Let’s be honest: it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.
Wait. I take that back.
It’s actually not hard to talk about it; there are many who are talking. They just aren’t all talking very respectfully.
The reality is that we don’t always talk respectfully either.
My sense is each of us is prone to falling prey to engaging in the ignorance or disrespect, trumping (tee, hee) one aspect over another… ignoring some of the realities of this race, due to preconceived ideas or desired results…
For example — and please don’t get mad — my desire here is to wrestle honestly and respectfully with the truth… each of these statements is — [sigh] — true…
… one party frontrunner has been regularly offensive to multiple people groups… another party frontrunner is under investigation by the FBI… multiple contending candidates have been caught in lies or mistruths… one candidate is touting socialism as a healthy form of economics… another candidate has articulated seemingly zero willingness to compromise… some have very little knowledge of foreign policy… and…
… I think arguably all candidates have forgotten that whoever is elected will represent all of us — not just a few, loyal, select some.
Part of the challenge is that we compare and contrast — suggesting that one person’s lack of integrity in one area — be it personal or intellectual — is not as bad as someone else’s. The challenge is that as soon as we make that conclusion, we often justify ignoring our preferred candidate’s obvious (to everyone else) flaws, and sometimes, often perhaps, then also justify in joining in the chorus of disrespect.
Let it be said that there is nothing wrong with healthy, constructive criticism. But from my limited vantage point, there is nothing healthy about any adult calling another a “lightweight,” “dope,” or “enemy” or referring to the size of another candidate’s ears. That, my friends, is not constructive criticism. Dare I suggest it’s not intelligent either.
And so this day I come with two questions:
First, what am I overlooking in my preferred candidate that’s significant?
And second, what have I ignored in my preferred candidate because the flaws of another make my candidate seem so smart, wholesome, and good?
As I wrestle with those questions, my primary concerns in this election currently are as follows:
(1) That we are overlooking what may be significant.
(2) That we are focusing too much on too few.
(3) That we don’t have the best candidates in the race. (… Joe, Condoleezza… where are you?)
(4) That we are not utilizing our critical thinking skills. And…
(5) That we are justifying disrespect.
As said, it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.
Change that: it’s hard to talk about it thoroughly, wisely, and respectfully.
Respectfully… yes…
AR