Dave's Last Two Pre-Election 2016 Posts, No, Really (Part 1)

I had a number of articles lined up to share, but, honestly, at this point citing someone else is probably not effective, and even giving my own, final thoughts on the matter is fairly pointless, as (a) a huge number of folk have already voted, and (b) I suspect the vast majority of those who have not have already decided how they are going to vote (whether they realize it or not).

But, just to summarize several months of posts on the matter (sorry about that) that veered between mocking and teeth-grinding:

1. Please don't vote for Donald Trump
2. Please vote for Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump has been, and would be, a disaster for this country, and for the world. His policies are reflexively pro-big-business, where they aren't pandering for the evangelical vote (though his deep, devout opposition to abortion doesn't pass the sniff test[1]), or where they are outright xenophobic and divisive, pining for past Golden Age when America was White and European (preferably Northern), and Christian (or at least those were the groups in charge of things).

From a foreign policy perspective, he's a xenophobe and isolationist. His ideas on the Middle East are to invade take their oil. His ideas on alliances are "What's in it for me?" Even if he is not a willing dupe of Russia, they could not ask for a better geopolitical pseudo-opponent, who won't stand up to them except when he feels his image is threatened.

His policy flaws, grievous as they are, are far overshadowed by his character flaws. I am usually reluctant to demonize people I disagree with, but Trump has amply demonstrated his temperament is unsuited to leading the country, let alone having his finger anywhere near "the button." He is capricious, spiteful, litigation-happy, eager to suppress unfavorable press, happy to whip up his supporters to action against his enemies, angry, obsessive, and utterly unforgiving to anyone whom he feels has disrespected him.

And, honestly, I wouldn't leave my daughter in the same room with him.[2]

Trump lies. He exaggerates. He flat-out makes stuff up, in ways both grandiose and petty. If he asserts the sky is blue, check it yourself, and then ask a friend to confirm it. When called on his falsehoods, he denies it (either having said it, or that it's wrong, or both), then attacks the person who called him out. He projects his own misbehavior on others. He's vain/insecure to a degree we haven't seen since Nixon. He's cavalier about what he says. He can't put together a coherent sentence, let alone a paragraph. He's easily goaded into veering off-message by those who know how to tweak his pride.

He is roundly assessed by the vast majority of newspaper editorial boards, by any number of foreign security and economic experts, and bu former government officials on both sides of the aisle, as utterly unqualified and unsuited to be President of the United States.

All that Donald Trump has going for him is unabashed gall and a remarkable ability to tap into the anger and insecurity of a number of people in the US — and having as an opponent someone who has been the target of a decades-long smear-campaign (not always well-reacted to). That let him unexpectedly win the GOP nomination, and has brought him within a hairsbreadth of being our next president.

And then there's Hillary Clinton. As noted, many people feel she is the best reason to vote for Trump (and vice-versa). I understand that. Let me say why I think she should be voted for.

First, to echo the previous paragraph, she's not Donald Trump. For all her flaws (real or propagandized), she's nowhere near Trump's vanity, arrogance about the law, or sense of entitlement. And I say that with a perfectly straight face.

Is she more hawkish (or was she as Secretary of State) than I would like? Sure, but she's not suggesting South Korea or Japan should be encouraged to build their own nukes, or that when we invade a country we should hold onto its oil, or that our allies should make it worth our while for us to continue defending them.

Does she have closer ties to Wall Street than I think are healthy for the country. Yup, but she is not, herself, a prominent real estate investor with a string of bankruptcies behind her name, nor is she looking to slash taxes on the wealthy or start trade wars.

Beyond all of that, Clinton represents a continuation of the Obama administration, more or less. I believe, net-net, that's a good thing, even where I've disagreed with Obama's policies (e.g., expansion of Dubya Bush's surveillance state — and anyone who thinks Trump will be any better, or even in the ballpark, in this area is fooling themselves). The commitment of this administration to the rights of women and minorities, to the protection of workers, to the protection of the environment and addressing of climate change, and to a foreign policy that, while not perfect, has been willing to engage the world rather than boss it around, all strike me as what I would expect from Clinton.

Further, while not being starry-eyed about it, I believe she recognizes the evolution of the Democratic Party under the progressive politics put forward by Bernie Sanders. I would expect that to be a part of the mix over the next four years as well.

Do I expect to be disappointed in Clinton now and again? Absolutely. I've been disappointed by every POTUS, some (much) more than others. She will be no different, but, again, she is a quantum leap or two ahead of the dumpster fire that would be a Trump Presidency, where I suspect I would actually burn out on disappointment under a flood of despair.

Clinton is no saint, but neither is she the devilish fiend she is painted as by her critics, who have been striving incessantly the past two decades to find some criminal indictment they can pin on her, who have engaged in dozens of congressional investigation, all of which come up with, at most, a chiding for not doing what the GOP would have preferred her to do.

Clinton is, instead, a politician with an extraordinary record at the state and national level, as FLOTUS and US Senator and Secretary of State. She is far better qualified by experience alone, leave aside her achievements, to be the next President than many of her predecessors. I believe she is, in and of herself, the right decision for President in 2016, beyond also not being the wrong decision that Donald Trump so embodies.

I hope an electoral majority agrees with me.

—-

[1] Whether disingenuous or not, it's certainly a factor in my opposition to him.

[2] Would I with Bill Clinton? Sure. But I'd advise her against working for him. That said, Bill Clinton isn't running for President, Donald Trump is.

View on Google+