What should we fight about?
C’mon… what should it be?
Cubs/Indians? Indians/Cubs? (… although for the time being, that’s already been decided… Congratulations, Cubs’ fans…)
How about Clinton/Trump? Or Trump/Clinton?
Or how about how one has so much more integrity than the other?
Friends, stop. Could we agree to quit fighting? Because if we can’t agree — and if we can’t agree to respect the person who thinks differently than we do — what do you think is going to happen next Wednesday — when the vote is done? Do we honestly expect the outcome to silence all dissent? Should it? Should we actually rationalize not listening to another?
By this point, most people seem to have made up their mind (… well, not this semi-humble current events observer — but I do have until Tuesday…). Each person’s vote is valid, no less. Each person’s…
Because each person’s vote is valid, we face disagreement. Unfortunately, many of us then also face fierce attempts to silence us or shut up. Let’s be clear: those attempts don’t further dialogue; they don’t build solution; they are not wise or respectful; and by no means do they equate to loving your neighbor well.
For those who are voting based on party platform, policy, or potential Supreme Court justices, the vote is clear. May they exercise their right to vote and sleep well on Tuesday night. For those whose vote is based on character or the perceived integrity of the candidates, the choice is more ambiguous. Note the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday morning; 60% of voters view Hillary Clinton unfavorably; 58% see the same in Donald Trump. We are bothered; there are good people who are seriously, soberly bothered by the thought of a President Trump — or — of another President Clinton.
We are bothered by the so-called “October surprises” — these incidents and events that are announced or occur in the month before the election, often making one candidate look especially bad… like George W. Bush’s announced DUI (that happened 24 years earlier)… like Pres. William Howard Taft’s 1912 reelection ticket, when his Vice Presidential candidate died one week prior to the election… or like in 1840, when federal prosecutors charged “big Whigs” opposing Pres. Martin Van Buren with fraud in the preceding weeks.
This year, we’ve been “surprised” by Donald Trump’s 2005 crude comments about women and Hillary Clinton’s ongoing, criminal email investigation. We hear more claims that we can’t tell if they are true or untrue from WikiLeaks. Again, good people are bothered. Different things bother different people, but the bottom line (from my very limited vantage point) is something along the lines of: ugh… the perceived lack of integrity is dripping.
Yet here’s the inherent challenge. One of the above two candidates — barring something unforeseen — will become the nation’s 45th President. While no candidate has an unblemished ethical record, most of us will still choose to vote for one of the above. In other words, most of us will choose to vote for someone — whether we personally hold the same belief or not — whose integrity is in question by unprecedented multitudes.
And so here is my plea…
Remembering that each is perceived as something less than ethical, let us stop fighting and refrain from judgment.
Just like the Indians and Cubs, there is a time to stop fighting, shake hands, and congratulate the other.
Can we do that?
Can we further dialogue, build solution, be respectful, and truly love our neighbor well?
I know it’s hard… even among good people.
Respectfully…
AR