Election 2016 and Intellectual Honesty

***Note to readers: follow and review the content on the weblinks below if you want all of this to make sense.

I voted for John Kasich, governor of Ohio.  Let’s just get that out there.  

I did not vote for Hillary or Trump because I do not believe either of them satisfactorily meet the minimum criteria in order to earn my vote: good, honest, and wise (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

That said, I don't believe either of them are the pure evil, as the caricatures out there would have most believe.

Let's start with Hillary, the public figure who represents to my side of the aisle evil incarnate.  Or, as one once suggested, the anti-Christ.  Let's start with this podcast.  I encourage you to listen to it so that what I discuss in the following lines make more sense.  The podcast, among other things revolves around this article in Politico, and concludes that Hillary was neither trying to cover her tracks with a private server, nor completely innocent of negligence.  Mostly, it concludes, she and the people around her were stupid, ignorant, and negligent.  These conclusions are reached by what I conclude to be entirely believable sets of statements and circumstances.

Again, my thinking, here, makes more sense if you actually listen to and read the content in the links above, but also if you've served in the types of government positions like I have for the last 15 years or so.  A few things suggested in the links that I can confirm based on my own personal experience:

• most government agencies and personnel are NOT capable of pulling off a simple conspiracy, let alone a complicated one.  As one colleague from a previous job once said, "we're not even capable of getting folks to mute their phones on conference calls, let alone pulling off (insert your favorite government conspiracy theory)."
• it is entirely believable that there are a host of senior officials in government service right now that do not have the slightest competency on a computer.  Most folks who are senior officials in government came to government service because they had already achieved some level of success in other fields.  And some of those achieved that success before the internet and personal computers became as ubiquitous as they are now.  So, they probably had staff who took care of "that stuff", and have never had urgent need or temperament to learn the new technology.

So, these things, which serve as a foundation to any rational thinker being able to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt as presented in the podcast, persuade me.  Being persuaded by this is consistent with my thinking evident in the first blogpost I ever penned.  So, at least I'm consistent, if not correct.

Now, at this point, I need to add a few things.

1. In September the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing with the FBI on this private server business and it became clear that Hillary violated the law by transmitting classified materials over her server.  However, as the FBI testified, they do not recommend prosecutions for cases that do not involve malicious intent.  If the FBI does not recommend prosecution for the violation of this law absent malicious intent; then, in my opinion, and if any of the podcast is to be believed, Mr. Comey's actions were correct (and, the content of the podcast really help Comey's testimony and logic make more sense).  Why then, you may ask, are Privates in the military sent to jail for violating the same law?  Not certain on this, but it might be because DOD can prosecute its own without going through the DOJ filter; and DOJ uses the additional (but not legally required) condition of malicious intent as a prosecutorial discretion filter.  (Someone please fact check me on this.  I'm happy to be wrong.)  In my opinion, I don't think the DOJ should use the "malicious intent" filter on cases such as these; but that's easy for me to say sitting from the armchair.  Prosecutorial discretion is often used as a tool by prosecutors to filter out less severe cases and focus their resources on the more egregious ones.  I know a guy (everyone in this town knows "a guy") who is a senior staffer on the Republican side of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (and had a prominent, behind-the-scenes role in the hearing), and he tells me that he believes Mr. Comey to be an honest and honorable man, dedicated to the law.  The real gripe of many on the R-side of the committee is that the DOJ, in the name of prosecutorial discretion, years ago determined to add malicious intent as a requirement to pursue prosecution - something Congress never intended.
2. The Clinton Foundation: As the bankruptcy bill story illustrated, few things are as simple as they appear.  I have no doubt that the Clinton Foundation does all sorts of wonderful things for humanity, and that many lives around the world are blessed and improved by it.  I also have little doubt it is also the basis for an enterprise established to enrich the Clintons and peddle influence - which may or may not be legally criminal, but certainly ethically and morally criminal.

Time will tell.

Moving on...

Trump: He's a blowhard.  There's a saying in politics: "he's a blowhard, but he's our blowhard."  The sentiment, of course, captures the party spirit that characterizes our nation's politics.  But Trump was a bridge too far for me.  He's an admitted and unabashed serial philanderer, and all the things that come with that part of his life.  That personal quality is enough to disqualify him from my vote.  If I'm gonna disqualify people on the other side of the aisle from my vote for doing that sort of stuff (and treating people like that), then I must do the same to the folks on my side of the aisle.

Then there's the things he says about matters of policy.  "Really?!?  Is that what he really wants to do?"  I have a theory about this.  It is admittedly a hopeful theory, but I am an optimist (as any Cubbies fan must be), so hang with me.  First, an analogy:

I once worked with a senior official in government who once used a metaphor to characterize a large number of employees.  Now, these are a type of employees who are already pre-disposed to feel like "second-class employees."  And then he used the metaphor, referring to them as "walk-ons."  Everyone in that category of employees took that as an insult of the highest order.  Some quit, some stayed and grumbled, but none that I have met have forgiven him these many years later.  Everyone in that category of employee that I've come across still view him and his decisions based on looking through the lens of the "walk-ons" insult.

I actually had occasion to visit with him not too long after he initially used that metaphor (and the roars of disapproval erupted), and he asked me what I thought of it.  My reply: "hadn't really given it much thought."  Him: "Do you want to know what I meant by it?"  Me: "sure."  Him: "When I was making those remarks, I was thinking of a college football bowl game when a field goal kicker came in, as the final seconds ticked off the clock, and kicked the game-winning field goal.  HE WAS A WALK ON, on the team."  His point being, these employees are not second-class employees; they're the ones who win the game for us.  

Every now and then one of these "walk-ons" and I will chat, and they will bring up the walk-on "insult."  Then I share them the story above, and they ask: "then why doesn't he just say that?"  Me: "Do you really think he's the type of personality who 'explains himself' very often?"  Them: "No, not really."  Some people just don't have it in them to explain themselves.  They say things that may or may not be an insult or literal, and if people get worked up about it, "that's their problem".

Transitioning back to Trump, let's take the "wall" at the US/Mexican border as an example.  For a bazillion years, it seems, politicians have been talking about strengthening border security, and despite real or pretended effort, the unprotected class of Americans just haven't seen much of a difference.  And this talk has gone on for so long that, right or wrong, the message either no longer breaks through, or no longer means anything.  People have gone numb to the promise, "strengthen the border" until Trump came along and said, "I'm going to build a wall!" in the most emphatic and absolute terms.  There were two types of reactions to this remark (follow the link): horror and rejoicing.  Both are valid responses.  Horror is valid because of some of the ways he used to justify the proposal; rejoicing is valid because people believe he will actually do something serious about border protection.

Now, I haven't taken the time to apply the same reasoning to every statement he made, and will more than allow that there is no justifying some of the things he has declared or suggested.  But, much like I offer the benefit of the doubt to one person I wholly disagree with (Clinton), I must also try to afford that to another (Trump).

Like I said, I try to be an optimist.  And, perhaps like a being a Cubs fan, it may not pay off for a long, long time.

Were Trump supporters a bunch of rural rednecks?  Go back and read that link "unprotected class of Americans" two paragraphs above.  While there are some nutjobs and genuine deplorables who supported Trump (some of whom are from rural areas), there were an equal number, I'm convinced, of nutjobs and elitists who supported Clinton (some of whom are from urban areas).  But, by and large, the supporters of both candidates either supported the candidates because they liked them and/or because they wanted to protest the other candidate (if the polls are to be believed, mostly the latter).

***A note to my friends on the left side of the aisle (I have many dear friends over there who have been on the receiving end of Trump insults and, in some cases, threats): you are my dear friends because you are good people.  Most people in this civil society can and do see your quality, and will continue to do so, and in doing so, seek to protect you from the nutjobs out there.  As per above, I think most of the people (not all) who voted for Trump voted for him either as a protest vote (against Hillary or the "establishment"), or because they saw past his insults and threats, and toward the policy direction he had in mind.  In other words, they voted for him in spite of those remarks, not because of them.

I couldn't do that, though.  Another of the reasons I could not cast my sacred vote for Trump is because, while he may or may not actually believe what he says, he was a candidate, and now President-elect, and soon-to-be President; and as such, has an influence over people.  I now join the sad fraternity of fathers from the 90s generation of parents who have to explain things to my small children that I never should have to explain to small children.  Additionally, young people and old people alike who are susceptible to the influence and example of a POTUS (or any public figure) now can justify the darker parts of their psychology because the POTUS said or did it.  I can't support that in any candidate, regardless of his/her jersey.

Be that as it may, I take some modest amount of optimistic comfort in the following statement by Dwight Eisenhower: "I have so often been through these periods of strain that I have become accustomed to the fact that most of the calamities that we anticipate really never occur."

Time will tell.
 

************

Some may wonder why I didn't vote for Evan McMullin, who was actually on my ballot in Virginia as a valid candidate.  I'm Mormon, he's Mormon.  I'm conservative, he's conservative.  I'm a decent chap, he seems a decent chap.  What's not to like?

Well, as I've said on posts past, I want someone who has experience in running something that is remotely like running the federal government.  Nothing is quite like it, but a massive organization it is, and someone who simply has the correct political philosophy is not good enough.  If I hurl verbal rocks at people who put someone as inexperienced as President Obama in charge of what is arguably the most expansive and complicated enterprise in human history, I must also hurl verbal rocks at people on my side of the aisle for doing the same.  I want an Eisenhower or a Reagan.  Someone who has lived a long life, has matured over the years.  Someone who has failed some, but succeeded at most endeavors.  Ideally, someone who has been a governor or a real-deal 4-star general who has proven him/herself.

Mr. McMullin, for all his moderating tone, even keeled personality, and even public service (public service he can't talk about), doesn't have anything like this on his resume.  That disqualified him in my book.  In the end, if voted for him (over Kasich, or another otherwise qualified candidate) only because he was Mormon, that would make me something akin to a racist, a sexist, or some other horrible 'ist.  I'd be voting for him because of his outward label, not because of his inward merits. I don't view people who supported him because of his religion as 'ists, but that's how I'd view myself.  And for those of you who did unapologetically vote for him solely because of his religion, can you really condemn folks for voting for Clinton solely because she is a woman, or Mr. Obama solely because he's African American?

Just a thought and a plea (all of this post is) for folks to be intellectually honest.  I constantly challenge myself to be, as I'm sure many who come to different conclusions also try to be.  Decent people can disagree without being disagreeable.