Short of dropping a presumptive nominee at a
convention this summer, our nominees will be Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Now drop your political bias for the moment and understand their flaws as
outlined below. Then determine who deserves your support.
There is one
contrast we need to keep in mind in evaluating all the rest. We can judge
Clinton primarily by what she has already done in public office. We can judge Trump
primarily by what he has said and only guess what he would do.
Economics
Economics is a
complex science, and neither nominee (nor most people) understands its laws. This is partially
due to the fact that one's morality significantly determines his economic
views, and the morality of altruism (self-sacrifice) - which is incompatible
with Capitalism - dominates our culture. Understanding such laws also requires
critical thinking which our schools have long stopped teaching.
Neither nominee believes in a free market or
individual freedom. That requires a system of capitalism where all trade is
about "win-win".
Statism is a system of force, not freedom;
trade is about "win-lose". And the winners are always the least
productive among us who immorally gain at the forced expense of the most
productive.
Trump is clearly not the Capitalist he might
like us to think he is. He is too willing to sacrifice one party for the sake
of another. He wants fair trade which cannot exist. He falsely blames
China, Japan and Mexico for lost jobs, and wants to punish those countries with
tariffs because of their currency manipulations and "unfair" trading
practices. He also wants to punish corporations that outsource jobs to those
and other countries. He is too nationalistic. He views trade as collectivistic -
at the expense of individual rights.
He accepts the false notion that economic
equality is a moral goal. (Read the book "Equal Is Unfair" which
proves the complete irrationality of that goal.) He accepts entitlements and increased
taxes on the rich as means to achieve that goal. All of the above ignores the
laws of economics; it is all compatible with Statism.
Clinton on the other hand is an explicit
Statist. She more strongly and comprehensively favors government control of our
economy. Economic equality is a top priority. She would expand on Obama's
redistribution policies with higher taxes, selective business subsidies/controls/regulations,
etc. - all ignoring the laws of economics and with disastrous effects. She has
distaste for the private sector, and buys into Obama's notion that businesses
"didn't build it."
However, she is not as nationalistic as
Trump and would not likely create economic havoc with trade policies as is
possible with Trump.
Clearly, both fail to understand the need
for the separation of State and Economics. Government's power over corporations
with controls, regulations and bad tax policies have been killing our economy,
and they - to differing degrees - support that.
Health
Care
Trump wants to overturn ObamaCare. Given the
results of that legislation, that could be very good for all of us if done
correctly. He is somewhat altruistic when it comes to subsidizing the poor.
Clinton is a strong promoter of universal HC
and would push for increased government control.
Environment
Trump is a realist in this area: he promotes
pollution control, improved water quality, etc. But he does not accept the radical global
warmists' belief that man is causing harmful environmental conditions and does
not accept their policies that could cripple our economy.
Clinton is a true environmentalist who would
expand Obama's destructive and costly policies. Her view that global warming is "the
defining challenge of our time" is truly scary.
Rights
Neither fully respects the rights of individuals. Neither understands what "right" means:
a moral principle
defining a man's freedom of action in a social context. It applies only to
actions, not to goods or services.
Trump is "conservative" on social
issues, albeit not as bad as many of the candidates he defeated. He is anti-abortion (albeit allows for
exceptions), even wanting to unconstitutionally punish those who perform them.
He does not understand the primary right of the pregnant woman.
He disrespects property rights; he accepts
government redistributing property via eminent domain. And his extensive cronyism
illustrates his indifference to individual rights in general.
As a Statist, Clinton would be even more
willing to violate rights for extensive income/wealth redistribution. She is at least partially
anti-1st and 2nd Amendments. However, she does defends rights on social issues.
Another important issue here is the Supreme
Court. Trump would appoint judges who would likely lean conservative and pro-Constitution.
That could possibly lead to overturning Roe vs. Wade, but that is not likely. Clinton
would obviously appoint judges who are more liberal and who would attempt to
weaken our Constitution as in the recent past. That could lead to greater restricts
on the use of guns, but serious challenges to the 2nd amendment are not
likely.
Immigration
Trump is opposed to open immigration as this
country once accepted. He has considered deportation of all illegals which
would be both immoral and impossible.
He wants to build a wall - also wrong and
unnecessary, and that could cause an unhealthy trade battle. And he certainly could
not get Mexico to pay for it without illegal or immoral deals.
He wants to temporarily stop all Muslim
immigration. Now that is a sound idea in a certain context: if we acknowledged
that we are at war with Islam; that would legally enable us to deal
appropriately with our enemies, some of whom would be unvetted immigrants from
the Middle East.
Clinton would likely go the opposite
direction - immigration too open to the wrong people. If you believe that a wall and mass
deportation are not likely events, then her policies would be more
concerning.
Foreign Policy
Trump's latest proposed policies are mostly
sound. He has the better sense of who our enemies are and how to deal
with them. He holds, in essence, that too many Muslims take Islam too seriously
(the Quran too literally) as opposed to merely distorting it (Clinton).
He does question the need for NATO, wants to
decimate ISIS without any expressed idea how, and shows puzzling admiration for
tyrants like Putin and Kim Jong-un.
Clinton, as Secretary of State, played an
integral role in the complete failure of Obama's policies. She supported the
Iraq war and then the dangerous departure from there. She claims to being
concerned about women's rights but fails to truly recognize the violations of
same in the Middle East. She contributed to the Benghazi attack; and supported
the dangerous Iran deal, interference in Libya, the reset with Russia, the
steady decimation of our military, ... need I go on? She shows no understanding
of who our enemies are nor a willingness to destroy them.
Philosophy
Trump is a complete pragmatist - seemingly void
of principles and any reasonable moral standard. He appeals to emotions over reason -
expected from such a pragmatist.
Clinton holds the Statist ideology that is
being taught in our Universities: the subjective over the objective, emotion
over reason. Both are subjectivists and thus hold many irrational positions.
Critical thinking is lost in our culture,
along with individual responsibility and the ability to evaluate and judge
anything objectively. This has led to the acceptance of collectivism over the
individual. E.g. Hillary's "it takes a village", Obama's community
organizing and Trump's "America first". We the people need to start
applying reason again and to reject this collectivist message.
Qualifications for President
Experience: knowledge of the
law, familiarity with the military and foreign policy, a working knowledge of
how our federal government operates.
Trump lacks all of that. He has denied that
there is much difference between running a government and a private business. His
views about bankruptcy in business help explain his irrational views about how
to handle the country's debt. He appears ignorant of the separation of powers.
Clinton has all the experience, albeit to
little avail.
Integrity: loyalty to one's
convictions and values
Trump fails here - as a crony and a
pragmatist.
Clinton also fails - even more despicably.
Look no further than Benghazi, Email server and the Clinton Foundation.
Competence: ability to perform
successfully or efficiently
Trump is certainly competent in some non-political
areas. But is he capable of listening to more rational experts and changing
views to compensate for his other weaknesses and political naivety?
Clinton has certainly demonstrated her
failure here - no real successes in her political career.
Character
Unfortunately,
this has not been a concerning issue in recent elections.
We now see the
degradation in our culture with these two despicable characters. It comes down
to each person's view of which despicable traits are more acceptable.
Trump is a crony
and manipulator, often dishonest, and prone to making racist comments.
Clinton is the
same plus having a huge appetite for power at all costs.
Her racism is near
opposite of Trump's: directed toward whites vs. minorities, men vs. women.
Pro-American
Trump is somewhat more
pro-American than Clinton. However, his isolationism and other non-Capitalist
views are concerns. The only positive with Clinton is that she appears more pro-American
than Obama.
Our
history proves that America is an "exceptional" country. But Obama believes
that America has never been exceptional, and his policies have been designed to
ensure it won't be again. Clinton believes the same and would follow in his
footsteps. Trump dislikes and misunderstands the term
"exceptionalism", yet he wants us to be "great again."
In summary,
we have lost our principles and values in judging and selecting political candidates.
We now have two presumed nominees for President who are clearly unqualified for
the office. Both are Statist, albeit to differing degrees. Trump doesn't know
he is; Clinton does but won't acknowledge it. We have reached the point where a
self-proclaimed Socialist (Sanders) in a once free society nearly beat Clinton
in the primaries!
There was some hope that voters were
properly rejecting the "establishment" or the politically
"elite" candidates due to the harm they have done to our political
system.
But look at what constitutes the elite. In
most fields (e.g. science, sports), there is an objective standard for defining
them: the highest level of success. In politics, there is no such standard:
they are generally those who have gamed the system to achieve power and
control. It should be no surprise that the populace is finally rejecting them.
However, it should be shocking that Clinton - clearly atop the power class - is
still accepted, and that the worst of the alternatives - Sanders and Trump -
are all that is left. The only true elites - those who think critically, have
good ideas and thus good policies - have been ignored by the voters.
Trump supporters do not understand that
simply being different from the established Republicans is not enough. They
need to once again focus on Capitalist principles, e.g. freedom, and to find a
leader who can implement them.
Clinton supporters do not understand the
dangers of Statism and Marxism that has taken over the Democratic party and to
some degree the entire country. They need to focus less on the use of
government force over the individual, and to find a leader who can recognize
such evil.
One can't rationally conclude that either
truly deserves our support. How does one justify a vote for either a political
unknown who is incoherent, unpredictable and immoral; or a political elite
whose record is disastrous and who is evil?
At this stage, I see Clinton and the
Democratic party prevailing in the election.
But what changes would be significant enough
to impact the outcome?
1. If the Republican
party had the courage to dump Trump at the convention for a more acceptable candidate,
then that could likely lead to victory.
2. Short of that,
the party could force Trump to get serious, tone down his rhetoric, and work
together on important issues in hopes of gaining significantly broader support.
That would be a tall task.
