If there is anything this election is doing it’s bringing certain fundamental differences in the way people think into sharp focus.
Some of the issues that illustrate what I’m talking about.
One is the question of Trumps alleged history of sexist remarks, including what is called fat-shaming these days. He apparently told a Miss Universe contestant that she needed to lose some weight. He wasn’t subtle.
Said contestant was once involved in a plot to murder a judge and allegedly bore a child to a drug lord but fat-shaming!
Hillary on the other hand has a long record of supporting women’s issues.
She is also married to a man who has been credibly accused by quite a number of women of unwanted groping and rape. At least one, Juanita Broaddrick has claimed Hillary behaved towards her in a way she thought was threatening, presumably to insure her silence.
Others Hillary dismissed as “bimbos,” “narcissistic looneytoons,” and “trailer trash.”
Another issue, taxes.
Media is all a-twitter with revelations that Trump may have dialed his taxes down to as little as zero through the bankruptcies of a few of his companies and other provisions of the tax code.
The Clintons however have done the same through the establishment of an allegedly charitable foundation which maintains that official status by setting aside a pittance for charity from their enormous income from favor-seeking donors. But it’s technically a charity.
What Trump did was perfectly legal, albeit unpopular these days.
Judge Learned Hand (1872-1961) said, “Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.”
It is interesting how many people react to that quote with mixed shock and scorn, yet cannot say what is scandalous or wrong about it. Better still, ask them how much they tipped the federal government when they last paid their tax bill, if they did pay any income tax that is.
Yet another.
I recently posed a question to an academic who is a Hillary supporter (almost a redundancy).
How do you think the Clintons went from “practically broke when we left the White House” in Hillary’s words, to a personal fortune estimated at somewhere between $100 and 200 million?
He answered that he didn’t know but however it happened it was better than Trump’s inheritance.
Well yes, Trump inherited money from his father, i.e. his father freely gave his son money that was his to give.
Trump used this fortune to build tangible things such as hotels and casinos. The former are out of my price range and the latter not to my taste, but it’s his money not mine.
The Clintons sold access to and favors from an ex-president and then-current Secretary of State – but magic words “public service.”
And there I think, is the difference.
Let’s step outside the election shenanigans for a moment and consider something.
By now many readers are probably thinking I’m about to accuse Clinton supporters of hypocrisy.
But what if it’s not hypocrisy at all? What if it’s not just political tactics?
What if for a substantial number of people in this country, words are far more important than deeds, gestures more important than sound policy, stated intentions more important than results?
We’ve seen a generation of students demand safe spaces where they can hide – from words!
We’ve seen people who believe magic words such as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” or “homophobic” have such power they must be accepted uncritically, without proof.
We’ve seen a sitting president and one who would be president say “Islam has nothing to do with terrorism” as if saying it makes it true.
Our fat happy country has enemies who are men of deeds. How will we fare when our rulers are men of words?