Hillary's Strategic Dilemma

In the lead up to the 1806 Battle of Jena pitting Napoleon Bonaparte against Prussia, the Prussian high command appeared supremely confident. This was somewhat strange, given that less than a year earlier, Napoleon had orchestrated a masterpiece at the Battle of Austerlitz, defeating the much larger combined Austrian and Russian armies, thereby cementing his reputation as one of the greatest commanders of his time.

Yet the proud Prussians, renowned for their own military prowess, were largely unimpressed. They believed that Napoleon’s success could largely be attributed to the relative ineptness of his enemies and an uncanny streak of good fortune, like the dense fog at Austerlitz. If he were to face the superior Prussian military machine, his good luck would run out, the Prussians reasoned.  

The Prussians’ overconfidence proved fatally misguided, and once again at Jena, Napoleon scored a decisive victory.

The Prussian defeat was rooted in their failure to recognize that Napoleon had revolutionized modern warfare, relying on speed, deception, and momentum to outmaneuver opposing armies, whose orthodox column formations were too sluggish and inflexible to counter Napoleon’s nimble corps. That was the source of his battlefield success, not the ineptness of his enemies.  

The Prussians were, as the saying goes, fighting the last war. Napoleon had changed the rules of warfare, just as Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Genghis Khan had done centuries earlier and just as the successors to the Prussian military, Germany’s Wehrmacht, would do over a hundred years later in unleashing the Blitzkrieg on their bewildered enemies.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign parallels Napoleon's unconventional warfare in at least one key respect: he’s completely unpredictable and doesn’t play by the established rules of the game that have guided political campaigns for decades.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign (at least so far) parallels the mindset of the 1806 Prussian military: she’s over relying on her formidable political machine to defeat a political novice, who she believes had benefited from the weakness of his GOP primary opponents, as well as the small sample size of the electorate, i.e. GOP primary voters, that paved the way for Trump’s nomination.  

On numerous occasions, Hillary and her team have signaled the view that in a general election against the full force of the Clinton and the Democratic Party political machine, Trump’s unconventional tactics will prove futile.

Yet throughout history, far shrewder strategic thinkers than Hillary and her brain trust have failed to heed the eternal aphorism to never underestimate your enemy. A corollary to that aphorism is that you should never underestimate an opponent who defies conventional rules of warfare to the point of appearing reckless.

A prerequisite to most successful political campaigns is a clear message; a rationale for why voters should vote for you and against your opponent. Right now Hillary is struggling to crystallize the right message. She is testing various themes and slogans to see what will work against Trump. This week, she unveiled a new slogan, “stronger together,” emphasizing unity in contrast to what she hopes the electorate will perceive as Trump’s divisiveness.

At a time when voters are hungry for change, disgusted with the status quo, resentful of the “establishments” in both parties, this message strikes me as anachronistic and impotent. One might say its reminiscent of the stagnant Prussian column formations at Jena utterly unsuitable for Napoleon’s brand of war.

The idea that we’re “stronger together” is a safe message most voters probably agree with, at least in theory. But in a political environment in which clichéd campaign rhetoric rings hollow and bold pronouncements trump small-ball policy prescriptions, “stronger together” is a dangerously safe bet, and perhaps suggests that Hillary is content to fight the last war, despite clear warning signs that the political landscape has been fundamentally transformed, and tactics that worked in past campaigns may be obsolete.

But the far bigger and more complex challenge for Hillary is not how she defines herself; it's how she defines Trump. This is a challenge that all of Trump’s sixteen primary opponents failed to meet.

Does she portray Trump as a bully? As too dangerous? Too incompetent? Too ignorant?

On last week’s Meet the Press, Clinton used that platform as a springboard to bounce off anti-Trump messaging, accusing Trump of being an ignoramus, unqualified, dangerous, demeaning to women, harmful to America’s world standing, ego-driven, and so forth.

The problem with hurling insults at Trump is that as any political operative will tell you, a litany of messages is a terrible substitute for one clear message.   

And that is the crux of Hillary’s strategic dilemma: as of right now, she doesn’t know how to attack Trump.

Attack him on degrading women, and he instantly neutralizes the attack by invoking her husband’s seedy past. Attack him on not having any political experience, and it only reinforces the electorate’s contempt for the political class. Attack him on ethics, and it reminds voters of your own numerous ethical lapses.

She can attack him on ignorance, extremism, egomania, etc., but all those attacks failed in the GOP primary. Yes, the general election battlefield is bigger than the primary battlefield, but many of the public’s underlying attitudes about politicians and the “establishment” that sunk Trump’s Republican opponents may still be in play in the general election.

One message that won’t work for Hillary is touting her experience and track record of “getting things done.” The American electorate has never particularly valued experience as much as some pundits lead us to believe, often preferring candidates who exude charisma or promise fundamental change. And in an environment where being a politician is more of a liability than an asset, saying the kinds of things that “experienced” politicians with “track records” usually say isn’t likely to resonate with huge swaths of voters who simply don’t trust politicians to get anything done. But more importantly, as her high untrustworthiness and unfavorability ratings demonstrate, Clinton is probably the least credible messenger for a message that’s not particularly credible in the first place.  

There’re sixteen Republicans, including celebrated senators and governors, who can attest to the futility of employing a conventional approach against Trump. If Hillary thinks these Republicans are Austria’s General Mack at Austerlitz, and she’s Prussia, her fate might already be sealed.