Lately I've spent too much time talking about politics and reading articles, listening to podcasts (that will not end) and am finding myself close to arguing about politics. I have to learn to not rain on other's parades, not try to stem their glee, and point out the obvious problems with the person they are supporting. I can talk with them about the local races, less contentious a topic than on a national level. In a case like this, there is little hope of changing anyone's mind, especially if that is not my goal. Usually I am mostly defending my opinions on the recent nominee running for president, getting many of his votes simply because of what his last name is not---Clinton! And, no, I don't want her to be president, a question I've answered in the negative numerous times. I simply don't believe the alternative is the answer.
"The devil you know versus the devil you don't know...."
Many years ago when my sister-in-law and I were both taking classes at the technical college near our home town, Marian struggled with her composition class. I was taking bookkeeping and struggled with that. We teamed up so we could help each other---perfect! One paper she was writing was about smoking. I jokingly asked, "Pro or con?" and she answered me, "Well, pro, of course, because I smoke...." Yes, you do. Okay, so in order to justify being unable to quit or not wishing to recognize the negative affects on her health, she chose to find or look for positive things about being a smoker.
Sadly, I cannot remember what actually was a plus, but her comments to me have remained symbolic for why we do the things we do. People can explain something away or ignore the bad stuff entirely, as if it doesn't exist. I equate that type of thinking to Marian's paper, gotta find a way to justify or affirm a decision even though there is plenty to show the negative.
In my favorite place, watching "Law & Order", (how interesting that he wants to be the law and order candidate??? Scary some?), there is an episode, one of which I am not fond. The story features a father that lords it over his daughters and their step-mother, who, it was revealed, he married only to take care of his kids. The kids adored their father, were worshipful of him, even though he basically bullied them into submission.
They couldn't really see it, felt as though this was the only way to live. No sleep overs with friends, not accepting anything but A's on the report card, no family visits because "my father only wants what is best for us." "Someone has to be the leader" said his wife, whom he later described as a 'stupid cow' for speaking up from the stand. Even when their biological mother, from whom they'd been kidnapped, came to claim them, these young ladies shrieked in horror at the thought of no longer being with their now sentenced father. No matter how awful their life was, they were willing to continue it. They didn't find it awful any longer, having gotten accustomed to his 'leadership'.
Why am I writing about this? I do stop short of referring to this as a 'Barabbas situation', though some of the rationale is the same. I think people are simply blindly accepting of the candidate despite all the negatives, many of which are not known or are ignored, simply because they don't want Mrs. Clinton in the White House again. Frying pan into the fire, I say. Scratching my head, truly, because what can a voter do now, one who has a conscience and convictions? Look the other way? or is it look the other way!
