"How can a group that espouses family values practically deify a man with Trump’s track record?" Trump is not deified, but he clearly shows he supports our Constitutional rights and protections. I'm not looking for someone who can pass a purity test, I want someone who will protect my right to self-determination, the right of me and my husband to live our marriage as we see fit. The other side wants to be my nanny and has also been vaporizing fundamentals, like parental rights and a woman's prerogative to have physical privacy from males, to say "NO!" to a male. The other side attacks, making law and policy to jam themselves between parents and children. It's the dems who have made Trump appear to be a deity. Compared to what they offer, this bombastic womanizer is a deity.
I hear where you're coming from, which is why I listed (extensively, but by no means completely) so many issues I have with today's Democratic Party and why I support Trump's candidacy. In our 2 party system, we must choose our lesser evil or waste our vote entirely - we can gripe all we want about that, but it's the system we've got.
My point was not about who offers better policies, but about how we've lost the ability as a collective to listen to moderation. We've become so entrenched in "our side" (whichever side that is) that we've become hypocrites when "our side" drops the ball on who they claim to be.
So while my personal views mostly align with yours, my point here is questioning whether even presenting moderate alternatives is even worth the effort anymore, since hardliners won't bother to expose themselves to anything which doesn't confirm their beliefs. It has become depressingly frustrating at times. As I said, extreme people happily wear blinders when it's convenient.
"politicians seem unable to think for themselves, cut against the grain, and run the risk of defying their parties. This is not to say I support these specific politicians on policy, but that they are among the few who’ve dared to really speak their minds."
I find it interesting that you didn't include Donald Trump in that particular list of politicians despite the fact that defying the Republican establishment and speaking his mind are very much characteristic of him. You described these traits you nominally admire in politicians even when you don't agree with them, but then you express confusion at why this particular politician you don't agree with who has those traits is so admired by so many others. This suggests a bit of a blind spot on your part regarding Donald Trump.
It doesn't suggest one on my part. I strongly dislike the record of Trump's personal life. I would love to live in an America where commiting adultery was considered disqualifying for public office. Hell, I'd love to see that put into law. It's a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so I don't see why other public servants get a pass on it, especially the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world, I live in this one, where both Parties nominated adulterers. I always voted for someone else in the primaries, but here we are anyway.
I remember the entire Bill Clinton scandal, I remember my outrage, and I remember every Democrat I knew brushing it off with some variation of "We elect a President for his policies, not his personal life". I warned them all then that the standard you set is the standard you get and that precedent would come back to bite them. So here we are: "I'm running for President, not Pope" and "Grab em by the p*ssy" aren't any less outrageous to me, but I must admit to a certain degree of schadenfreude at them finally all sharing my outrage.
Too bad it's too late to matter. They removed that guardrail and things went downhill precisely as predicted. We've reached a point where personal character is more often considered a liability in a politician than an asset. Nobody wants to send an innocent lamb to the slaughter, so voters see the need for a snake to navigate the swamp. Have you heard of the Godzilla theory of politics? When everything is decided by a battle between monsters, you just want the biggest monster to be on your side. So embattled Evangelicals find themselves reminded that even King David had an affair and that God used a pagan King, Cyrus the Great, to free his people from captivity in Babylon. Desperate people look for hope wherever they can find it.
True enough, Steven. And given that Godzilla choice, I do support Trump's candidacy. And while I might have included him on my list of examples, I've always gotten the vibe that his challenges to orthodoxy were less altruistic than self serving. Still the best option of the two, nonetheless.
As I responded to BeadleBlog, the main point of the article was more about my growing frustration in the rejection by both extremes to even consider any moderation, and in doing so, to morph into hypocrites when their preferred candidate acts in ways which they would criticize in their opponents. It has reduced politics into a tennis match of mud slinging whataboutisms, where we point out the other side's shortcomings while ignoring our own, and balk at any degree of moderation. "Saner heads" are no longer prevailing, and as a writer, it feels like talking to a wall.
"How can a group that espouses family values practically deify a man with Trump’s track record?" Trump is not deified, but he clearly shows he supports our Constitutional rights and protections. I'm not looking for someone who can pass a purity test, I want someone who will protect my right to self-determination, the right of me and my husband to live our marriage as we see fit. The other side wants to be my nanny and has also been vaporizing fundamentals, like parental rights and a woman's prerogative to have physical privacy from males, to say "NO!" to a male. The other side attacks, making law and policy to jam themselves between parents and children. It's the dems who have made Trump appear to be a deity. Compared to what they offer, this bombastic womanizer is a deity.
I hear where you're coming from, which is why I listed (extensively, but by no means completely) so many issues I have with today's Democratic Party and why I support Trump's candidacy. In our 2 party system, we must choose our lesser evil or waste our vote entirely - we can gripe all we want about that, but it's the system we've got.
My point was not about who offers better policies, but about how we've lost the ability as a collective to listen to moderation. We've become so entrenched in "our side" (whichever side that is) that we've become hypocrites when "our side" drops the ball on who they claim to be.
So while my personal views mostly align with yours, my point here is questioning whether even presenting moderate alternatives is even worth the effort anymore, since hardliners won't bother to expose themselves to anything which doesn't confirm their beliefs. It has become depressingly frustrating at times. As I said, extreme people happily wear blinders when it's convenient.
Thanks for responding, BB.
ZL
"politicians seem unable to think for themselves, cut against the grain, and run the risk of defying their parties. This is not to say I support these specific politicians on policy, but that they are among the few who’ve dared to really speak their minds."
I find it interesting that you didn't include Donald Trump in that particular list of politicians despite the fact that defying the Republican establishment and speaking his mind are very much characteristic of him. You described these traits you nominally admire in politicians even when you don't agree with them, but then you express confusion at why this particular politician you don't agree with who has those traits is so admired by so many others. This suggests a bit of a blind spot on your part regarding Donald Trump.
It doesn't suggest one on my part. I strongly dislike the record of Trump's personal life. I would love to live in an America where commiting adultery was considered disqualifying for public office. Hell, I'd love to see that put into law. It's a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so I don't see why other public servants get a pass on it, especially the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, I don't live in that world, I live in this one, where both Parties nominated adulterers. I always voted for someone else in the primaries, but here we are anyway.
I remember the entire Bill Clinton scandal, I remember my outrage, and I remember every Democrat I knew brushing it off with some variation of "We elect a President for his policies, not his personal life". I warned them all then that the standard you set is the standard you get and that precedent would come back to bite them. So here we are: "I'm running for President, not Pope" and "Grab em by the p*ssy" aren't any less outrageous to me, but I must admit to a certain degree of schadenfreude at them finally all sharing my outrage.
Too bad it's too late to matter. They removed that guardrail and things went downhill precisely as predicted. We've reached a point where personal character is more often considered a liability in a politician than an asset. Nobody wants to send an innocent lamb to the slaughter, so voters see the need for a snake to navigate the swamp. Have you heard of the Godzilla theory of politics? When everything is decided by a battle between monsters, you just want the biggest monster to be on your side. So embattled Evangelicals find themselves reminded that even King David had an affair and that God used a pagan King, Cyrus the Great, to free his people from captivity in Babylon. Desperate people look for hope wherever they can find it.
True enough, Steven. And given that Godzilla choice, I do support Trump's candidacy. And while I might have included him on my list of examples, I've always gotten the vibe that his challenges to orthodoxy were less altruistic than self serving. Still the best option of the two, nonetheless.
As I responded to BeadleBlog, the main point of the article was more about my growing frustration in the rejection by both extremes to even consider any moderation, and in doing so, to morph into hypocrites when their preferred candidate acts in ways which they would criticize in their opponents. It has reduced politics into a tennis match of mud slinging whataboutisms, where we point out the other side's shortcomings while ignoring our own, and balk at any degree of moderation. "Saner heads" are no longer prevailing, and as a writer, it feels like talking to a wall.
Thanks for your input. ZL
And yes, you have been absent from my reading list.
Sorry Dave..
Hope all is well well and look forward to seeing more articles.
What do you mean by 'blight'?
Haha that's funny..
Funny is good to me!