Remember in February of 2021 when Democrats said they were going to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour? That raise would have lifted nearly a million workers out of poverty while placing Democrats firmly on the side of working-class Americans.
You may recall the “Senate Parliamentarian,” an obscure official, ruled that the pay raise couldn’t be included in the proposed bill, a decision that Democrats said they oh-so-reluctantly respected. And so the federal minimum wage still sits at $7.25 an hour (the last time it was raised was in 2009).
Vice President Kamala Harris, presiding over the Senate, could have simply overruled the Parliamentarian, but she and the Biden administration chose not to.
Think about that. Biden/Harris ran on a platform of raising that wage to $15. Biden himself promised it and promoted it. But when push came to shove, they didn’t shove, nor did they even push. They just caved to their corporate overlords.
A counterfactual: What if the Democrats had done what they’d promised? What if Harris had run in 2024 on a proven record of delivering higher wages to workers? What if she’d said she was going to raise it even higher, say to $20 an hour, when she became president? My guess is that she would have fared far better with workers and may in fact have won the election.
Elections have consequences, Democrats like to say. So too does a broken promise.
The Democratic Party is returning to what they do best: blaming the voters for their defeat.
Why did Kamala lose? Racism and sexism. Duh. And white women. And Hispanics. And Black men. They just didn’t do what they were supposed to do, which was to vote for Kamala. After all, she was the candidate handpicked for you by the DNC elite. Geez, what more do you want? Look at the joy below!
You expected them to dazzle? Shame on you!
Remember Michelle Obama wagged her finger and scolded you not to expect Kamala to “dazzle”? Remember her husband berated Black men for not having Kamala’s back? I’m amazed that didn’t convince you to vote for Kamalove and Kamalot. Haters, all of you.
Of course, I channeled my hatred of women and Jews by voting for Jill Stein. But as a cis white male, nothing better was expected of me; I was always a lost cause. And by voting for Jill Stein, a Jewish woman dedicated to peace and against genocide in Gaza, I was obviously really voting not for Stein but for Trump. Duh.
I’m deplorable. I’m garbage. I’m a bad person. The only good people are those who voted for Kamala. End of story.
One thing is certain: It can’t be the candidate. It’s not her fault that she couldn’t inspire more voters to cast their ballots for her. It’s not her fault that she embraced the Cheneys. It’s not her fault she touted the “lethal” U.S. military and supported Israel and its genocide in Gaza. It’s not her fault that her track record in 2020 for winning support at the national level was abysmal. It’s not her fault she lost all seven battleground states despite more than a billion dollars spent on her campaign. It’s not her fault—it’s your fault. She didn’t deserve to be repudiated by voters—and you’re going to deserve your fate under Trump since you rejected her.
Some of you still want a populist like Bernie Sanders, don’t you? Sorry, that’s never going to happen. We the DNC would rather lose with a Cheney-endorsed neocon genocide-enabler like Harris than win with a principled populist like Sanders. Not just in 2016, not just in 2024, but in 2028 and all future elections.
Either you vote for the DNC Republican we give you or you get the RNC Republican we all deplore. Got a problem with that? Have you thought about leaving the country?
Addendum: If Democrats truly believe democracy dies in darkness under Trump, was a mediocre vice president with less-than-stellar political and speaking skills the best person to challenge him? If Trump=fascism, was anointing Kamala as the candidate without primaries the best way to demonstrate Democrats’ commitment to a fair process open to everyone within the party? Are voters really to blame when you give them no choice, no say, and no real power?
I woke to the news that Donald Trump is the projected winner of the 2024 presidential election. What that means for the country and the world remains to be seen. Why he won, and why Kamala Harris lost, will surely be analyzed deeply.
It didn’t end well …
Readers here know my take. I didn’t think Harris was the best candidate for Democrats to run for several reasons:
She was selected by the DNC rather than going through the normal primary process. In 2020, her campaign for the presidency flamed out quickly without her winning a single vote or delegate. She needed time to hone her message and develop her political chops, but she didn’t have that time.
Her total support of Israel and her embrace of the Cheneys and Republican dissenters from Trump estranged her from progressives within her own party. If people want a Republican, they’re most likely to vote Trump, not a Cheney-endorsed Democrat.
Harris had a muddled, “soft sell” message. It was unclear what she truly stood for. Words like “forward” and phrases like “We’re not going back” were vague to the point of meaninglessness.
Harris was perhaps most closely associated with women’s rights, especially reproductive rights, but it’s hard for me to discern other issues that she well and truly believed in, issues she was willing to push for.
She gained a reputation as a flip-flopper on issues like fracking and medicare for all, and her time as the immigration “czarina” connected her to a highly complex failure.
She was far too closely linked to the doddering efforts of the Biden administration, and indeed she said she couldn’t think how she’d be different from Biden except for her pledge to put a Republican in her Cabinet. Again, if people want Republicans, they can vote for them.
Too much of Harris’ message was focused on how she’s not Trump. We didn’t get a clear sense of what she stood for, what she was going to champion, how she was going to make America a better place. In the end, Harris didn’t communicate her message well enough to persuade enough voters to cast their ballots for her.
That’s my quick and dirty take. Before I’ve had my coffee! Readers, what do you think?
P.S. Apparently the Republicans have won the House and Senate as well. A rather stunning repudiation of Democrats and their shenanigans.
It’s Election Day in America and I really hope you get out and vote—or that you’ve voted already.
Sure, most of us wish the candidates were different, as in better. But don’t surrender to apathy and despair. Fill out a ballot. Let your vote be counted.
Often there are important state issues/referendums on the ballot and local offices up for grabs. Even though Trump versus Harris consumes most of the oxygen, these state issues and local offices deserve your attention as well.
The so-called experts keep warning us about the death of democracy and the rise of fascism. Deny them by voting. And then deny them further by doing even more, after the election.
I always feel better after voting. I hope you do too.
So, on this day especially I don’t care if you’re Red, Blue, Green, or some other color. I care that you’re engaged. That you’re willing to go on the record. That you’re ready to take a stand, express an opinion, if only on your ballot. It’s a start.
I know some people say voting only encourages the bastards within a thoroughly corrupt and corrupting system. I don’t believe that. Voting gives you a chance to send a message. You may think your one vote won’t matter, but it’s certain no vote by you won’t matter. It’s time for you to matter.
Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise a citizen’s right to vote. Vote for me! Well, not literally *for* me, but for our mutual belief in having our voices heard. You have my thanks.
Remember, women couldn’t even vote for president until the 1920 election
When candidates lose an election, they are primarily responsible
If Kamala Harris loses this election, can we please not blame Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, the usual suspects?
If Donald Trump loses this election, can we please not blame immigrants, voting machines, and various alleged forms of ballot- and ballot box tampering? And god knows what else Team Trump comes up with?
When candidates lose elections, they and their campaigns are primarily responsible. Sure, there’s always the possibility of bad breaks, bad luck, even occasional attempts at cheating. (Find me some votes in Georgia!) But usually one candidate and one campaign simply ran a better, smarter, more dynamic race.
For all you Kamala Harris and Donald Trump supporters out there, you should be prepared for your candidate to lose, and, if so, you should want them to lose with grace. No one likes a sore loser.
So, for example, Harris may win the popular vote but lose the election in the electoral college. If that happens, it will be likely due to her tepid campaign messaging and her total support of Israel, which is costing her votes in critical swing states.
If Trump loses, a critical factor will be Republican messaging on “women’s issues,” the biggest one being abortion. Trump’s own inconsistencies and inconstancy will also be a factor. Sure, MAGA loves Trump, but many other Americans see Trump as divisive, bombastic, and unreliable. Trump’s rallies, where he’ll say virtually anything, convinces more than a few Americans that he’s the very opposite of a “very stable genius.”
An excerpt from the New York Times (see below) yesterday explains why Harris may yet lose. Again, it’s not because Stein will steal “her” votes or Putin will brainwash his American comrades; rather, Harris has run a careful, often shallow campaign that simply may not generate enough voter enthusiasm on Nov. 5th.
Hopefully, we’ll know by Wednesday who won, and we’ll also witness the loser bow out with some grace and dignity. A man can dream …
The famous Rudyard Kipling quote featured at Wimbledon
The New York Times on the Harris campaign and its weakness:
Harris has run a strikingly cautious campaign. Game theorists would describe it as a low-variance strategy. She and her aides avoided moves that might have gone very well — and might have gone very poorly.
Can you name her campaign’s central theme, for example? Many of her main messages are vague (“when we fight, we win”), Trump-focused (“in it for himself”) or both (“turn the page”). Asked on television how her presidency would differ from Biden’s, Harris said, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”
She could have taken a different approach. She could have run on the populist, anti-corporate message that is helping Democratic Senate candidates — or gone in the opposite direction and portrayed herself as a business-friendly centrist. She could have picked an issue, like housing, and signaled that it would be her No. 1 priority, much as health care was for Barack Obama. Instead of offering a bold, thematic message, Harris has announced a series of modest policies.
Her low-variance strategy is also evident in her decision not to explain why she reversed her stances on immigration and fracking. Many voters say they want to know more about Harris — who became a candidate only three months ago — and she hasn’t always filled in the blanks.
The strategy is evident with the Middle East, too. She didn’t pick as her running mate the popular Jewish governor of Pennsylvania partly because many Israel critics opposed him. Her campaign also didn’t invite any Palestinians to speak at the Democratic convention, which may hurt her in Michigan. When possible, Harris has avoided conflict.
All these decisions have benefits, to be clear. Making the Middle East more salient is rarely smart in American politics. Explaining why she changed her mind about the border could have made her look weak. Doing more town halls and interviews to explain her views could have exposed one of Harris’s weaknesses: Although she is an excellent debater, she can struggle in less structured settings.
But if Harris loses, her caution will look problematic.
According to the Times, the basic weakness (and strength) of the Trump campaign is Trump himself. Are enough Americans ready for another four years of MAGA? We’ll know soon enough …
The Bombs Land Softer When a Latina Lesbian Drops Them
Listening to Chris Hedges and Cornel West the other day, I heard them use the term “multicultural militarism” to describe the Democratic Party’s embrace of war and the U.S. military. It fits. Consider Kamala Harris as commander-in-chief. She’ll be celebrated as the first woman of color, the first Black and South Asian president, even as she embraces and boasts about the “lethality” of the U.S. military and the utility of war. And by “utility,” I mean Harris’ support of Ukraine and Israel to the tune of $200 billion in weapons and other forms of mainly military aid.
But do the bombs and missiles land softer because a Latina lesbian Air Force pilot drops and launches them?
Speaking of the Air Force, my old service, I caught this cartoon by Pia Guerra:
The U.S. government really believes it can have it both ways. It can provide bombs to Israel to annihilate Gaza while at the same time dropping care packages among the wounded and desperate. Call it feel-good militarism. Have some MREs with your HE.* A new form of American (un)happy meal.
Harris and Trump reflect the bipartisan consensus in DC that Pentagon budgets must always go up. They both boast and brag about the U.S. military and its deadliness. They mainly disagree on which enemy is the most serious, with Harris favoring Iran and Russia while Trump hypes China. Neither candidate sees militarism as a problem: they see it as something to celebrate. It’s just that Harris and the Democrats prefer “diverse” militarism.
Trump, of course, has said he wants to end the Russia-Ukraine War. He also raised the specter of nuclear war. Harris, apparently, seems to think she must be more hawkish than Trump, hence her embrace of generals and her talk of lethality.
Whether Harris or Trump wins, higher military budgets are guaranteed and probably more war too. Interestingly, Trump talks more of the enemy within than the enemy without, though his “enemy within” is typically a caricature of woke liberals out to destroy America by forcing your kids to undergo gender-reassignment surgery. Just as Trump is using threat inflation for the enemy within, Harris is inflating the Iranian and Russian threats from without.
Civil discord within America or more war outside of America? That may be our “choice” on November 5th. Or maybe we’ll get both.
One thing is certain: A B-52 with a rainbow flag and a BLM slogan is still a B-52.
I suppose a Harris B-52 will be the first joyful bomber
* That’s meals ready to eat (MRE), or rations, with your high explosives (HE).
It’s “Take America Back” Versus “We’re Not Going Back”
This year’s presidential election is as grim as can be, and that grimness is reflected in the campaign slogans. Trump wants to “Take America back,” the implication being that bad people, I suppose the Democrats, have captured America and ruined it, and that only Trump can fix it. Harris says “We’re not going back,” meaning Trump can’t win again because he’d take America back to a hateful and brutal past.
Not a positive election, is it? How do you like your future, very bad or even worse?
It’s reflected in a story I saw in The Boston Globe this AM. Here’s an excerpt from a report on the swing state of Wisconsin:
Here in this key swing county of a key swing state [Wisconsin] that may well decide the presidency, voters across the political spectrum are gripped by fear over who will win the upcoming election.
Instead of expressing excitement about supporting their candidate — or simply relief that the election will soon be over — more than 50 voters interviewed here three weeks before Election Day repeatedly used words like “anxious,” “apprehensive,” “scared,” “worried,” and “terrified” to describe their feelings about the other party’s candidate winning.
Voters supporting former president Donald Trump said they fear that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, inflation, crime, and illegal immigration will rise, leading to a fundamental change in American life. And Harris supporters say another four years of Trump would increase division and undermine the country’s democratic institutions.
Two memorable quotes about fear occur to me. One is from Master Po from “Kung Fu” who said, Fear is the only darkness. And then Frank Herbert from “Dune”: Fear is the mind-killer. And of course FDR who told us at the height of the Great Depression that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself.
It’s an incredible disservice to the American people for both candidates to be stoking fear. What cowardice by both the Blue and Red Teams!
That’s yet another reason why I like third parties and why Jill Stein and the Green Party appeal to me. Stein presents a positive vision of the future, a more peaceful one, one in which Americans come together to tackle common problems like climate change, health care, infrastructure, and the like.
I refuse to vote for parties and candidates that stoke fear, that promote darkness and that seek to kill my mind.
Trump supporters at a rally in Wisconsin (Scott Olson/Getty)
Sorry, Democrats and Republicans: I’m not going “back” to you and your fear.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promises to press on with Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon dashed hopes that the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwarmight help end more than a year of escalating conflict in the Middle East.
Is anyone surprised at this? Netanyahu gains power from war. He evades prosecution and accountability through war. He achieves his vision of a one-state solution through war. It was never just about Sinwar or Hamas or even vengeance. It’s all about adding Gaza and the West Bank to a “greater” Israel while killing, starving, and displacing more than two million Palestinians in a second Nakba or catastrophe for them.
America’s role is simple: Help and obey Israel in its genocidal activities. And American politicians are more than willing to do this. Look at Congress rapturously applauding Netanyahu. Look at President Joe Biden describing himself as a Zionist. Look at all the money U.S. politicians willingly take from Israeli-American lobbyists. Look at the fear in U.S. politicians’ eyes when AIPAC threatens them.
Over to you, Bibi!
Kamala Harris says Israel has a right to defend itself and that she’ll never approve an arms embargo. Donald Trump is 100% for Israel and accuses Harris of hating Jews and Israel (Harris’ husband, of course, is Jewish, even as Harris herself wholeheartedly defends Israel). Trump’s advice to Israel is to “finish the job”: Trump even accused Biden of being a Palestinian! It’s a strange Palestinian who hugs and defers to Bibi, who proclaims himself to be a Zionist, and who has taken more than $5 million from AIPAC over the course of his career.
And so Trump competes with Biden/Harris over who can be more loyal and subservient to the far right in Israel while ordinary Americans suffer and the Palestinians burn. Politics in America is a sick joke.
Vote Blue No Matter Who; Vote Red Until Your Dead; Why?
I don’t meet many people who are happy with the choice of Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. Kamala, an undistinguished vice president, was anointed by Democratic Party elites. Trump, former president and festering sore loser, remains a profoundly polarizing figure given to deploring “the enemy within.” It’s not an inspiring “choice,” is it?
Fortunately, my state ballot arrived for the November 5th election, giving me four other choices other than Blue versus Red.
The first alternate choice is Green: Jill Stein. I voted for her once before in 2016. She’s a gutsy and principled woman and I agree with most of her platform. She’s got my vote.
The second choice is Libertarian: Chase Oliver. I’ve watched a couple of videos of him. I’m not a Libertarian but I do appreciate and support the party platform and its position on war. To wit:
“As the major parties become more and more war-hungry, libertarians have been sounding the alarm about the unsustainable military empire since its inception. As president, I WILL end wars and bring the troops home”
For too long, our nation has been entangled in endless wars, leaving scars on our veterans and their families. It’s time to pivot to a foreign policy focused on peace. We need to end drone strikes and military interventions, and instead champion free trade and international goodwill. Let’s reclaim our role as the ‘leader of the free world’ by pursuing peace and serving as a beacon of hope.
I just might vote for the Democrats if they had such a clear statement (and true commitment) for peace and against war.
The third choice is Socialism and Liberation: Claudia De la Cruz. To be honest, I’ve heard of her but don’t know much of anything about her. Here’s a quick description from her website:
Claudia De la Cruz and Karina Garcia are running for President and Vice-President as the candidates of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. Claudia De la Cruz is a mother, popular educator and theologian born in the South Bronx who has spent her life organizing for justice for working people at home and to end U.S. empire abroad. Karina Garcia is a Chicana organizer, popular educator and mother who has spent her entire adult life fighting for the rights of immigrant workers, women and the whole working class.
Claudia De la Cruz and her VP candidate, Karina Garcia. These two Latina look more mature and “real” to me than Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Contrast this image with Kamala’s “Vogue” photo shoot.
I like their focus on workers’ rights and also ending U.S. imperialism. I’d love to see these two Latina duking it out with a corrupt Congress on workers’ rights while advancing an anti-imperial agenda. Wouldn’t that be something? The possibility of real hope and change in DC. A man can dream …
The fourth and final alternate choice on my ballot is Independent: Shiva Ayyadurai. I’d never heard of him. He was born in India of Indian parents; as he’s not a natural-born citizen of the U.S., he’s constitutionally unqualified to become POTUS.
So, leaving aside Ayyadurai, my state gives me three additional choices to Blue and Red. That’s what a healthy democracy should offer: choice. True choice. Not just a thoroughly corrupted duopoly that ignores the needs of the 99% in its pursuit of money and power.
Before you say it, I know many people believe that voting outside of the Blue and Red hammerlock on power is a waste. Don’t vote for Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver, or Claudia De la Cruz. Don’t you know they can’t win?
Well, they definitely can’t win if no one votes for them. Candidates from alternate parties can only gain power and, maybe, just maybe, eventually “win” (in the year 2525?) if we give them our support and our votes.
Some people seem to think your vote is “wasted” unless you vote for the eventual winner. Or, your vote is “wasted” if you don’t accept that voting for the lesser evil (most often, Kamala) is morally sound and wise because you’re stopping the greater evil (most often, Trump).
But what if I don’t want to vote for lesser or greater evil?
Democracies should offer genuine choice. I realize third-party candidates in 2024 are unlikely in the extreme to win, but the only way to break the duopoly is to step outside of it and vote for candidates like Stein, Oliver, and De la Cruz who offer alternative visions. As more people do this, the duopoly might actually become more responsive to voters like us. Again, a man can dream …
I sincerely believe that no vote is wasted. What is a waste is being so disillusioned as to not vote at all, or to vote unthinkingly or out of fear for someone that you don’t believe in.
Vote for what you believe, America, and let the chips fall where they may.
Addendum: Viggo Mortensen on voting your conscience.
It’s been a welcome relief not to write much about Donald Trump since he left office with so much dignity and so little controversy in January 2021. (Just kidding!) Back in March of 2016, I wrote a BV article on how and why Donald Trump had disqualified himself for the presidency. During a debate, Trump had boasted, in his usual ignorant way, that U.S. military members would follow his orders whether they were legal or not. Basically, it was the Richard M. Nixon defense of “If the President does it (or orders it), that means it’s not illegal.” Trump, I concluded back then, was constitutionally unsuited for the presidency. It didn’t matter. Hillary Clinton ran a horrible campaign and Trump won a surprising victory.
Put charitably, his four years as president were a very mixed bag. If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can consult the Bracing Views archive and all the articles I wrote about Trump and his deeds (and misdeeds). His biggest accomplishment was a big tax cut for the already wealthy in America. He seriously bungled the COVID crisis, projecting cluelessness instead of steadiness. He blamed his generals for a botched raid on Yemen, then shamelessly trotted out before Congress the widow of a service member who’d died there. He surrendered to his generals and prolonged the Afghan War and almost started a war with Iran by killing a senior general in a risky drone strike. He pandered to Israel (he still is pandering, by the way). He boosted Pentagon spending. He angled for a big military parade in Washington, D.C., just because that’s what democracies do. (The parade at least never came to pass.) He posed with a Bible to advocate law and order. And that’s only a few items off the top of my head.
Trump is now older but judging by his speeches none the wiser. His rallies have gotten longer and his speeches more chaotic. His vilification of immigrants is especially inflammatory. His claim that student protesters of genocide in Gaza should be deported was yet another example of his fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly. He continues to be more of a divider than a uniter even as he lacks a vision for a better American future. His slogan is “Take America Back.” From whom, or to what era? Many of his claims about his opponent, Kamala Harris, are simply lies. (No, Kamala doesn’t “hate” Israel, quite the reverse; no, Kamala isn’t a “Marxist,” she’s a self-avowed capitalist.)
Speaking of Trump’s age, I worry about his health. He’s 78, overweight, but still displays admirable energy (so far). Yet we’ve just witnessed a president, Joe Biden, also elected at age 78 who’s been in obvious physical and mental decline. Is Trump ready for the rigors and strains of another four years in office, which would see him as America’s leader until age 82? I have my doubts.
Since I live in a blue state and also used to be a registered Democrat, I’ve been spared being inundated by Trump mailers. My friend M. Davout who lives in a swing state hasn’t been so lucky. Here’s his description of being mail-bombed by the Trump campaign this fall:
I have probably received over 50 pro-Trump mailers over the last month and a half. Friends of mine (also liberals) report the same torrent of ugly campaign dreck. [These mailers] appeal to the lowest negative human motives, fear and hate … Listen to the lies and racist claims Trump and Vance articulate daily–immigrants are murderers and rapists, Haitians are eating pets, Mexican gangs are taking over American cities, they are poisoning the blood of America, Harris is an idiot, she is a DEI candidate … What kind of person do you imagine they are trying to reach and mobilize with this rhetoric?
Davout has a point. Trump’s campaign rhetoric is often angry, vengeful, hateful. It’s consistent with previous Trump imagery of American carnage, of America being disrespected, of America needing to strike back at … someone. Somewhere. Immigrants at home. Iranians abroad. This is not unique to the Trump campaign, of course. Many Democrats despise Trump. Too many Democrats are pro-war. But no one would describe Trump as running a campaign based on unity and joy. A politics of harshness, of recrimination, of grievance, of score-settling, largely defines the Trump campaign.
Readers, Trump’s vision is not my vision of America. Nor was it my father’s. Eight years ago, in October 2016, I wrote an article: “Dump Chump Trump.” I’ll paste it below. I highly doubt any Trump supporters will be turned away from their man merely by my words, but perhaps they may serve to rekindle a few concerns about what kind of man Trump is. My conclusion remains the same: Trump is not the answer.
*****
Dump Chump Trump
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere.
Oct 1, 2016, 09:29 AM EDT
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters at the Suburban Collection Showplace in Novi, Michigan, U.S. September 30, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
What kind of a presidential candidate tweets in the middle of the night about alleged sex tapes involving a former Miss Universe winner? Indeed, what kind of a man does this?
Donald Trump is a chump. I’d call him a chimp, except it would be an insult to chimpanzees everywhere. The man has no discipline, no sense of decorum, and no compassion for others (let’s not forget his signature line, “You’re fired”). Indeed, he seems to revel in humiliating others. This was mildly amusing when he was taking on equals on the stage during the Republican primaries, but it’s disturbing in the extreme to see him bullying the little guys and gals for whom he’s supposedly a champion.
So many sane people and major newspapers have gone on record as being against Trump that there’s little I can add. Sadly, Trump’s followers seem unperturbed and undisturbed no matter his insults and tyrannical behavior.
All I can say is this: Trump is not the kind of man my father taught me to be. My dad, who fought forest fires in Oregon in the CCC, a veteran of an armored division in World War II, a city firefighter for more than 30 years until his retirement, treated people fairly and squarely. He was humble about himself and considerate to others. I can’t recall him insulting others, certainly not in the intentional and hurtful way that Trump directs at others. Trump is especially fond of attacking women or minorities or anyone he sees as vulnerable, the very opposite of my dad’s code of behavior.
Don’t get me wrong: my dad wasn’t perfect. He had his faults. But his faults were not directed at others; he didn’t try to demean or diminish other people, as Trump so obviously enjoys doing. Unlike Trump, my dad wasn’t boastful; indeed, three favorite sayings of his were: “Still waters run deep,” “Don’t toot your own horn,” and “The empty barrel makes the most noise.”
You were right, Dad. The rushing nonsense from Trump exhibits his shallowness; the man is constantly tweeting his own horn; and, like the empty vessel that he is, he makes an awful amount of noise.
Trump: Not the kind of man my father would respect; not the kind of man our country needs.
Dump chump Trump.
Standard Disclaimer (10/2024): Criticizing Trump doesn’t mean I love Kamala Harris. Instead, I’m going to demonstrate my misogyny and anti-Semitism by voting for Jill Stein—you know, a Jewish woman who’s actually for peace and against genocide.
Bracing Views 