Monthly Archives: October 2016

Why I’m voting for Hillary

39164252Dear Bernie or busters, basketed deplorables, third party flirts and other Hillary haters:

Some of you have challenged me to provide an affirmative defense for why I’m voting for Hillary Clinton for president, rather than mere disgust with her opponent. No problem.

First, let me admit my bias. I voted for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 because I thought she was more experienced, especially in regards to dealing with Republicans and the right-wing slime machine. But after Obama beat Clinton in the primaries, I voted for him, twice, and believe that despite a recalcitrant Congress, he moved the country in the right direction, including Obamacare and a less interventionist foreign policy. I would hate to see his legacy sullied by someone who wants to destroy it for reasons that are more personal than political.

As for Hillary, when Bill Clinton wasn’t being Philanderer in Chief, he was being Triangulator in Chief. Hillary is also a triangulator, so one way to think of her is to imagine Bill Clinton without a penis. It’s not sexy or inspiring, but one reason I’m voting for Clinton is because she’s boring.

Triangulate means taking a position on a political issue that is neither liberal nor conservative, but a balance or synthesis of both sides. Ironically, the term “triangulate” was coined in 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton’s chief political strategist, Republican political operative (and vociferous Hillary hater) Dick Morris. Actually, it’s a repackaging of an old idea that has also been called “the art of the possible,” “bipartisanship,” “deal-making,” “moderation” and “compromise.”

But in an age when compromise has become a dirty word, so has triangulate. Splitting the difference tends to alienate activists on both sides, and the more polarized a society becomes, the fewer centrists are left to create a winning coalition. As the oft quoted poet W.B. Yeats once put it, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Anarchy doesn’t hold the same allure for me that it once did. Neither does becoming part of a revolution, or a movement to “make America great again.” As a white male, I recognize the world is changing, and a reshuffling of the social order is not just inevitable but appropriate. Thus, I’m all for change, but I prefer incremental to disruptive change. America has many problems, but I don’t believe the apocalypse is near, so I’m not looking for a messiah, just a reasonably competent person with moderately progressive values.

And that’s the second reason I’m voting for Clinton. Love her or hate her (or somewhere in between), you know she’s a moderate progressive, or what was once called a liberal. She believes in capitalism, but she also believes that government should help those who can’t help themselves. She believes in personal freedoms, but she also believes in inclusion, diversity and equality. She believes in a robust but cautious foreign policy. She’s a champion for women’s rights, including a woman’s right to choose, and she will choose Supreme Court judges who will preserve personal liberties. And she believes in science.

She’s close to Bernie Sanders on economic issues. She wants to tax the rich more and the middle class less. She wants to raise the minimum wage and repair our decaying infrastructure. She wants to make a college education more affordable. And she’s for fixing, rather than repealing, Obamacare.

She’s for “comprehensive” immigration reform, meaning that in addition to beefing up border security and screening, she’s also for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants already here, and for taking in our fair share of refugees from Middle Eastern wars we helped start. She’s pro-trade, including trade agreements, as opposed to protectionism and tariffs. And she has worked across party lines as well as international borders to pound out agreements.

It’s hard to know what Clinton’s foreign policy might look like, since it will likely be shaped by unpredicted events. She’s far from perfect, but she didn’t order special forces to “stand down” at Benghazi, she’s not a serial killer, and she didn’t commit espionage with her private email server. It’s unclear what her opponent stands for because he has no track record, and except for the bit about building a wall, his message can change with his mood, audience and whether he’s using a teleprompter.

The third, and most visceral, reason I’m voting for Clinton is because she’s still here. Think about it. She’s been betrayed by her husband, abandoned by her party, especially its left wing, investigated by Congress, reviled by the media, and yet she’s still standing. Even her opponent said he respected that, “She doesn’t quit. She doesn’t give up.”

She was ridiculed in 1998 for describing the anti-Clinton forces as a “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” But since then it has become an entire industry, spawning anti-Hillary books and movies, tabloid “news” on her health, marriage and sexual proclivities, and websites that keep a running tally of her associates who have been “found dead.” Radio and TV commentators have made careers out of Hillary bashing, while conservative foundations funded by conservative billionaires have spent fortunes filing lawsuits, pursuing records, exposing alleged corruption, and generally harassing and smearing the Clintons, especially Hillary after Bill became an ex-president, which was 15 years ago.

For standing by her husband she has been branded an enabler and accomplice. For creating a world-changing charitable foundation she has been accused of “pay to play.” And for being in charge when four people were tragically killed in Benghazi, she has been called a liar and a coward. Little wonder she has become a deeply guarded person, who wrongly but understandably used a private server to (unsuccessfully) keep her emails away from her many political enemies.

The so-called Clinton wars go back more than 30 years, to when Bill was the attorney general of Arkansas, and she was a private attorney who was once ordered to defend a rapist. After he became governor, and then president, his affairs and their involvement in a failed business venture called the Whitewater Development Corporation eventually metastasized into the Monica Lewinsky scandal and impeachment trial. Lewinsky has since described herself as one of the first victims of mass cyberbullying as well as public shaming, and anyone who lived through that spectacle knows what she means.

The Clintons have also been bullied and shamed ever since. Through Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Pardongate, allegedly looting the White House, and now the unending so-called Hillary email scandal, all the accusations have been exhaustively investigated, and she has yet to be found guilty of anything. But over time the slanderous allegations and debunked stories of Hillary’s misdeeds have created a Cosby effect — so many claims pile up that it seems at least some of them must be true. Whole generations of people have grown up hearing that Hillary Clinton is nothing but a liar and a cheat who is just out for herself, and over time they have essentially been brainwashed into believing it. The unrelenting negative publicity has also created what is known as Clinton fatigue. Yet despite the amount of hate and derision that has been directed her way, and despite the fact that she and her husband have become wealthy through giving speeches and making personal appearances, she has remained in public service, becoming a senator from New York, secretary of state, and now presidential candidate.

Perhaps it is only fitting that someone who has had to survive such withering and often sexist attacks over her entire career would find that the last hurdle she must cross to become the first female president of the United States would be the most demagogic, divisive, snarling, insulting, sexist, crass candidate imaginable. The Don Rickles of politics. A man who would bring her husband’s jilted girlfriends, the grieving parents of Benghazi victims, and the woman who’d been raped by the man she had defended decades ago, to their debates. A man who would yell in her face that she should be ashamed, and whose minions would chant “lock her up.”

I admit it. As much as I want to see Clinton win, I want to see her opponent lose. And as much as I want to see him lose, I want to see the nativists, racists, sexists and other deplorables who have been trying to bring Clinton down for more than three decades to not just be defeated but repudiated. As her opponent noted, she’s a fighter. So another way to think of Hillary Clinton is to imagine Bill Clinton with balls.

Men are Assholes

trumps-clintonsMen are assholes. Can we at least agree on that? Less than a month before the election, The New York Times decides to waste ink on 30-year-old Trump groping incidents. Groping? If there’s a man who has never made an unwanted advance on a woman, or a woman who never got groped, they need to get out more often. Compared to the allegations against Bill Clinton, this is small potatoes.

Oh, but he lied about groping during the debate and it adds to the sticky media narrative that the Donald is a dirty old man. As was often noted when Bill found himself in a similar predicament, everybody lies about sex.

This isn’t election coverage, it’s jiggle TV. And if the media and Clinton campaign overplay their hand, voters are going to become numb to all the sex stories and, like Bill Clinton, they may start to feel sympathy for Trump for being ganged up on and shamed for brutish sexual behavior. For doing what rich and famous men shouldn’t do, but all too often do.

The media have made their point. Like many men, Trump is an asshole. Now, can we get back to the issues?

Thank you Donald Trump

debateAmerica’s apocalyptic nightmare may be over, at least for now. Exhibit 1 is Donald Trump, who was not generally perceived as the winner of his second debate with Hillary Clinton.

His performance was classic Trump, full of dark visions of illegal aliens streaming across the border, terrorists embedded with Syrian refugees, lawless inner cities, ISIS, Russia, Iran and China looming, while America had become weak, its nukes tired and exhausted. Yet this time he didn’t get the same frenzied response. The reason may be a change in the national mood, and ironically, we may have Donald Trump to thank.

When Trump descended from an escalator in his namesake tower in June 2015 to announce he was going to make America great again by building a wall to keep out murderers and rapists sent from Mexico, he was speaking to a receptive audience. Nearly 70 percent of Americans were telling pollsters they thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. People were frustrated with their jobs and insurance premiums. Cops were killing unarmed blacks, who were rioting in the streets. ISIS-inspired lone wolves seemed to be everywhere. The Middle East was screwed, Congress was gridlocked and the president was a feckless, Islamic Kenyan.

Trump did not create those feelings of fear, anger, hate, sexism, racism, xenophobia and scapegoating. They are always simmering below the surface. But he did bring them to a boil, as many a demagogue has done from time immemorial. His acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was perhaps the apogee of his dystopian imaginings, which were also a large part of his stump speech — a constant drumbeat of death and destruction, weakness, bad deals and bad judgements. He also kept the sap rising by flouting political correctness and feuding with characters great and small, from Sen. John McCain to Miss Universe, Mexicans, Muslims and his own party. Not to mention crooked, lying Hillary.

Then something happened. The turning point may have been the notorious pussy tape a couple days before the second debate, which sparked one last orgasm of outrage, except this time the anger was coming from across the political spectrum. During the subsequent town hall, Trump pivoted from whatever question he was asked to repeat chunks of his bloodcurdling stump speech, a strategy that was simple and elegant and required zero prep. Yet as much as the prophet of doom huffed and puffed, sniffed and sniped, shamed and stalked — he even raised the specter of illicit sex — nothing seemed to work.

Why? Trump hadn’t changed, but maybe many of us had. He was like a violent video game that America had been playing for so long that we became desensitized to his end-of-days shtick. There’s only so many times he could cry wolf and people would believe him, and only so long that Americans could remain furious before the fever broke and sanity returned. Things aren’t perfect, but they’re not THAT bad, and believe it or not, neither is Hillary Clinton.

Of course, the calming of America does not extend to bigots, xenophobes and other irredeemable deplorables who were outraged long before Trump came along, and always will be. And it would take just one terrorist attack or October surprise to shock the rest of us back into a state of national hysteria. But if we can maintain our composure for just a few more weeks, we may not just defeat but repudiate the false messiah that is, or was, Donald Trump. So thank you Mr. Trump for scaring the bejesus out of us, and giving us a chance at redemption.