Hillary Clinton hasn’t improved as a candidate since 2008. She just faces far weaker competition from an elderly socialist with no experience in forming multiracial electoral coalitions. If anything, Clinton has gotten a little worse – but it might not matter.
Clinton has this thing where she tries to give the impression of passion and sincerity. When Sanders does it, it works. That is because everyone knows he means it when he blames all of the world’s problems on the 1 percent. Nobody believes that Clinton wants to drink the blood of gun manufactures (civil litigationaly speaking.) The result is that her attempt at righteous anger comes across as resentment at the people to whom she is pandering. Her campaign’s motto should be “I shouldn’t have to explain this to you again.”
What Clinton has going for her is transactional politics. Different Democratic-leaning (and swing) constituencies can have some idea of what they are going to get from a Clinton administration. Her promises aren’t as extravagant as those of Sanders (because she plans on actually being president), but whether it is the minimum wage, or infrastructure spending, or amnesty, people can point to what she wants. You can see where some of her policies might directly impact mundane life for this person or that. Going by all the polls, it isn’t an inspiring agenda and she is not a well-liked candidate, but it is something.
The Republicans – whether establishment or insurgent conservative – don’t have any such agenda in the public’s consciousness. Some Republicans have adopted a few policies aimed at the middle-class, but they did almost nothing to promote those policies and only political obsessives are even aware that any Republican cares about middle-class wages or the cost of postsecondary education.
Now some might say that the kind of interest group politics practiced by the Democrats is inherently corrupt pandering. The Republicans should be the party of the general interest rather than the special interests. That might be plausible in theory, but Republicans practice interest group politics for business owners and high-earners. Republicans tell business owners how they will help business owners. Then Republicans tell everyone else how everyone will benefit when Republicans help business owners.
To the outside observer, this looks like interest group politics for donors and the local chamber of commerce, and rugged individualism for everyone else. The business lobbies are promised lower taxes and fewer regulations. When it seems like no one is looking, the business lobbies will also get expanded guest worker programs to keep wages down optimistically grow the rising pie of tides lifting all boats.
Are you worried about the rising cost of college? Are you worried about what will happen to your health insurance if Obamacare is repealed? Normal people will not scour the websites of presidential candidates to find the answers (even if those answers are there – which they sometimes aren’t.) People infer that Republicans want them to tough it out until every American can enjoy the economic fruits of tax cuts for the rich.
On a whole host of issues, policy isn’t optimal, and focusing on making it better for the middle-class would make for better government and better politics. Rick Perry and Marco Rubio had some thoughts on how to bring down the cost of postsecondary education, but no voter that Republicans actually needs heard about it.
If Republicans can’t come up with an agenda to speak to wage-earners, then Trump is only the beginning. Ted Cruz put together a technically competent campaign. Of all the conventional politicians who ran, he came closest to having some inkling of the dissatisfaction of center-right voters. It has been pretty sad watching his since the Wisconsin primary because he obviously knew he didn’t have a convincing and relevant agenda to bring to voters. He seemed to realize that he had constructed an agenda to win an election for president of his college’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom. In 1995.