Michelle Obama vs. Donald Trump

Michelle Obama just gave one of the most powerful speeches I’ve ever heard. I won’t even selectively quote it, so important is the speech in its entirety. If you haven’t seen it, take time and watch it now:

It is an astonishingly well-crafted speech, one that eviscerates Donald Trump and exposes his immorality and lack of character for all to see, without ever once mentioning his name. Michelle Obama appeals to the goodness she believes is within each of us, hoping to reach all of us, regardless of our politics.

At the same time, she makes plain for all to see Trump’s crassness, vulgarity, and violence towards women. She refuses to accept his explanation of ‘locker-room talk’. She speaks of the personal experiences of women who must endure daily the comments on their bodies by men who refuse to acknowledge them as fully human. If only this inappropriate behavior was limited only to language. Trump has made it clear some men see it as their right to be able to do much more than comment.

Maybe you think we need a wall, or that Trump tells it like it is, or that he will finally be the outsider we need in Washington. Reasonable people can disagree about policy, and do. However, Trump repeatedly demonstrates his infantile view of the world. He has no curiosity, no interest in anything unless it boosts his already outsized ego.

His views are simplistic at best, his policy proposals virtually nonexistent. There is no indication he has ever done anything to help anyone else, despite his enormous wealth, unless he personally benefitted. He is only now discovering that he cannot have what he wants simply by declaring he wants it NOW, like an adult male Veruca Salt.

Today, Mrs. Obama reduced Trump to little more than a grotesque set of impulses which, due to his luck in the birth lottery, have until now always been indulged. She declares him unfit for the presidency; unfit as a man. I agree.

Advertisements

The intersection of liberalism and (fiscal) conservatism

We have an opportunity on a number of fronts to combine the best ideals of liberalism and conservatism. Before we look at potential areas for agreement, there are three primary obstacles:

  1. The other side will get something they want.
  2. Both sides will share credit for good policy.
  3. Somewhere, someone might get something they don’t ‘deserve’.

These seem like silly, almost inconsequential barriers to making good policy, especially good policy that is cheaper than bad policy. However, Congress has not always been known to work for the best solution if it means that any of these three factors will be present. A closer look at these obstacles is warranted before we delve into the issues.

#1: The other side will get something they want. 

Oh, horror of horrors! Some approach our political system as a real-life Game of Thrones, in which the only acceptable solution to problems is for all enemies to be destroyed and their own goals implemented completely and without question. This is inherently un-American and offensive to all thinking people. Our entire system of government is designed to disrupt extreme voices and promote reasonable compromise.

Yet somehow, in today’s world compromise is seen as unacceptable weakness. Many would rather refuse any progress and stand on principle, even if compromising on any point would achieve nearly everything they desire.


#2: Both sides will share credit for good policy.

Politics in Washington (and many states) is so poisoned by hateful rhetoric that many legislators are unwilling to vote for anything if it means the other side will get to also claim victory. This makes no sense. A good policy for all should be the goal for every act of legislation. The mindset that there must be winners and losers is destructive and counter-productive.

#3: Somewhere, someone might get something they don’t ‘deserve’.

This is an especially heinous objection, in my opinion. Every day, every individual gets something they don’t ‘deserve’. Some would argue that life itself is a gift and something that no one has done anything to ‘earn’.

Many view poor people as lazy and unwilling to earn their way in the world. The truth is, most of the poor are working poor.

Poor people are also often portrayed as taking advantage of the system, ‘stealing’ benefits they don’t really need. The truth is, error rates for SNAP benefits are at an all-time low, meaning nearly everyone receiving benefits legitimately qualifies.

We are in a vicious cycle in which the wealthy are the only ones able to be elected due to corrupt campaign financing laws. The wealthy then implement rules that benefit themselves and their investments at the expense of those rely on their own labor for their income. These rules then shift more wealth into fewer hands, which then gives them greater power to modify the rules even more significantly in their favor. Their children inherit (deservingly so?) this wealth almost completely and then have the ability to continue manipulating the system without the awareness of how the wealth was earned or what it is like for others who struggle.

This is all compounded by a great pride in the American work ethic and rugged individualism. The American story is one where anyone can be anything they want if they work hard enough. Therefore, if you haven’t made it in America, it must be because you are lazy. This narrative works well to hide the systemic injustices that exist today and allows the wealthy to dismiss the fact that our society no longer provides a level playing field of opportunity.

The Middle

So what kinds of issues might be available for policy development that would satisfy both conservative and liberal ideals? First, let me note that not all ideals will be served here. For instance, these suggestions should appeal to fiscal conservatives, but not necessarily social conservatives. That being said, in this series of posts I will examine public policy initiatives which will save money, reduce crime, respect the dignity of those affected, and lead to positive social outcomes.

Some of these require more study before widespread implementation, but I believe there is enough data to at least warrant further inspection. We know that if we keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing, we’ll get the same thing we always have. That shouldn’t be good enough. Let’s strive for better, even if it’s a bit unconventional.

Stay tuned for the next in this series, coming soon!