Pages

pages

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Voting for Hillary #2

[posted on FB 10/15]

Many thanks, Tim Brophy, for your thoughtful response. I depend on it.

There was never any chance I would support Trump. So when the Republican Party walked away from any kind of serious effort to protect children and women, and nominated a violent fool, the decision was between a third-party vote or other protest vote, or Hillary Clinton. For months, I was planning to vote for my wife.

What changed me included: (1) Trump’s continuing slow-motion train wreck, of course; plus (2) a growing unease about not seeing how to horse-whip the arrogant bully; plus (3) Nate Silver’s gender gap map (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/ ); plus Father Pavone’s response to sexual assault.

Trump. I have previously tried to list the problems he has, each one of which I judge to be disqualifying, including approach to: immigration, Muslims, women, fraud, the military, the world economy, identifying allies, international commitments, Russia, Crimea, Syria, refugees, bankruptcies, abusing workers, civil discourse, the Pope, religion in general, honesty, integrity, taxes, ignorance … 

Horse-whip the bully. I understand that sounds like a joke, but I have been searching in my mind for the modern and culturally appropriate equivalent, for months. I think that when people’s minds and hearts sink into the gutter, there a limited number of familiar options. Beauty shocks some people into wonder and awe, but Trump has surrounded himself with gold mirrors; shocked by beauty for a moment, he will try to buy it the next. Ditto love and sex.  A desert experience: that’s not likely either, because he’s not fond of silence; look what he did in Las Vegas. God is not limited to our familiar categories; who knows what might happen? But the only familiar category left for rescuing the bully that I can think of is devastating pain and suffering. I think he would do well to contract cancer and break some bones, then get nursed back to health by Muslim and Latino doctors and nurses. Or some such. Can we push him into treatment? For his sake and our own?

The gender gap. Nate Silver’s map shows a shocking divide in the nation: if men voted without women, Trump would win decisively (350-188); if women voted without men, Hillary would win decisively (458-80). Why? There are numerous factors at play, but surely one of them is that women resent sexual assault, and men might be more casual about the problem. But why is that? I don’t mean to sound like a complete dinosaur, but is chivalry really that dead? Okay, it probably is; but what will take its place? (Or: what has taken its place?) In large part: more independent women. I should support that. Do I? Do I?

Also: if men decided the election Trump would win. If pro-lifers decided the election, it would be Trump versus a handful of unknowns (sorry); and I think he would win in a landslide. That’s a scandal. That’s painful to face. Trump has solid support among the disenfranchised downwardly mobile (who place their trust in a lying & cheating but glib & skillful fraud), and anti-immigration folks (some racist, some not), and white supremacists, and pro-lifers. What are we doing in that coalition?

Enter Father Pavone. He’s not alone in saying that pro-lifers should support the damn-fool-bully, but he claims that he is speaking for the Church – for pro-life priests. That’s mind-bendingly wacky. But he did get me thinking. How many pro-life groups support Trump? How many opt for silence, especially if they have 501(c)(3) status? It’s silly to ask how many support Clinton: that’s an easy zero. But why? I understand the history of it, but it isn’t logical. If pro-lifers can support Trump to avoid Hillary, then they can with greater logic support Hillary to avoid Trump. I am completely convinced that Trump is far worse than Hillary in many many ways – including that he would drive abortion UP, not down. Pavone convinced me to face the binary choice. But I think his choice is inexcusably stupid.

Trump will lose – thanks to women, no thanks to men among whom chivalry is dead and sex is a game. Trump will lose – no thanks to pro-lifers. I can’t stand that.

How bad is the rot in the pro-life movement? When I have tried to explain how Trump will drive abortion up (abusing women, eugenics, and dismissing refugees), I have mentioned a detail of the global migration crisis: there are about a million pregnant women on road each year – desperate refugees. You know how many pro-lifers have sat up and said, “Whoa! To heck with the men, but I gotta help pregnant women!” In general, pro-lifers are responding to Trump with greater determination and commitment than they are responding to a million pregnant refugees.


Sometimes blindness is due to accident or congenital difficulty. But sometimes it’s just a bad habit.