"They're both awful"? Clinton vs. Trump
I've seen lots of people talk about this year's Presidential candidates in terms of equivalency: "They're both so awful this year," or "Why do we have two people who ought to be disqualified this time?" I doubt anyone's going to change my mind at this point, but I always really want to understand viewpoints that differ from my own. And yet when I ( Read more... )
I hope it's not surprising to you that I find the possibility of war with Russia to be far more terrifying than war with Libya, given its potential to be an existential threat to the human race. (As for Libya, I certainly felt at the time that the Arab Spring had the potential to transform the region in a very positive way. It wasn't a sure thing, but there was a possibility of significant benefits to US interests, and to human liberty in general. It's hard for me to blame Obama and Clinton for wanting to stop the weakened remaining dictators from brutally suppressing their people. If Assad had been less brutal, it might have worked out.)
I also don't see the expense of Clinton's policy proposals as a comparable default risk to Trump's suggested strategy. Elections are about sharing aspirations, not submitting a complete budget. I have reasonable faith that whatever shape those policies take as they move through Congress would bring them to some sort of livable near-balance (as usual). (And yes, I know it's fair to have been concerned about the state of the US budget for all that time. But we're not talking about a radically change from the status quo.) Meanwhile, Trump's suggestion was to cut out the middle man and just flat out choose to default. Again, much like courting war with Russia instead of Libya, even if there are similarities here, this feels like a very meaningful distinction.
I'm going to think very seriously about what you've said regarding Clinton's divisiveness. I do consider the white nationalist groups who have quite visibly rallied around Trump to deserve the label "deplorable", and I interpreted Clinton's use of that term to refer largely to them. (When she used the term, she very explicitly said that it only applied to some of Trump's supporters, and she immediately went on to insist that the rest of his supporters had very legitimate concerns that deserved more attention.) But you're absolutely right that using such a term at all was a clear indication that there's a segment of the population that she has no interest in expressing unity with, and that's a big problem. [A part of me still wants to say that it's less bad than Trump rolling back decades of progress on marginalizing racial hatred. But again, this is where I have to stop and listen: it's entirely plausible that the sense of disenfranchisement and abandonment by the rest of the nation that is common to a lot of Trump voters is just as serious of a concern.]
On to sexual assault. Hillary covering for Bill's misdeeds in such hurtful ways was indeed awful. I can't argue with that. I'm willing, though, to grant some level of forgiveness to a woman trying to stand by her husband in a difficult time. I think there's a place in a marriage for having a meaningful step more trust in your spouse's truthfulness and good character than a neutral observer would have. If Bill insisted to Hillary that he was innocent, I can't bring myself to condemn her for choosing to believe him, if that's what it was. And once you've granted her that premise, while quotes like the one you've shared do seem to cross a line of decency, maybe it's understandable coming from someone who believed that her husband was innocent and being smeared for no reason.
Finally, yes, I'm concerned about "collateral damage", too, and I'd add Afghanistan and probably Pakistan to your list. But awful as it is, that variety of killing innocents is more or less deemed "acceptable" by the international legal community. (This is one reason that I really hate war.) Once again, though, even though there is a similarity here, I see a large qualitative distinction between "not trying hard enough to only shoot enemy leaders when they aren't at home" and "deliberately sending assassins to kill someone's family".
Even though I've argued here, I really do appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective. I'll try my best to learn from it.
Reply
Well, hey, Trump has no interest in expressing unity with well over half the population (women, African-Americans, Latin@-Americans, Muslims, LGBTQ people, the disabled, overweight people), so both sides are equally bad amirite
(edited because I remembered a couple more groups Trump has actively disparaged and also to note that snark is not directed at you, Stu.)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment