In a reaction to last week’s post, a reader responded “I get it Joe, you dislike Trump. Please build a case for Clinton as I am unsettled.”
My initial thought was a facile response that the best case for the election of Hillary Clinton was the candidacy of Donald Trump but that seemed too clever by half. I will attempt to make the case for Hillary Clinton but it can’t be done without comparing the two candidates. So, here goes.
Let’s start by examining the two issues that seem to be dogging her campaign, the private e-mail service and the Clinton Foundation.
The use of the private e-mail server was just plain dumb but according to the FBI Director, James Comey, it wasn’t criminal. Clinton has acknowledged that using it was a mistake. Additionally, no one has shown that its use has compromised national security in any way nor led to any event that harmed the United States.
The issue of the Clinton Foundation is a bit more nuanced. Despite promising to build a wall between the Foundation and the State Department while she was Secretary of State, e-mails between employees of the Foundation and her staff at the State Department revealed requests for meetings between donors to the Foundation and Secretary Clinton during her tenure.
Although the requests for meetings were made, there is no indication that the meetings were for anything more than information or face time with her on particular issues. There is no evidence that any of these individuals received anything or benefited personally from the meetings that occurred. Indeed, it would be hard to distinguish the difference between these meeting and normal diplomatic interaction since some of the donors were officials from countries that would be expected to have communication or meetings with the Secretary of State.
As a result of the uproar that followed these disclosures, the Clinton Foundation announced that President Bill Clinton would withdraw from involvement in the Foundation and no foreign contributions would be accepted.
This is too bad because the Clinton Foundation has done extraordinarily good work on issues that plague poverty stricken countries in Africa and the Third World.
While Donald Trump has been the loudest voice in criticizing the Clintons and the Foundation, it is noteworthy that in the past week the news media has reported that Trump’s Foundation has not received any money from Trump for almost a decade and the money it has received from other sources has been utilized to settle litigation against his business entities and other self-dealing.
In the past couple of weeks, with the bombings and attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota, terrorism is back on the front burner.
Who should be supported is a basic reality check.
Clinton, as Senator from New York on September 11, 2001 was instrumental in securing the financial aid and funds to support the re-building of lower Manhattan and compensation for families who lost loved ones in the attack as well as first responders who suffered health ailments from their service at ground zero.
Trump took advantage of the financial aid to obtain monies for a property that wasn’t damaged in the attack.
As Secretary of State and Senator from New York, Clinton has been involved in diplomatic missions and established relationships with heads of state worldwide. She was a member of the National Security team that brought about the deaths of Osama Bin Laden, Anwar Al-Awlaki and other terrorists who would foster terrorist attacks against this country.
Trump promises to ban all Muslim immigration, bring back waterboarding and even more lethal forms of interrogation, and authorize the killing of family members of suspected terrorist overseas. This last proposal would involve ordering American troops to engage in murder and other war crimes.
When it comes to who is the most qualified to lead the United States on the world stage, Clinton, as Secretary of State, has relationships with almost every world leader on the globe. In 2011 I witnessed her testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C. She had flown all night from the Baltic States in order to fulfill this commitment and despite her fatigue was able to discuss every foreign situation and hot spot that the Committee was interested in and did so without notes. Although scheduled to testify for only three hours she testified for over five answering every question that the members of the Committee had. It was truly an impressive performance.
Trump’s knowledge of foreign affairs is decidedly shallow. He would jeopardize the NATO Alliance and perhaps scrap the major defense bulwark that has stood between us, our allies and Russia at a time when Putin has stepped up that country’s aggression both in the Ukraine and Syria. He claims to have a “secret” plan to defeat ISIS but will share no details about it. His campaign aides appear to double as agents for his business interests in Russia and Eastern Europe perhaps illuminating what appears to be a “man crush” that he has on Vladimir Putin.
On the immigration issue, Clinton advocates heightened scrutiny of any refugees that we would accept from Syria and the refugee camps in the mid-East as part of the world community’s effort to alleviate the refugee crisis. She also is for comprehensive immigration reform that would give legal status and an ultimate path to citizenship to immigrants that have been in the country and haven’t violated the law, most importantly the “dreamers,” the children of immigrants who brought them here during their child hood and were raised here.
Trump would build a wall on the Mexican border, which he would demand Mexico pay for and create a deportation force that would round up somewhere between six million and eleven million people and deport them. The last country to round up six million people for ostensible deportation was Germany during the 1930’s. On the issues of terrorism and immigration, Trump has not advocated a single legal, realistic or sensible solution.
Let’s look at other issues.
On Climate Change, Clinton believes climate change need to be addressed and is a proponent of clean fuels.
Trump is a climate change denier. He champions the use of fossil fuels and vows to make the coal and natural gas markets “great” even though they are mutually incompatible.
On the issue of gun control, Clinton believes in expanded background checks and closing the loophole that allows purchases without them and banning military style assault weapons.
Trump believes in an unrestricted right to carry any kind of weapon and twice has hinted that Second Amendment advocates might wish to kill Clinton. Some might say that Trump was being sarcastic or said it in jest. I can say, that having lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations in the 1960’s and 70’s, this is not a matter to joke about. I believe that having raised it twice disqualifies him from leading the country.
On race relations Clinton has been a lifelong civil rights advocate, who spent her earliest years as a lawyer working for the Children’s Defense Fund. As First lady of Arkansas, she devoted her efforts to improving and raising the standards of that State’s educational system
Trump has a well- documented history of refusing to rent to African-Americans and is the favored candidate of former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, and other White Supremacists. His entry into the political arena Occurred when he led the “birther” movement, the racist campaign to illegitimize the nation’s first African-American President.
On the issue of economic regulation, Clinton supports the retention of Dodd-Franks Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in the wake of the 2007 economic meltdown to regulate the banks that “are too big to fail” and have to be bailed out with taxpayer funds.
Trump favors the repeal of Dodd-Franks and abolishing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Clinton has been a staunch advocate for universal health care and would preserve the Affordable Health Care Act and improve it.
Trump would repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.
It is safe to say that both candidates have issues when it comes to trust and transparency. Criticism of each is justified. I would be remiss; however, if I did not point out the fact that Clinton has disclosed her tax returns for every year she has been on the public stage and like every candidate for President since 1968.
Trump refuses to do so and offers the excuse that he is being audited. The IRS does not prohibit an individual who is being audited from disclosing their tax returns. It certainly does not prohibit a taxpayer from disclosing tax returns from years that are not subject to audit, which Trump has also refused to do.
In “making the case for Hillary Clinton,” I should touch on the wisdom of voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate. I would say, do so if you want a President who supports eliminating environmental regulations, abolishing the income tax, abolishing public schools and ending Social Security and Medicare because that is the Libertarian Party Platform. In an interview on NPR, Johnson said he would seek a Supreme Court nominee who is an “Originalist”. That is a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia.
This has been my longest post to date.
I think I’ve laid out enough contrasts between Clinton and Trump for anyone to make the choice they believe is the best.
Hillary Clinton has spent her entire career trying to improve life for all Americans of all races and walks of life. She is knowledgeable and deeply thoughtful on the issues that confront us at a time of danger and uncertainty.
Donald Trump has spent his entire life promoting himself and his business interests, utilizing bankruptcy laws multiple times without regard for investors, contractors, employees or the well-being of anyone who might be affected by his failures and defaults.
My own belief is that Donald Trump would be extraordinarily dangerous both at home and abroad were he to become President based upon the positions he’s taken on the issues.
Last week’s reader was right. I don’t like Donald Trump.