Idealism is a beautiful thing. It provides the initial thrust for lofty aspirations that make their way in to the world. One could argue that it is an important component during the early stages of a political campaign. After all, no one would put themselves through the arduous process of launching a run for president without the conviction of their ideals. Their followers need to buy in to at least some of what the candidate stands for in order take that journey with them and ultimately walk in to the voting booth on their behalf.
The voter has the luxury of sustained idealism, the candidate does not. Pragmatism should underlie every decision being made during a political campaign. The most necessary mindset is the complete understanding that at any moment a statement or action by the campaign can cost an election. The closer the contest, the more fragile the circumstances.
We have seen this happen to democrats more than I care to remember. Dukakis in the tank, Gore’s walking over to Bush during the debate, Kerry windsurfing, all seemingly innocuous acts that turned out to be tipping points. History will soon tell us if Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” statement will turn in to one of those moments.
If the candidate allows personal idealism to dominate their thinking, especially later in the campaign, it can cause them to let their guard down and make mistakes. One could argue that Bernie Sanders fell victim to this when he seemed to get mired in the ideals of maintaining absolute purity surrounding the grand theme of his campaign and not making the pivot toward more pragmatism when the race was turning in his favor. Revolutions are started with words but the real work is done on the ground. I argue that there is a certain arrogance in thinking that the momentum of ones ideals can sustain a movement.
To assume that the energy that dominates the early part of a campaign and in to the party convention can be maintained through the sheer will of conviction is also arrogant. More helpful would be to be vigilant toward the notion that at any moment chaos could ensue. As the former chairman and founder of tech giant Intel Andrew Grove said about business, “only the paranoid survive”. This is even more true in politics. As rough as business can be, it is nothing compared to politics where situational ethics dominate and attempts at fair play are looked upon as weakness.
Idealists tend to think that others will eventually see their true intention and come around to adopting their vision, after all, rightness and logic are on their side. This too smacks of arrogance. Trump is not hampered by ideals, he has none. He just wants, expects to win. Introspection doesn’t slow him down. His arrogance is part of his appeal to his followers.
When I heard Hillary make the “deplorable” comment Friday night, I thought that she had made an unintentional gaffe at a private event, a mistake. Later I learned she’d made a similar comment during an interview and that the media was in attendance at the fund raiser. This tells me that she has let latent idealism creep in to the campaign. Someone on her staff should have warned her of possible repercussions after she said it the first time. If ever there was a candidate who should understand the blood sport of politics it’s Mrs. Clinton. There is plenty of time for her to return to idealism after the election. For now, wise to maybe put it aside.