1hundredsixty8

In my younger years, when I was a part-time football coach at a local college, a topic frequently discussed in staff meetings was identifying the factors that made for a winning approach. These discussions was surprisingly philosophical in nature, often extending beyond the details of the sport itself. What has stayed with me all these years is the dichotomy we drew between “playing to win” and “playing not to lose”. Said another way, you worked either to achieve a positive outcome or to avoid a negative one. The risk-averse were more inclined towards the latter approach; the aggressive personalities were definitely on board with the former. Ruling out taking foolish risks, the consensus was that playing to win might not guarantee victory, but the odds were better than if the approach were based on not failing. In short, in a competition, you need to take an affirmative approach.

This comes to mind as I observe the progress of the current Presidential campaign. Donald Trump is probably the least-qualified person to ever run for the office. He is a serial liar, profoundly anti-intellectual and so coarse in manner as to be downright vulgar. He appears to have no grasp or understanding of public policy. Given the multiple bankruptcies, lawsuits, judgments, and his failure to release his tax returns, even the extent of his self-proclaimed business successes is questionable, He is conducting his campaign as his attention-seeking, narcissistic personality construes it-  a bizarre admixture of reality show and popularity contest. Unhindered by the rules of either political or polite society, he has provided the media with daily content in the form of constantly-shifting policy positions, thinly-disguised racial dog whistles and near-hero worship of the Russian crime boss/President, Vladimir Putin. He thumbs his nose at the pundit class and journos who inhabit Twitter with his incessant tweeting. He is, however, in his own weird way, playing to win.

As for Mrs. Clinton, she is better qualified than the Donald to be President by almost any rational measure: Brighter, more experienced, and definitely not a sociopath. But, according to the media, always rooting for a close election so it has something to do for the next two months, polling shows the race tightening.

How can this be?

For one thing, Hillary carries the burden of her last name- a Rodham would probably be doing better today than the Clinton is. Then there is the matter of her personality: Unlike Bill, she is not a natural politician and her public persona is more mannered and rehearsed. She is at her core a technocrat, a female version of Mitt Romney.

In addition to the charisma deficit, Hillary is distrustful of  the press. Her decades in the public eye have seen her the subject of scandal, real and rumored, from Whitewater and Monica through Benghazi and the e-mail server. Her approach to the campaign has been cautious and measured: She stakes out thoughtful policy positions and delivers them in a lawyer-like fashion. Until this week, she had not held a press conference or allowed reporters to travel with her. Apparently wary of providing more fodder for negative publicity, she has definitely been playing not to lose.

This is an important election for the nation. The establishments of both political parties have been under assault from their extremes. Public faith in government institutions is at a perilously low level. It can be argued that these institutions- the Congress, the courts, law enforcement- have brought this on themselves. Nonetheless, the medium in the petri dish that is the American democratic experiment is now susceptible to the culture of authoritarianism represented by Donald Trump. It comes at a time when democracy world-wide is in recession (See Larry Diamond’s essay, “Democracy in Decline” in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs for a full-throated discourse on this subject). If our Republic is to repair itself, it must begin by restoring the faith and trust of its citizens in these institutions.

In this light, the election of a qualified, centrist establishtarian is much preferable to that of an inexperienced, boastful buffoon with an authoritarian bent. It is incumbent upon Hillary that, in these next two months, she play to win. In political campaigns, style often counts more than substance. The stakes being what they are, Hillary needs to bring a sense of urgency to the stump. Being the first woman to be elected is secondary to being the person who is better equipped to begin the process of restoration the nation needs.