Our Civic Duty: Understand the Issues

Our Civic Duty as Voters————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

It doesn’t take a genius to predict that Donald Trump will be defeated by Hillary Clinton in November’s election. An electoral college path to victory for Trump is just not in the cards. It may not be a landslide, but it will be decisive enough and her coattails may carry enough Democrat candidates to win control of both houses of congress. Her victory will be historic, not only because she will be the first woman U.S. president, but because she will be the most flawed and dishonest politician ever to hold that office. She will also be the second most disliked, exceeded in that category only by Trump himself.

 

Mr. Trump will lose partly because of the demographics. He is increasingly unpopular with women, Latinos and blacks. But he will lose mainly because he is plainly unqualified by background and experience and unfit by temperament to serve as the nation’s president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. A majority of Americans see that quite clearly now. Clinton, for all her flaws, lies, security breeches, failures as secretary of state and numerous scandals is perceived by most as the safer choice when compared to the volatile and unpredictable Mr. Trump. Thus will Republicans reap the fruits of their historically bad choice to head their ticket. They have blown a golden opportunity to gain the White House, maintain control of congress and appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court and other federal court vacancies. They will soon have plenty of time on their hands to reflect on what might have been.

 

For the GOP, it is a tragedy of its own making. It is a party hopelessly divided between an uncompromising far right wing and a more moderate center and it lacks the leadership to unify. Primary voters, many of them angry at the party establishment for its lack of accomplishments while in control of congress, failed to realize that, given the lack of bipartisan compromise across party lines, they must control both the executive and legislative branches to effect significant change. In a triumph of anger and emotion over judgment and common sense, they settled for a loser, just to stick a finger in the eye of the establishment. They put their trust and support in a bombastic, coarse, egotistical TV celebrity and businessman, totally lacking in any credentials that would be predictive of success in the most powerful office on earth. They will now have to endure the consequences of that disastrous choice, including four or eight more years of government expansion, overreach, spiraling debt and declining world influence. Enjoy.

 

Many Americans who share the widespread disgust with the choices they have been given say that they cannot, in good conscience, cast a vote for any of them. Some plan to write in the name of Indiana’s governor Mike Pence, a decent, capable and honorable man whose only apparent flaw in judgment was agreeing to run on the same ticket as Trump. Trump supporters say that to do so would be a vote for Clinton. Clinton supporters say that to not vote for her would amount to a vote for Trump. That’s nonsense. It would be a vote for neither. It might instead send a message to party leaders that neither candidate deserved their vote and that voting for either would require an unacceptable moral compromise. Voting for the lesser of two evils is repugnant to many. Either of these two candidates will continue to divide Americans. They will not be admired. They will not be role models. They are gravely lacking in leadership qualities. They will not make America greater or even preserve its greatness.

 

`               We are taught as young Americans that voting is a civic duty. I agree but there are even higher civic duties. One is to do your best to be informed on the issues. Many Americans are not. It requires more effort than forming an opinion based solely on party loyalty or campaign commercials that are designed, not to inform you, but to persuade you and win your vote by any means. The other is to vote your conscience. The American people deserve the best as their president. Neither of these candidates would rank in the top 50% of America’s best.

 

California conservatives, in particular, have reason to lament regarding their choices this election. The state is terminally liberal, so Clinton didn’t even bother campaigning here. This year, thanks to the state’s absurd open primary where the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, will appear on the ballot to fill Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate seat, they have a choice between two liberal Democrats: California Attorney General Kamala Harris or Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Some choice.

October30, 2016

Look at Me, I’m Protesting

Pay Attention to Me, I’m Protesting——————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Every time San Francisco 49ers backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick takes a knee during the playing of our national anthem, it must feel like a knee to the groin to every patriotic American, especially those who served and fought under that flag. He should be ashamed.

 

Yes, I know that he has a right to do so and to behave like a spoiled child. And I and others, who are offended by his disrespect toward Old Glory, also have a right to criticize him and the wannabes that imitate his actions. We also have a right to boycott any products he may still be endorsing as well as the team and the league that made him a millionaire and, by their inaction, condoned his disrespect and continue to pay him his bloated salary.

 

His actions have encouraged many others, including high school age and younger athletes, to imitate his disrespect for the flag of our country. Sadly, it has even spread to the military. A young sailor posted an image of herself on social media sitting out a colors ceremony. Big mistake for her and other members of the military who may be caught trying it. Unlike the National Football League, the armed forces do not tolerate disrespect by its members to the flag or the national anthem.

 

It is customary to stand and face the flag and for men to uncover during the playing of the national anthem. Even foreign visitors do so out of respect. Americans should do likewise when they are present when a foreign anthem is played. There may be no specific law requiring this and sitting or kneeling during the playing of the anthem or even burning the flag is, unfortunately, protected as free speech under the first amendment. But to most patriotic Americans, it is hateful speech that arouses strong emotions. Symbols like flags and anthems are powerful elements of national pride.

 

Mr. Kaepernick said, “I am not going to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.” Is it, then, selfish on the part of the majority of his fellow black athletes who paid the proper respect to their country? Isn’t it selfish, rather, on his part to call attention to himself and create a controversy that does nothing to further his cause and probably harms both his cause and race relations in general? Aren’t there other, more constructive ways of showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement rather than alienating millions of patriotic Americans? And if Mr. Kaepernick refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States, does he then consider himself to be a man without a country?

 

NFL Hall of Fame member Jim Brown said, “I would not challenge our flag …or do anything that has to do with respecting the flag or the national anthem. I don’t think it’s appropriate.”  Congressman Steve King (R, Iowa) said Kaepernick was undermining patriotism.  An anonymous NFL executive was quoted in Time magazine as saying, “I don’t want him anywhere near my team. He’s a traitor.”

 

Among the more pathetic rationalizations offered by those who approved of or imitated Mr. Kaepernick’s behavior was a comment by a Philadelphia Eagles player who said “We’re not doing this to get attention.” Oh, really? Why, then, are they doing it if not to get attention? They are effectively saying, “Hey, everybody, look at me. I’m protesting!” Does anyone really believe at this point that it requires a public act of disrespect to the nation by a bunch of overpaid jocks to create awareness among Americans of a serious problem regarding police interactions with young black men?

 

Other protestors claimed they intended no disrespect toward the flag. You could have fooled me. What else would you call it? Others who supported Kaepernick’s actions said that he was simply exercising a right that members of the armed forces fought and died to protect. I have yet to meet a single active or past service member who tells me that he or she fought to protect the right of someone to disrespect the flag they fought for or served under. I certainly didn’t.

 

Our country is not perfect, but it is our country and it is the fairest and finest in the world. It is also mankind’s best hope for people of any race. Nothing will be gained for any cause by disrespecting it.

October 15, 2016

 

First Debate Changed Little

First Debate Changed Little

               a commentary

                by J. F. Kelly, Jr.————————–

.

The much-anticipated first presidential debate of the campaign provided more TV entertainment than Monday Night Football but probably did little to change the dynamics of the race and revealed little more about the candidates’ positions than we already knew. Hillary Clinton was her usual, disciplined, lawyerly, scripted professional pol. Donald Trump was his usual self, the anti-politician, condemning the policies of the past, certain of the need for change but vague as always on how he planned to implement it. Clinton represented the status quo, Trump the forces of change.

 

Mr. Trump made it through the debate without saying anything stupid or outrageous, demonstrating that he can show restraint and even gravitas sometimes. That was seen as something of a victory, at least by Trump supporters, because Mrs. Clinton, as expected, tried to convince the audience that he lacks the temperament to be president.

 

Both sides claimed victory. By college debating rules perhaps, Clinton scored more points and seemed better-prepared with facts and details while Trump, as he often does, danced around some of the questions without ever getting around to answering them. But we are not electing a debater-in-chief, remember. We’ve had one for eight years. Rather, we are electing a commander-in-chief who must lead the nation and, hopefully, the western world through some dangerous and challenging years.

 

Trump promises fundamental change in the way our country is run and we do need change because it is not being run well. At least half of American adults believe this and feel the country is headed in the wrong direction and that its once-immense reservoir of respect, prestige and ability to influence events has been steadily diminished. Yet change brings uncertainty and risk, generating concern among many prospective voters that Trump, lacking any experience in government, can implement half of what he so confidently promises.

 

Most notable about the debate was what didn’t get discussed in enough depth or addressed at all. Among these was immigration and the protection of Americans from terrorism. This is on the minds of nearly every American and their safety is the principal responsibility of a president. Also virtually ignored was the degraded state of the armed forces and specific plans the candidates have for rebuilding our military ship and aircraft fleets, providing sufficient anti-ballistic missile defense to protect American cities, modernizing our aging nuclear deterrent and restoring our ability to deal with more than one crisis simultaneously, after eight years of underfunding the military.

 

Mr. Trump emphasized the need to restore law and order, a term that Mrs. Clinton won’t even use for fear of offending black voters. He described life for black Americans living in crime-infested urban areas as hellish. He said that stop-and-frisk methods, which worked well in New York until they were halted by court order, would be effective in reducing the murder rate in cities like Chicago. Mrs. Clinton, as usual, played the race card and spoke of widespread racism throughout society. She also said that stop-and-frisk had been ruled unconstitutional but that the murder rate in New York continued to fall after stop and frisk was ended in New York. Mr. Trump correctly replied that both of her

statements were incorrect. NBC’s Lester Holt then gratuitously and incorrectly interrupted to insist that stop-and- frisk was indeed unconstitutional. But it’s not. A local judge who ruled that it was being misused in New York, was removed from the case and admonished for her blatant anti-police bias by a higher court. Unaddressed was how to restore respect for police, restore their morale and deal with the Ferguson Effect which is slowing police response to violent crime out of an abundance of caution, thereby putting communities in greater danger. The murder rate in many cities is now increasing after years of decline and race relations are significantly worse now than they were when President Obama took office in spite of more blacks serving in the highest levels of federal and local government and law enforcement.

 

Trump might have doubled down of his attacks on Clinton’s own character flaws. In response to her admittance that she made a mistake in using a private server and email account, he might have added that it’s too late for apologies, the damage to security having already been done and, moreover, she lied repeatedly about it as she did about the attack on our consulate and the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi. He might have raised the conflict of interest issues regarding the Clinton Foundation and the pay to play practices employed while she was Secretary of State. He might also have asked how she could reconcile accepting large donations from nations like Saudi Arabia, where women are treated as property and gays are executed, with her support for women and gay rights.

 

Finally, Mr. Trump showed commendable restraint in not over-reacting to Mrs. Clinton’s references to his past use of degrading speech toward women. He refrained from referring to her husband’s sexual conduct while serving as governor of Arkansas and President of the United States, including oral sex in the Oval Office with a young White House intern. Mrs. Clinton probably got the message that people who live in glass houses are well advised to refrain from throwing stones. If it gets down to personal attacks, no one beats the Donald.

 

Who won? Who cares. Personally, the debate did little to change my belief that these two candidates are the worse ever to run for president of the United States on a major ticket. The tragedy is that one of them will win so we will end up either with a president who is unprepared and unqualified or one who is a serial liar and can’t be trusted.

October 12, 2016