I seldom post about partisan politics here, but as the election approaches I've been thinking a lot about the Presidential contest. I actively dislike both major party candidates and have been debating whether to even vote for President. I never had that problem before 2016. Sometimes I was authentically enthusiastic about a candidate — although the last time was long ago. Usually, I have had little difficulty discerning what seemed to me the lesser evil. Today, I encountered Lionel Shriver's "America’s last undecided voter." Her concerns are mine. I wouldn't go so far as saying I'm a "double hater." I don't hate either candidate, but I don't think either should be President. Whoever wins, it will be a very long four years.
I’ve watched fellow ‘double haters’ squirm in print. There are two models for wrestling with this dilemma, one exemplified by Andrew Sullivan. The conservative commentator ‘came out’ in a September Substack newsletter – no, not in that dated sense: everyone knows he’s gay – in support of Kamala Harris, only to lavish the overwhelming majority of that column on what a ghastly candidate she is. ....Academically, I profoundly sympathise with Andrew’s contention that any former president who has hindered the peaceful transfer of power, and any candidate who refuses to commit to accepting the results of the election, has invalidated himself for high office. But I am so blindingly bored by countless hysterical screeds decrying the character of Donald Trump and deploring the guy as a ‘threat to democracy’ that I’m loath to subject you to more of the same. For what gets less play is the ‘Democratic’ party’s threat to democracy.Granted, our friend Kamala is an empty pantsuit, insecure and at least subconsciously aware that she’s in this thing way over her head. So if she wins, her presidency will likely be titular. She will do as she’s told by the same handlers who controlled her senile predecessor, and her administration will pursue four more years of roughly the same progressive policies. That makes her sound like the safer bet. But continuing the same policies is only safe if those policies were ever safe, and there’s nothing safe about four more years of wilful self-destruction. .......[S]ince when did Democrats care about the constitution? Supreme Court packing, Senate packing with new, Democratically controlled states (DC and Puerto Rico) and backhandedly abolishing the Electoral College all happily rattle in their bag of prospective tricks. The party has shamelessly weaponised the judicial system to keep Trump off the ballot or throw him in jail, which is creepy even to people like me who despise the guy. Democratic refusal to prosecute shoplifting abandons the state’s protection of private property. The Biden administration has systematically pressured social media companies to censor or suppress commentary unfriendly to government policy; Harris has never distanced herself from such violations of the First Amendment. ....I detest Kamala Harris. Empty, incapable and dim, she’d make for a piss-poor specimen to break the ultimate glass ceiling. To the degree that she has any real convictions, I share few of them. With thanks to Holden Caulfield, I simply can’t bring myself to publicly plump for such a phony. I also can’t bring myself to publicly back Donald Trump. I vowed long ago to never, ever burden myself reputationally with supporting that clown on the record.I’ve been in a state of paralysis this whole campaign season. I find it impossible to determine which victorious candidate could turn out to be worse. I accept that neutrality amounts to cowardice. Still, at the risk of appearing pathetic, for now I’m sitting this one out. I at least share Gerard Baker’s certainty in the Wall Street Journal this week that my country will survive either terrible president, a fragile confidence which these days has to pass for optimism. (more)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.