Letter To America

TOUGH IS ENOUGH 

Over the past year, as the Presidential campaign wound its way slowly to a conclusion, I have tried to stay away from the back and forth of the flame wars that erupt on Facebook or the comments sections at the end of news articles.  This is essentially because most of the memes that substitute for arguments in these sorts of "discussions" are shallow, false, misleading or incomplete.  Here’s an example from either side of the aisle:

First - there is the one where a picture of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton are set up side by side and the captions under each reads as follows: 

Nixon:  "This guy erased 18 and half minutes of tape and had to resign" 

Hillary:  "She erased 33,000 e-mails and they want to make her President".

Now look - you can make the e-mail controversy your ultimate reason for not voting for Hillary Clinton if you want.  She clearly did not handle the situation well.  But I know that this meme is a complete falsification of history.  Nixon didn't resign because of the 18 ½ minute gap in his tapes.  In point of fact - he survived the erasure - even though it looked terrible and damaged his reputation, the consensus was that you could not force the President to resign because of something that "might have been" on the tape.  That would be "assuming facts not in evidence".  It was the tapes that were not erased, the so-called "smoking gun", that caused Nixon to resign.  If you were to make a true historic analogy to Hillary's emails it would be that she made a bad PR move but didn't interfere in a manner that equated to criminal behaviour.  The Nixon comparison simply doesn't make sense.

Then there are the Democratic memes.  One, for example, shows the Dos Equis "most interesting man in the world" saying "I don't always watch Fox News - but when I do it is on Comedy Central".  Well, yes, Fox News does provide a slanted view, but so does MSNBC.  That's just the way news happens to be presented these days - and yes, it is a problem.  But think about that with something approaching an open mind.  Is Fox News really that far outside the realm of the believable? After all, who has been the best journalist during the course of this campaign?  I would at least nominate Megyn Kelly as a contender.  She moderated a debate in which her questions were pointed enough to lead to Donald Trump's "bleeding from her wherever" retort, has maintained pressure on the Democrats while simultaneously (1) making her position as regards a truly biased "journalist", Sean Hannity, known; (2) refusing to concede on the "birtherism" positions that Donald Trump has consistently taken; (3) maintained her dignity and integrity during the Roger Ailes controversy and (4) let's not forget who stood up to Karl Rove in 2012 when Fox had to admit reality and declare Barack Obama re-elected.  She may be right wing - but she's pretty damn good at her job - so what is the benefit of making a joke out of the network for which she works?

So a pox on both their houses.  But that doesn't mean that I don't have a preference in this election.  I do.  Just because I don't feel it necessary to provide the world with a running commentary on my opinions doesn’t mean I don’t have any.

Still - while I haven't been posting constant rants on Facebook there is, if you haven't noticed, an election in a couple of weeks.  I've written some political commentary on here before and, to paraphrase a certain politician "Here I go again".  In this case I want to do what I did in 2012 and post what I hope is a reasoned analysis of the choices available and see what people have to say.  First - let's end the mystery.  I choose to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.  I'm not celebrating this choice - I'm just making it. I looked at all choices and decided first that I couldn’t vote for one candidate and could vote for the other. Here's why.

Reasons to Not Vote For Trump

Let's start with the underlying reason Donald Trump is considered a viable presidential candidate - his supposed business acumen. This is why we would even consider someone who has never held office in his life for the highest office in the land.  It is because of his accomplishments in another sphere of life – in this case the world of high stakes business dealings.

Donald Trump says he is a good businessman.  He is not a good businessman.  He simply is not.  He operates in a field, commercial real estate, where he happened to be a player at a time when it was possible to make a huge fortune with very little risk.  In the intervening period, when he has had to operate in areas where there was substantial risk requiring true business acumen - he has continually failed.  I would simply ask that people not make one of the single most common mistakes when assessing businessmen - do not equate money with success.  You would be quite surprised to see the number of functional illiterates who have lots of cash.  You have heard about Steve Jobs and his uncanny ability to zero in on the nexus between design and the desires of the market.  You have also heard about those experiments where a chimpanzee picks the stocks to buy and ends up being the best investor out of a group of business school students. Trump is more like the chimp than Steve Jobs.

So Trump is not all that when it comes to business success - but there are other things he does that force you to conclude that this isn't someone worth voting for.  The most obvious is that Trump routinely insults our intelligence.  Why can’t he just admit a shortcoming and say he’s going to work on it?  There are numerous examples of this type of ongoing disregard for his audiences' sensibilities.  For instance, we don’t need to go back over the most sordid chapter of this campaign, but off the back of that leaked tape Donald Trump actually said that “No one has more respect for women than I do”.  

Really?  

What was worse - he then went on to try to prove this by showing that he has more respect for women than Bill Clinton does.  This is bit like saying "No one is a better driver than I am" and then trying to prove it by showing that you are better behind the wheel than Stevie Wonder.

Trump’s own life story embodies hypocrisy and inconsistency. He advocates a tax cut that benefits the highest tax bracket in the country and defends this on the basis that this will lead to additional jobs.  However, he concedes that he has not paid any federal income tax for many years due to tax breaks that favor this same tax bracket.  If there are already such huge advantages in place for this level of taxpayer - why do they need a tax cut? If this is the class that will create these jobs why are they at the forefront of the same effort Trump decries - the migration of those same jobs to overseas suppliers?

Then there are the foreign policy shortcomings.  Donald Trump does not understand international politics and puts the nation in danger because of this fundamental lack of knowledge.  He believes that NATO needs to become more equitable militarily and that allies like Germany, Japan and South Korea need to begin to re-arm.  I live in Europe and I know that the bi-partisan consensus which has kept our NATO allies dependent upon the military strength of the United States is, without any doubt, the single most important facet of American foreign policy.  That is distasteful but true.  The United States pays much, much more than anyone else to provide the lion's share of the military strength that our allies rely upon.  Of course - because we do that we also get to call all the shots when it comes to military engagement.  We are, as a result, continually accused of being the "world's policeman", of being a bully of trying to impose our will just because we're the biggest kid on the block.  Very often these charges are absolutely true.  Despite that I would still rather trust America with the means of being a bully than any other country in the world, including our allies.  When Donald Trump starts to encourage other nations to arm themselves - I worry.

For example, I have no desire to see Germany with a strong military.  None.  The same with Japan or South Korea.  Nations with military strength eventually decide that it might be best to use it. I know it sounds like a great idea to have all of these countries contribute more to the cause – but look at history.  I love the Germans – I do.  I learned German. My kids take German. I've travelled to Germany. I've hosted German students in my house.  But  experience shows that giving Germany an army is not a particularly rational decision.  Trump would do this because it might save some money.  This is an extremely dangerous position for him to take.  Holding the "nuclear umbrella" (and not handing it off) is what protects us from a hard rain.  Trump's clear lack of understanding of this most important foreign policy dynamic is per se disqualifying.  This, I believe, is the primary reason why so many military and cabinet level officials, from both parties (including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) have made their dissatisfaction with Trump known - he would upset the status quo with no real alternative plan.

That's one of the major foreign policy problems I have with the Republican nominee - but there are plenty of domestic ones as well. Trump degrades the electoral process on a continuing basis.  Here is one example. While I would not have done it, I did not dispute Mr. Trump's right to have three accusers of Bill Clinton present at the second Presidential debate.  I don't see them as particularly relevant to the campaign, but it's his race to run and I didn't see why so many Democrats crumbled to dust at the thought of this "outrage".  However - there was a fourth woman there - and with that one he lost me.  This was the one woman who we know, for sure, was actually sexually abused.  She was attacked, at 12 years old, by a sexual predator.  Trump included her in his “line up” because Hillary Clinton represented her abuser in court.  That sounds pretty awful except:  Clinton was a young lawyer at the time who was appointed to that job by a judge.  She did not want the client and asked to be removed from the case.  The judge refused to release her - she had to represent the man to the best of her ability.  She did not "get the guy off on a technicality" - the prosecution made a critical mistake and the defendant plead out to a lesser offense.

I have been in exactly that same situation.  I've had a client so distasteful that I desperately wanted to get out.  Judges never let you do that - because then someone else has to take the son of a bitch on.  This, like it or not, is a cornerstone of our legal system - everyone is entitled to counsel.  To use this as the basis for attacking Hillary Clinton was completely dishonest - but not many people would know this - they'd just hear "child rapist - she defended him" and not realise what really happened there.  I do know what happened there - I can't support someone who would pull something like that.

Donald Trump has threatened to throw his political opponent in jail through the use of a "special prosecutor".  Many have rightly pointed out that we don't do that in America - you can promise to beat them at the ballot box but then Americans reconcile and at least attempt to work together.  Hasn't the level of vitriol been enough over the last 16 years without this being thrown in the mix?  I tend to agree with this broad criticism but would also focus on the use of the term "special prosecutor".  The point of appointing a special prosecutor is that they are investigating matters over which the appointee would have a risk of criminal involvement.  Nixon appointed a special prosecutor because he was thought to be involved in Watergate.  Bill Clinton appointed a special prosecutor because he was accused of wrongdoing in Whitewater.  You don't appoint a special prosecutor to go after someone totally apart from you - that's what you have an ordinary prosecutor for.  Such an appointment would be tantamount to a "bill of attainder" a directive to find someone guilty of a crime outside the parameters of the court system.  Conservatives have a problem with ignoring the constitution -and I admire that in them.  But this is a prime example of constitutional ignorance - it must be refuted.

Trump has recently taken another step that ignores the constitution of our government - and I use a small "c" this time.  The Constitution (Big C) of the United States is predicated upon a bedrock assumption - that its tenets will be respected.  I could have the best written Constitution in the world - but if it is routinely ignored it is useless.  So, underlying the basic foundation of our democracy is an even more critical element - the understanding that democratic results will be respected and accepted.  If you win, I'll tip my hat to you, wish you well and move on to fight another day.  If you lose I will treat you graciously and not pursue a vendetta.  Trump has undercut both of these assumptions.  Yes, as noted above by threatening to jail Hillary Clinton if he wins - but even more distressingly by threatening to not accept the verdict of the democratic process if he loses.  Does anyone really think that American elections are "rigged"?  If you do - then you should quite happily pack up and move away.  After all - isn't that what drove people in East Berlin to risk gunfire to scale the wall?  Isn't it what put people in boats to escape Castro's Cuba?  If you really think American democracy equates with the rigged elections of those places - show you have an equal level of guts and escape while you can.  What - not fleeing for the border?  Then how can you vote for a candidate who has stated that this is the level at which our democracy operates?

And then there are "the issues".  I won't try, on either side, to change people's minds in this article.  There simply isn't enough room - and your positions (and mine) are likely more nuanced and fully formed than those articulated by either candidate as they attempt to spin their views in a way that causes them the least amount of damage to their "base" while leaving the door of possibility open to the "undecided" voter.  But I do think it is fair to discuss the candidates' approach to issues.  Do they discuss them fully - can you tell what they really mean?  Do they accept the consequences of their positions - can they (for example) pay for them?  Do they maintain some level of consistency - is what they are saying now reflective of a long held view, an understandable evolution of thought - or - is it really an expedient "flip-flop" in the truest sense?

I don't believe in "secret plans", imaginary funding for huge construction projects, "we'll get it done because I'm a winner" or any such pie-in-the-sky pronouncements.  I am a wonk when it comes to issues - and proud of it.  My favorite campaign "leaflet" was actually a 75 page book called "A Call to Economic Arms" that Paul Tsongas wrote when he ran against Bill Clinton.  I actually handed those things out in New Hampshire in 1991/92.  This interminably long article you are reading is my idea of a Facebook meme for crying out loud.  So I pay attention to the substance of the candidates’ stands on issues.  That said, there is so little substance in the Trump policy papers that it is hardly worth considering them actual position documents.  They read more like Facebook memes than Facebook memes do.  Moreover (and this is something I would ask my conservative friends to consider) they do not reflect someone who really has any bedrock ideology.  There are a lot of people out there who seem to be acting on the assumption that Donald Trump is a reliable standard bearer for the Republican party, while people like Paul Ryan, a long-time Republican stalwart, are actually betraying the Republican/conservative legacy.  But read what Trump really says.  Here are a few examples:

Trump would seek to stem the loss of U.S. jobs overseas by restricting the ability of corporates to freely contract in the international market.  The long-standing conservative position has been that government should not be interfering with the ability of individuals or businesses to conduct legal business.  There is little detail on how he would do this - but it is a clear cornerstone of his economic policy.  Is more government regulation of industry what conservatives really want to vote for?

Trump has articulated no set position on abortion.  His answer in the final debate as to what he would do about Roe v. Wade left both conservatives and liberals shaking their heads.  Look - I may disagree with you on this topic but do conservatives, at this point in time, really want to support someone who can't articulate a position on an issue which has been front and center since the early 1970's?

Trump has played a complex shell game on the issue of immigration - alternately making it the cornerstone of his candidacy and then hinting at a "softening" of his position.  This is why the absolute failure to articulate a deportation plan, a funding mechanism for the Mexican wall or an approach to naturalisation should cause conservatives such worry.  You want to insure that nothing happens to improve the immigration problem? - just elect someone who has absolutely no possibility of implementing the fundamental core of his program. This “fantasy world” approach guarantees continuing inaction in this area.  And don't take my word for this - take the word of the Republican Party itself.  Following the 2012 election the Republicans appointed a commission to review the reasons they lost when almost all their internal models showed them winning comfortably.  One of the primary causative factors identified was the need to de-emphasise the status of immigration as a major issue at the national level.  The report (rightly) concluded that this was killing the Republican's while not really addressing any real core national problem - illegal immigration has been decreasing for years.  Accordingly, the party ramped up to court Hispanic voters - primarily by presenting three candidates who had distinctive Hispanic connections - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush.  None of these candidates planned to make border issues central to their effort.

Then along came Donald Trump - who not only made it central to his campaign but began that same campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists".  This isn't where conservative politics was going - in fact - it was directly opposite to where this issue was heading.  The country should not be having this discussion right now - but it was pulled into this abyss.  Without calling anyone any names or questioning whether this worked politically for Mr. Trump (it did) - it can't be taken seriously by anyone concerned with real issues.  It just can't.

I also would say this to those people who feel that their anger needs to be expressed in some way and that Trump is the person whom they see as best able to make their discontent with the system known.  Look - I get it.  It would be impossible for me to tell someone who has lost a job, or struggles with a business or has a son or daughter serving in the armed forces or as a police officer that they shouldn't be angry.  But sometimes, despite legitimate grievances, that anger leads to mistakes.  Trump - with what he has shown throughout this campaign - has proven to be such a mistake.  The intent in setting out to express frustration was quite possibly well founded - but this is not the guy to bear that standard, this is not what you want to become.

I think this is enough to show why Trump is not worthy of a vote.  I won't even lower myself to go into the horror show of tapes, accusations and behaviour patterns.  You don't need to in order to make the decision not to vote for Donald Trump.

But that is entirely different from the other end of this argument - yes, don't vote for Trump - but why vote for Clinton?

Reasons to Vote For Hillary Clinton

I'll be quite honest - this is not a very easy argument for me to make.  I am, to say the least, not inspired by the Democratic nominee.  In the interest of full disclosure - I was never that crazy about Bill either.  I’m pretty sure I worked harder than anybody who would ever read this article to prevent Bill Clinton from being President.  When I was in the final year of law school, preparing for the bar exam, working a full time job (I went to school at night) and trying to get at least a small amount of sleep - I spent my nights until about 2:00 AM working out of the Tsongas headquarters in downtown Boston, making calls (usually to other headquarters and the west coast), organising mailings and doing other grunt work in order to beat Bill Clinton.  I regret not one second of that effort.

I ended up voting for Clinton in both general elections however, but never for any of the reasons other people seemed to fawn over him.  Inexplicably to me others seem to get all weak kneed at the way he'd bite his bottom lip and shake his head when feigning sincerity.  I just saw a snake oil salesman.  I never bought the whole "Aw shucks, ah'm just lil' ole Arkansas boy who just happened to stumble into a Rhodes scholarship and then the White House" routine.  And I don't really buy in to the whole "I'm just the pick me up by my bootstraps daughter of a draper from Chi-Town act" either.

The reason why I could vote for either Clinton stems not from what they profess to be, but from what they really are.  They are not the inspirational leaders of a generation.  They are not the 1960's era power couple who rocked the country to old Fleetwood Mac tunes in 1992.  They are not even "They" - I only refer to the "Clintons" as an entity because that is how they are perceived - what they "profess to be".  But the Clinton persona is not real.  That is mere perception.  In reality the value of Bill, and, I believe, Hillary Clinton lies in the mundane and not the profound. They work very hard, make the people around them work just as hard and turn their papers in on time.  They are the sort of people you knew in school who always got their homework done, probably laughed a bit too hard at the teachers’ jokes and ran for class president because they knew it would look good on their college application. But – they did get the grades, they did put the time in – and they did deserve the “most likely to succeed” notation in the yearbook.  Jesus – they were annoying.

Well – annoying is in the eye of the beholder. True, these aren't the kind of people we like hanging out with - and the efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton to appear to be "jes' folks" can often be painful to watch (remember "Trumped up trickle down").  They're not very inspirational. But they are the type of people we would want running the store.   In fact, if we are being honest with ourselves, they are highly competent executives.  This is important in that a governorship, a senate office, an executive agency - and, indeed, the Presidency require skilled executive oversight.  Towards that end Hillary Clinton is (and here we go back to the singular because she is the only one from her family running this year) the most qualified candidate for the Presidency in this election. 

How's that for the least inspired endorsement ever given.

But - c'mon people - can we grow up for just one second here?  All of us are adults - we ought to know by now that choices, including election choices, very often come down to the lesser of two evils.  That's the real world.  We don't get to walk out of the voting booth every time feeling like we've just changed the world - sometimes we just get to feel that there is less of a chance we've destroyed it.

And you can, at least, feel that way with Clinton.  The same lack of detail that mars Trump's purported policy documentation certainly does not apply to Clinton's material.  When she says you can go to HillaryClinton.com to see something - you actually can do that.  All those policy documents are right there - and they are detailed.  Her positions are actual positions - whether you agree with them or not is up to you - but no one is seriously accusing the Hillary campaign of "fuzziness".  By the same token her core issues are real issues.  Job growth, spiralling college costs, a health care plan that goes beyond just "repeal Obamacare", global warming - those are all truly important issues that are addressed by only one candidate in this election.

Finally - I want to address the people who look at this rather tepid endorsement and ask "why not just vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all"?  First of all - not voting is a viable option - but it also then requires you to shut up when it comes to the next four years.  If you don't participate - you really don't get to complain.

The third party point is more legitimate. Or I should say - the question is legitimate - the third parties themselves are not, and therein lies the rub.  When the third party options are as non-viable a choice as they are in this election they simply cannot be treated seriously.  Gary Johnson (and, to a lesser extent, Jill Stein) have had an opportunity to make a case this election.  It was a narrow opportunity - but more skilled campaigners could have done something with the situation that they were faced with when the general election campaign got under way back in July (high unfavorables for both major party candidates, general dissatisfaction with the process) .  They did not. They had their chance – and didn’t take it.  As a result a vote this year for any third party candidate is a vote wasted.

We live in what is, essentially, a two party system.  As someone who sees the questionable "benefits" of a multi-party system all the time - I think that this is generally a good thing.  The downside is that sometimes you can't find that close a fit between yourself and the nominees of the two major parties - and so are forced to make the types of choices outlined above, rather than waste a vote on a non-viable third party option.  Again - this is the real world - grow up and live with that fact.

Finally - there should be no doubt, after reading the above, that I wish there had been some different choices available on the ballot this year.  I'll get over it.  You should too.  If it is absolutely necessary for you to have at least some positive feeling about voting for Hillary Clinton perhaps it is best to remember this.  On a couple of occasions during this campaign, when asked to say something complimentary about Secretary Clinton Donald Trump acknowledged her "toughness".  This is undoubtedly true - Clinton's ability to fight through extremely trying situations - be it her husband's infidelities, the rough and tumble of political campaigns (both winning and losing), professional challenges (the Osama Bin Laden mission) or the constant degradation of this campaign – all these speak well of her ability to deal with the office of President.  If she wins – she will be our first woman President – and she will have earned it.  No one can doubt that she has been tested.

Trump is correct - she is one tough woman.  That is what, when all is said and done, Hillary Clinton brings to the table.  She is indeed tough – and, sometimes - tough is enough.