Clinton questions Trump's 'steadiness.' Is that his kryptonite?

Questioning the GOP candidate's steadiness is an obvious line of political attack, given his loose talk and lack of foreign-policy experience. But it remains to be seen if the critique can resonate with the 2016 electorate.

|
Mike Segar/Reuters
Demonstrators hold signs as they protest against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump near where he and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie were to hold a fundraising event in Lawrenceville, N.J. on May 19.

Is steadiness in the context of foreign policy – or a perceived lack thereof – going to serve as Donald Trump’s kryptonite, a powerful argument against his election as president of the United States in the fall?

Probable Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton seems sure to use that as a main theme in the campaign, in any case. She aired it out today in one of her sharpest attacks yet on Mr. Trump, saying he is not fit to serve as POTUS.

Trump is “divisive and dangerous” and “unmoored,” said Mrs. Clinton in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

The former secretary of State pointed to his feud with British leaders, his questioning of the usefulness of NATO, and his offhand remarks that maybe more countries should have nuclear weapons, as evidence that Trump would be a danger to the nation.

In proposing to temporarily ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the US, Trump is slapping in the face US allies that are majority Muslim themselves, Clinton said.

“I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness as well as strength and smarts in it,” said Clinton.

You’re going to hear a lot of similar critiques in the months ahead. It’s a natural line of attack, given Trump’s penchant to pretty much say anything he wants at any time, and his evident lack of background on international relations. The “steadiness” angle brings up not just his foreign policy wavers but also his general character, so it’s a twofer. It’s a way, sotto voce, of calling Trump a clown.

But you know who else tried the steadiness angle? Jeb Bush, that’s who. Clinton’s words today could have been lifted verbatim from the late, teetering stages of Mr. Bush’s presidential bid. Back then it didn’t appear to peel off a single voter from the Trump parade.

In the GOP primaries it’s seemed that steadiness was, in fact, not a virtue. The very word seemed like the kind of thing a GOP elitist would say. Trump voters appeared to want the opposite of steady – action, excitement, and the explosion of the status quo.

They want things ripped up in Washington. Steadiness might not help that.

“He’s not just going to sit around and see what’s going to happen,” one Trump voter told the Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson earlier this month.

The question is whether the larger electorate in November will react differently, especially if anti-Trump forces pump cash into ads explicitly linking the steadiness question with war, peace, and nuclear weapons.

Trump with the button. That’s what the Clinton campaign wants you to think about when “steadiness” flashes on screen.

It’s a vision that’s already given former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pause. Mr. Gates – a Republican who served both Presidents Bush and Obama – was asked Thursday if he’d be comfortable with Trumpian access to nuclear launch codes.

“Right now? No,” said Gates in an interview with Yahoo News.

Gates went on to say that he might change his mind if Trump appeared to grow in his understanding of complex international problems, and if he picked good advisers. You can bet that when the Clinton campaign uses the footage of this interview for an attack ad, they’ll edit that last part out.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Clinton questions Trump's 'steadiness.' Is that his kryptonite?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0519/Clinton-questions-Trump-s-steadiness.-Is-that-his-kryptonite
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe