My friend Sean Murphy continues to ask for fairness and or truth in media coverage of the election. It’s a reasonable request, even if we disagree about where we finally land. Oddly, I don’t trust his sources and he calls me out on mine. Still, Sean points to Hillary Clinton and says “she did this” or “she did that” and I can’t tell if he’s right or not. I’ve never particularly liked Hillary because she’s too much of a “hawk” for me., though I think her heart’s in the right place… sort of, I guess.
Lindsay Graham, by the way, is probably the most honest politician/Republican now, when he says, “My party has gone batsh—crazy”. They are self-defeating by choosing Trump. America is changing demographically and we’re voting against it”. Instead, we’ll elect the lying-est woman in history…” I’m sure he’s being honest about his perception of Hillary, but somebody needed to call out the craziness.
In any case, I thought I would spell out the values that lead to my vote: Neither of them are exactly political per se. They are faith based and psychology based. In short, they are moral choices for the health of America. The choices come down to this: Love vs. Hate and Trust vs. Mistrust.
Love vs. Hate
While I’m sure that each of the candidates believes they love the idea of America, I’m not convinced that any of them on the Republican side do. Closest of all would be John Kasich, but even he disqualifies himself by disempowering half of America. America is made up of different colors, different national origins, different religions , different sexual preferences, and different genders, different jobs, different classes, different all kinds of things. I don’t think you can love America if you don’t like the people who make up America. I also don’t buy into the idea that “love” is the same thing as “knowing better than somebody else what’s best for them”. Love does not dis-empower.
Any candidate who wants to dis-empower the American citizenry doesn’t love America. If a candidate has said that that they are “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion”, they dis-empower half of the population or want to. If people are against abortion, I’m fine with that. That’s a choice. That’s their choice. If people do want an abortion, that’s a choice, as well. That’s their choice. To my knowledge, all of the Republican candidates this year are against a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. That removes them from my consideration. I assume that women who are 18 years of age can make that decision and, in fact, can make any decision that pertains to them.
Any candidate who has voted to make it more difficult for others to vote, chooses to dis-empower that group of people. This includes redistricting, making voter ID laws, or banning certain groups of people from voting because of who they are. At the present time, I only know of Republicans who have engaged in redistricting, having voter ID, or suggested that people of certain religions be excluded from the vote. Also in this category, any institution that has “super-delegates” who can over-ride the popular vote and pushes them to do so is dis-empowering people. The head of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, seems to be invested in this, so she dis-empowers Americans, and I won’t vote for her or people who benefit from this way of doing things. Right now, that includes (or seems to include) Hillary Clinton. I don’t think Wasserman Schultz loves America enough to make that decision.
So far, this rules out all of the Republicans and — possibly — Hillary Clinton from the Democrats. I don’t know that Hillary actually believes in super-delegates or has fixed the contest with Wasserman Schultz in power. I just know that Wasserman Schultz has pushed for things to be this way, and Hillary benefits from it. If Hillary were to discard the whole “super-delegate” idea so as to not benefit from it. She be back in consideration.
Trust vs. Mistrust
I am wary of any candidate that I don’t trust or don’t feel I can. This is not just because there’s a shadow of doubt, either — everyone makes mistakes. I’m okay with people making mistakes, if they own up to them and try to fix them. Pretending that one hasn’t made mistakes when evidence seems to indicate otherwise takes you off my list for “trust-able”. This doesn’t mean that any smear should be given credence. People are still innocent until found guilty. But one should be able to explain the evidence in some way. “What does it matter?!” is not a good enough excuse to me. So far, Sanders seems to own all of his behaviors, all of his decisions, and will reconsider them if he needs to, but owns that choice as well.
Also, I don’t care if a person can “get things done” if they get things done for the people who paid them, and don’t get things done for the people they have sworn to serve. The claim by some is that Hillary can “get things done” (aka she can play politics with the Big Boys — the powerful and the well-to-do.) They already have enough already. Yes, “even if you win the rat race, you’re still a rat”. At this point, I think the system is sufficiently rotten that doing things the old way doesn’t work anymore. Again, I don’t trust that Hillary can extricate herself from the influence of The Old Game. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, seems to have done that. So… Bernie seems to be the only choice. He both loves all of America and can be trusted.
That last idea, by the way, means that Obama, to the extent he supports the Way Things Get Done Now means I don’t trust him, but I believe he helps out — or intends to help out — the poor as well. Lindsay Graham, if he were still in politics, might fall in the same category. If Graham were running, and he isn’t anti-abortion, it might actually be a good contest and a good America to be in. For this election, though, the person who doesn’t dislike or dis-empower, and whom I trust, is Bernie Sanders. I bet I’m not alone.