This has been, quite possibly, the most contentious election season in recent memory. Few candidates have been quite as reviled as the two major-party choices staring down voters in this presidential race, and no doubt that's contributed to the discord and political fatigue quite a bit. (And believe me, not many things will cause you as much political fatigue as working in talk radio.)
But beyond even that, I can't recall a presidential race that has engendered this level of venom in so many people, nor one that has torn as many friendships apart as this. Which is a concept I just cannot wrap my head around, as I've never been one to consider that an option. One of my best friends in this world is about as Republican as they come. Another, a straight-up libertarian. And we argue and debate about everything politically, and disagree on a good portion of it. Usually at the bar, usually over a beer or two. And yet, we're able to leave it at that and still have fun hanging out. It doesn't carry on past that conversation, it doesn't leave anybody with anger, resentment, animosity, whatever. (It also doesn't leave anybody's mind changed either, usually, but that's not the point.) Because contrary to what you read on Facebook, it is still possible to be friends with people with whom you disagree on things.
But that doesn't seem to be the case for many folks anymore. Between the Trump crowd arguing that anyone that doesn't wanna see real-life Biff Tannen as leader of the free world supports corruption, and the HuffPost thinkpieces about how it's totally okay to end friendships over politics because you're a better person than they are, it's all getting a bit ridiculous. Maybe it's the fact that in the past, these conversations didn't happen because it wasn't considered particularly polite to discuss politics and religion with everybody you met. Or maybe it's that there wasn't a Facebook, or any social media, with which to shout all your political affiliations and beliefs to the world with a single click.
Or maybe it's something to do with the choice faced this year between the two most polarizing presidential candidates in modern political history.
The seemingly obvious place to start is with Republican nominee Donald Trump, a man who prides himself on saying the worst possible thing at pretty much any time. But beyond the ridiculously offensive, insulting, and factually inaccurate statements he makes on a minute-by-minute basis, there's his charitable foundations's illegalities, housing discrimination, his fraudulent university, his bankruptcies, getting bailed out of his casino's debt through illegal means, his employing of undocumented immigrants while blaming them for everything that's wrong with this country, his money made off the backs of unpaid contractors, his illegal use of his charitable funds to pay his own legal bills, and oh, that time when he bribed a sitting attorney general not to prosecute his fraud university. And that's all before you get to his actual policy positions, whatever they happen to be that day. This week, they appear to be privatizing roads and the idea that climate change is BS... unless it threatens one of his business interests. Lest you think he's finally committing to staying on point, though, he did still find time in his most coherent major policy speech to date to threaten to sue the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and the media that report on the things he does.
In any other year, it would be hard to see Trump even having a chance at the presidency. Unfortunately, the Democrats found the one politician as hated by the right as Trump is by the left: Hillary Clinton, who's been the subject of a cottage industry since the 90's devoted to exposing every impropriety, real or imagined, that she's had even a tangential connection to. The number of scandals to her credit is staggering, but how many of them have any substance? Not as many as her opponents might think, but more than her supporters would like to admit. The fact that she made it out of the primary is truly a testament to her campaign team, or as you might know them, the DNC. There's the Clinton Foundation and it's seeming pay-for-play arrangements and other improprieties, which we can't prove with absolute certainty any "play" was involved, though there was certainly plenty of "pay" in a couple ways. There's the emails, the only thing of substance to come from four years of Benghazi hearings and the most damning of accusations against her. Though it looks as if the FBI has ended its investigation into this for good, there's still the fact that information that was classified on some level was found on this server, and that's still kind of a problem. And while her social and economic views are more agreeable to mine, the fact that several neoconservatives involved with the Bush administration have endorsed her is cause for some concern as far as foreign policy goes.
With candidates like these, it's not hard to see why voters are looking to other options. The problem is, those options aren't a whole lot better. In the early stages of the general election, when iit first appeared a Trump-Clinton matchup was inevitable, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson enjoyed something of a surge in popularity, portraying himself as the only reasonable guy running. Then, his "Aleppo moment" happened. Then a couple more. And since then, many of his public appearances have bordered on bizarre, to the point where his own vice president has all but endorsed Clinton. But if you put all that aside and look at his policies... those, like their proponent, are kind of a mixed bag. He's for all the civil liberties one could possibly have, but economically he's in favor of replacing the IRS with a national sales tax, which would be felt more by the lower and middle class. And he's a man of many contradictions: he wants to eliminate a number of federal agencies, but would have others pick up many of the same duties. He wants more transparency in government, yet supports the Citizens United ruling. He's a non-interventionalist that opposed war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he would not commit to opposing drone attacks in the Middle East. He believes human carbon emissions do have an effect on the climate, but not enough to do anything about it... but who cares, because eventually the sun is going to expand and engulf the Earth anyway.
Then there's Jill Stein, who has somehow been arrested more during her campaigns for office than either of the two major candidates, which is disappointing in a few different ways. True to her party, the environment is definitely a top priority; she's called climate change "a greater threat than World War II." And she's put her freedom where her mouth is there; the arrest I mentioned earlier came as she was protesting at the planned site of the Dakota Access Pipeline. She's also been the only candidate to support the implementation of instant-runoff voting, which in itself makes me want to vote for her out of principle. And as you'd expect, she's rather socially liberal as well. But, her economic policy isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. She's proposed forgiving all student loan debt through quantitative easing, which she says is a "magic trick that basically people don't need to understand any more about than that it is a magic trick." You can't make this stuff up. Needless to say, it's a bit more complicated than that. Between the magic tricks, the borderline 9/11 trutherism, the borderline anti-vaxxer stance, the belief that WiFi causes health issues and a stance on GMO's that certainly seems to run contrary to the opinions of much of the scientific community, you almost have to ask: "Are we sure she seriously has a medical degree from Harvard?"
Then there's the even more fringe candidates, from Evan McMullen, the independent Republican candidate whose sole purpose seems to be to win Utah; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party, the party that wonders what would happen if we got rid of that whole "separation-of-church-and-state" thing; Tom Hoefling of America's Party, which is even further to the right; about 20 different socialist candidates, and dozens of write-ins. If you're considering a write-in, take note that these are the only candidates that will be counted, so even if you're feeling the Bern or considering a protest vote for Cruz or Carson, just know that your vote literally will not count.
As if having to pick the lesser of
For one example, look no further than the case of Bill Clinton's supposed illegitimate child. A paternity test was done in 1999, and Clinton wasn't found to be the father, a fact that was even run by right-wing blogger and 30's film noir detective Matt Drudge. But now that story has resurfaced, and when one tries to remind those spreading that story that it was already disproven, the response is either to ignore the proof, or claim that the source of the debunking is biased against them, which creates an odd moment of irony when the Drudge Report is being accused of liberal bias. Then of course, there are the "body counts," which have been disproven a few times over. Of course, you also have the occasional stories about Trump's Russian ties which thus far have been more smoke than fire. But this has got to be the first election in modern U.S. history in which this many people believe a major presidential candidate is literally murdering political enemies, without a shred of evidence to support it.
And rehashing the conspiracy theories of the 90's is one thing, Inventing new ones is another altogether. Take this story, from a website calling itself "The Denver Guardian," claiming that an FBI agent in Walkerville, Maryland suspected of leaking Clinton emails had his home burned to the ground with he and his wife inside it. Sure, they say it was a murder-suicide, but Hillary is clearly behind this! Problem is, everything about this story starts to unravel when you look into it even a slight bit. For example, any record anywhere of any of these events happening. The link to local TV outlet WHAG linked in the story defaults to the front page of the station's website, which shows absolutely nothing about the story in question. A cursory glance of major news sources turns up nothing. The people in the story don't exist, and Walkerville isn't even a real city. Even the claim of the paper's very existence crumbles under the slightest bit of scrutiny: "Denver Guardian is Denver's oldest news source and one of the longest running daily newspapers published in the United States." Except that no, that would be the Denver Post, which is at least a real thing that exists. Its social media links go nowhere, and its address is a tree in a parking lot next to a vacant building in Denver. Man, the Keebler elves must really be hurting for work these days. And most of the site is a placeholder with no content, the standard hallmark of the fake news site.
Now I clearly should not have to devote this much space to proving one of these absurd pieces false. But people who should know better are still falling for them on a daily basis. I never cease to be amazed by how people can question the objectivity of any and every major news organization, yet fake websites like these pass the snuff test, And I'm not about to argue against checking your sources and doing research; Jayson Blair-type incidents do happen (or Mitch Albom, if you prefer), and it's not hard to find examples where the press aren't doing their job thoroughly enough, or are running with outright falsehoods (the Slate article about Trump's server and the Russian bank; the Fox News claim that Clinton was about to be indicted before the investigation was ultimately closed again). But we're now more than ever in a place where you can show up with documented evidence of a claim, and be dismissed because your facts don't line up with the preconceived narrative the other person has already formulated in their head.
This is where this election cycle has left us.
And it forces one to ask: Can we get a do-over on this whole thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment