The Financial Times
Edward Luce
It ought to be easier than this. Having lost eight of the last nine primaries to an elderly socialist from Vermont, Hillary Clinton is finally expected to win in New York on Tuesday. Had she faced a stronger rival than Bernie Sanders, the Democratic nomination might once again be slipping from her grasp. Ditto for the general election. Mrs Clinton’s weaknesses pale against the gargantuan flaws of her likely Republican rivals. So far she has been lucky in her opponents. But her lack of message could still prove her undoing. Reciting wish lists is not the same as offering an economic vision. As Winston Churchill said: “This pudding lacks a theme.”
Whatever else can be said of Mr Sanders, his dessert has form. He calls it the “moral economy”. To underline his message he even flew across the Atlantic last Friday to recite it to Pope Francis. Its key ingredients are a promise to break up Wall Street’s biggest banks, introduce a UK-style single-payer healthcare system, abolish student debt and impose steep taxes on the rich. Donald Trump has a theme too, which is himself. The Republican frontrunner can negotiate better deals with China, Mexico and others than those losers in Washington. His recipe is also simple. Slap big tariffs on America’s largest trading partners and kick out America’s illegal immigrants. Likewise, Ted Cruz repeats a familiar shtick about shrinking the federal government and abolishing the Internal Revenue Service.
There may be a hermit in the Rockies who is unaware of what the other candidates are saying. Everyone else is clear. The opposite is true of Mrs Clinton. Indeed, the longer her campaign goes on, the more nebulous it becomes. She launched it with a slick video in which she pronounced herself ready. It was unclear whether she meant she was ready for a gruelling campaign or whether America should prepare for a female president. The video showcased all sorts of people saying they were ready for this and that, but they did not converge on a single theme. Ready for what? A year later, the question still lacks an answer. The closest Mrs Clinton has come is promising “to build on the progress Barack Obama has made”. She needs to come up with something better.
Apologists for Mrs Clinton’s campaign make two defences. First, her mediocre retail skills have no bearing on the kind of president she would be. They have a point. George HW Bush was useless at the “vision thing” and yet was arguably America’s most effective foreign policy president of the last generation. Mr Obama’s soaring oratory only diverted attention from his lack of experience. Among postwar US presidents, only Mr Bush’s qualifications could rival Mrs Clinton’s. He had been vice-president and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. She has been secretary of state and a US senator. The comparison is apt. But governing credentials do not help you to win the White House.
Second, Mrs Clinton’s apologists say she has an unrivalled grasp of the issues. Again, they have a point. Mrs Clinton can out-wonk the wonks on any of her chosen policies. The list of these is long. They include measures to check the excesses of quarterly capitalism, boosting federal investment in scientific research, regulating “shadow banks” rather than breaking up actual ones and investing in clean energy, infrastructure and other public goods.
The contrast between Mrs Clinton and her rivals is acute. Mr Sanders appears to have no clue how he would break up the banks or what would happen next. Mr Trump simply asserts that America would win with him in charge. Neither conveys a handle on the underlying complexities.
Nor, apparently, do they need to. Speaking to electorates is different to addressing courtrooms or McKinsey consultants. In politics it is not what you say but what people hear. Mrs Clinton’s problem is that half the voters fail to retain much of what she says. All those details start to crowd each other out. The other half are deaf to whatever she says since they believe she is a congenital liar. In an ordinary election this would pose a big problem for Mrs Clinton’s chances. It still may do so. So where does it go from here?
There are only two possibilities: win or lose. This is how Mrs Clinton is likely to win. Having seen off Mr Sanders, she takes the nomination in July. To appease Mr Sanders’ supporters she adopts some of his themes and promises him a role in her administration. The Republicans, meanwhile, have embraced civil war by choosing Mr Cruz as their nominee. Mr Trump refuses to back him. Whether or not Mr Trump runs on a spoiler third-party ticket is detail. The election is lost the moment Republicans make an enemy of Mr Trump’s supporters. For that matter, it would also be lost the moment they nominated Mr Trump. Either way, he blows up the party. Note, however, that Mrs Clinton does not win. Republicans lose.
The second is that Mrs Clinton somehow contrives to squander her probable victory in November. Granted, this is the less likely scenario. But Mrs Clinton is capable of pulling it off. To be clear, my own view is that she would make a far better president than the others. But Mrs Clinton seems paralysed by her innate sense of caution. Unless she takes the risk of spelling out why she wants the job the prize may yet slip away.
