- - Wednesday, August 17, 2016


The crickets, whose melancholy chirping is always the knell of the sunniest season, sound particularly mournful this summer of ‘16. They’re wearing out their hind legs celebrating the burn of “the summer from hell,” with its inferno of charge and countercharge, rant, rave, insult and invective from presidential candidates who seem determined to lay a sense of chaos and unease on the not-so-innocent voter.

The summer of 2016 has become the overheated hot season when political machines have been overtaken by social media machinations that deliver a dissonant, discordant, disruptive flow of cacophonous information. There’s not a gatekeeper in sight.

For 12 years, through three presidential election cycles, I’ve vacationed with my extended family for two weeks on the beach in North Carolina followed by a week on the Massachusetts shore. The landscapes of the coast in the North and South offer striking contrasts in flora and fauna, fish and fowl, and above all the differences in the way of looking at the world.

These starkly different places expose political divisions that animate debate and discussion, marked by the generational changes, the usual contentious differences of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, libertarians and environmentalists, all with strong disagreements over what’s best for the beloved country.

But this summer the media instruments for interpreting the news of the candidates have spawned hyper-angry political conversations that render past summers in sepia, like dimly bleached photographs of the good ol’ days that maybe never were, gone now on the wind.

When John McCain ran against Barack Obama in 2008, there was pride taken in both candidates, despite their sharp differences. Sen. McCain was a hero of the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was a black man showing how far America had come in changing racial attitudes. These were men of character and dignity standing for election to the highest office America offers, and as friends and family gathered to speak their minds, about sharp differences of policy and partisanship, no one thought to impugn the character of either man.

Four years on, we still saw a respectful contest, marked by tough but reasonable rhetoric. In the summer of 2012, there were controversies over Obamacare and government overreach with different ideas about how to fix a wobbly economy. Voices were raised in discussion of the future of medical care, enlivened by irritation over Mitt Romney’s remark seeming to denigrate the 47 percent of the voters who depended on government handouts. Mr. Romney, like many other candidates before him, was tarred by a remark taken out of a context that became a sound bite magnified into a mantra.

Still, no one questioned the decency of either candidate.

This year a carefully articulated argument over anything is rare that doesn’t focus on the character of two candidates whose virtues are, at best, beneath conventional standards (not a high bar) and whose vices have created the two most unpopular candidates since modern records were kept.

There’s more than a little irony for conservatives at the table that after two terms of a liberal president with a slow-growing economy, the contest is not a referendum on policy but on personality. The debate is alarmingly simple: Does the vulgar and unpredictable clown-in-chief trump the corrupt queen-in-waiting whose touted “experience” is mostly an inventory of costly errors of judgment that would in almost any other time disqualify her.

It’s whittled down to a choice between disgust and distrust, disarray and dismay.

The indigestible table talk within families supping together on a balmy summer’s eve bristles into wild accusations and exaggerations that were once the work of offstage mudslingers. Social media exacerbate the problem in the inundation of messages that rush factoids and unchecked accusations across smart phones and the Internet, reinforcing raw prejudice of pleasure seekers whether they’re lying on a beach blanket watching the waves or smacking their lips over a chocolate sundae at the ice cream parlor.

Trolling that once was the work of disaffected Internet users has gone mainstream, as “information” is pumped into the bloodstream of the body politic, with no editor in charge. Rants and raves quickly proliferate.

Donald Trump is right that the organs of the media don’t want him to win. Well, duh. The big media invariably tilt toward the liberal in any race. But Mr. Trump’s devotion to personal attacks is more fun to read about than Hillary’s regurgitated and reiterated catalog of the details of her greedy arrogance, her convenient intermingling of political and charitable connections, or the emerging account of her sloppy attention to security details as secretary of State.

The voters are caught between the emotions of disgust and distrust, depression and apprehension.

The crickets’ song to the contrary, there’s still a little left of the long, sad, hot summer of 2016. But pray for rain.

• Suzanne Fields is a columnist for The Washington Times and is nationally syndicated.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide