While many of us were out Saturday night, Hillary Clinton sparked outrage when she said of half of Trump supporters could be classified as in the “basket of deplorables” due to their racist, xenephobic views. (Watch her full statement in context here.) She's not wrong, even about the first part. Trump entered the political arena by questioning the nation’s first Black president's birthplace, trying to make Obama prove he was sufficiently American for his liking. He then entered the presidential race by saying Mexico was sending criminals with a few exceptions that he assumed were good people. In addition, Trump supporters on average do hold significantly higher amounts of racist beliefs compared to other candidates. So Clinton is partly right that a portion of Trump support is driven by xenophobia. But it doesn't matter. Just because she has a point, you like her and/ or dislike Trump, doesn’t mean what the Presidential candidate said was appropriate.
Gaffes of this sort are only damaging when they fit a particularly narrative or reputation about a candidate. For Clinton, fairly or not, this is how many see her. Thus, she should be willing to mold her public statements and actions as to guard against that Romney’s “47 percent” line was damaging because it fit a narrative that he was an out of touch rich guy who didn't care about the middle class and poor because he viewed them as “takers” and a drain on our society. Obama’s infamous “you didn't build that” line fit the narrative that Obama was a big government liberal who did not value individuals' hard work. Rick Perry’s “oops” gaffe where he couldn’t name the third Governmental Department to get rid of fit the idea that he was a charismatic yet spacey Texan who wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. In the same way, Clinton’s basket of deplorables gaffe, which was said over laughs at a fundraiser, further ingrains the image of her as a cosmopolitan liberal, Chappaqua and Washington DC-dwelling elitist, naval gazing at people in the flyover country who support Trump.
Are these narratives completely fair? No, not at all. But part of running for president and being president is navigating the environment of public opinion, hoping to mold a narrative about yourself that works in your favor to get elected and get your preferred policies enacted. But Clinton doesn't seem to care about what she says or does and how it will make her perceived. It seems that she acts as though she thinks her unfavorables, at least while she is running for office, are “baked in” so to speak, and she will disliked no matter what she does. Second highest unfavorables and untrustworthiness for a presidential candidate in history? The Republicans, right wing media and sexism are to blame. Therefore, Clinton doesn't care how her actions are words are perceived; people will hate her anyway! Goldman Sachs speaking fees? Receiving foreign funds from Saudis Arabia and other human rights disaster countries while she was Secretary of State? Questionable handling of classified information on her email server? Those things are not illegal and people will hate her anyway why not do it?" seems tome to be the calculation.
This baskets of deplorables line, like her other decisions, were not accidental or off the cuff, the consequences of which could have been predicted. As Politico reported, she has been using this line in private recently at fundraisers. It’s likely that she thinks it will come off well to her strongest supporters, particularly those attending the fundraiser who view Trump supporters with contempt. But I doubt the general public will take kindly to her calling around 20-25 percent of the country's voters deplorable. And the problem is, I'm not sure Clinton cares.
Clinton will likely win the election, in part thanks to Donald Trump, his nonexistent campaign and his extremely high unfavorables (Even worse than Clinton's!) But Saturday's basket of deplorables line, while the first of the sort about Trump supporters in public, is part of troubling pattern of Clinton not caring how bad something makes her look, how unethical it is, as long as it isn’t illegal and she thinks it won't cost her. The merits or legality of her actions not withstanding, It is bad to have a president who's red line which she will not pass is legality and political utility. A person running for president should have a more strict standards for his or her behavior. A Hillary Clinton presidency in which this behavior continues would be bad for her and the Democratic party of which she will be the leader. More importantly, it would be bad for trust in vital institutions such as the White House. A scandal fueled Clinton presidency, where she appears to be up to no good behind the scenes or expresses disdain for a sizable segment of our population, is a recipe for conspiracy theories and populist backlash that often takes unhealthy forms.
Delivering haughty, humorous generalizations that are mostly true and performing actions that are ethically dubious but won't get her put behind bars is perfectly suitable behavior for comedians and mobsters not presidents of The United States. Hillary Clinton should speak and act accordingly.
Update: Since writing this article, Hillary Clinton has apologized for what she said regarding Trump supporters. Read her statement here.
