I recently read an article about a woman, apparently with a large social media following, who expressed uncertainty about who to vote for in the upcoming Democratic primary.
I felt her pain.
What shocked me is what happened next. According to the story, from what I consider a reliable source, the woman was attacked by a slew of responses purported to be from Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Some were thoughtful, but a disproportionate number were vile. She was called a bitch and worse. My first thoughts were how could this be happening by the “good” folk? How was this any different from what the Republicans and our president do? Aren’t we supposed to be better: I was sick.
Reflection made me wonder if my initial reaction was correct. I realized there were at least three explanations for the response, not just the one I’d leaped at.
(1) This was truly carried out by Sanders’ supporters. If that’s the case, shame, shame, shame. Especially more so now since the race has narrowed.
(2) The response was orchestrated by some branch of the Republican hit squad under the perhaps correct assumption that Trump would have no trouble beating Sanders. I fear that may be a valid supposition, especially in view of Sanders’ remarks concerning Castro, even if there was some validity to them. They just weren’t smart. Because of them, many feel, if Sanders is the nominee, that Florida is lost. And if Florida is lost, so is the election. Then we would continue down the path of destruction of our representative democracy.
(3) The Russians or some other foreign power were behind the attacks. For the same reasons as listed in the previous point. I suspect they would love Trump to remain in office so they could continue to strengthen their presence in the Middle East, Europe and around the world. Because Trump is no match for the superior intelligence and cunning of our enemies. After all, he has great admiration for their despotic leaders.
I have no idea which of these scenarios is the truth, if any of them are. But I was struck by a common thread.
The success of any one of the three is dependent on the egos of the candidates and the narrow minded support of their followers. It’s the notion that only the candidate a person wants is acceptable. That there is no desire to support anyone else. That the good of the country is defined by one person only.
It’s easy to tear us apart when we have the expectation there can be no cooperation between those of opposing views. The threat is implicit that if Sanders is not nominated, his supporters won’t support who is. Thus the only path to victory is a Sanders nomination.
It’s just another manifestation of the splitting of our nation epitomized by the top man in Washington. Only this time it’s our team that’s responsible. We have become a nation where we can see only the small good we want, and not the larger good we need. And that larger good in this upcoming election is removing Trump from office.
So what do we do? It’s going to take significant moral character. The candidates, those still in the race and those who have dropped out, must make it clear that, no matter who wins the nomination, they will support him (sadly, as I write this it appears no woman has a chance). And every individual who loves our country must make the same commitment. We also must accept that all platforms expounded on the political trail have merit, and that, once the primary election is over, the party will work to find the best of them in a framework of mutual respect and willingness to give as well as take.
I have been impressed by a recent column by Thomas Friedman in which he recommends the nominee, well before the election, announce his vice-presidential pick and cabinet choices that include every one of his rivals for the nomination. If that doesn’t pull all possible voters towards a Democratic victory, I don’t know what will. Every voter would see his or her candidate’s positions are respected. Friedman offers suggestions for which individual would fill which cabinet seat. They make sense.
Indeed, it seems like a great idea. But questions concern me. Will the nominee have the sense to do this? Will those asked to fill a position accept? Are they strong enough to set their ambition, hurt feelings, and divisions aside, at least for a while, for the common good?
I hope so. Because otherwise I fear we will be crying together.
I felt her pain.
What shocked me is what happened next. According to the story, from what I consider a reliable source, the woman was attacked by a slew of responses purported to be from Bernie Sanders’ supporters. Some were thoughtful, but a disproportionate number were vile. She was called a bitch and worse. My first thoughts were how could this be happening by the “good” folk? How was this any different from what the Republicans and our president do? Aren’t we supposed to be better: I was sick.
Reflection made me wonder if my initial reaction was correct. I realized there were at least three explanations for the response, not just the one I’d leaped at.
(1) This was truly carried out by Sanders’ supporters. If that’s the case, shame, shame, shame. Especially more so now since the race has narrowed.
(2) The response was orchestrated by some branch of the Republican hit squad under the perhaps correct assumption that Trump would have no trouble beating Sanders. I fear that may be a valid supposition, especially in view of Sanders’ remarks concerning Castro, even if there was some validity to them. They just weren’t smart. Because of them, many feel, if Sanders is the nominee, that Florida is lost. And if Florida is lost, so is the election. Then we would continue down the path of destruction of our representative democracy.
(3) The Russians or some other foreign power were behind the attacks. For the same reasons as listed in the previous point. I suspect they would love Trump to remain in office so they could continue to strengthen their presence in the Middle East, Europe and around the world. Because Trump is no match for the superior intelligence and cunning of our enemies. After all, he has great admiration for their despotic leaders.
I have no idea which of these scenarios is the truth, if any of them are. But I was struck by a common thread.
The success of any one of the three is dependent on the egos of the candidates and the narrow minded support of their followers. It’s the notion that only the candidate a person wants is acceptable. That there is no desire to support anyone else. That the good of the country is defined by one person only.
It’s easy to tear us apart when we have the expectation there can be no cooperation between those of opposing views. The threat is implicit that if Sanders is not nominated, his supporters won’t support who is. Thus the only path to victory is a Sanders nomination.
It’s just another manifestation of the splitting of our nation epitomized by the top man in Washington. Only this time it’s our team that’s responsible. We have become a nation where we can see only the small good we want, and not the larger good we need. And that larger good in this upcoming election is removing Trump from office.
So what do we do? It’s going to take significant moral character. The candidates, those still in the race and those who have dropped out, must make it clear that, no matter who wins the nomination, they will support him (sadly, as I write this it appears no woman has a chance). And every individual who loves our country must make the same commitment. We also must accept that all platforms expounded on the political trail have merit, and that, once the primary election is over, the party will work to find the best of them in a framework of mutual respect and willingness to give as well as take.
I have been impressed by a recent column by Thomas Friedman in which he recommends the nominee, well before the election, announce his vice-presidential pick and cabinet choices that include every one of his rivals for the nomination. If that doesn’t pull all possible voters towards a Democratic victory, I don’t know what will. Every voter would see his or her candidate’s positions are respected. Friedman offers suggestions for which individual would fill which cabinet seat. They make sense.
Indeed, it seems like a great idea. But questions concern me. Will the nominee have the sense to do this? Will those asked to fill a position accept? Are they strong enough to set their ambition, hurt feelings, and divisions aside, at least for a while, for the common good?
I hope so. Because otherwise I fear we will be crying together.
RSS Feed