I understand why Donald Trump is so unpopular. He earned it the old-fashioned way, by being obnoxious, insulting and offensive. But why is Hillary Clinton so unpopular? She is, at the moment, just as unpopular as Trump. In the last three major national polls she had unfavourability ratings in the same ballpark as Trump’s. In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, they are both at 57 per cent disapproval. In the New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 per cent of respondents said Hillary does not share their values. Sixty-four per cent said she is not honest or trustworthy. Hillary has plummeted so completely down to Trump’s level that she is now statistically tied with him in some of the presidential horse race polls.
There are two paradoxes to her unpopularity. First, she was popular not long ago. As the United States secretary of state, she had a 66 per cent approval rating. Even as recently as March 2015, her approval rating was at 50 and her disapproval rating was at 39. It’s only since she launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to impress the American people that she has made herself so strongly disliked.
The second paradox is that, agree with her or not, she’s dedicated herself to public service. From advocate for children to senator, she has pursued her vocation tirelessly. It’s not the “what” that explains her unpopularity; it’s the “how” — the manner in which she has done it.
But what exactly do so many have against her?
I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what US President Barack Obama does for fun — golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.
But when people talk about Hillary, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms. For example, on November 16, Peter D. Hart conducted a focus group on Hillary. Nearly every assessment had to do with on-the-job performance. She was “multitask-oriented” or “organised” or “deceptive”.
Hillary’s career appears, from the outside, to be all-consuming. Her husband is her co-politician. Her daughter works at the Clinton Foundation. Her friendships appear to have been formed at networking gatherings reserved for the extremely successful.
People who work closely with her adore her and say she is warm and caring. But it’s hard from the outside to think of any non-career or pre-career aspect to her life. Except for a few grandma references, she presents herself as a resume and policy brief. For example, her campaign recently released a biographical video called Fighter. It’s filled with charming and quirky old photos of her fighting for various causes. But when the video cuts to a current interview with Hillary herself, the lighting is perfect, the setting is perfect, her costume is perfect. She looks less like a human being and more like an avatar from some corporate brand.
Hillary’s unpopularity is akin to the unpopularity of a workaholic. Workaholism is a form of emotional self-estrangement. Workaholics are so consumed by their professional activities that their feelings don’t inform their most fundamental decisions. The professional role comes to dominate the personality and encroaches on the normal intimacies of the soul. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones once put it, whole cemeteries could be filled with the sad tombstone: “Born a man, died a doctor.”
At least in her public persona, Hillary gives off an exclusively professional vibe: Industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role.
This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable. It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experiences. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within. So, of course to many, she seems Machiavellian, crafty, power-oriented, untrustworthy.
There’s a larger lesson here, especially for people who have found a career and vocation that feels fulfilling. Even a socially good vocation can swallow you up and make you lose a sense of your own voice. Maybe it’s doubly important that people with fulfilling vocations develop, and be seen to develop, sanctuaries outside them: In play, solitude, family, faith, hobbies and leisure.
Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is not an activity, it’s an attitude of mind. It’s stepping outside strenuous effort and creating enough stillness so that it becomes possible to contemplate and enjoy things as they are.
Even successful lives need these sanctuaries — in order to be a real person instead of just a productive one. It appears that we don’t really trust candidates who do not show us theirs.
— New York Times News Service
David Brooks is the author of Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper class and How They Got There. He also teaches at Yale University and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
