So let’s lead today with the bottom line: this election cycle is the oddest I have ever seen.
Now I am no ambassadorial expert nor Poli-Sci major nor anything close. I am merely a current events observer and only a semi-humble one at that. Ronald Reagan was the first President I ever voted for, and I’ve visited Jimmy Carter’s hometown twice. I was always struck by how a radio announcer for the Chicago Cubs and a peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia could each become President and lead our country. I am again fascinated by who wishes to lead it now… odd as this cycle may sometimes be…
My spouse challenged me on the word “fascinated” last week. “You use that a lot,” he said. I do; it’s a great word. Note that “fascinated” does not infer positivity nor negativity. “Fascinated” means there’s something laced within the current condition that irresistibly keeps my attention.
So let us not dive into a “he-said/she-said/take-that” kind of conversation. The challenge when ignoring the timeless tip to avoid talking politics or religion is that the disrespect comes quickly from stances that are passionately engrained; we have trouble stepping out of what’s engrained. Granted, the Intramuralist has never avoided politics or religion, as we believe all things are discussable if we are mindful of the one who thinks differently.
With that as our backdrop — recognizing we do not all view this the same way — and we are not going to — I see some “fascinating” people involved in the 2016 presidential race — a vote, no less, that is still more than nine months away…
Let’s start with first-namers Donald and Hillary, as several of us are significantly, distinctly more grace-giving to one. And yet…
The Donald… he says some outlandishly harsh things. He seems to thrive on intransigent opinion and provocation of opposition. As HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher recently posed, “Donald Trump is largely a result of a backlash to political correctness.” In other words, there exists a perception among many of increased, imposed political correctness in our society, which has arguably prompted Trump’s clear lack of political correctness; that’s attractive to many people. Trump is thus tapping into frustration with those who believe society is on the wrong track, utilizing his contagious mantra of wanting to “make America great again.”
The Hillary… she says some outlandishly dishonest things. She seems to thrive on her unique female qualifications and being the target of fully political ploys. As long-time NY Times political columnist William Safire wrote 19 years ago, before he passed away, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.” Clinton is staunchly dismissive of the accusations, saying she’s a victim, which also resonates with many people. She thus focuses instead on being a “champion” for others and how we are finally “ready” for “Hillary for America.”
What may be equally fascinating to this observer, are the justifications we offer, that seem to substitute for the above, perceived liabilities. Some will quickly, respectfully suggest, “Well, Trump may be harsh, but at least he’s honest,” while others will equally, respectfully counter, “Well, Hillary may lie, but all politicians lie.” My observation is that each is an acceptance of something lesser; each is an acceptance of something that is not good, not true, and not right. I am not suggesting that the harshness and deceit are automatic disqualifiers for their respective candidacies; more so, I am saying that I am fascinated at how often those traits seem minimized or ignored by their supporters and endorsers.
Yes, we tend to be significantly, distinctly more grace-giving to only one.
We should also acknowledge the additional others vying to be President #45, even though the media seems slightly obsessed with the above two. My sense is that all others running are currently being portrayed minimally and thus somewhat inaccurately — causing us to unknowingly craft incomplete assessments of both their campaigns and character. Granted, candidate Cruz is challenged by his brashness and Senator Sanders by his fondness for socialism. But the reality is that for these two and others, we think we know who they are, what they stand for, and how solid their character is — primarily based on social memes and minimal, often slanted coverage.
To be clear, as my older brother continues to remind me, no votes have actually been cast as of yet. Then again, that changes on Monday, with the start of the 2016 primaries via the Iowa Caucus.
No doubt, therefore, the next nine months will continue to be fascinating.
Respectfully…
AR