I sometimes wonder if the Usual Talking Heads are really concern-trolling the Trump campaign.  Here's Salena Zito, on why that concern-trolling might be in error.
He was blowing up the system; he did not use the same talking points that every other presidential candidate delivered; he dared to attack a political process into which many voters poured their hearts, energy and money, only to be disappointed when their team took power.

His successive primary wins were never about ideological principles, which is stunning for an electoral process designed to reward the candidate who checks off the most conservative credentials with voters. Instead, his victories came from an energized mix of angry Republican, disaffected Democrat and independent voters who decided that the only ideology that would attract their votes was blowing up the system.

If we don't examine why, if we just pooh-pooh that as a foolish adolescent phase that the interior of the county is enduring, we will never halt, fix or recognize the problems that face our nation.
But the salaries of the Usual Talking Heads depend on their willingness to buy into Business as Usual. Thus the concern-trolling.
Every morning, the political experts analyze what Trump said during one of his speeches or tweeted the night before. And, every morning, those experts are driven mad by what they think he should have done better, how he could have acted in a more sophisticated, disciplined manner.
Yes, I recall hearing a few of those sessions on some of the usual outlets, of the evening. We will see if those Talking Heads will be vindicated, or if they will find themselves in the position of Richmond pundits, in the fall of 1864, driven mad by Genl Sherman's latest march away from his railhead in north Georgia.
Take last week, when a scathing FBI report concluded that Clinton essentially lied several times about her conduct regarding her State Department Internet server and her handling of classified information. The headlines for two days afterward insisted that Trump failed to focus on Clinton's problems, that he was off-message.

Well, what the headline-writers didn't comprehend is this: If Trump had delivered a crisp, scripted message about Clinton to his supporters in suburban Cincinnati, he would have lost the audience; they were looking for vintage Trump and they got him.

Such Americans are tired of scripted messages; they don't want to hear about Clinton's woes, because that was pounded into them all day by the news networks and by social media.

They want to hear about Trump, from Trump; they enjoy his confrontation with the national media — just as they enjoyed his riff with NBC's “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd — or that he talks about his grandchildren and mosquitoes.

This race has never been about ideology, a strict platform that no candidate can veer from, scripted messages that are so coordinated that every candidate in the party repeats the same talking points.
It's a privilege check, if you will, for the Usual Talking Heads.
This moment is about what happens when you spend an entire generation ignoring the will, the wants and the needs of your people beyond cosmopolitan America.

This is what happens when voters get tired of putting on their team jerseys and supporting their side, but get nothing in return when that team wins.

If politicians and academics begin diving into the whats and whys of Campaign 2016, instead of just walking around shaking their heads in judgment, then perhaps they will root out the results from 30 years of political correctness, of policies that benefit a select few, of creating a culture of “otherness” when it comes to the country's interior, of mouthing promises that they can't keep.

Then, maybe, we can retire our politics of the ridiculous and start to govern the country once more.
Or, perhaps, as Andrew Malcolm suggests, the outcome is as choreographed as professional wrestling.  "What if Trump’s idea of winning is electing Hillary Clinton? And devastating the GOP in the process?"  Four months to run.

No comments: