I'm imagining what I want Hillary Clinton to say that would capture the hearts of America.
Wouldn't it be lovely if she told everyone in the crowd how precious and unique each of them are? And then I imagine her looking into the camera and telling everyone watching out there that they are special and unique also. She would talk about what a miracle we all are and how courageous we are to be here.
I would have Hillary talk about how each of us, because of our uniqueness, is valuable; valuable to the world, to their family and friends, and valuable to the country.
The speech would then pivot a little to talk about how if I, Hillary, were the President I would value each of us equally.
The people in Flint, MI would be valued, the children in our schools would be valued, the young black men of the country would be valued, the police would be valued.
Each of these groups of people contribute to what makes this country great. Each one of them brings something to the table. And each of them should be valued.
I would work to make sure everyone has easy access to clean drinking water, an education that would teach people to think critically and uncover each of our unique gifts. I'd make sure everyone felt that their safety and peace of mind is as important to me as my own.
Because everyone is valued, everyone will be respected. We'll respect each other because that kind of attitude comes from the top and when we have a government run by people that respects everyone and values each of its citizens then it will create policy that shows that.
We won't have laws on our books that help people be dishonest, we'd care about people's food and safety. If an industry is losing market share, we'll have programs that help people learn new skills.
Etc.
That's all I have the patience to think about right now. But, that's what I'd want to see in a speech. And then, I'd want it to really happen.
What a Wonderful World it would be...
Friday, July 22, 2016
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Leftland and Rightland
From The New Yorker, July 11 and 18 issue, by George Saunders
"...Where is all this anger coming from? It’s viral, and Trump is Typhoid Mary. Intellectually and emotionally weakened by years of steadily degraded public discourse, we are now two separate ideological countries, LeftLand and RightLand, speaking different languages, the lines between us down. Not only do our two subcountries reason differently; they draw upon non-intersecting data sets and access entirely different mythological systems. You and I approach a castle. One of us has watched only “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the other only “Game of Thrones.” What is the meaning, to the collective “we,” of yon castle? We have no common basis from which to discuss it. You, the other knight, strike me as bafflingly ignorant, a little unmoored. In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a “dove” and a “hawk,” say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional. (As a proud knight of LeftLand, I was interested to find that, in RightLand, Vince Foster has still been murdered, Dick Morris is a reliable source, kids are brainwashed “way to the left” by going to college, and Obama may yet be Muslim. I expect that my interviewees found some of my core beliefs equally jaw-dropping.)
A Trump supporter in Fountain Hills asks me, "If you're a liberal, do you believe in the government controlling everything? Because that's what Barry wants to do, and what he's pretty much accomplished." She then makes the (to me, irrational and irritating) claim that more people are on welfare under Obama than ever were under Bush.
"Almost fifty million people," her husband says. "Up thirty per cent."
I make a certain sound I make when I disagree with something but have no facts at my disposal.
Back at the hotel, I Google it.
Damn it, they're right. Rightish.
What I find over the next hour or so, from a collection of Web sites, left, right, and fact-based:
Yes, true: there are approximately seven million more americans in poverty now than when Obama was elected. On the other hand, the economy under Obama has gained about seven times as many jobs as it did under Bush; even given the financial meltdown, the unemployment rate has dropped to just below the historical average. But, yes: the poverty rate is up by 1.6 percentage points since 2008. Then again the number of Americans in poverty fell by nearly 1.2 million between 2012 and 2013. However, true: the proportion of people who depend on welfare for the majority of their income has increased (although it was also increasing under Bush). And under Obama unemployment has dropped, G.D.P. growth has been "robust," and there have been close to seventy straight months of job growth. But, O.K.: there has indeed been a "skyrocketing" in the number of Americans needing some form of means-tested federal aid, although Obama’s initiatives kept some six million people out of poverty in 2009, including more than two million children.
So the couple's assertion was true but not complexly true. It was a nice hammer with which to pop the enemy; i.e., me. Its intent: discredit Obama and the liberal mind-set.
What was my intent as I Googled? Get a hammer of my own, discredit Bush and the conservative mindset.
Meanwhile, there sat reality: huge, ambiguous, too complicated to be usefully assessed by our prevailing mutual ambition—to fight and win, via delivery of the partisan zinger.
LeftLand and RightLand are housemates who are no longer on speaking terms. And then the house is set on fire. By Donald Trump. Good people from both subnations gape at one another through the smoke."
"...Where is all this anger coming from? It’s viral, and Trump is Typhoid Mary. Intellectually and emotionally weakened by years of steadily degraded public discourse, we are now two separate ideological countries, LeftLand and RightLand, speaking different languages, the lines between us down. Not only do our two subcountries reason differently; they draw upon non-intersecting data sets and access entirely different mythological systems. You and I approach a castle. One of us has watched only “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” the other only “Game of Thrones.” What is the meaning, to the collective “we,” of yon castle? We have no common basis from which to discuss it. You, the other knight, strike me as bafflingly ignorant, a little unmoored. In the old days, a liberal and a conservative (a “dove” and a “hawk,” say) got their data from one of three nightly news programs, a local paper, and a handful of national magazines, and were thus starting with the same basic facts (even if those facts were questionable, limited, or erroneous). Now each of us constructs a custom informational universe, wittingly (we choose to go to the sources that uphold our existing beliefs and thus flatter us) or unwittingly (our app algorithms do the driving for us). The data we get this way, pre-imprinted with spin and mythos, are intensely one-dimensional. (As a proud knight of LeftLand, I was interested to find that, in RightLand, Vince Foster has still been murdered, Dick Morris is a reliable source, kids are brainwashed “way to the left” by going to college, and Obama may yet be Muslim. I expect that my interviewees found some of my core beliefs equally jaw-dropping.)
A Trump supporter in Fountain Hills asks me, "If you're a liberal, do you believe in the government controlling everything? Because that's what Barry wants to do, and what he's pretty much accomplished." She then makes the (to me, irrational and irritating) claim that more people are on welfare under Obama than ever were under Bush.
"Almost fifty million people," her husband says. "Up thirty per cent."
I make a certain sound I make when I disagree with something but have no facts at my disposal.
Back at the hotel, I Google it.
Damn it, they're right. Rightish.
What I find over the next hour or so, from a collection of Web sites, left, right, and fact-based:
Yes, true: there are approximately seven million more americans in poverty now than when Obama was elected. On the other hand, the economy under Obama has gained about seven times as many jobs as it did under Bush; even given the financial meltdown, the unemployment rate has dropped to just below the historical average. But, yes: the poverty rate is up by 1.6 percentage points since 2008. Then again the number of Americans in poverty fell by nearly 1.2 million between 2012 and 2013. However, true: the proportion of people who depend on welfare for the majority of their income has increased (although it was also increasing under Bush). And under Obama unemployment has dropped, G.D.P. growth has been "robust," and there have been close to seventy straight months of job growth. But, O.K.: there has indeed been a "skyrocketing" in the number of Americans needing some form of means-tested federal aid, although Obama’s initiatives kept some six million people out of poverty in 2009, including more than two million children.
So the couple's assertion was true but not complexly true. It was a nice hammer with which to pop the enemy; i.e., me. Its intent: discredit Obama and the liberal mind-set.
What was my intent as I Googled? Get a hammer of my own, discredit Bush and the conservative mindset.
Meanwhile, there sat reality: huge, ambiguous, too complicated to be usefully assessed by our prevailing mutual ambition—to fight and win, via delivery of the partisan zinger.
LeftLand and RightLand are housemates who are no longer on speaking terms. And then the house is set on fire. By Donald Trump. Good people from both subnations gape at one another through the smoke."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)