Opinion: Hillary Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh and the art of trolling


Why did Clinton do it?

I realize that a question like that needs to be a lot more specific, so let’s try again.

Why did Hillary Clinton tweet this on Wednesday?:

“I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as ‘abortion-inducing drugs.’ That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.”

She prattled on a bit more about how Kavanaugh deliberately distorted “basic science” to offer a “dog whistle to the extreme right.”

There was a hitch, though.

This claim — that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh considers birth control pills to be “abortion-inducing drugs” — had been widely debunked when California Sen. Kamala Harris tried to peddle it with a deceptively edited video.

Kavanaugh had been describing the views of specific plaintiffs in a specific case, Priests for Life v. HHS. “It’s pretty clear from the context,” The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote “that he was quoting the views of the plaintiffs rather than offering a personal view.” He gave Harris four Pinocchios — the worst rating.

Even PolitiFact, which often bends its findings to fit a liberal narrative, ruled that the characterization was dishonest.

So why did Clinton jump on the bandwagon so late?

There are many plausible theories. A common one is that she deliberately lied to pander to her base and further unfairly demonize Kavanaugh. Or perhaps she hasn’t been paying attention and her staff is so incompetent that no one bothered to do their due diligence.

Any of these are possible. But something else may be at work. One of the dominant features of our time is that more and more people define themselves by what they hate. For many partisans, what motivates them the most isn’t support for their side’s policies but their hatred of the other party. Most Republicans didn’t vote for Donald Trump; they voted against Hillary Clinton. Most Democrats didn’t vote for Clinton; they voted against Trump.

This dynamic doesn’t just apply to presidential candidates. It saturates both parties and both sides of the culture war, and it even distorts how we process basic facts. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just came out with a report on how people will misinterpret objective data — in this case on climate change — if there’s any hint that the data came from a Republican or Democratic source.

In a media climate where every news outlet is essentially a niche product, appealing to a relatively small slice of the market, one of the best ways to get attention and support is to be attacked by the other side.

This is the broader context for the often-lucrative vocation commonly known as “trolling.” Say or do something awful to get the other side to attack you, and your own side will rush to your support on the grounds that if you’re making the right people angry, you’re a hero.

“We need more Americans to understand exactly this phenomenon,” Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told me on my podcast, The Remnant. Cable news producers and magazine editors have told Sasse that there’s “no chance in hell that you’re getting a 70 percent audience from anything anymore. What you want is a deep and sticky 1 percent audience. And one of the most effective ways to do that … is by getting attacked, because you draw visibility to yourself.”

This dynamic is everywhere today, particularly in the president’s Twitter feed — and in the Twitter feeds of various Democrats who’d like to replace him.

Again, I don’t know if this explains Clinton’s tweets about Kavanaugh — conventional laziness, incompetence and dishonesty are reasonable guesses, too — but Sasse is surely correct that more Americans need to appreciate this phenomenon.

Writes for Tribune Content Agency.



Reader Comments


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: The return of paganism

Here are some generally agreed-upon facts about religious trends in the United States. Institutional Christianity has weakened drastically since the 1960s. Lots of people who once would have been lukewarm Christmas-and-Easter churchgoers now identify as having “no religion” or being “spiritual but not religious.” Religious belief...
Who gets to be an American anyway? 
Who gets to be an American anyway? 

What is an American anyway? I’ve always known that the late President George H.W. Bush was a good American and it is not because I necessarily agreed with his policies or politics. Politics and policies are beyond the point when it comes to the question. Apple pie is mighty good, but there is more than one kind of pie in this world. Maybe it...
Opinion: Katy Tur, France’s riots and panic mode

NBC’s Katy Tur, responding to an article in the New Yorker about climate, looked into the camera and asked, “How pointless is my life? And how pointless are the decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis when we are not focused on climate change every day, when it’s not leading every one of our newscasts?” It’s a safe...
Opinion: Climate denial was the crucible for Trumpism

Many observers seem baffled by Republican fealty to Donald Trump — the party’s willingness to back him on all fronts, even after severe defeats in the midterm elections. What kind of party would show such support for a leader who is not only evidently corrupt and seemingly in the pocket of foreign dictators, but also routinely denies facts...
Opinion: Movie tells ignored story of ‘America’s biggest serial killer’

WASHINGTON — A word can be worth a thousand pictures. In the movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer,” the mild word “snip” describes what the camera, demonstrating the eloquence of reticence, does not show in gory detail: Kermit Gosnell’s use of scissors to cut the spinal cords of hundreds...
More Stories