The Lessor of Evils: We've Made This Mistake Before

US History is littered with examples of our government working with the lessor of the evils to get rid of the greater of the evils.  The thought being that in order to dismantle the perceived largest threat, you may need to create allies with those you normally wouldn't.  A 22 year old Saddam Hussein was a paid by the CIA to kill the then President of Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden was part of the Mujahideen where he and other militant leaders were trained by US funded through Pakistani armed forces, all in an attempt to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviet Union in their long-standing war.  The US supported the Batista Dictatorship which ultimately led to the Cuban Revolution and the rise of Fidel Castro.  And so on and so on.  Whether it was the Contras in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, or Chiang Kai-Shek in China, the US has routinely used the "lessor of two evils" tactic.

I realize all of the examples above show the bad thing that can happen when the lessor of the evils turns out to be a greater evil.  I'm sure there are many examples where the lessor evil did what we needed and then faded into the background.  However, our success record should be suspect enough to at least give you pause.

So what you ask?  Why does this matter at all?  Now enter the 2016 Presidential Election.  It's not hard to see how wrong Trump is as a candidate, world leader, or even human being.  Even those who will vote for him will tell you they don't support him as a person (I used to be one of them).  On a daily basis the media is showing new examples of his wrong-doings and providing ample examples of why "Anyone But Trump" is a logical conclusion.  And a great deal of the American public has accepted that argument and turned it's cheek to what could be the greater evil thinly disguised.  In an effort to completely destroy Trump, the media and much of America, has chosen to give Clinton a complete pass.  They have essentially wiped clean her suspect judgment around Benghazi.  They have taken at face value a sham of a process by the FBI around her potentially illegal use of a private email server (a use that would have landed virtually anyone else in the US in jail).  They have chosen to completely ignore a daily barrage of email releases from Wikileaks where it's been proven she manipulates the media and makes bigoted and elitist comments about virtually every social class and race.  HRC supporters turn a blind eye to how the DNC essentially undermined Bernie Sanders in an effort to ensure Clinton was the Democratic Nominee.  Clinton's comments about the women involved with her husband are totally ignored.  And believe it or not, something like 46 Clinton associates have been found dead under suspicious circumstances in their 3 decades of political power, yet that never seems to make the nightly news.

So many are so completely infatuated with the immorality of Trump that they've stopped noticing the potential evil in Clinton.  Now lest anyone think I'm encouraging you to vote for  Trump because I am not.  What I'm asking you to do is open your eyes.  Trump supporters have been forced to do so; they have no choice but to see him for who he is and make their decision accordingly.  In my case, I went from voting for Trump to deciding not to based on what I've seen recently.  But I fear Clinton supporters are so wrapped up in the Never Trump movement that they long ago stopped paying attention to who they have thrown their support behind.  Now maybe everything I mention above is just smoke and mirrors.  Maybe Clinton is no different than any other politician (by the way that alone should give you pause).  But what if she isn't?  If this were any other election where she was running against any other candidate, would any of what I mention above be relevant to you?

We tend to deal with the things directly in front of us because those are the things we perceive can do us the most harm.  Donald Trump is right in front of us and it's not hard to see the risk in him as the leader of the free world.  And the typical logic would state Hillary Clinton is not Donald Trump, therefore she must be the right choice in opposition.  But if the US had to do it all over again, would they have backed Saddam Hussein?  Would they have funded and trained Bin Laden and the Contras?  Would they have supported Batista and Pinochet?  In those cases the true evil was also right in front of them but were ignored because the known evil was more evident.  I would argue the very same risk is upon us in 2016.  In an effort not to elect the bad candidate we might just elect the evil one.

It Was Debasing Not Debating

The debate last night was well, interesting.  It felt like candidates on The Bachelor suddenly broke out into a debate.  At least one moderator spent more time arguing than simply asking questions and keeping things on track.  A former President was harshly attacked and he's not even running for President.  And the final question of the debate forced the candidates to say something nice about each other.  For the record, Clinton couldn't even do that although she came close enough by complimenting Trump's kids.

The three key points in the debate I'd like to discuss are the hot mic controversy, the Clinton emails, and the moderators in general.  Today I'm going to play arm-chair debater and tell you how I would have handled things had I been Trump, Clinton, or a moderator during the debate.  Of course I have the benefit of hindsight, no pressure, and what I say will only be read by 4 people instead of watched by millions.

TRUMP: HOT MIC CONTROVERSY

I didn't care for the way he answered the question.  Yes, he successfully got through it without further damage, but in my opinion he could have turned it into a opportunity.  He played the damage control card only and then went on the attack of Bill Clinton in an effort to show the hypocrisy of the Clintons.  I've never been a fan of the "Yeah I did it but what they are doing is worse" defense, so his entire tone on that set of questions fell completely flat on me.  Here's how he should have answered the question:

"Regardless of how long ago it was or the circumstances surrounding it, I said some very insulting, stupid, and demeaning things.  There is no way to defend or explain what I said, so I'm not going to even try.  Instead, I'm simply going to say I'm sorry.  I'm sorry Nancy O'Dell.  I'm sorry Arianne Zucker.  I'm sorry Melania.  I'm sorry to my family. And I'm extremely sorry to the American people who have put their faith for a better future in me and whom I severely let down.  I realize some people will not vote for me solely because of these statements, and while I wish that was different, I totally understand the reason why.  It's a great lesson to us all that what we say and do can always have an impact on us later in life and we must own up to those actions.  My hope is the American people look at more than just this issue when they cast their vote.  I hope they accept this apology and realize that even though I'm a flawed man, I still will be their defender of our Constitutional Rights.  I will be the one who is toughest on our enemies and will bring judgment to ISIS.  I will bring jobs back to our Nation and stop the constant flow of work overseas.  I will lower taxes.  I will defend the 2nd Amendment.  I will put a conservative like Justice Scalia back on the Supreme Court.  And I will leave the office with America in a better place than it was when I took it. So I first ask for your forgiveness, and if you can find it in your hearts to do that, then I now ask for your vote."

CLINTON: EMAIL ISSUE

It felt like Clinton did an equally bad job answering the questions about her email as Trump did about his words.  When she talked about doing things differently, it sounded more to me like doing things differently so she wouldn't have gotten caught.  She spent a lot of time minimizing her actions and never really acknowledging how many people view what she did and how she's been treated in the aftermath.  For someone who loves to say she's not part of the elite, on this issue she's been treated like royalty.  Richard Nixon lost his Presidency over a scandal and cover-up for less significant than than the email issue.  I think it would have been important for Clinton to at least help the voting public try to understand why she did it and why deleting 30,000+ emails looks really bad.  I'm not entirely sure what she could say to make things look better, but hoping the people believe she had 33,000 personal emails is a bit far fetched.  The success of her argument lies in the fact our highest law enforcement agency, the FBI, has formally cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  If I'm Clinton, I respond to every question with reminding everyone the FBI completely cleared her of any criminal wrong doing.  No matter how much Trump may want to talk about her poor judgment, the FBI has essentially said she did no wrong.  Every time she tries to explain herself she either comes across as arrogant or seems to imply we are dumb enough to buy her flimsy excuses.  Additionally, her facial expressions barely hide the fact she knows she got away with something a normal private citizen never would have.

THE MODERATORS: LEARN THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD

The definition of moderator is as follows:  someone who leads a discussion in a group and tells each person when to speak; someone who moderates a meeting or discussion

An alternate definition is: the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.

Both of those definitions seem to either explicitly state or implicitly imply an unbiased approach to the leading of a discussion.  Last night we saw both moderators, but particularly Martha Raddatz, seemed more interested in joining the debate than leading it.  Raddatz continually interrupted Trump, argued with Trump, ask follow-up after follow-up regardless of how he answered, and generally showed complete contempt for him as a person.  Now Trump probably deserves that from the majority of the free world, but Raddatz is there to MODERATE not PARTICIPATE.  She is not there to show her support for either candidate.  She is not there to make sure one candidate looks foolish and she's certainly not there to be part of the story.  She is there for 2 reasons only.

Reason 1:  Ask questions, including a follow-up if the questions is either not answered or the answer is not clear.
Reason 2:  Keep time and make sure a candidate doesn't run long.

That's a pretty simple list of job responsibilities to keep clear.  No matter what she feels, she needs to stay out of the debate and let the candidates spar with each other.  Want proof?  Trump was interrupted 26 times by Raddatz while Clinton was interrupted only 12 times.  That's 38 times she felt the need to insert herself into the conversation instead of just letting them respond on their own.  (Side note: lest we think this was just a problem last night, Lester Holt interrupted Trump 42 times in the previous debate)

Anderson Cooper wasn't much better either.  Over and over I heard him say something to the effect of, "Mr. Trump please don't interrupt her, she didn't interrupt you."  Why not just say, "Mr. Trump, please hold your comments."  Why was it so important for Cooper to continually compare Trump's behavior to Clinton?

Further, the moderators did a horrible job getting the debate off to the right start.  While they clearly needed to talk about Trump's hot mic issue and Clinton's email issue, leading with both set the standard this was going to be a bare knuckle brawl.  Would it have been so wrong to lead with something else?  Or if you lead with Trump's scandal, then get to other real issues right away before you get to Clinton's emails.  We were 30+ minutes into the debate before we got to an actual issue.  Additionally, the first social question from the public was another one about the hot mic issue.  And if that wasn't enough, Raddatz felt the need to augment the question with her own spin.  No other social question or question from the Town Hall attendees was augmented or adjusted by either moderator.

CONCLUSION

The losing participants in the debate were the moderators.  No one lost my trust more than them as the didn't play the very simple role they were asked to play.  Who lost the debate?  Probably all of us watching.  I don't think any of us learned anything new and we subjected the entire world to the circus that is this year's election.  I've watched every debate since I was 16 years old and this is the first time I was physically uncomfortable.  My like the election in general, I just wanted it to end.

Understanding vs. Character Assassination

I haven't blogged since 2010.  That's a six year hiatus and based mostly on this year's election, suddenly I feel compelled to come back and start writing again.  I suppose this election brings out different things in all of us, but from what I see most of those things are negative.  I think the most disappointing thing more me to see is how everyone is attacking each other...and I'm not talking about our candidates.  I'm talking about how intelligent, good, otherwise well-behaved adults are at each other's throats because of who they support or what they believe.  There is very little effort to have intellectual debates on the merits of each others views.  There is very little desire to try and understand different points of views to shape your overall opinion.  And there is zero understanding of people who have different motivations for how their vote will be cast.  We are a nation of people who live in glass houses paid for by the money we've made as professionals in the National Stone Throwing Association.

TWO THINGS CAN BE EQUALLY TRUE

An interesting thing happens any time new information comes out on either candidate.  There is a rush to social media so people can say, "See, your candidate is terrible."

The Republican narrative goes something like this: "What Trump said 11 years ago is terrible, but what he SAYS is no where near as bad as what Clinton DOES.  She's a witch and I don't mean a theoretical witch.  She's an actual witch, like Hermione but bad.  In fact, now that I think about it the entire Harry Potter series is an attempt by the liberal media to show the terrors that will befall us all if a crazy, egotistic older man with hair issues finally rises to power.  The evidence is everywhere.  You can't spell Voldemort without a T and of course Trump starts with a T.  But see, Rowling has it all wrong. Trump is more Dumbledore than Voldemort."

The Democrat narrative goes something like this: "If you have a mom, a wife, a daughter,a grandmother, a mother in law,  have ever known a female, have ever talked to a female, if you work with a woman, have a female dog (but don't call them a bitch, that's deplorable), have used the feminine gender in languages, have been near a ladies room, believe in the Virgin Mary, or used the letters S,H,E in consecutive order to spell a word then how could you possible support a man like Trump?"

You are trying to prove the quality of your choice by disproving the quality of someone else's.  I guess I understand it though.  When you have two significantly flawed candidates, it's always easiest to call out the flaws of your opposition instead of acknowledging the flaws in those your support.  But let's be clear, two things can be equally true.

When audio comes out showing the disgusting things Trump Has said, it doesn't mean Clinton is suddenly a saint.  She can still raise taxes, liberalize the Supreme Court, fail on foreign policy, be a habitual liar, and have shady business dealings.  She's the same career politician she was before the hot mic news broke.

When Wikileaks releases 1000's of emails or voice audio on the things Clinton as done, it's doesn't suddenly mean what Trump said is less important.  Trump still has no experience, will make the Supreme Court more conservative, has a history of saying inappropriate things, is not "Presidential", and could be a huge risk on foreign affairs.  He is the same career businessman and womanizer he was before the Wikileaks release.

A NATION DIVIDED

Many of us acknowledge how divided we've become as a nation on things like race, religion, beliefs, etc.  I hear many of you pleading for the country to come together, especially in times where the division is most visible.  You are SAYING  all the right things.  But in the case of this election, what you are generally DOING is the exact opposite.  People are verbally tearing into each other because they disagree on this election, and those are people who are friends with each other.  I'd love to see a study of unfollows/unfriends on Facebook directly after a political discussion on a post.

Unfortunately what I tend to see are people attacking each other instead of debating the actual issues.  I've jumped into a few "charged" discussions before and every time I've tried to insert facts and logic, the discussion abruptly ends.  When people say/post things that are not hateful rhetoric, but rather insightful information, there's almost never a discussion about it.  However, the minute you post something about Trump or Clinton themselves, then hold on for a shock and awe assault on your personal character.

WARNING.  WARNING.  WARNING.  We now interrupt this blog for a quick rant.  We'll return to the regularly scheduled rant in a moment.  
There are good and bad people who support both candidates.  Every single supporter of both candidates has sinned in their life.  Every single supporter of both candidates has done something in their life they regret.  Every single supporter of both candidates has said something offensive they'd like to take back.  And please, do not give me the line, "Yeah, but those people aren't running for President."  Well neither was Trump in 2005 and neither was Clinton when her husband was President.  I could probably just go through each of your Facebook or Twitter posts and find something offense, contradictory, or vulgar from every single one of you.

TRY TO UNDERSTAND

I think it's very important to at least try to understand the motivations behind someones support of a candidate.  I know it's easiest to just call them names and shake your head at how they could possibly support a womanizer in Trump or a liar in Clinton.  But I'd like to at least hope many of each candidate's supporters have good reasons for their vote.  I certainly know some support Trump because they are racist and want anyone who doesn't look like them to leave the country.  I know some support Clinton simply because she's a woman.

However, I'm going to hold on to the hope the vast majority of the voting public has deeper and more important reasons.  The balance of the Supreme Court is at stake with this election.  The winner of the election will essentially get to choose which direction the court swings.  This is not a 4 year decision.  The decisions of The Supreme Court last for years and years.  It's been 43 years since Roe v Wade and conservatives are still trying to get that overturned.  So when someone says they are voting for a candidate simply because of the Supreme Court nomination, that's a very valid reason.  That reason alone can trump (no pun intended) everything else the candidate has said or done.  The Supreme Court tacitly sets the laws of our very divided nation.

We have an incredible economic divide in our country.  Jobs are vanishing, either going overseas or being eliminated through automation.  Many hard working people are struggling in ways they never have before.  You Republicans, if you were in the ocean drowning, would you really care if it was Clinton who threw you the life vest?  Well many people are drowning in debt and they are looking to this next President as the person who will save them.  So if someone casts their vote for the candidate they best believes will turn around our economic divide, how can we possibly blame them for that vote?  To those people, their livelihood is far more important than the character flaws of the candidates.

And so on and so on.  Whether it's taxes, or gun control, or social rights, or health care, or foreign affairs, etc., it's very likely a voter cares far more about that one topic than they do about the person they have to vote for to represent that topic.

CONCLUSION

This is clearly a tough election.  While I have no evidence to support it, my guess is neither of these candidates would ever have been even nominated in previous years (well in the case of HRC we have the evidence).  Every candidate who has lost the General Election in the past 100 years probably would have beaten both Trump and Clinton.  And yet one of them is going to be our President.  That is a fact and no matter what amount of character assassination we lobby on their supporters, they have to vote for someone.  Don't buy into the sound bites on both sides.  Take the time to read into what they really support and the policies they intend to bring to Washington D.C.  Have real debates with your friends/family and not ones that turn into name calling and verbal abuse because of who they support.  Just because the candidates are flawed does not mean it justifies our actions to be just as flawed as them.

More Representative Than You Think

This year's Presidential election is unlike any most of us have ever seen.  A couple of fairly polarizing candidates who seem to bring out the worst (or at least most opinionated) versions of all of us (and 1 guy hardly anyone knows).  Some love Clinton, many hate Trump, but most of all I hear folks asking, "With all the people we have in America, these two are the best we've got?"  Well, I actually think Clinton and Trump (and Johnson) are far more representative of today's America than all of us are willing to admit.

The Social Media Effect
Imagine for a moment we took every post on Facebook over the past 4 years and averaged them out into a single profile of the typical post.  I believe it would be equal parts:

1. Boasting about our beautiful, intelligent, and incredibly above average children.
2. Bragging about the nice things in life we have.
3. Versions of our life that are slight to extreme positive exaggerations as compared to the lives we are actually living.
4. A variety of polite "Us vs. Them" posts innocently trying to convince "the other side" why what we believe is correct.
5. A serious of less than polite "Why the thems are not good people" in an effort to show everyone we have the solution to the world's most complex problems.

Now take a minute and read those 5 items again and think about whether that reminds you of anyone.

Anyone at all?

Still thinking?

Let me help.  What if I were to give you a few hints about each of the items above:

1. Eric, Ivanka, Donald Jr.
2. Planes, hotels, and high powered friends.
3. Worth billions of dollars (maybe), genius on his taxes (maybe), knows more than career US Military Generals.
4. Not all illegal aliens are bad, just the criminals.
5. Keep every Muslim out until we can figure out who is good and who is bad.

Got a little easier huh?  Of course I'm talking about Donald Trump.  I know most of us don't like to admit it, but our Facebook lives are generally full of the same type of rhetoric that comes out of the mouth of The Donald himself.  Now maybe ours is more politically correct.  Or maybe it's not as verbally harsh.  Or maybe it's not as brash, but it's hard to ignore the fact we tend to think, act, and verbalize in a far more similar way to Trump than we probably realize.  Maybe Hillary was right and we are a basket of deplorables.  

But wait, there's more.  If you think Facebook is bad, spend a few minutes on Twitter and the Trump similarities are even clearer.  Twitter created a brand new "Troll Nation" where people of all walks of life take great pleasure in publicly, yet anonymously, verbally abusing celebrities, politicians, and even friends.  We have even created sub-tweeting so we can be passive aggressive about calling out others without ever having to mention them by name.

Sound even more like Trump now?  But wait, there's more.

Hillary, the 30 Year Old (Politician) Spoiled Brat

We all know those parents whose kids can do no wrong.  From the time they were born until they leave the house, every mistake, wrongdoing, fight, bad grade, or general misconduct always comes with some sort of excuse.  What starts out "cute" as a baby turns into aggravating as a toddler, annoying as a teenager, and irresponsible as an adult.  Yet all along the parent continually makes excuses for the behavior.  Something along the lines of, "Well I know he/she isn't perfect, but he/she is not as bad as that baby/toddler/teenager/adult over there".  And no matter what their behavior is, they are still continually rewarded for doing their best, just showing up, trying real hard, or simply having good intentions.  

Enter HRC.  It seems no matter what she does there's always an excuse to show why her suspect behavior is really not all that bad.  Or if it is kind of bad, well at least overall she's not as bad as that evil Donald kid.  If collectively America was Hillary's parent, we've essentially raised a 30 year old politician who believes nothing she does is wrong, everything is justified, and by now she's entitled to the job she deserves.  The Hillary the Republicans dislike is essentially the political version of the kid they've probably raised.  

Gary "Participation Trophy" Johnson

Somewhere along the way we decided as a Nation that earning something was far less important than making our kids feel welcome and encouraged.  We decided to stop keeping score in youth athletic events.  We decided everyone should get a trophy at the end of the year no matter how well the team performed.  We decided to give out snacks after every game even if the kids were unmanageable monsters during the game.  We stopped using red ink to grade papers because it might be too harsh for the students.  We basically told our youth "Just show up and you'll be rewarded.  Hard work doesn't matter.  Your performance doesn't matter.  Your behavior doesn't matter."

Gary Johnson, and the Libertarian Party, are upset because he's being left out.  They believe he should be part of the process (namely the debates) essentially because "he showed up".  However, I'd like to know how he's earned the right to demand inclusion.  Where was he, or the Libertarian Party, over the past 4 years while the Democrats and Republicans were front and center?  Now I know some of you will say, "But wait, Gary Johnson is a career politician.  He was a Governor for goodness sakes!  He's earned his right!"  Kind of.  Sort of.  Maybe.  Not really, and here's why:

1. He was a Governor from 1994-2002.  Hardly recent.  Oh, and he was a Republican Governor, not a Libertarian.
2. He ran for President in 2012...wait for it...wait for it...as Republican.
3. When he didn't get anywhere near the nomination as a Republican, he switched over to the Libertarian Party...and promptly and massively lost in the General Election.
4. Did he then stay politically involved to help the country?  No, he went off to run a pot dispensary only to emerge a few months before the next General Election to give us priceless tidbits like Allepo, inability to name a global leader, and proclamations like "I won't smoke pot while running for President."

Now maybe I'm wrong, but that sounds a bit like the very child who doesn't deserve it, but who demands the Participation Trophy just because he showed up.

Conclusion

So if tens of millions of us are on social media acting like Trump.  And we are parenting tens of millions of kids who act like Hillary.  And we are coaching tens of millions of kids who want to be entitled like Gary Johnson, then can you explain to me again how these candidates aren't representative of the Nation we've become?  Just a thought.