“The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.” – Maya Angelou
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I contributed the first of two planned articles on the candidacy of Secretary Hillary Clinton and on that occasion, I unapologetically supported her from the perspective of gender and indicated that the second instalment would speak to Clinton’s other qualifications.
There are, of course, several sound arguments that can be advanced in respect of her superior policy positions which have benefited from her experience of over 30 years in the political vineyard. As fate would have it, however, this United States election and the related analysis has been dominated less by the superiority of either candidate’s policy agenda, and more by the extent to which Donald Trump’s unsuitability is so profound that no one even needs to consider Clinton’s policies.
This most recent episode reinforces Trump’s unsuitability both from the perspective of the central conversation and also on account of Trump’s response. As one who previously commented on the matter of moral turpitude in our own Caribbean politics, it is important that I first put Trump’s “locker room banter” in context. In these remarks, he effectively admitted to having sexually assaulted women and, moreover, trivialised these assaults which he argued could go unpunished because he was “a star”.
This type of remark needs to be distinguished from the garden variety “womanising” that I previously suggested was a reality of politics from the time of Henry VIII. Over the years, several male politicians have succumbed to temptations of the flesh which in the case of Clinton compromised an otherwise outstanding term in office. These weaknesses demonstrate the extent to which politicians are human with human failings. Trump’s remarks are, however, different and demonstrate the extent to which he is predatory and believes himself to be immune from censure. It is a trait that is consistent with other statements and actions associated with Trump both before and since he has become a candidate.
One, therefore, wonders why a sane voter would risk further empowering such an unstable individual.
Romans 3:23 reminds that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory” and we should perhaps look past Trump’s historic sins; however, it is at this point that another problem presents itself. In the case of Bill Clinton (who also sinned), he clearly threw himself before the court of public opinion, sincerely apologised and sought forgiveness not only from the American public but from his family. Clinton’s approach to this matter should therefore be presented as a model by which any politician who is caught outside the “off stump” should approach the matter of seeking forgiveness. Although Clinton famously denied sleeping with “that woman”, he later qualified his statement, admitted to an “inappropriate relationship” and was sincere, remorseful and demonstrated his appreciation of the fact that he and he alone was being judged.
In the case of Trump, his admission of guilt and apology was brief and followed by one of the most crass displays of political behaviour that has been presented to any voting population in a developed country. Trump mounted a surprise pre-debate press conference with several of Bill Clinton’s accusers which was the political equivalent of eating with one’s hoofs in the trough. Those among us familiar with the politics of Trinidad and Tobago might recall the 2002 election in which Jack Warner held a similarly timed press conference where he presented Angela Nelson who claimed to be the mother of Patrick Manning’s love child.
Suffice to say, these acts were both intended to sway voters by route of scandal. However, the strategy says more about the proponents’ desperation and lack of class than anything else. Certainly, the two press conferences could be seen as embarrassing both Manning and Clinton, but how does that make either unsuited for the post they are seeking? In the case of Clinton, the logic appears even more remote since the American public is presumably being asked to reject Clinton because of her husband’s weaknesses, which seems counterproductive especially since so many American women can identify with the emotional trauma that Clinton experienced during the Monica Lewinski affair. If, therefore, we accept that the strategy lacks logic, we are left to assume that it is more reflective of spite which should worry American voters who he simultaneously told he would “lock up” Clinton.
Although the polls are seeming to suggest that Trump’s strategy is not working, he persists and if nothing else, this election will test the veracity of the principle to which Trump holds fast that “all publicity is good publicity”.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
