Two Households, Both Alike in Indignity

Well, I watched it.

Trump, prowling around the stage like a caged lion, large and intimidatory.   Incoherent in his analysis of any specifics, vociferous and boisterously ready to rip and tear whenever another rag strayed into his jaws.

Clinton, unintimidated and disciplined, delivering her party line in practised prose- a consummate political professional who occasionally referred to policy, and cunning in disguising that not one item of policy was hers, but a declaration of her sponsors’ shopping lists, ticked off one by one.  Why, when I look at her face, is her mouth the only thing I see?

Anyway, my thought was (because I’m British and it is not my problem)  who the hell do you vote for?

I do not count myself among those who smugly dismiss Trump as a fool.  That camp has been wrong on so many levels.   I believe that in the face-off with Russia that must inevitably happen Trump has the necessary steel – he’s no JFK, (although his womanizing tendencies might suggest otherwise) but then Putin is no Khrushchev.  He had the common sense to avoid being embroiled in the Syria issue, too, and a great proportion of the art of diplomacy is knowing when to stay out.  I’m also persuaded that he will at least try to resolve America’s issues at home with something more than rhetoric, although that must be dependent upon his support from his fellow Republicans.  His stance on law and order, though, restricted currently to a few sound bites, intrigues me.   How exactly does he intend to resolve the ‘problem with our inner cities, with Chicago; it’s terrible’?   And oh, his stance on the Second Amendment!

Clinton, on the other hand, is a woman who proudly proclaims her record in public service; and that would be okay if her record was spectacularly good, but from an outsider’s standpoint it seems average, possibly even a little self-indulgent.  I tried to pick through Hubby Bill’s testimony (at her inauguration) to her fabulousness; and certainly she has had a very active political life, yet did I discern a long series of ‘she attendeds’ and ‘she worked fors’ without too much emphasis upon the things she actually achieved?   The conclusion I reach is of someone who has had thirty years to become politically tired, who has built up so many associations in the political class she has no hope of extrication, or ambition left for independent decision-making.  That’s probably wise, BTW, because there is evidence her judgement is not always that good.

If Hilary succeeds in becoming President,  I see her uneasily enthroned in the Oval Office, under constant siege by Iran, blackmail by the Sauds, and bullying by Putin, Assad, and Xi Jinping in turns.  Her heels will be riddled with bite-marks from Kim Jung Un and clawed by Rodrigo Duterte – in short, I don’t believe she has the strength to deal with a world of which a strong President is a vital component.

Should Donald find his way to that chair, however, what then?   A whole spectrum of wonderful – some might say frightening – prospects will be unveiled.   His quixotic nature coupled with his blunt terminology is capable of delivering him into a scrape or two, isn’t it?  But I am more perturbed because when I watch him all I see is his latent anger, and that, I am certain, could place half the world in peril.

Two households, then, both alike in indignity; both allegedly dishonest, neither prepared to deliver a cure to the inequalities that are at the root of  America’s ills, and neither really bent upon tackling the gun laws in any meaningful fashion.  I don’t think we should require our leaders to be superhuman – on the contrary, the greater the leader, as history has proved, the greater their foibles.  We only ask for the ability to lead, and to instill faith in we who are compelled to follow.

That is, of course, only my particular view.   If I were an American voter this year, I think I would be inclined to stay at home on polling day.

11 responses to “Two Households, Both Alike in Indignity”

  1. Hate to disagree with you, but as an American, I can’t let your statements lie unchallenged. Hillary has done a great deal. When she says she worked for something, she means it. She worked hard as a lawyer, as a First Lady, as a Senator, and as Secretary of State and accomplished a great deal. Just ask the children who are getting health insurance because of her, the people of NYC who benefited from her work after 9/11, the poor clients she served as a lawyer, and so on. It’s NOT a made-up list of accomplishments. The only truth Trump spoke last night was when he said she’s a fighter and she never gives up. She doesn’t. And she won’t.

    Trump has no clue how the American political system works. He thinks one Senator could change the tax code. He thinks a President can do whatever he or she pleases. He thinks laws can change just because he says so. He is a loud-mouthed bully who cares about nobody and nothing but himself and MAYBE his children. Maybe. He is a sexist, racist, fear-mongering, hate-spewing ass who will endanger not only America but the world.

    He gets along with no one—what makes you think he will understand world diplomacy and politics?

    Those of us who live here and have watched this campaign from start to finish, those of us who do more than just listen to rhetoric that feeds into our worst fears, we know that Donald Trump is a demagogue just one step removed from Adolf Hitler. I happen to respect and admire Hillary Clinton, but even if I didn’t, I would do everything in my power to prevent Trump from being elected President.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. One more comment. I find your assumption that HIllary could be bossed around by world leaders and that Trump couldn’t quite sexist. There is absolutely nothing in Hillary’s career that would suggest she is not as tough as any man. She would better stand up to Putin and the others than a hot-tempered, mean-spirited narcissist who thinks only of himself and only with one part of his anatomy.

    OK, vent over.


    1. Amy, you’re very welcome to disagree with me! I must assume from your drift hat you’re not a Republican, then! I do take issue, though, with your assumption that my comment concerning Clinton’s uneasy tenure in execution of foreign policy was in any way sexist. Strength has nothing to do with gender, in fact I take pride in belonging to a nation that has a record already sporting two strong Prime Ministers in Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May. I would not accuse Angela Merkel of weakness, either. No, my comment was much more to do with Clinton’s (or perhaps I should say the Clinton family’s) associations in politics. Too many (if you’ll forgive the crude expression, but it fits) backs to scratch: too many obligations; too much history.

      I do not back Trump – I perhaps pay him more respect than it seems you do, but I would not hope for his Presidency. I believe I’ve said that before. However, it does seem to me that the reason for his solid ground support stems from exactly the ignorance you describe; he does not follow the existing establishment or acknowledge the existing system. He seems prepared to challenge and work against it; and in America, as no doubt over my side of the pond, there are plenty of people who do not benefit from the system, or are even enfranchised, as it currently is. As with Farage in UK, Trump has given them a voice.

      I am sad that the Clinton camp chose to release those eleven year old clips at exactly the time that they did. I am not defending the behavior they depict, far from it, but it makes me wonder what piece of skulduggery is planned to preface the next debate. It imposed a personal agenda upon a debate that deserved more serious meat, and worse, it induced Trump to respond at a similar level. That, I think, is good reason for change.
      I hope I’ve explained myself, but there, that is the essence of debate, is it not?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks for your response, Frederick. I respect what you are saying, and I apologize for characterizing your statement about HRC as sexist. I tend to be very sensitive about these things, for obvious reasons. Women in the US are treated with less respect. We’ve yet to have a woman President.

        And I think that those who think Trump can change the system both are mistaken about his abilities and his goals AND about how the American government is structured. There are certain realities built into our system, and without full scale revolution that would eliminate our Constitution, the President remains just one branch of government. If it were otherwise, Obama would not have faced endless obstacles to getting things done, even appointing a Supreme Court Justice.

        Maybe we need that revolution, but Trump will never be the one to lead it. He benefits too much from the current system—its capitalist underpinnings, its distribution of power, its tax structure, etc. All he wants is popularity and power. If he were ever to be elected, he would get nothing done except to create further hatred, divisiveness, and violence in this country. He is evil incarnate IMHO.

        Thanks again—I am really interested in your views as I am surrounded by those who think like me. And we are all on this side of the pond.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. It is a scary proposition either way.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with Amy. The prospect of Trump becoming President of the United States would be funny if it wasn’t so serious for America and the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think that is exactly the point I’m trying to make. My problem is the plague upon both their houses. I respected Bernie far more as a candidate than either of this pair, but I’m afraid the Clinton machine succeeded in fencing him out. I ‘m afraid I have no faith in Clinton as President, and am frankly alarmed that Trump may succeed. I can only watch and tremble. BTW, I deeply, deeply resent any accusation that I am sexist.


  5. Well put! I am ready for the two party monopoly to END!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you Esther. I am in no position to criticize American politics – we in UK are victim to the same unbalanced system, although our faults are possibly more deeply entrenched than yours. For a while we flirted with a three-party system, it did not work, unfortunately. However, change has to begin somewhere.


  6. You stated our dilemma well. But surely, staying home and not voting is a coward’s alternative although quite tempting. I’m undecided and anxious.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I agree – it is. But is the option not to vote sometimes a means to protest in itself? I don’t know, and I’m glad I”m outside looking in. Since I wrote this the in-fighting and personalisation has become even worse. Right or wrong as the moral issues may be, I don’t believe character assassination is the way to win anyone’s heart.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.