Aren’t There Two Sides To Our Political Arguments?
In response to my post Optimism in the Face of Trump’s Victory, which admittedly forwards a liberal point of view, long-time reader Chaya asks, “Does being liberal imply that only your opinion is valid?” She goes on to point out: “The U.S. has a very serious check/balance system.”
Chaya: I know you meant this as a kind of rhetorical question, but it actually deserves an answer, albeit not the one you may have expected. If “being liberal” means fighting for human rights, humane treatment of prisoners and a free press, while fighting against corruption, the subjugation of women, and environmental catastrophe, then yes, I’d have to say yes, “being liberal” (in that sense) is the only valid opinion. Conversely, I see no validity whatsoever to what appears to be happening here in the U.S. at this point.
And yes, we have checks and balances, but in this case, there is no indication that they will act with sufficient force to keep us from many horrendous changes to our American way of life.
A great number of readers have suggested that we must hope for the best, or put our faith in God to turn this around. I don’t know. I tend to favor hard work, but I’ll admit I’m still too shell-shocked to be able to think clearly.
One writer has asserted that Trump never actually wanted to be president and was surprised when he was elected. According to that viewpoint, Trump will not be happy as president. His personal freedom will be greatly restricted by security concerns. Also, being president is a real job demanding hard work and long house to which Trump is not accustomed.
Another commentator referred to running for president as the current phase of his entertainment career.
It will be interesting to see whether the above are accurate.
Frank,
I think you are making the mistake of underestimating Donald Trump.
It a common mistake people always make when assessing ‘larger than life” personalities like Trump. It’s natural, but unwise, to invent reasons to deflate his impact. Trump’s pretty confronting, although he offsets this with a good sense of humour and the ability to be disarmingly self-deprecating.
There’s now doubt he can be intimidating. Naturally, there will be many( especially those with bruised ego’s) who will find fault with Trump.
Donald Trump can be very self disciplined, focused and hard working. He possesses an ability to quickly understand the essentials of any problem and seek effective remedies.
This can be a real asset in business, since despite the showy, bluster, he has no deep emotional commitment to any project. His ability to shut a failure down, or sell early, and move on, is a real asset in a developer.
How this ability translates to dealing with the sort of problems a President faces, is yet to be seen. Much will depend upon his choice of Cabinet.
We cannot accurately predict the future. I have merely stated some possibilities without making any definite predictions. We will have to wait to see what actually occurs.
You wrote, “Donald Trump can be very self disciplined, focused and hard working. He possesses an ability to quickly understand the essentials of any problem and seek effective remedies.”. If that were true, probably he would not have declared bankruptcy SIX TIMES! Nor would he have found it necessary to refuse to release his income tax returns since if he were really disciplined, etc., his income tax returns would surely reflect that.
Craig,
I think Chaya’s observation was very pertinent and considered.
The term “liberal” in a political context takes many guises. However, what I took from Chaya’s comment was that this is a time when everyone should reflect on the reasons behind different opinions held by others.
It’s little use preaching “liberal” idealism while ignoring the pain and insecurity being suffered by others.
When you say, ” the only valid opinion “, you cloak your claim in a vague definition of highly generalized objectives. The devil, of course, is in the detail. That’s where the discord occurs.
“Liberals” (in the American political sense) are apt to claim a ‘moral’ basis for almost every political action, thus putting them on the side of the angels and allowing all dissension or other ideas to be dismissed as ‘evil’ or wrong.
Naturally, this puts them at odds with all those who don’t share their narrow views, while alienating those holding other opinions. It’s the smugness of US “liberals”, that excuses them from listening, considering, or even regarding the rights of others that provokes such adverse reactions.
It’s understandable that you ” see no validity whatsoever to what appears to be happening here in the U.S. at this point”, since you seem to have no regard or consideration for the opinions of millions of your fellow American citizens, (including women) except to describe them as “poor slobs”.
I’m sure you don’t intend, or even realize, how arrogant that makes you sound ! How does dismissing the concerns of these citizens as unworthy or inferior, fit with your description of liberalism ?