On this blog, I will try something completely different. Instead of advocating a specific political ideology or specific government policies, I will attempt to study political reality objectively and impartially. My focus will not be on what "ought to be" in the political and social world, but the way things actually are or will or might be. We don't live in an "ought" world; rather, we live in an "is" world. And if you want to understand politics, rather than just advocate a specific position, nothing is more requisite than to set one's personal ideological preferences aside. Ideological commitments inevitably thwart independent judgment.
I will at a later date write up some posts covering some of the basic principles of an objective analysis of the political landscape. In this introductory post, however, I will leap straight into the big story of the week, namely, the decision by the FBI not to recommend an indictment against the Democrat's presumptive nominee for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton.
Reactions to FBI Director James Comey's insistence that no charges should be filed against Clinton have been as one would expect: fiery indignation from Clinton's foes on the right; a sense of relief (mixed with anger over Comey's harsh criticisms of Hillary) on the left. But all such reactions are neither here nor there. The question I'm interested in is: who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose as a result of this decision?
I would argue that the Republicans have the most to gain, and the Democrats have the most to lose from the FBI's decision not to press charges against Hillary Clinton. This is not obvious at first glance, because the tendency is to view this in terms of how it affects Hillary Clinton, and not being indited is obviously a huge positive for her; Republicans, on the other hand, are bitterly disappointed that Hillary Clinton has escaped the clutches of law. However, neither side is really looking at the issue coldly, in terms of probable practical consequences. The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is not an especially good Presidential candidate, and if she had been indited, she would likely have been pressured by the Democrat Party to drop out of the race. This would presumably allow the Democrats to advance a better candidate for President --- perhaps someone like Joe Biden, who would almost certainly defeat Trump in a general election. So paradoxically, an indictment of Hillary Clinton might have helped the Democrats by making their victory in November almost certain.
The Republicans gain from this decision because (1) Hillary remains the Democratic candidate for President; and (2) Comey's harsh criticisms of Hillary are really quite damaging (as this AP story demonstrates), crippling her even further and giving Donald Trump's at least a fighting chance at pulling off an electoral upset. Many of Hillary Clinton's key assertions concerning her email practices have been found to lack credibility, which will provide Republicans with many opportunities to demoralize Clinton's base and win over independents.
Despite Clinton's prevarications about her emails, it remains to be seen how much of an affect this scandal, and in particular Comey's harsh criticisms of the former Secretary of State, will have on independents. Because that's really what matters. Clinton's opponents on the right will, of course, regard Clinton's conduct as appalling, and will advance it as evidence that she is not fit to be President. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, probably don't care, regarding it as much ado about nothing. But for independents, for those voters who don't have a strong preference either way, how will this scandal affect how they vote in November? Will they regard Clinton's "extremely careless" (Comey's words) use of a private email server for State Department business as serious enough to render her unfit for the Presidency? Will they be bothered about her dubious statements she made regarding the server?
I suspect that, while Clinton's email scandal should cost her at least a few votes among independents, it won't cause her major damage. And the reason is quite simple: nearly everyone who's not already an avid supporter of Clinton knows, or at least suspects, that Clinton is corrupt. The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, have been involved in one scandal or another since they entered national politics nearly 25 years ago. So this latest scandal with the private server in the bathroom hardly comes as a shock.
The biggest reason, however, that Clinton's email scandal won't hurt her all that much in November is Donald Trump, who has his own issues. If the Republicans were running a better candidate, Hillary Clinton might be in real trouble.
There's one other issue here that may be something worth keeping an eye on. Partisans can argue all day whether Clinton's use of a private email server is a serious matter or not, but it still seems, on the face of it, rather careless and not very smart. Why was Clinton use a private server for State Department business? And why, having been caught using it, did she make misleading statements regarding it, and delete 30,000 emails (which she declared were "personal") into the bargain? If, as her supporters have argued, it's not a big deal, why not just fully cooperate with the authorities (don't delete 30,000 emails) and refrain from making misleading statements? And why did Bill Clinton try to meet Attorney General Loretta Lynch in secret? Didn't he know that, if this meeting were discovered, it would not look good? The Clintons managed to turn what might have been a very minor matter into something much worse.