Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWaPo: What Trump and Clinton have in common:A resistance to transparency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-trump-and-clinton-have-in-common-a-resistance-to-transparency/2016/02/26/c72f8634-dcb7-11e5-891a-4ed04f4213e8_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottomexcerpts
Transparency is not the natural instinct of the politician. The political mind tends to think: What voters dont know cant hurt me. What political opponents, and media, do with information can.
So the ordinary urge is to hold close, to dribble out, to yield the bare minimum, unless the politician perceives some comparative advantage in revelation. (Think Jeb Bush, eye on Hillary Clinton, unloading years of gubernatorial emails, plus a gusher of tax returns.) The role of the media should be to counter this impulse toward secrecy, demand disclosure and in appropriate circumstances and appropriate ways inflict pain on candidates who resist.
So the ordinary urge is to hold close, to dribble out, to yield the bare minimum, unless the politician perceives some comparative advantage in revelation. (Think Jeb Bush, eye on Hillary Clinton, unloading years of gubernatorial emails, plus a gusher of tax returns.) The role of the media should be to counter this impulse toward secrecy, demand disclosure and in appropriate circumstances and appropriate ways inflict pain on candidates who resist.
The current campaign features two parallel arguments over transparency on the Republican side, Donald Trumps tax returns; on the Democratic side, transcripts of Clintons paid speeches.
The two issues are not equivalent, in that releasing tax returns has been a standard rite of presidential candidacy for decades. According to tax historian Joseph Thorndike, a contributing editor for Tax Analysts, every major-party nominee since 1980 has done so.
The two issues are not equivalent, in that releasing tax returns has been a standard rite of presidential candidacy for decades. According to tax historian Joseph Thorndike, a contributing editor for Tax Analysts, every major-party nominee since 1980 has done so.
Still, both candidates are resisting disclosure. Both are wrong. And both are revealing a troubling attitude that can only be expected to persist and worsen in the White House.
Clintons speeches are different in that we dont know whats there or not, which is precisely the point. Clintons stance has evolved from ducking (I will look into it) to brushing off (happy to do it when everybody, including the Republicans, does it).
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Clinton is running in a Democratic primary, against a candidate who has made her ties to Wall Street bankers an issue. Clinton argues that what she said in private doesnt matter because I have a record. Im not coming to this for the first time.
This has things backward. Yes, Clinton has a public record. But for voters worried about whether she would be tough enough on bankers, it seems reasonable for them to wonder: What did she say to them behind closed doors, at $225,000 a pop?
This has things backward. Yes, Clinton has a public record. But for voters worried about whether she would be tough enough on bankers, it seems reasonable for them to wonder: What did she say to them behind closed doors, at $225,000 a pop?
Voters beware. How politicians behave on the campaign trail offers a window into what they will do in office. Candidates lacking in transparency before Election Day arent inclined to improve once they win
I can think of a lot of other similarities but this is a start! Thank you Ruth Marcus!!
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
7 replies, 563 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WaPo: What Trump and Clinton have in common:A resistance to transparency (Original Post)
jillan
Feb 2016
OP
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)1. I was having that convo on twitter last night
hmm... interesting
I just don't feel they can be had here... or maybe the papers are starting to vet both of them? NAHHHHH I got a theory for that, but some in this crowd might consider that to be tin foil (Editors are starting to realize that Trump is not bluffing when he says he will go after the press once he is sworn in... and everybody is starting to realize something about Clinton in the GE)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)2. Yes. But, Trump has slightly more expensive baggage than Hillary.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)3. plenty in common i'm sure...
Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Fla. (Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)4. What Trump and Bernie supporters have in common.
I'll leave you to fill in as you wish.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)5. Excellent.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Clinton is running in a Democratic primary, against a candidate who has made her ties to Wall Street bankers an issue. Clinton argues that what she said in private doesnt matter because I have a record. Im not coming to this for the first time.
This has things backward. Yes, Clinton has a public record. But for voters worried about whether she would be tough enough on bankers, it seems reasonable for them to wonder: What did she say to them behind closed doors, at $225,000 a pop?
This has things backward. Yes, Clinton has a public record. But for voters worried about whether she would be tough enough on bankers, it seems reasonable for them to wonder: What did she say to them behind closed doors, at $225,000 a pop?
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)6. I keep saying this:
She has shown me who she is. I believe her.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)7. They are privileged and cocooned. They are unfamiliar with the environment of transparency. nt