Let me say from the beginning that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter. There are too many of her policy ideas that I just don’t believe in and am pretty sure the government cannot afford them nor be held responsible for providing them. I am also very cautious about putting former president Clinton anywhere near the White House for a variety of reasons, none of which has any bearing on what I want to share here.
There are news reports and photos from yesterday in Lewiston ME where Senator Clinton was campaigning. At a National Guard armory, there is a photo of Mrs. Clinton wiping a tear from her eye after hearing a story told to her by a guardsman. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to assume that the story is not a happy one and may well be worthy of shedding tears.
There is no getting away from the notion that a president – as “leader of the free world”, as commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, as the one who is now and will in the near future stare down rogue chiefs of state and terror leaders around the world – cannot weep. It is perceived as a sign of weakness especially by those who, like I, do not want Hillary Clinton to serve as the next president of the United States. You will just have to trust me when I say that Senator Clinton’s gender is irrelevant in my consideration.
Let’s be real, though, and give Senator Clinton a break. She’s already stuck with the “iron lady” tag (as well as a few other names that are not family-friendly) and she has been accused of many things not least of which is lack of compassion, but I think we are opposing her for all the wrong reasons.
I don’t agree with her policy statements or assessments, but I cannot – will not - stand against her for shedding a tear for a US soldier. I cannot see what is going on inside her head, and I am in no position to see or judge the condition of her heart. So I say to all who have a conscience: give her a break. She may well be all the things she has been accused of being and more, but she is still a human being worthy of such consideration. She is also a sitting US senator. If we want to teach our children how to respect our institutions, we must also teach them to show respect for those who serve the nation in such capacity.
Give her a break, please. If we must say something about Hillary Clinton, let it be said in prayer. It will go a lot further and will serve a far more noble cause.
8 comments:
"Give her a break!" Why? Why should anyone give her a break? Given her long track record, is it at all possible for any rational person to accept at face value anything she says or does? It is exceedingly unlikely that she does anything without at least considering how it will affect her politically. She is without credibility and is completely unworthy of trust. We may wish the best for her but to give her the benefit of the doubt is simply foolish.
Thank you for your comments, Earl, and I have to say that I don't entirely disagree with what you said. However, you missed my point. I was not defending her on any level; I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of other legitimate areas in which to disagree. There is no need to point out that she is capable of shedding tears and trying to make that alone an issue of any significance.
It's ok to disagree with her and refuse to vote for her. It is not OK, however, on any level to attempt to do her harm regardless of her actions in the present or in the past or based solely on your own personal perceptions.
Why give her a break? If you cannot give her any latitude for simply being human, then respect the institution she represents and its constitutional authority. Help to teach the next generation that this "politics as usual" mindset is sub-human, degrading, and less that what Christ would ask of us.
Everything you point out - and more - are only a few of the reasons why I will not cast a vote in her favor. But I will not degrade myself by offering my perceptions and opinions as "fact".
Wishing to treat others as I would like to be treated is not what I would consider to be "foolish" behavior.
Be well.
Michael
Thank you for your post and for the privilege of response.
With respect, Clinton lives and breaths the world of politics. As she has no record of emotionally expressing sympathy for anyone and as she has no record of support for the military and its personnel, her tears in the context of a conversation with a serviceman are at least curious.
To hold this opinion need not be predicated upon trying to do her harm. Her own extensive record of behavior and speech form the basis of that opinion.
One can respect Congress as the institution envisioned by our Founding Fathers. But as it currently stands, to respect either the House or Senate as currently led requires on the part of any thoughtful person a fundamental and unconscionable denial of personal principle and common sense that is morally unacceptable.
There is nothing new about a "politics as usual mindset." What is new is that a limited number of dominant media outlets no longer control the public conversation. Politicians are now forced to a higher level of accountability by their constituencies. Though deplored by some this mindset is not "subhuman, degrading." It is the nature of political debate in a free society. For good or bad, let that debate continue unrestrained by any conventions such as civility, custom, etc.
We are repeatedly reminded that ours is a secular society no longer predicated upon Christian values. In her campaign Clinton has not at any point aligned herself with or made reference to Christian faith or values. In her conduct toward and treatment of rival candidates and opposition political groups she and her spokespersons (cp. Bill, etc.) have spoke and acted with a level of anger and vitriol that is as extreme as the so called "right wing conspiracy" which she once posited as the great threat to our nation. That anyone in these groups should be reticent to believe anything she says or does is understandable. That anyone in these groups would distrust or even disbelieve anything she says or does is perfectly understandable.
Granted that none of the above will reflect what Christ would ask of us. And as a point of fact, he did not request it. He commanded it. Thus treating others as we would want to be treated is not optional. And herein lies the problem. There is a tension between being citizens of this nation and subjects of Christ our King, a tension that is not easily resolved.
Well stated, Earl. As I previously stated, I can't (and won't) try to defend Sen. Clinton or any other ambitious politician. Regardless of party affiliation, I consider them all highly suspect especially when they use their current office (for which they spent millions to acquire and for which they are being paid, whether they are working or not) to gain another. I don't like the choices at all as they currently stand.
Come Judgment Day, however, none of us will be asked to account for Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton or any other; it will be our time alone, and we will be judged according to our own accounting.
I also don't think that allowing for respect of the institutions and those who serve require us to negate or compromise our principles. I am an abortion OPPONENT, and I cannot vote for any who support abortion. Stopping abortion, however, is a much bigger issue than man can take on. I have finally reached a point where I can believe that these who support such a thing have been led into darkness. I disagree on a most profound level, but none of this means that I have a moral obligation to cut into them or challenge their hearts publicly. I can and should challenge the policies but not the person(s).
For my way of thinking, this "politics as usual" mindset by which we attack the person has allowed the policy development process to deteriote because we lose our focus on what matters, and soon the legitimate issue is no longer an issue at all.
Regarding politicians in general "trust but verify" seems to be the best policy. This is true regardless of party affiliation as conservatives are not the only ones who have found that once elected a candidate can develop a tin ear for the concerns of constituents once lauded as respected and valued.
Come Judgment Day the utter waste of everyday politics as well as many other trivial pursuits will be demonstrated. There all will discover that eternal residency is based only on a personal relationship with Christ. Thankfully in that regard he will be the sole determiner of our status.
To respect the institution apart from those who compose it requires a leap of the imagination that is at minimum monumental. For example, during the Dark Ages one was told to respect the office of the priest or even the Pope regardless of how outrageous might be the conduct of the occupant. This was clearly a logical impossibility. Respect for the institution could only be restored through legitimate conduct by the occupants. Nothing less is required for public respect to again return to Congress.
Abortion, the right to keep and bear arms and privacy, these are just a few of the myriad of issues by which many people are deeply moved. Issue advocacy can very often involve the expression of moral judgment. When an individual is closely aligned with either side of an issue, to address that issue will at times involve moral judgment touching upon persons.
To avoid "politics as usual," policy development would be better conducted in the quiet reflection of a closed door committee meeting. But ours is a participatory democracy. Though messy and unpleasant our democratic process is superior in product to that of anything that could conceivably result from a think tank of policy wonks
Well stated, Earl.
This is your site. If I do not agree with your post, it is enough for that to be said. My response went beyond that and I apologize.
No apology is necessary. I've very much enjoyed the exchange, and I appreciate your input.
Be well.
Post a Comment