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.
