A POLITICAL SOPHIE'S CHOICE

After the last presidential election, I came to the conclusion that what I would like was an election between two political philosophies, not two political personalities. I thought maybe if we had two people who represented the extremes of the Democrat and Republican parties, we could ditch the personalities and focus on what each party would do for/to the country. I envisioned the likes of Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren. While they would follow the standard political procedures of name calling (Unlikable Ted and Fauxahontas) and stay away from any in depth discussion of the topics, at least they would be relatively transparent in that we could see through them to the beliefs of their respective parties.

As they say, "Watch out what you wish for." I got two very different candidates. The Democrat Hillary Clinton, a far left ideologist who has never let principles get in her way and will go in whatever Liberal direction she feels she needs to and still get elected (Against same-sex marriage, then for it. For the Iraq war, then against it.) On the other side we have Donald Trump who is really no political party or particular ideology at all but is representing the Republican party. Both Hillary and Donald are so polarizing and have such negative and positive forces surrounding them, we voters are having a hard time getting through to what they actually represent, and what they represent is what we should be voting for. It seems for every one issue discussion, there are nine slings of mud. They both may be adults, but they are adults playing kids in the school yard.

Let's take another look at lil' Donnie and Hilly:

As a Conservative, here is my take on Hillary. She has been in public life for almost three decades. She has been the wife of an Attorney General, the First Lady of Arkansas, and First Lady of the United States. She has been a State Senator, Secretary of State, and has run twice for the Presidency. Pretty impressive resume! There is an old saying in business, "Does a person have 30 years experience, or one year experience 30 times?" With a resume like Hillary's, there should be pages of her accomplishments at the ready, but sadly they are not easily available or maybe she is just humble and doesn't wish to publicize them. There are a couple of reasons we should look carefully at Hillary and her qualifications to be President. 1) We are paying her salary. 2) President Obama has said, "There has never been a man or a woman more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States." ( Take that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan). This is a curious statement given that in 2008 Obama said, "(Hillary) will say anything and change nothing" That doesn't sound very positive for the most "qualified" man or woman to be President. If you wish to find out what her accomplishments have been, you can check out the small print in Wikipedia.

Today the surveys show that 70% of the population is dissatisfied with the direction of the country.

This does not reflect badly on Hillary because your previous research, I'm sure, will have revealed that she didn't do much to help or hurt the country. I wonder who then is causing this 70% dissatisfaction? If it wasn't Hillary, and Obama's approval numbers are 54%, possibly the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is dragging everybody down?

Hillary said in 2001, when she and Bill left the White House, "We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," and after a stolen furniture mix-up with the White House, they must have settled down to maximize their earnings. In a mere 15 years The Clintons are now worth about $111,000,000 from paltry book sales and a few $250,000 20 minutes speeches to primarily financial institutions. I assume the speeches were very good because of what she charged. (Why else would an industry pay that kind of money?) But, I guess we won't know because the scripts seem to have been misplaced. Could she have emailed the scripts to herself on her private server?

I don't think it is any secret that many women will vote for Hillary because they identify with her. She leads Trump with women 59% to 35% . I understand the significance to women of the first woman President. Women have had the vote for 96 of our country's 240 years. It's about time, but let's not blow it. Hillary is a woman in chromosome numbers and appearance only. Internally Hillary has shown to possess every manly trait all politicians who have reached that level possess. She is ruthless, plays very loose with the truth, is conniving, calculating, shrewd, ambitious, arrogant, foul mouthed, and untrustworthy. Now, I am not saying that Trump isn't all of these things and maybe more, I'm just saying when the pro-Hillary folks say it's time for a woman in the White House, I think they mean it's time for someone who thinks like a woman to be in the White House, a President who has all the good traits of successful past Presidents plus charm, kindness, compassion, and is supportive, loving, considerate and nurturing. If she doesn't bring these generic female attributes to the table as it relates to getting the job done, a man will do just as well. Let's not waste the first woman President on someone with more baggage than O'Hare at Thanksgiving.

As a Conservative, here is my take on Donald Trump. It would be fair to say that he was not my first choice as the Republican Presidential nominee. I thought he was good to shake up the primaries but that would be it. I did not properly gauge the discontent of the folks. With 70% of the country dissatisfied, and most people with an understating of the concept, "you keep doing what you're doing you keep getting what you got," I guess none of us should be surprised. Trump has a message that resounds with many people, it's the messenger people have trouble with. He has, to say the least, a "unique" personality. He is a loose cannon with a malfunctioning filter, but he's what we have.

An important thing to remember, when analyzing Trump's approach to politicking, is that he never directed his life towards politics. He was a business man in Real Estate and he did what he needed to do to succeed in his chosen field. Hillary chose politics and did what she needed to do to succeed in a very different profession. Yes, he failed big time in certain ventures. You only fail big time if you try big time ventures. When discussing Trump's failures, let's not forget HillaryCare. (Apparently the media has.)

Trump has been called racist when ever he says some thing about another race, true or not. He is called a misogynist when ever he says something uncomplimentary about a woman, true or not. He is called a bigot when he has an opinion differing from the PC crowd, true or not. He is accused of being a liar, and with that it's hard to tell him from his opponent. He is accused of being a narcissist which I'm surprised people even notice after eight years with Obama.

The establishment of both parties belittle Trump's "basket of deplorable" at their peril. From Obama's evaluation that small town America is" bitter and cling to their guns and religion," and just recently in an Article by Garrison Keillor where he wrote about Trumps following of "angry white people" saying "Maybe instead of selling luxury condos and golf memberships, he’ll (Trump) have to turn to trailer parks and tattoo parlors. " Isn't that sweet!

My vote is primarily for who can deliver the Conservative philosophy. Therefore I am not happy to be basically called a gap-toothed ignoramus for voting for Trump. Who else would I vote for? What the Left is forgetting is the deep passion the poor, uneducated, angry, white people have for their country, traditions, military, police, old people and heroes. The committed Left is moving the country away from all of those elements of life the common folks hold dear, and Trump has tapped into that.

I've just been re-watching the movie Patton. The beginning is classic. George C. Scott, playing the general, is standing in front of a giant flag and giving a pep talk to his troops. This movie played in 1970. In the 46 years since this movie opened, the US has changed, and in my opinion, not for the better. If that scene were played today on a college campus, half the audience would run screaming from the theater looking for their "safe place." (I'm sure it would be OK if the scene were replaced with one of the General humping his secretary.) This kind of change I lay in the lap of Liberalism.

Remembering all the major issues we're dealing with today, issues such as ISIS, the economy, immigration, budget, crime, debt etc. is important because Trump has had nothing to do with any of it. Hillary has been in on all of it, and 70 % of the public is dissatisfied. Trump would provide new eyes on the problems, the eyes of a successful, experienced business man. I personally believe the executive branch needs to be run as a business, but I have heard a progressive radio host say the government is not a business, it's more like a family. If that's the case, maybe Trump wouldn't help, and we would need to put ourselves in the loving, caring hands of Momma Hillary. With differing beliefs like that, it's a wonder we get anything done.

As a Conservative, I vote for Conservative political principles. The name representing those principles can change every 4 years. Our Hillary and Donald options this time around are flawed, but we owe our country our vote. As a Liberal, the way our system is designed and if you are happy with the direction and the philosophy of Liberalism, you should vote for Hillary. If you are a Conservative and see your vision of America fading away to the detriment of your children and grandchildren, you should vote for Donald. (If you are not really sure if you lean left or right, check out my previous Blog entry dated 9-2-16 titled, Let's Get Into The Weeds.)

With these last 8 years of attempting to put down America to a place equal with all other countries, I'm looking for a cheer leader. With these last 8 years of gridlock, I'm looking for the art of the deal. With these last 240 years of politicians, I'm looking for a real person. So, with reservation but optimism, Donald Trump (this election cycle's name for my political philosophy) will have my vote.

LET'S GET INTO THE WEEDS

Men and women are more alike than different, but boy, do those differences make a difference. Liberals and Conservatives are more alike than different, but boy, do those differences make a difference. Both Left and Right have deeply conflicting, but equally heartfelt visions of what we want our world to look like. What we will do on November 8th is vote for that philosophy we would most like to see guide our country. To get that philosophy we have to attach a name to it. This election cycle the names are Hillary and Donald.

Where did we get our social, moral and political philosophy? Where did we get our view of the world? Were we born with a world view (nature)? Did we learn it through life experiences (nurture)? Did we just figure it out all by ourselves (Rationalism)? How we get our philosophies does not seem to be "settled" science. All we know is we all have one.

Much of this article is based on the writings and research of Jonathan Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion. Haidt claims in our human nature, we have six psychological systems. They are:

CARING-- caring for the vulnerable, sensitive to signs of suffering, despising cruelty, and caring for those who suffer

FAIRNESS-- It's about equality and proportionality but primarily proportionality. It means people getting what they deserve and not getting what they don't deserve.

LOYALTY--challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions, sensitive to team players makes us want to reward team players and punish those who betray the group.

AUTHORITY--being sensitive to rank or status, forge relationships that will benefit us in the social hierarchy

SANCTITY- Feelings that some things, actions, and people are noble, pure and elevated; others are base polluted and degraded.

LIBERTY--make people notice and resent any sign of domination, the urge to band together (freedom fighters) Thus the Declaration of Independence.

Haidt, a professed Liberal, came to the conclusion that Liberals have a three-foundation morality: Caring, Liberty, and Fairness.(Fairness at the bottom). Conservatives have all 6.(Care at the bottom). This is not good nor bad, it just is.

When two people engage in political discourse, the secret of success is to see the other,s argument from their point of view. We don't do it often because both people readily shift into combat mode, and off we go. What I hope to do is give you Haidt's evaluation of the driving philosophies of both Liberals and Conservatives and maybe both sides can see the other side is not wrong, just different, and maybe we treat other people's political views like we treat other sexes. We may not understand the views but we still love the people.

Here are Haidt's study conclusions. Of course, we all don't match everything, but I feel it's pretty darn close.

LIBERAL: being Liberal is seen as, (their brand is), being cool and righteous. Obviously ethical, They march for peace, civil rights, workers' rights, and secularism. Liberalism simply wants to help people . They concern themselves about fairness and social justice. Income redistribution is based on fairness. Fairness implies equality. The Left's idea of equality is equality of outcomes. Small examples of equality of outcomes are; participation trophy, no scores for youngsters sporting events, elimination of games like dodge ball and musical chairs etc. More significant examples of the equality of outcomes are: equality of outcomes cannot be obtained in a capitalist society. Capitalism is in the end, predatory--a moral society will be socialist i.e. people helping each other. This is why Liberals favor higher taxes on the rich, high level of services for the poor and sometimes a guaranteed income for everybody. The Left has a morality that protects individuals and their rights. The Left's loyalty is to individuals without regard to national or other allegiances. A Liberal's motive is neophilia (attraction to new things) openness to experience. open to new people, music, and ideas. The idea of Chasity is set aside as outdated and sexist. Liberal society would be peaceful, open and creative place where diverse individuals would respect each others' rights and band together voluntarily only to help those in need or to change the law for the common good. The Left generally celebrates diversity, supports immigration without assimilation. ( Immigration will bring in new people, new ideas, goods, and technology.) Liberals oppose making English the official language, don't like to wear flag pins, and see themselves as citizens of the world. Liberalism is Egalitarian-- all people are equal and deserve common rights and opportunities; there is no hierarchy. The Left is very concerned with the rights of certain vulnerable groups (race, children, animals) and they look to government to defend the weak. Environmentalist, almost exclusively found on the Right, revile industrialism, capitalism, and automobiles not just for pollution but for degrading of humanities' original nature. As Haidt concluded, Liberals have a three-foundation morality: Caring, Liberty, and Fairness. The Left is basically ambivalent about Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

CONSERVATIVE: Being Conservatives is seen as, (their brand is), the party of war, big business, racism and evangelicals. The Right's idea of equality is equality of opportunity. For the Right everyone’s outcomes should not be guaranteed, but their ability to pursue those outcomes should be guaranteed. That, to the Right, is fairness. The Right believes people should be rewarded proportionally to what they contribute even if it means unequal outcomes. On the Right you are likely to see more relationships, institutions, contexts, and groups. Conservatives are not so interested in protecting individuals as they are the whole. Utilitarianism could define the Conservative-- always aim to bring about the good of the greatest number even if a few people may get hurt. A Conservative motive is neophobia (a fear of new things) prefer to stick with what's tried and true and care about guarding borders, (immigrants can bring in plagues, epidemics, and new diseases thus threatening the whole). They care about boundaries, loyalty and are strong on traditions. Those on the Right are more likely to talk about the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage. They view the body as a temple. The Right seems to have a near-monopoly on appeals to loyalty (patriotism, military, parents, teachers, elders, police). The basic social unit for a Conservative is not the individual but the hierarchically structured family which serves as the model for other institutions. The Right values self-control over self-expression, duty over rights and loyalty to one group over concerns for other groups. Conservatives tend to invoke the name of God (not necessarily Jesus), glorify American Heros, quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and desire to pull diverse people into one tent. Conservatives are more concerned about their groups rather than all of humanity. They revere the word liberty rather than equality. The Rights' view of Liberty is the right to be left alone, free from government interference and resent it when the Left uses the government to infringe on the Rights' liberties in order to protect the class the Left wishes to protect.

My purpose for this Blog posting is two fold:

1) I'm getting the impression both Conservatives and Liberal, given their druthers, would pick a different candidate. So, maybe if we can identify which of the parties best represents the world in which we would like to live, we can vote for that party. If the characteristics of a Liberal best describes you, hold our nose and pull the lever for Hillary. If the characteristics of a Conservative best describes you, use your one free hand and pull for the Donald.

2) This is the most important. Consider a world run by only Conservatives or only Liberals. There is a reason our human nature gives us so many psychological options. We may feel strongly about our world view but it won't stand up without a smattering of the other. I have often used the comparison of Liberals being the heart of a society and Conservatives being the head, a person cannot live with only one of those (excluding the Headless Horseman), nor can a nation. The question is how much of each is best at this time in our evolution.

Jonathan Haidt laments,"Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive." It needn’t be. We don't generally carry the differences between the thinking of our spouses or partners to the extent we do politics. As a Conservative doing research for this piece, I began to understand the thought processes of the Liberal. I understand why they, as a heart, would stand up for transgender bathrooms for example. I, as a head, disagree totally, but I understand. If I thought about caring/individuals the way they think, I would also come to that conclusion. Understanding does not stop either side from fighting for what they believe is right. That does not stop us from working and voting for the way we want America to look but it should stop us from viewing the "others" as people to dumb to spit downwind.