Both the debaters have been all over the lot on many issues over the years. Each has shifted positions on any number of issues, and Mrs. Clinton has repudiated many of the things she spoke in favor of during her husband’s presidency or as a Senator or Secretary of State. As an “outsider,” Mr. Trump is called to account over his conflicting statements. Mr. Trump’s opinion on the Iraq war as a private citizen evidently is of greater importance than Mrs. Clinton’s vote in favor of it and her subsequent repudiation of it. As an “insider,” Mrs. Clinton bears some responsibility for the past eight years, and perhaps should be called to account for her actions. It is obvious that Mrs. Clinton continues to see government as a goody bag from which gifts are bestowed (and please express your gratitude at election time). Mrs. Clinton may have called “half” of Trump’s supporters deplorables, but what is equally interesting is her take on “the other half”: they are people, she believes, who didn’t get what they wanted from government. In other words, they are seeking goodies, and haven’t received them, so are disgruntled. Progressives suppose conservatives want some sort of free goodies from government. Actually, most Trump supporters and almost all conservatives don’t want anything from government – beyond that it properly perform its basic duties. They want low taxes, small government, and one that serves the public rather than demanding the public serving the federal bureaucracy. Most of Hillary’s supporters, it would seem, are looking to give something away -- something free, some entitlement. Most Trump supporters don’t want anything from government, just that it get out of the way and stop needling them over trivialities. They want it to do the big things such as providing a justice system, defending our national interest, and do those tasks set forth in the Constitution; they want a government that stops making it difficult to operate a business, and stops promising to deliver benefits that it can’t afford. There are plenty of fresh topics for the next debates such as the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms, abortion, Keystone Pipeline, etc. but maybe the best type of debate would be a philosophical discussion, not a detail-oriented, “who-thought-what-when” or “how-can-we-create-a-program-that-helps-you” contest. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are skilled debaters: they are quick, glib, confident, authoritative and familiar with the issues. But in office, they undercut our eastern and central European allies, gave away the store in the US negotiations with Iran, allowed Russia to take the initiative in Ukraine, threw victory away in Iraq, botched things in Libya, dismissed ISIS as “jayvees” and believe that “climate change” is the biggest threat America faces. Perhaps the qualities that mean victory in debate don’t always carry over into the real world.
By John Shaffer The first “great debate” is over, and Hillary Clinton won, according to the TV polls. Mrs. Clinton surely did not appear to be affected by her recent health issues, and she had a few sharp retorts and employed them at the right times. Give her credit for experience and for exceeding expectations; but let’s give Mr. Trump at least a bit of credit too, for he stood face-to-face with the most famous woman in the world and held his own. Mr. Trump was on the defensive more often than not, and Mrs. Clinton was more aggressive. Mr. Trump missed some opportunities, and had some inconsistencies. On one hand he complained about the national debt, but on the other, that we do not spend enough government money in the cities. Mrs. Clinton accused us all of racism, although we suppose she excludes her supporters from that charge. The moderator didn’t think things such as Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, 30,000 deleted emails, Obamacare, or the IRS or VA scandals were important enough to discuss; but perhaps the next moderator will raise questions about them, and that may tend to put Mrs. C. on the defensive, which could change the audience’s view of the whole proceeding. A couple of weeks before the debate, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Trump’s supporters (well, “half of them”) a “basket of deplorables,” summarily guilty of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, and who knows what else. Sad to say, but this is the standard view that the progressive left (in fact, the mainstream left as well) has expressed for fifty years or more. Their basic principle is this: the left does not believe that anyone has a legitimate reason for espousing a conservative viewpoint. Only the conditions listed above – racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, among others – can explain it. That, or they must be stupid, greedy, selfish, bought-off, paid-off, blindly following orders from clergymen – anything, in fact, except a philosophical belief in small government or conservative principles. Progressives, of course, are absolutely pure, motivated by honesty, compassion and intelligence.
Both the debaters have been all over the lot on many issues over the years. Each has shifted positions on any number of issues, and Mrs. Clinton has repudiated many of the things she spoke in favor of during her husband’s presidency or as a Senator or Secretary of State. As an “outsider,” Mr. Trump is called to account over his conflicting statements. Mr. Trump’s opinion on the Iraq war as a private citizen evidently is of greater importance than Mrs. Clinton’s vote in favor of it and her subsequent repudiation of it. As an “insider,” Mrs. Clinton bears some responsibility for the past eight years, and perhaps should be called to account for her actions. It is obvious that Mrs. Clinton continues to see government as a goody bag from which gifts are bestowed (and please express your gratitude at election time). Mrs. Clinton may have called “half” of Trump’s supporters deplorables, but what is equally interesting is her take on “the other half”: they are people, she believes, who didn’t get what they wanted from government. In other words, they are seeking goodies, and haven’t received them, so are disgruntled. Progressives suppose conservatives want some sort of free goodies from government. Actually, most Trump supporters and almost all conservatives don’t want anything from government – beyond that it properly perform its basic duties. They want low taxes, small government, and one that serves the public rather than demanding the public serving the federal bureaucracy. Most of Hillary’s supporters, it would seem, are looking to give something away -- something free, some entitlement. Most Trump supporters don’t want anything from government, just that it get out of the way and stop needling them over trivialities. They want it to do the big things such as providing a justice system, defending our national interest, and do those tasks set forth in the Constitution; they want a government that stops making it difficult to operate a business, and stops promising to deliver benefits that it can’t afford. There are plenty of fresh topics for the next debates such as the Supreme Court, the right to bear arms, abortion, Keystone Pipeline, etc. but maybe the best type of debate would be a philosophical discussion, not a detail-oriented, “who-thought-what-when” or “how-can-we-create-a-program-that-helps-you” contest. President Obama and Hillary Clinton are skilled debaters: they are quick, glib, confident, authoritative and familiar with the issues. But in office, they undercut our eastern and central European allies, gave away the store in the US negotiations with Iran, allowed Russia to take the initiative in Ukraine, threw victory away in Iraq, botched things in Libya, dismissed ISIS as “jayvees” and believe that “climate change” is the biggest threat America faces. Perhaps the qualities that mean victory in debate don’t always carry over into the real world. Comments are closed.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|