose he has a chance.
On the opposite side of the Aisle, the
Republicans have had, arguably, an even more unconventional contest. It began with seventeen candidates that were
considered viable, and gradually winnowed down to one. The sheer volume of candidates, in and of
itself, makes the contest “different,” but there are other aspects as well that
tend to stand out. When looking at the
group as a whole, the success of non-politicians, and the total rejection of
the so-called political class in general, and of the Party Establishment in
particular is in a word, astonishing.
However, besides those delineators of difference, the thing that stands
out most to me on either side is the apparent creation of a fact-free universe
by the GOP frontrunner.
In the March 13 Edition of Politico, in
an article entitled Trump’s Week
of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods, the magazine makes the case that Donald Trump is a
veritable truth avoidance machine. This
was a month ago, and several weeks before Trump was elevated through a series
of convincing Primary wins to the GOP’s presumptive nominee status. The
magazine in effect fact-checked a week’s worth of Mr. Trump’s verbal stump
speech stylings. This amounted to 4.6
hours of speeches and press conferences from North Carolina to Missouri.
In summary, what they
found was more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations,
or just flat out false. These were
deemed material that would not have made it into one of the magazine’s stories, or
in some instances would have lead to scuttling a story altogether. According to Politico, it amounted on average to roughly one misstatement every
five minutes.
So with that in mind, I
will focus on a single example of Trump spin, the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). I specifically
selected that topic because there is a historical record, which I will use to
underscore the premise captured in the title, and to re-emphasize the point so
forcefully made by Politico.
Here is Mr. Trump
attacking Secretary Clinton last week on her lack of personal depth of
knowledge on trade issues, and more importantly, her husband’s role in the
bill’s passage and enactment:
“She doesn't
understand trade,” Trump said after his win in Indiana forced Sen. Ted Cruz to
drop out of the race and all-but cemented the nomination for the real estate
mogul. "Her husband signed perhaps in the history of the world the
single worst trade deal ever done. It's called NAFTA.”
In the world according to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton
is totally responsible for the "scourge of NAFTA." It's as oft repeated as any of his
fantastical assertions. It appears to be
swallowed by the masses, certainly by Trump World, hook line & sinker. There's only one small fact-riddled problem
with the claim. It's really not true…or
at the very least, it is a misleading characterization.
Trump’s assertion makes NAFTA sound like Clinton’s
idea, and a Democratic-led bust. In
fact, George Herbert Walker Bush negotiated and subsequently (admittedly)
ceremonially signed NAFTA December 17, 1992 (before Clinton took office). In fact, just as important, when legislators
ratified the bill, more Republicans than Democrats in both
Houses voted for the measure:
The bill passed in the House: 232-200, with support by
132 Republicans & 102 Democrats
November 18, 1993
The bill passed in the Senate: 61-38 with support by
34 Republicans & 27 Democrats
November 23, 1993
There is no denying Bill Clinton did support the
measure, and he ultimately signed it. However,
as you can see clearly from the evidence above, NAFTA’s passage was not only a
result of bi-partisan support, but drew it’s initial energy from a Republican
President, and was passed with more GOP than Democratic support in the both the
House and the Senate. The bottom line is
President Clinton didn’t negotiate the bill, and a majority of Democrats in
both Houses of Congress voted against it.
This makes it at best a misleading attack, and at
worse, another example of Mr. Trump promoting an argument sans media, and up to
this point, GOP rival’s pushback. It is
my hope the Democratic opposition will do better. All in all, just more evidence that Trump’s
campaign has existed and operated in the realm of what I have coined a
"fact-free" universe.
How is it possible for a responsible media to not push
back, with fervor, on such a bogus narrative? Full-throated ramblings of this nature are
just one element of what has allowed the Trump phenomena to eat its own and
position it to do the same thing to Democrats if left unchecked.
It is fair to say, Democrats have their own issues,
and we do. The Party is still sorting them
out. I believe there is inherent danger
in relying upon the perceived demographic advantages the Party holds to carry
the day in the fall General Election. In
the end, victory will be predicated by turn out. If the Party is splintered, Team Trump is
certainly capable of running roughshod over whomever emerges from the Democratic
side. If he is permitted to dissemble
and/or assert falsehoods, without resistance, he will continue to create his
own reality, absent facts.
By the way, his "self-funded" campaign
seems to be headed out the window too.
I’m not sure whether to characterize that evolving development as simply
misleading, or a case of bait and switch.
Perhaps Republicans will take note.
I have a very good friend who insists Trump will not
win in November. Alas, the most sobering
of caveats follows his confident sounding assertion. "If he does," my friend insists,
"We will get what we deserve!"
I absolutely do not believe I got what I deserved in
2010, nor in 2014, when Democrats stayed home in bourgeoning droves, while
Republicans first gave us the Tea Party, then took the Senate in consecutive
midterm elections. Instead, I felt abandoned by folks who lost their vision regarding the importance of exercising
their franchise at the most critical of times...and then rinsed and repeated
the damaging action four years later. A
Trump victory in November would leave me no less underwhelmed, disappointed,
and feeling bereft. Caveat Emptor (Let
the buyer beware)…”Fact Free Universe: The Quintessential Trump Advantage!”
I’m done; holla
back!
Read my blog
anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.
Find a new post
each Wednesday.
To subscribe,
click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home
Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated
space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break
It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
Consult the links below for more
detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment