You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Clinton’ tag.
I’m staying at a friend’s home on the east coast of the United States right now. I sat up with him and his wife into the wee hours last night watching the returns come in. The three of us were stunned that our nation had elected Donald Trump to be our next President. I supported Hillary Clinton and my friends worked hard for her election.
My friend’s wife’s question as we went to bed was this: “How do we explain this to the kids tomorrow?” Their boys are 4 and 6.
I wondered about such a question. They’re at an age when the question, “Why?” is often on their lips. I suspect there are lots of reasons why my fellow countrypeople voted for Mr. Trump. Some people probably thought that his tax proposals will put more money in their pockets and didn’t care about the consequences for the wider community (their neighbors). Some probably thought that he will change the economy in such a way that their lives and their neighbors’ lives will be better. Some probably voted out of their sexism, not wanting a woman to be our President. Some probably voted against Hillary Clinton and would have voted for anyone as long as it wasn’t her.
And many, I think, voted from their fear.
So what would I say to a 6-year-old who asked me why Mr. Trump won and Secretary Clinton lost? Recognizing that I couldn’t explain the electoral college to a 6-year-old, I think I would say something like, “He won because he got more votes in more states.” And when this 6-year-old asks, “Why did people vote for him?” I’d say something like,”When people are afraid or jealous or angry, they don’t make the best choices. So some people voted for Mr. Trump because they really liked him better than Secretary Clinton, and some people voted for Mr. Trump because they didn’t make the best choice.”
I don’t know if that answer would satisfy a 6-year-old, but it’s the best I have today, a day when I am disappointed, and maybe even a little fearful myself about what the next four years will hold.
In this presidential election year, my answer is, “Yes. Yes, I’m better off than I was four years ago and eight years ago. And that’s the wrong question to ask.”
Or maybe it’s only one of may questions we should be asking.
How about my neighbor (whom I’m supposed to love as myself)? Is my neighbor better off them she was four or eight years ago? And not just my next door neighbor. I should be asking this about all my neighbors in my city and state and country. And I should be asking this about my neighbors in other countries.
But let’s not stop there. We should be asking it about other species and the environment as a whole.
And lest you think this is just about the current presidential election, it’s not. Let’s consider the TPP – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – under consideration by Congress right now. The TPP is a complex trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries (including the United States). And when I say, “complex,” I mean complex. It took ten years to develop and has over 30 chapters.
I have yet to hear any politician speak to the particulars. In this election year, the TPP is really not much more than a symbol, a symbol that is being spun primarily to represent global trade that threatens American jobs. “A Trump Administration will end [the war on the American worker] by getting a fair deal for the American people. The era of economic surrender will finally be over,” is how Trump is spinning the symbol.
The Clinton campaign isn’t much different. “I will do everything in my power to defend American jobs and American workers. Any trade deal must meet three tests to earn my support: it must create good American jobs, raise wages, and advance our national security.”
Both candidates are only asking if the TPP will make us better off in four years than we are now. What about asking how it impacts our international neighbors? What about asking how it impacts the environment? What about asking how it circumvents legal system in the partner countries, perverting justice? What about asking how it protects (or fails to protect) the environment?
The TPP aims to cut 18,000 different tariffs, all in the name of “free trade” across international borders. If the only thing I have to trade is my labor and I can’t freely transport it across international borders, is it really a “free trade deal”?
Given the complexity of international trade – including national differences in resources, worker skills, labor supply, labor laws and protects, markets, and political and social conditions – the terms of mutually beneficial trade can’t be reduced to a bumper sticker or a 30-second sound bite in the spin room.
I oppose the TPP and will until my questions are satisfactorily answered. But that’s really not the point of this post. The real point is that we need to move beyond our shortsighted, self-centered questions and think about our local and international neighbors (and not just our human neighbors) when it comes to trade deals and elections and really any policy decision we make.