Politics & Policy

Hillary Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh, and the Art of Trolling

Hillary Clinton in New York City during her 2016 campaign. (Brian Snyder/Reuters)
In a fractured media environment, the best way to get attention is often to provoke the other side into attacking you.

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?

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 senator 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. (Indeed, she may not have tweeted it herself. Some 22-year-old intern may be responsible).

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. The moment Democrats saw a Republican logo, the ability to interpret a chart went out the window for many of them, and vice-versa.

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 senator 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.”

Sasse pointed to The New Yorker’s almost conspiratorial “exposé” of Chik-fil-A’s “creepy infiltration” — in the magazine’s words — of New York City. The magazine has done “some really important work, not just in its history, but this year,” Sasse said, yet “they put out these nonsensical, scurrilous pieces.”

“I think that the motive is to get attacked from the other side, so you can now wear the victim badge of honor, and then other people who are in your base then rally to you as a second-order effect.”

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.

© 2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

 

Most Popular

Elections

Stick a Fork in O’Rourke

If, as I wrote last week here, Joe Biden may save the Democratic party from a horrible debacle at the polls next year, Beto O’Rourke may be doing the whole process a good turn now. Biden, despite his efforts to masquerade as the vanguard of what is now called progressivism, is politically sane and, if ... Read More
Elections

In Defense of the Electoral College

Senator Elizabeth Warren has joined a growing chorus within the Democratic party in calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. Speaking at a forum in Mississippi on Monday night, Warren said that she hoped to ensure that “every vote matters” and proposed that “the way we can make that happen is ... Read More
Education

Ivy-League Schools Wither

A  number of liberal bastions are daily being hammered — especially the elite university and Silicon Valley. A Yale and a Stanford, or Facebook and Google, assume — for the most part rightly — that each is so loudly progressive that the public, federal and state regulators, and politicians would of ... Read More
National Security & Defense

In Defense of the Iraq War

Today is the 16th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and Twitter is alive with condemnations of the conflict -- countered by precious few defenses. Yet I believed the Iraq War was just and proper in 2003, and I still believe that today. When Donald Trump condemned the war during the 2015 primary campaign and ... Read More