Count Down [View all]

[H2O Man]

MSNBC’s “First in the South” interviews with the three democratic candidates for president was outstanding. Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton all provided the types of answers to Rachel Maddow’s questions that demonstrated they would be intellectually fit to serve as President of the United States. These three candidates have significant areas where they agree upon goals and values, although there are differences in how each believes that, as president, they might move towards achieving these goals.

There are, of course, also differences between the three. Each has had a unique life-experience, and that impacts their perception. This obviously involves the way they understand the wide range of problems confronting the US, both domestically and globally. Thus, each has a different belief in how to approach these problems. More, because each one is a human being, they have both strengths and weaknesses.

The contrast between the three democratic candidates and their republican counterparts is stark. While no matter who is elected next November, he or she will have some common features. Some of these include the self-evident: that person will reside in the White House, deal with a broken Congress (indeed, both the House and Senate are damaged institutions), and be confronted with an unstable global reality.

That person will be dealing with the synergy of inter-related problems that include the environment; an economy that exploit’s the poor, and threatens th middle class; and the Balkanization of ethnic and religious groups, both domestically and globally; In my opinion, the democratic candidates each have a far more rational and ethical approach to what their role as president would be, but also display a far superior of character -- including emotional stability.

When we look at that curious characteristic -- emotional stability -- the candidates from the two major political parties provide an intensely distinct choice. While the three democratic candidates attempt to engage the nation in an honest conversation rooted in logic and rational thought, the republican candidates display dishonesty in their appeal to negative emotions: anxiety, fear, prejudice, and hatred.

It should be crystal clear to thinking people that one path offers hope, and the other promises destruction. It should be obvious to all conscious people that the republican approach can only add new problems that add to the crisis that we are already deeply entrenched in. This is not a closely-held secret, nor is it a great mystery.

This makes the third presidential primary season that I’ve been participated in on DU. In the 2004 and 2008 primaries -- at least in my opinion -- there was a combination of insightful debate and destructive arguing on this forum. Indeed, I found the ‘08 season had a higher level of toxicity than the previous one, although there were enough meaningful discussions to make it worthwhile to participate.

This year, although I have read numerous OP/threads, I’ve generally avoided taking part in them. It’s not that I’m somehow less interested in the primaries, or think the current events are somehow less important. Quite the opposite: I believe that the 2016 elections -- presidential, congressional, and those at the state and local levels -- are as important as any in our nation’s history …..and far more important than the majority of those in the past.

More, because of Donald Trump’s ability to manipulate the manner in which the internet influences people’s perceptions, similar to Reagan’s ability to convince people that lies were truth, and truth lies, the negativity that saturates so many OP/threads on DU:GD Primaries is troubling. It is as if many people have willingly stepped into the stream of Trump consciousness, and are becoming carried away by its undercurrents. Insults are Trump’s tongue, and acrimony his language …..just as delusional thinking defines this fellow Ben Carson.

Each of our life experiences and current situations will result in our interpreting the democratic candidates differently. If we then take the stance that our opinion is right, and represents the entire truth, and is the only truth, it makes meaningful discussion impossible. It leads to OP/threads that, by no coincidence, mirror the televised republican debates, with cheap shots and insults.

I’m not foolish enough to think that one brief essay being posted by an old man from the margins of society will change the tone here. But each and every one of us can adjust the manner in which we take part in discussions and debates here.

I can dream, can’t I?

Peace,
H2O Man