The Truth

At a time when she lacked the trust of most Americans, when indictment was being considered against her, President Obama said of the former Secretary of State

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton, and that's the truth. That's the truth.

He said it at a rally in North Carolina.

George Washington always told the truth – we're informed that “he couldn't tell a lie” – and he was an above-average president. According to the incumbent, however, he was less qualified than the current Democratic candidate. While it may be true that she is more capable than the one praising her, it's hard not to wonder if Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, or a host of others might not have had a better résumé or greater reliability than the former Secretary.

It's easy to chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. You'd have to. After all, in 2008, the candidate Senator Obama, maintained that she, (then his colleague in the Senate) Hillary Clinton, was “willing to say anything [in case you didn't get what he meant, that's a euphemism for “to lie”] to get elected.” He had other reservations about her qualifications then. Now – perhaps feeling a debt incurred by her service to him – he seems willing to say anything to get her elected. (Neither her, nor his, lying seems to be a disqualifying feature.) That's what makes America great. Loyalty. To party members if not the Constitution, the citizens, and the country.

It's an effort to inspire confidence in her at a time when she lacks the trust of a majority of our citizens. Perhaps it's her own fault, perhaps it's his. Perhaps it's the fault of the American people at this point in history, but there's no denying that she has neither their friendship nor what they consider the qualifications to lead us all.

Nor does her opponent.

Sadly, it's a given that we cannot believe what politicians say. In theory their calling, their burden, is to perform service for their country – to improve the lot of their people – even if there is a cost to themselves. Just as our “citizen soldiers” have fought to protect us, our “citizen politicians” claim to be willing to sacrifice for us, and it's something we need them to do. The reality, however, doesn't match that theory. The driving forces are, more often, ego, lust for power, and money. These are the rewards of office. And too many of our leaders are in it for the rewards rather than the burdens.

And we are willing, though unindicted, co-conspirators. We accept their words, if not as the truth, as unexceptionable rhetoric. We expect it. (All politicians are liars.) True, some of the media do some “fact-checking,” but who cares? We continue to elect those we know to be falsifying, “spinning,” or inventing “facts.” They're flexible and so are we.

The time has come, however, to fight back. It will probably be a losing fight – certainly initially it will be – but it's a necessary one if we are to restore “a government of the people.” The time has come when people should vote their consciences – not according to party line. It may be easier to have only two parties from which to choose, but it forces us to accept “the lesser of evils” too often – to brook evil. This is a democracy, and we are free to choose.

But we're not the only democracy. There are countries in which parties are formed based on beliefs that may differ from the mainstream; where a difference of opinion, or an antipathy to those running, may inspire the formation of a new political entity, more suitable to public wishes. There's no guarantee that its leaders won't lie, but when it's discovered that they can't be trusted there's precedent for dumping them and starting again. It's messy, but democracy is messy. (Mussolini may have gotten the trains to run on time [actually, he didn't] but it was at great cost.)

In the United States the step to take is to vote for a third party (as I intend to do). There aren't many around, and they're not likely to win, but votes that don't go to major party candidates are a message – one that we hope ultimately will be heard if sent often enough.

As Pogo (the voice of Walt Kelly) said

We have met the enemy and he is us.

And those we're willing to elect.

Are We Great Again Yet?

Donald Trump, the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, delivered his acceptance speech last night, and I learned that he speaks for me. He said so, and he wouldn't lie about something so important. He said so, so it must be true, but I must admit that I have reservations about his candidacy. I certainly agree with some of his criticisms of what is happening in our country, but I'm less confident that he is the person to solve them.

My concerns begin with what we've all observed during the campaign thus far: Mr. Trump is quick express his perspective. His views are often critical of others – no, they're almost always critical of others, with special venom saved for his soon-to-be nominated opponent, and the President under whom she served. Whatever the validity of the criticisms, it is apparent that his words are unfiltered. There's a lot to be said for “transparency,” but much can also be said in favor of analysis of people and issues before offering opinions – before shooting from the hip – before shooting your mouth off.

The disposition to offer publicly his off the cuff opinions may play well with his numerous supporters – he is, after all, a populist – but it is less likely to be appreciated by the rest of us, and especially by the leaders of other countries. Confidence and boldness are important in a president, but they should be based on experience, analysis, judgment, and maturity. Unfortunately Mr. Trump seems to lack these qualities, and his entire appeal is based on bluster. He has yet to give any indication of how he would reach his goals, or of who would keep him informed and grounded. It's one thing to enunciate objectives, but quite another to accomplish the tasks you've set for yourself.

In short, I don't trust him. And, I suspect, neither do many of our voters.

Equally important, however, is that I doubt that he has the trust of those who lead the rest of the world. I fear that, for good reason, they would question his credibility, stability, and reliability were he to head our government. He has been critical of the current administration for antagonizing our allies and causing our enemies to lose respect for us – criticisms that are not without merit – but he has yet to reveal how he would deal with those problems, possibly because the suggestions of his advisers are not sufficiently patriotic and “macho” to fit the image of himself that he has and that he would like others to have. Even for the competent it takes time to build trust, although their starting level is much higher than that of the Republican nominee. However legitimate his instincts, it will be a long time before anyone trusts him or believes that his positions have been well thought out.

And however insightful his recognition of the problems we face, however popular his proposals among his followers, some of the solutions he has offered are more likely to aggravate than ameliorate them. As an example for, a wall along our southern border will not solve the perceived immigration problem with Latin America, let alone deal with questions that have been raised about immigration from elsewhere in the world. Yet a wall is all he has to offer – and this is one of the few areas in which he has a specific proposal.

There have been many threats and statements he has made concerning issues of safety and protection, both for our country and for our citizens. Beyond our borders he will defeat ISIS and bring stability to the Middle East, while here at home he will restore “law and order,” giving us the peace and quiet we all seek. Unfortunately he does not tell us how he will achieve these ends. And the reality is that he probably won't achieve them, surely not in ways that most of us would find acceptable.

I may agree with Mr. Trump that our country has suffered in the last eight years; I may believe that his appointee to the Supreme Court would be more representative of American feelings than that of Secretary Clinton; I may share his ideas about necessary changes in the way our government is run and in the size of that government, but someone who sees the presidency as the first step in politics, and someone as lacking in experience in governing as he, cannot be the one we choose to lead us.

Much more could be said about someone who “talks a good game,” but gives no evidence that he'd be able to play a good game. It's enough to say, however, that he isn't fit to be president.