Elite Lessons From The 2016 Presidential Campaign – Wolves Seeking A Better Cloak Fastener
Learning from the 2016 election cycle and the impact of data leaks on public perceptions of candidate’s campaigns will change the operating methods of politicians from now on. Public relations agencies will advise candidates on how to fake a humble-braggable campaign scandal. Personal email accounts will be meticulously falsified by the armies of young digital branding strategists formed from an abundance of education and weak job market. Planned leaks with actors playing radical hackers and angry, misinformed millennials will introduce the leaks to the public under airtight non-disclosure agreements. And cybersecurity experts making unreasonable amounts of money will fortify and monitor the actual email accounts of public servants.
The transcripts from Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street banks were a major issue in the presidential primary race between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and that guy from Maryland. Hillary refused to release the transcripts until all of the candidates did it. Bernie quipped that he would if he had any. And the issue was dropped after a year of pestering and Hillary’s consistent counterargument, “Nah!” Hillary’s counterargument was strong enough to get the issue dropped, but the latest Guccifer 2.0 leak released by WikiLeaks on Friday, October 7th, might have exposed the most damning opinions shared by Clinton in the speeches. A Clinton staffer compiled the most damning statements from the speeches in a memo intended to help the campaign respond to a potential leak of the transcripts. If this leak is subterfuge to allay the worst fears of Clinton’s liberal detractors, it shows that the Clinton political machine is already on the road of absolute transparency forced on contemporary politics by cyber espionage. After all, it was released at the same time as a Trump campaign leak that builds a legally incriminating argument next to the already public view of the mogul as a misogynist. The fact that the Clinton campaign has responded to the leak by denying its authenticity without supplying any evidence for their argument of libel simply muddies the waters around the Clinton question and provides her acolytes with a second orange lifesaver, to go with their first flotation device, the existence of Trump.
This year’s election cycle can be described as exciting, disgusting, outrageous, and illuminating. Private information about the candidates has been dropped consistently, creating an atmosphere that anything could happen any day. Any informed individual could honestly claim to feel sickened by the political stances Trump exclaims and/or the political career Hillary represents. There is a near-certainty that the same person has felt shock this campaign season from several of the narratives and instances that the world has been exposed to, especially from “Mexicans are rapists” Trump. Finally, the election was illuminating through the levels of intrigue surrounding the relationship between the candidates and their families; the willingness of former Republican figureheads to endorse the Democratic party’s dynastic candidate; the willingness of a significant number of American voters to endorse overtly racist, homophobic, and misogynistic stances; and the public’s ability to witness the inside workings of the system that resulted in a lawsuit against the DNC on behalf of Bernie Sanders’ patrons and multiple academic studies into evidence of voter fraud and suppression in the Democratic Primary.
This entire narrative was brought to you by the baby-boomer generation’s inability to make a secure password and not click on the Nigerian prince link. The entrenched establishment and monied elites learned this campaign season that their private can easily become public. People went to jail for making it so, and the legislation and security apparatus protecting their private conversations will continue to grow. But the people want to know. The same dog-against-dog strategy that the wealthy have used historically to limit the number of pitchfork revolutions directed at them, can be used against them. The people, through these leaks of the conversations of the wealthy and their power brokers (politicians), might have developed a taste for elite blood. And with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s belief in almost total transparency with what they receive, those with a lot to lose will be a lot more careful next time.