Clinton Supporters: Tell me why. Without referencing Trump. Consider this a 101 course.
This is not an argument thread. This is a listening thread. I'll try to restate what I hear in my own words so that I can understand. If I get that wrong (and I probably will!), do let me know.
Some ground rules:
1. First and foremost, be civil. I'm the arbiter, and will delete without warning and ban if necessary.
2. If you're not a Clinton supporter, feel free to sub. And then listen.
3. If you are a Clinton support, tell me why and do so without referencing Trump. Preferably without referencing any republican.
Good example:
Supporter: Clinton is great because she'll be strong against the ruskies!
Me: I hear you saying that Clinton will stand against Russia in a pro-US fashion. Do I hear you right?
Bad example:
Supporter: Clinton is great because Trump sold us out to the Kremlin!
Me: You mentioned Trump. Please restate without mentioning the candidate, preferablly no republicans.
Ugly Example:
Person A: You should die. You hate America.
Me: BANNED!
I reserve full rights to delete or close this thread at any time, for any or no reason. And to ban anyone who doesn't follow these rules. I've got this in a collection right now, we'll see if that works.
Oh, and Trump supporters? I've got one for you, too:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+WilliamNichols/posts/J4CFJ1PWyW3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hillary really knows how to get things done in government. She's way more liberal than any nominee in my life. She has a history of doing her job really well. She's very smart. She has a history of fighting for disadvantaged people in my country, ever since she was young.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am so happy that I'm gonna vote for the first female president after just voting for the first black president.
Robert Bohl I hear you saying that Clinton is smart and liberal, and a worker. You seem to like that she is a woman, and that she fights for people facing an uphill battle. I think you are pleased with voting for "minorities" -- that is, women and African Americans. Do I hear you right?
ReplyDeleteYup.
ReplyDeleteRobert Bohl That's great, glad I understand. A couple of follow up questions:
ReplyDelete1. How do you reconcile her being liberal with her hawkish tenancies and ties to Wall Street?
2. Its pretty well documented that she's worked for the poor and less privileged since at least Arkansas as first lady, so that's pretty clear. Why is that important to you?
3. Why is it important to you to vote for women and African Americans? Shouldn't we vote for the most qualified person regardless of status?
[ As an aside, sure, I've got answers to these. I'm inte tionally asking the same sort of questions I would in the Trump thread, if anyone ever shows up there. But, apparently, I can't get any of them to come out of the wordwork. This took 20 minutes, that's been up for _hours. ]_
I'm not American, so my vote don't count.
ReplyDeleteBecause paradigmatic for half the country.
Mo Jave I hear you saying that you don't get to vote in America, because you aren't one of our citizens. If memory serves, you are a neighbor to the north and subject to Her Majesty's Patience.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure, but I think I hear you saying that electing Hillary will be great for half the country -- namely, the half who have never seen a member of their gender elected as president. Do I hear you right on all that?
Yes, but you've understated it.
ReplyDeleteI used 'paradigmatic' with real intentionality there. Electing a woman as president fundamentally changes the very paradigm of what is in the realm of possibility for women - especially in terms of leadership and achievement, and the value of that alone is ginormous.
Its value as such stands regardless of what kind of president she is. Her presidency will invariably be maligned and side-eyed because sexism just as Obamas has been because racism (which is to say that there is criticism because sexism/racism and criticism because performance, and these can be independent of each other, or together). I hope she'll be great so that her influence will be positively paradigmatic in many other dimensions too.
And I'll change my original statement: it's not just paradigmatic for half the country, it's paradigmatic for all the country, and more.
And more, and (though I don't like this more often than not) her being elected in Murica also means things elsewhere in the world.
Mo Jave OK. I hear you saying that the fact that she is a woman will blow away the glass ceiling in a real and meaningful sense. Furthermore, that this will not only show women that they can be President (and, therefore, basically anything), but that it will also show men that women can be President, which'll have positive effects at reducing misogyny in the US and, through our cultural influence, the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteThis is independent of her positions or capability -- that is, these things would happen even if she were conservative and unable to perform the duties of the office. Not that that is the case -- but that the changes she'll make in the world are independent of her actions and based on her gender.
Do I hear you right?
You do, Mister. :)
ReplyDeleteInteresting rhetorical approach.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that I feel like being eloquent and stuff but here goes...
She's a career politician who knows how the system works and can get things done. Being a career politician has downsides such as being close to lobbyists, or a long track record that can be used against you, but on the whole I think knowing the system is the best way to work in it. She's not a great candidate to tear the system down, but as that is not happening, she's a great candidate to work inside it.
She's strong on civil rights in general, she's pro choice, she's supportive of minorities (even if she had some less great stances in the past her current ones seem decent to me).
For the most part her issues either don't bother me, or bother me less than the things I care about (I'm super socially liberal). The e-mail thing... whatever. Benghazi, a tragedy but it's not her doing(and in fact the republicans bear more blame than her for cutting funding to protect the embassies). The Lewinsky stuff (and any other side women) doesn't mean anything about her; she could have stayed with him for political expediency, or because they really love each other and moved past it, or because they have an open marriage but don't feel they can admit that. None of which means she is weak. I do find her wall-street ties a little troubling, but not enough to outweigh the issues I care more deeply about. And she doesn't make me fear for my safety... that's a plus.
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteSome natural follow up questions:
1. Would a neophyte conservative have the same support from you? For example, what'd you think of Palin when she ran against the President for VP?
2. Are there any other positions a woman could hold that would have the same effects? We've had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, a woman President in television, and Marissa Meyer is COO of facebook. Do these, individually or cumulatively, have the same positive effect?
I think I know the answers to these questions, but I gotta ask.
Matt Johnson Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI think the last is maybe a reference to the republican candidate, so I'm going to ignore it. Its not blatant, but I think you were trying to skirt the rule there.
If I hear you right:
-- She can get things done.
-- The system won't be torn down, so you like that she is an insider as it means she can use it.
-- She's strong on civil rights, and you don't hold her racist positions in the 90s against her.
-- Email, Benghazi, and Lewinsky aren't things you care about, so that gains no traction.
-- Despite this, her ties to Wall Street are problematic.
Do I hear you right?
Heh, sort of more or less. Though I kind of feel taking away the context the way you have is painting them in the worst possible light... it doesn't feel like an entirely neutral boil-down.
ReplyDeleteRegardless. If the lat is to close to the edge, then try this "The Democratic platform hasn't been one of fear and hate, it's been one geared more towards looking forward with hope."
I'd change "don't care about her racist policies" with "I feel she's changed on previously troublesome positions, as many people have needed to do.
I suppose the no traction thing is true. But for instance, I care about the Benghazi issue, but her roll in it has been shown to not be problematic...
Matt Johnson Its really interesting to me that you perceive that my restatement is cast in a negative light. It isn't intentional, but perhaps I was too quick.
ReplyDeleteIf I hear you right, you're saying that her past racist mistakes are ones that she has put behind her and she does not hold the same positions. That her views have changed with experience over the decades that she's been in the public light. I'd say that a lot of her positions have changed -- not only on crime, but pretty obviously on marriage equality.
And, sure, that Benghazi is more about her political opponents than her.
Is all of that closer to your view?
Yes.
ReplyDeleteWilliam:
ReplyDeleteShe's more hawkish and closer to Wall St. than I'd like, but I said she was the most-liberal candidate in my life, not that she's as liberal as I like. She's a mainstream Democrat. Just a more-liberal one than I'm used to.
Her having a history of working for the less-fortunate shows me she means her rhetoric.
There's value in the symbolic nature of marginalized people being voted into power. And value in the perspective of marginalized people being brought to governance.
(I didn't expect to have to explain myself!)
[ See, this is how you can ask questions to understand. Unfortunately, my Trump thread has gotten absolutely zero traction. So, I'm pretty much just inquiring into the beliefs of people who have similar beliefs to my own. ]
ReplyDeleteRobert Bohl Follow up questions to help make your positions clear. Same as I'd ask of a Trump supporter. And, well, if they ever show up, evidence that I really do ask follow up questions to understand.
ReplyDeleteOh! That was for me!
ReplyDeleteGreat questions.
For your #1: I think it's funny/odd to think of it as 'my support'. When I support a candidate, I at the very least can vote for her, if I actually really am behind her I would put up signage, donate, campaign, etc. As a Canuck I can't won't do much over here but observe.
That said...gender is by far not the only factor I use when selecting a candidate. It is, however, a significant factor that I use when the race is narrowed down to a band less influencing than the influence of that paradigm.
For example, in the race for Palin & McCain I believed neither would be good news for America or the world, and so yes, I would have supported Palin as the pick for VP (and despite the fact that I hated her politics, I found myself challenging Dems of both genders in her defense due to the sexist-lens criticisms that were being hauled out at the time). But! Had she been Repub. Presidential candidate then the paradigmatic thing for Obama was just as big or bigger as the paradigmatic thing for Palin so that consideration falls out.
Plus, I am very left of American politics (even of the Dems, which are often considerably more right than the Canadian main right Progressive Conservative party) and Obama's politics seemed more reasoned and accessible to my spectrum than the candidates in many a year (and seemed by far more able to be rational and accessible to co-operation with Canada on Security, Trade and Borders than the Bush regime) so politics do play a big part.
In the end, I look at the issues and the candidates and evaluate them, but I think I see the systemic capacity for change of an individual as a leader as being much smaller than others tend to assess it at. In conjunction, I assess the systemic capacity for change from that paradigmatic shift as much bigger than others do, and so weight it more heavily than is probably common.
And to your other question,: They all count. Everywhere there is marginal or no representation, breaking those barriers adds to shift. I don’t think getting to equal representation of representatives or business leaders or such would somehow substitute for the presidential thing though. Each restriction is a limitation, and each has to be broken.
Her preferred mode of interacting with voters seems to be the "listening tour." So she goes out, takes copious notes about what people want and need, then goes back to an office, organizes and cross-references the notes, and tries to figure out "so how can we, as a society, make these things happen?"
ReplyDeleteThat seems like a great method to me. It speaks of a politician who sees society as a joint creation, and sees the job of making it serve people (rather than simply sustaining itself) as the role of a leader.
She clearly believes she can make a difference in the way I believe "water is wet."
Thanks, Mo Jave ! I appreciate the patience; these are intentionally 101 questions. I know your lens is one that favors representation.
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI hear you saying that you like that she listens to other people, in particular the governed, before making decisions. That you like that she looks for consensus and for ways to use government to improve society. Is that right?
Yes, but also that the consistency of how often she chooses that method convinces me of how sincerely she believes that it can work.
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch So here's a question: Why do you think it is a good thing for a politician to ask questions, rather than to, when speaking uncharitably, know her own mind? That is, why do you think it is a good thing to look outside for guidance rather than your own?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't an entirely fair question, I admit. But, it is the sort of question that gets asked of HRC quite frequently.
William Nichols: Are you able to formulate a fair question in the same vein?
ReplyDeleteI don't have very much to say in response to a question that reads (to me) as "why is it good for someone to listen to the experience and insights of others, rather than assuming they have nothing further to learn?"
Tony Lower-Basch I'm not sure! It'll take some unpacking.
ReplyDeleteI think this does come down to an important difference in political philosophy. At its extreme, this is trusting your own conscience versus trusting that of others. The US has struggled with this since the beginning: elitism versus democracy. A republic versus a democracy. Elected leaders for a short time versus elected leaders for life.
I don't know the answer to that, in all honesty. I'd guess the right answer is somewhere in the middle, so maybe it is similar to a virtue in the Aristotelian sense. In which case, maybe the question is: Why do you think HRC's constant asking questions and modifying her positions and goals based upon the will of the governed is near the virtuous mean?
William Nichols: You have departed violently from anything I ever said or intended. If you want to assert that what you're now talking about is logically linked to what I said, you will need to argue that assertion in order to convince me.
ReplyDelete