On July 16, during his summit with Vladimir Putin, President Trump said he does not believe that the Russian government meddled in the 2016 U.S. election. The implication (apparently) is that he is siding with a foreign government over the American government.
Universal outrage – as in coming from left, right, conservative, liberal – toward President Trump has been the reaction. This is a sign that something is not right. Information is missing. We are not seeing the whole picture. Or perhaps, the whole picture is yet to be revealed. No matter how rare and unusual Trump’s comments in Helsinki might have seemed to some people, the truly weird story here is that everybody from Chuck Schumer to Newt Gingrich to FOXNews to MSNBC is singing in unison. So, what is really going on?
The absence of analysis jumps out. Dramatic comparisons to past historical lows are filling the air, but nobody is offering any rationale for why the President would do something to cause (to pick one such comparison) the U.S.’s worst moment since 9/11. The popular sentiment, of course, is that Trump is an anti-cerebral publicity hound, with no strategic direction or plan. And perhaps there is some truth to that. On the other hand we have seen him look smarter than his critics once or twice as well: as with tariffs, which everyone said was bad (including me). But then China cut tariffs on American automobile imports and the European Union expressed openness better trade deals with the U.S.
So what might he be calculating with this latest comment? Maybe nothing. Sure, it’s possible. The point is nobody is even asking the question. Nobody is even considering that this could be part of a larger game, or whether his response was simply the best he could do in a bad situation.
One Chicago radio commentator offered reasons. Joe Walsh (WIND) suggested that Trump may be insecure about his own victory over Hillary Clinton, and doesn’t want to give his opponents any ammunition – to the point that he would disingenuously take Putin’s side in an international “scandal.” To be sure, Mr. Walsh was highly critical of Trump. But at least he offered some sort of analysis.
Mr. Walsh offered his perspective skeptically. Sure it’s a reason, but not a good one, not an excuse. But, maybe Mr. Walsh stumbled onto something, and too quickly discounted his own discovery. Consider the dilemma Trump faced. If he said the Russians meddled, he is indeed opening the door to the perception of self-incrimination. If, on the other hand, he says there was no meddling, well…
So what was Trump’s better option? This comes down to controlling the (oft under-valued and overlooked) narrative.
The President’s comment about election meddling was in response to a reporter’s question. What result was the reporter hoping for? Most certainly, he wanted Trump to say there was meddling. Could there have been a more perfect next chapter in the prevailing narrative? The villain Trump, sharing a world stage with the Russian dictator whom everybody knew, but could not prove, was Trump’s co-conspirator. The lights, the pressure, the weight of a thousand past denials finally crushing his moral conscience! The narrative-oriented reporter surely had in mind Jack Nicholson, as Colonel Nathan Jessup, during the climax scene of a few good men. He wanted, and probably expected, Trump to blurt out, “You’re goddamned right the Russians meddled in this election! And I colluded with them every step of the way!” The character, Trump, they have created is so egotistical that (like any stock criminal character in any throwaway Hollywood plot) being properly credited for his sinister deeds is more important than any personal consequence he would have to endure.
Whether Trump were to deliver such an admission with the same histrionics as Nicholson does not matter. All that was needed was the public admission. The reporters, pundits, and politicians would take care of the rest. Think of the headlines. Trump concedes Russia election meddling; Impeachment rhetoric heats up!
But Trump spoiled the narrative. Again. He probably asked himself what is the worst they could throw at him if he (as his critics regard it) took the Russian side on meddling. And he probably figured the worst they could do is to call him Hitler again, or accuse him of being treasonous again, or say this is the worst moment since 911, or whatever. So, rather than saying he spoiled the narrative, it is more accurate to say he took control of the narrative.
The narrative is precious. It has commercial value to reporters and bloggers, and political value to politicians. The narrative is really a product. A company may invest millions on developing products, most of which never grow profitable. When one finally finds traction in the market, the company does all it can to defend the product against competition, changes in consumer taste, and so on. Maintaining and enhancing an existing, proven product is always easier and less costly than inventing a new one.
The over the top outrage has nothing to do with defending American honor or some sacrosanct rules of diplomatic behavior for American presidents. This is about marketshare. It is about defending profitability of an incumbent product. It’s about the dividends of high cable TV ratings, and low presidential approval ratings.
In the end Trump’s choice was simple and logical and very likely calculated. And nobody’s going to impeach him for this and future students of history will not read about Trump’s latest unconventional moment in the same chapter as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, or Watergate, or slavery.