Let’s list the ways political enemies have ganged up on
Hillary Clinton as she campaigns for the Presidency:
- She’s married to Bill Clinton; surely this means something dank and dark [Oh please!]
- She received many emails 24/7 as she tried to be both public servant (Secretary of State) and private person while being yanked everywhere on the globe at a moment’s notice [She’s not the only Secretary of State mired in the miasma of complex communications during fast moving change in communication technology.]
- Those emails were from government sources so many of them had to be secret, maybe even top secret? [Far from it. And many became top secret long after their initial appearance.]
- She
makes millions of dollars annually from speeches paid for by many groups;
some of them are bankers and others; are they buying her favor now for
when she gets into office? [We have freedom of speech, remember? And
freedom to earn a living. In
- She’s
white and female; are we ready for this
- She has worked with foreigners for years in public office and as Secretary of State; she must support illegal immigration [That’s a policy issue that will continue to be a tough nut to crack.]
- While
in the US Senate she voted for the authorizing of Bush’s war in
- She’s a liar, claims Trump; and so does this make it true? [Hardly; it points more to Trump for his broadsides and rudeness against just about everyone. Such style that guy has!]
- She’s a…(fill in your favorite campaign claim or slur against Hillary)
This is a hell of a way to pick a leader in any country or
under any political structure. It is demeaning, dehumanizing,
anti-intellectual, anti-feminist, and any of many other negative sobriquets. It is down right uncivil.
We are trying to learn what each candidate stands for and
what kind of person they are. Are they adaptable to fast changing conditions?
Can they learn on their feet? Can they delegate and also receive valuable
inputs from staff and others, make sense of it, and make sound decisions? Can
they withstand unbearable scrutiny in office – both public and private moments?
Do they have the experience that demonstrates all of those things?
Is youth and energy a factor? Should it be? Or should it be
discounted? And of course why?
What are the primary problems we face in America ? What
conditions do we want to prevail in times of good. Do we know how to measure
and value these issues accordingly? Which problems are the most important for
us to attend to right now? And then, which issues come as the next projects to
fix, and in what order? What rationale are we using in ordering these
priorities?
Once the above is done, what do we do about each problem in
their rightful order? Does fixing one problem create problems elsewhere that we
will need to address in time? How do we avoid doing that?
Of course the really big question: What do we do to fix
anything? What resources are available to do this – funding, change to the
infrastructure to support the fix, ideas that will prove sufficient to fixing
the problem, who is involved in making these decisions, and how transparent are
those decisions to be managed? Doing
this sort of work takes diligence, dedication, delegation and a trust in
collaborative work with many other people and experts. This work is not for the
faint of heart or the inexperienced. It is also not well suited to people who
have little intellectual curiosity and willingness to do research.
The candidates on the republican side of things bad mouth
Hillary for a reason. They recognize she is that good a candidate, an
intellectual thinker, a solver of problems, a willing engager of people from
all stripes of life who might work well together to solve a problem.
Governance is not a science in spite of an academic field
named for it – Political Science. Governance is working with diverse people
with creative abilities to manage problems for the good of the people without
damaging the people. It is a difficult job. Ever tried to lead a PTA? Did you
find it hard to do? So many different personalities to account for and
accommodate. The objectives were clear and fairly easy to address. But did you
do it and without too much rancor and back biting?
Well now you understand a tiny bit of what it is like to
balance different ideologies, warring factions in legislative bodies, and then
working with leaders from other regions. Add now the factions and fractions of
international affairs, global economics and physics.
The Presidency of the USA requires a towering intellect
and a personality that is very flexible. Even then leading the unwilling masses
of America
is very difficult. Observe please the many accomplishments of President Obama
who has had an entire Senate and House of Representatives at war with him
blocking every initiative. He has continued to lead the military, the foreign
policy camp and still quelled a recession, rebuilt the banking system, created
a stable platform for economic stability and rebuilding, forged international
partnerships for future peace strategies, led international discussions of
enormous scope and importance, and come out the winner for America and the
peoples of the globe. With naysayers and doomsayers nipping at his heels, he
still stood proud, spoke softly and with feeling. And with intelligence.
Please, let us not forget this vital element!
I compared Mr. Obama with each of the candidates. The only
one that compares well is Hillary Clinton. She does not live in a bubble. She
lives in the real world and understands the stakes of that world and hopes of
it as well. One wonders if Trump and can even spell some the terms he would
have to deal with if elected. And Carson ?
Or Rubio and Cruz who are so fond of demeaning their enemies? And enemies they
have because that is their primary means of political speech: find an
opponent and tell the world why they are so bad and my position is so much
better.
If you have to manufacture enemies to win an election, then
something is very wrong - with you. Illegal immigrants are the enemy? No; they are the
answer to so much of what is right in our nation and always have been. Abortion
the problem? No; this is a social issue of high conscience that ought remain in
the privacy of the woman and home, not of government. Religious freedom the
primary bone of contention? No; that is still a private matter for each person
and has no business being a part of our government or election discussion. We
already have freedom to worship and believe in our own way; but we have the
responsibility to not let my religion interfere with yours. That does not mean
you get to make laws that force your religious beliefs down my throat.
Understand?
So, just because some loony tune talks about a subject
doesn’t make that subject a central issue to our election behavior. What it
does do is call into question the person’s intelligence and abilities to be
considered for a high elected position.
That’s why I’m for Hillary. She can take care of herself.
She can manage Bill. And she can do phenomenal good for the American people
without antagonizing the entire global village.
Hear, Hear!
February 10, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment