You know how you feel when someone is being a real jerk to you, and you engage calmly and reasonably in a conversation with that person? Then a third person comes along and says, “Okay, you two, break it up. You’re both out of line here,” or something to that effect? And you want to protest, “NO, not you TWO! That ONE! I didn’t do anything out of line. Sometimes I might be a jerk, but today was not my day!” I’m an honest enough person to admit that sometimes I am the jerk, and I deserve to be called out; but when I get called out simply for engaging with someone who’s being unreasonable, it’s frustrating because the accusation creates a false equivalence between the jerk and me, which in that particular instance is unjustified.
That’s how I felt yesterday when I read this article on the CNN website: “The Hubris of the 2016 Candidates,” by Stephen Collinson. Attempts to draw a false equivalence between two candidates who couldn’t possibly be any further from equal has confused voters and made a farce of media coverage in this campaign. One of the candidates Mr. Collinson speaks of is clearly guilty of epic hubris, but the other is not. Hillary Clinton’s fatal flaws, which are not actually flaws, are in my opinion her natural introversion, her intellect, and her gender.
In Greek and Shakespearean tragedy, the protagonist—typically a man of high rank and power—is subjected to an external situation through which he is ultimately brought to ruin. The external situation is, however, only the catalyst, not the cause of his downfall; the real cause of his destruction is an internal weakness often referred to as the fatal flaw. Powerful as the external forces are, if the internal weakness were not present, the tragic hero could withstand the onslaught and prevail in the end.
The Greeks had a word for the flaw which is often present in those of high rank and power: hubris. Hubris is defined as overweening pride, arrogance, defiance toward the gods. It suggests a failure to recognize one’s humanity, a tendency to see oneself as existing above the natural laws that govern other mortals, a sense of immortality and immunity to fate and forces of nature. Hubris is often considered the fatal flaw of tragic heroes such as Oedipus.
Donald Trump is full of hubris! I agree with Stephen Collinson on that point. Trump is arrogant, he sees himself incapable of losing (despite his many losses and failures in the past) unless he’s cheated, and he sees himself as entitled to possess anything to which he lays claim. The normal rules of elections and the will of the majority do not apply to him. Last week, he made the statement that we should just cancel the election and “give it to Trump.” Of course, he can claim that he was only joking, but we know better; and besides, what other candidate has ever made that “joke”? He has refused to say that he will concede if he loses. Sophocles couldn’t have imagined greater hubris that Donald Trump has displayed!
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has in no way demonstrated hubris. She was president and valedictorian of her graduating class at Wellesley and graduated with honors from Yale Law School. With credentials like that, she could have applied to prestigious law firms, made lots of money, and retired at the top of her field. That would have been hubris. Instead, she chose to go to work for the Children’s Defense Fund and has devoted her career to helping exploited women, children, and families secure the same level of education, health care, and security afforded to those with more resources. I fail to see arrogance or placing oneself above the rank and file of humanity in those choices.
Nor do I find overweening pride in the inner compass which has guided her life. Her faith, her devotion to the cause of helping others, her compassion for those most in need, her inspiration by great leaders—none of these say hubris to me. The Methodist mantra which she frequently quotes, “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can,” speaks of humility, not arrogance. Her inspiration as a young woman came from her youth pastor, Martin Luther King Jr., and others who advocated equality and justice for all.
Daniel Burke, in his article “The Public and Private Faith of Hillary Clinton,” also dispels the notion that Mrs. Clinton is flawed by hubris.
Over her three decades in politics, Clinton has been quite willing to talk about how her work has been inspired by her Methodist faith. She traces some of her political positions, particularly concerning children and the poor, directly to Christ’s commandment to care for “the least of these.”
Speaking to an assembly of Methodist women in 2014, Clinton cited the Gospel story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes to feed a hungry crowd.
“He was teaching about the responsibility we all share, to step up and serve the community, especially to help those with the greatest need and the fewest resources,” Clinton said.
Nevertheless, her critics cling to the unfounded claims that Mrs. Clinton is evil personified and deserving of jail rather than election to the presidency. The personality traits which Mrs. Clinton’s critics see as proof that she is dark and sinister—what Collinson calls “her obsession with privacy” and her “tendency for opaqueness”—might also be seen as classic characteristics of an introvert. She has admitted that she is not the natural politician or public speaker that her husband is. Trump accuses her of staying too secluded because she’s sleeping while he’s out bloviating and rabble rousing.
The two Clintons seem to be at opposite ends of the introversion-extroversion scale. Bill is the extrovert who gains energy from being with people, talking to them, hugging them, just hanging out with them. An introvert, like Hillary, doesn’t dislike people; but she needs privacy and seclusion. An introvert recharges her batteries by being alone, starts to shut down after being active for too long, often chooses an extrovert as a romantic partner, has an eye for detail, has an ability to see the big picture, and needs to balance solitude with social activity. (For more, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/introverts-signs-am-i-introverted_n_3721431.html)
Do those characteristics sound like anyone we know? Being an introvert myself, I can strongly relate. We do like people, and we enjoy being social, but we need to socialize on our own terms rather than being forced or dictated to; and after socializing for a while, we need to retreat. Hillary Clinton works the rope lines and poses for selfies with admirers, but that’s not where she gets her high. Doing those things seems to require much more of a conscious effort for her than for her husband. And speaking of her husband, she was forced to cope with the biggest personal crises of her life while in the public spotlight with the cameras rolling. As each scandal broke, instead of locking herself into her bedroom and crying her heart out, as many of us would have done and as she would probably have preferred to do, she had to hold her head high and face the world every day.
Therefore, the whole idea of saying both current presidential candidates “are like two Shakespearean protagonists falling prey to hubris” (Stephen Collinson) is absurd! And the oft-repeated mantras that she (or he) is the lesser of two evils or that they are two equally flawed candidates are equally absurd. These are all examples of the false equivalency which has made rational discussion of this farcical campaign all but impossible.
Carlos Maza, in his video “Trump, Clinton, and the Problem of False Equivalence,” uses the analogy of a horse race. He says the media are accustomed to reporting a presidential campaign as a horse race in which two normal horses are running neck and neck, some voters pulling for one horse to win and some pulling for the other. Regardless of which horse wins, we still have a relatively normal, qualified person in the Oval Office when it’s all over. Not so in 2016, however! This year, according to Maza’s analogy, we have one “pretty normal horse” running against a wild bull. This wild bull is charging about the track, attacking other candidates, attacking audience members, and generally creating havoc.
Because of this unique situation, members of the media find themselves in a dilemma. Do they report this as a normal horse race despite the fact that one of the horses is really a wild bull who has no business being in the race? Or do they say, “Holy shit! There’s a wild bull on the tracks! Run for your lives, everybody”? The second response would be the honest one; however, if they were to respond in that honest manner, they could be accused of bias, and they have enough of those accusations already. Some publications, such as the Huffington Post, have chosen to sound the alarm and issue clear warning of the danger of treating a wild bull as a serious contestant in a horse race. Others have focused on analyzing why this odd horse is doing the weird things he does, without ever admitting that he’s not a horse.
Possibly never in the history of presidential politics have we seen two candidates with as little equivalence as exists between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, so everyone needs to stop already with the “two equally flawed candidates” hogwash. There is nothing equal about these two people. One is the most knowledgeable, prepared candidate who has ever sought the office of president. The other is the least knowledgeable or prepared. One has been rated the most honest politician ever fact checked by Politico; the other has been found to lie to some degree in 71% of the statements they have checked.
One is arrogant, full of hubris, and sees himself as entitled to win whatever he sets his sights on. He is narcissistic in the extreme and thrives on the adulation of chanting crowds whose personal needs mean nothing to him. His life and career have been all self-service, not public service, and his presidency would be no exception to that rule. The other is so driven by her spiritual desire to serve others that she is willing to overcome her natural tendencies toward privacy and seclusion and put herself into the public spotlight if doing so allows her to accomplish her goal of doing all the good she can in all the ways she can. I’m with that one. I’m with her!