I used to have a campaign “Hack.” I mean that in the best sense of the word.
I believed diligently in most candidates I worked for, some exceptions in my political career when I did not know better or the situation was more of a “lesser of two evils” choice. I was willing to do just about anything to win my candidates, because I truly believed it to be a matter of good versus evil. I am no stranger to the tactics of that kind of scorched-earth campaign that is common in high-level campaigns: a falling victim in the last days of an expedition; Late Friday night bury the bad news; Chase down his opponents with a video camera in hopes of capturing them in their worst way; Searching for an adversary’s tax returns, vote records, property tax evils disturbances. All these things have been part of political campaigns as long as I’ve been around them (which is, unfortunately, a long, long time).
As the years pass, either I have become more mellow and nastiness has become less tolerant, or politics has become meaner and nastier. I think it’s a later point. Politics has become a place where there is no tolerance for common ground, no point for compromise and the acceptance of good in a political opponent.
When Barack Obama first announced his candidacy for the presidency, I suspected that the majority of voters in this country would elect a black person. When I found out that his middle name was Hussain, I was sure they would not. I thought that, for many voters, having a middle name that sounded Muslim (especially a few years after the 9/11 attacks) would be all excuses for which he was required not to vote.
Cartoon on President Donald Trump
The questions raised about his birth certificate (led by our current chairman) were inappropriate and were designed to question his legitimacy. In my view, he was an armor for those who just did not want to accept a black man as a candidate for the major party or as president. It was not okay to accept that he was a decent boy with a good family and a true American dream story. And when it came to his reasons for not voting for him, it was not enough that he was liberal, his views were that we disagreed with Republicans and conservatives and were not fully prepared for the work. People had to imagine that he was some kind of Manchurian candidate, who was employed by Muslims in the Middle East in an effort to lead America to Sharia law.
When then-candidate Trump was challenged to use rhetoric by Sen. John McCain, who was “taking out the craze,” Trump responded, not to attack McCain, looking for Medium or Trump’s brand To be out of touch with voters who are doing it. Of nationalism, but by attacking his patriotism and even his brutality. He said that McCain was “a war hero because he was captured. I like the people who weren’t caught,” suggesting that he would never have been shot if he was a real hero and war. An attempt was made to curtail his actions as a prisoner of. It is simply a fact that McCain’s actions were nothing if not heroic. But if you don’t like their politics, Trump allowed you to deny the fact.
Today we are seeing this in the debate over gun control in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Again and again, I hear people advocating gun control, saying that those who don’t support gun control “don’t care about children.” I know this is not true because I care deeply about children, but I have not seen a gun control measure that I think would stop school shootings, rounding up all firearms and seizing them Will be less than And I believe in the Constitution, which prevents the government from doing so. So the answers are less clear to me than they can show to others. At the same time, I’m trying to force a private company (Delta Airlines) by a public official (Delta Airlines) to partner with an interest group such as the National Rifle Association in exchange for tax benefits, as We have seen. This week. B
I think our public debate – on cable TV, in newspaper, on social media, on the floor of the US Senate and House of Representatives, in our living rooms and, yes, in our campaigns – would benefit from dialing up extreme rhetoric To make an honest effort to see from a different perspective. Here is a guide to get us started:
- “I am a pro-life” does not mean “I hate women and want them all to be barefoot and pregnant.” This may mean that you actually believe that an unborn child is a life and has the rights that we as a civilized society are bound to preserve.
- “I am a supporter” does not mean “I hate children.” This may mean that you are genuinely concerned about women and young girls who are forced into a life they did not plan or choose and that their rights are being violated for something that Not a viable life yet.
- “I believe in gun control” does not mean “I hate guns, hunters, sportsmen, and the Second Amendment.” This may mean that you have a genuine concern for the safety of our communities in a society that has become indifferent to violence, has many with mental illnesses and having so many weapons readily available means that our children and our Loved ones are sitting ducks.
- “I believe the Second Amendment” does not mean “I do not care about children and I find school shootings acceptable.” It also does not mean that “I am being bribed by the NRA.” It may actually mean “I believe in the Second Amendment, which states that ‘a well-regulated militia, being necessary for the protection of an independent state, violates the right of the people to keep and bear arms Will not done.” People may consider what the Second Amendment means, is it still appropriate in 2018 and does it cover all types of weapons. But this is a debate for a constitutional discussion, not a legislative one, as far as I can tell.
This discussion can take place on almost every controversial issue we are facing today: tax cuts, border security, immigration, trade, the list goes ahead. But as long as we remain firm on our opinion and refuse to entertain any other information, the debate will still continue and so will our country.