A Basketcase of Deplorables

Maybe people would have figured this angle out sooner if they’d known that during law school she dubbed herself “A Chain Lord Thorny Mill.”

While we’re at it, let’s talk for a minute about Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” remark, even though we’re already three Apocalyptic Campaign Stories past it.

First, there’s something weird about a candidate who doesn’t talk like a human being. Remember Clinton’s “everyday Americans” stuff? That was not a phrase that occurs in nature. “Basket of deplorables” is just as weird. Syntactically, visually, aurally–how does it even happen? It’s Romneyesque.

Second, it’s a little strange how much heat Clinton has taken for the remark. I mean, Donald Trump talks about how in an alt-universe he’d like to date his daughter because she’s got a good body. He’s claimed that judges sign bills on multiple occasions, suggesting that he doesn’t understand, even at a rudimentary level, how laws are made. In the last week alone, he defended Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian rule as being somehow good for Russia. Yet “basket of deplorables” is a thing. Why is that?

It’s because crazy gets held to a different standard. Think about it this way: If Mickey Rourke walks into a bar tonight, gets wasted, and starts a brawl, it’s barely a story. Because he’s Mickey Rourke. That’s his move.

But if Tom Hanks got drunk and punched someone out at a bar? It’d be a major scandal. Because he’s not Mickey Rourke. Now, this shifting Trumpian standard isn’t particularly fair to Hillary Clinton. But then, then again, people who are massively corrupt get held to a different standard, too. If Paul Ryan were caught running his own email server in contravention of the law, his career would be over and he’d probably go to jail. Hillary Clinton doesn’t even get charged is probably going to be elected president. So don’t cry for her, Argentina.

There are two competing theories about the “basket of deplorables” line. The first is that it was a gaffe, pure and simple: An unguarded moment where Clinton told someone what she really thinks. Kind of like her bon mot at the Democratic debate when she said she was proud to consider Republicans her enemies.

The other theory is that this was a set play from the Clinton campaign, designed to motivate her base, keep college-educated whites onboard, and push the news cycle away from what had been a pretty bad week for her. Here’s Allahpundit:

I don’t know which of these two theories is correct. But I do know this: One of the things that’s bugged me about Trump from the start is the nature of some of the people who support him. I’m not talking about people who are resigned to voting for him, or who reluctantly see him as the lesser of two evils. I mean the folks who really do see him as the second coming—the Trump Superfans. Many of these people are … well, look at the video footage from his rallies. No, really. Go watch that link. I’ll wait.

Now don’t tell me that crazy people are always part of politics and that this sort of thing happens every four years. It doesn’t. You didn’t see this at Santorum rallies. Or Newt rallies. Or Romney rallies. Or rallies for George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. You’ve never seen a candidate nod and wink at violence from his supporters before. This is a new phenomenon in American politics. You either like this sort of behavior from a candidate. Or you don’t. But you can’t waive it away as par for the course. It is, as they say, a binary choice.

What is business as usual is the presence of crazies/bad actors/deplorables in political life. As Sonny Bunch is always reminding us, people are awful and every campaign has jerks supporting it. Trust me. But the difference is that most campaigns disavow these people. That disavowal might be insincere or cynical. But it’s formal. It’s real. Barack Obama was cozy with Jeremiah Wright for as long as was politically viable. Then he (cynically) cut Wright loose hard enough that the right reverend got annoyed and publicly disowned him.

The Trump campaign has not done this with their deplorables. When Mike Pence protests that the campaign has said they don’t want these votes, understand that that’s the most pro-forma of statements–the Trump campaign is still playing footsie with the alt-right. And the proof is that the crazy racists in American politics aren’t reluctantly supporting Trump (like most Republicans). They’re his biggest fans. As a rule, if David Duke doesn’t feel legitimately disowned, then you haven’t effectively disowned him.

I’ve always believed that you ought to be nervous if you’re marching in a parade and then realize that the people leading it are folks you’d never in a million years associate with outside of the parade.

Now I don’t know if the deplorables are 2 percent of Trump World or 20 percent. But in a way, that’s beside the point. Republicans keep talking about what supporting Trump might possibly do for the country. They ought to look at what it has already done to them in terms of their new associations.

And they ought to look at what supporting Trump has done to people in public life. Last winter I pointed out that Trumpism corrupts. That precept remained true for months and continues to be true today. Just look at the last two weeks:

– In a rush to defend Trump’s indefensible affinity for Vladimir Putin, Hugh Hewitt found himself arguing that Putin has “served his country’s national interest” better than Obama has. It was as if Trumpism caused Hewitt to forget everything he knows about Madison, liberty, inalienable rights, and political philosophy.

– Attempting to defend Trump’s plan to “take the oil” (spoiler: there is no plan), Rudy Giuliani claimed that in war “anything is legal.” It’s a preposterous statement in support of a ludicrous talking point. (1) You cannot “take the oil” without committing massive military resources–hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to secure the reserves and the logistical lines–and inciting open war with the occupied country. (2) In a world of $40 a barrel oil, such a commitment would dwarf ROI. (3) There are plenty of international laws that the United States has signed onto concerning warfare. Maybe you don’t like them. Maybe you think we should disengage from these legal regimes. Maybe you think they shouldn’t be binding. But they exist. Giuliani’s entire riff was the kind of thing you’d expect not from a major political figure, but from a cable news hack.

– Speaking of whom, have a gander at what Trumpism has done to the cable news hacks this week. Here’s A.J. Delgado railing against paid maternity leave two years ago before turning on a dime this week and cheering for it when Trump suddenly came out for it. Ditto for Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity.

I’ve never quite figured out why Trump’s big supporters are constantly being forced into these kinds of embarrassing contortions. Why can’t they support Trump while honestly and fully acknowledging all of his problems and contradictions?

As Trump likes to say, something is going on here.