The constitutional qualifications for being a president of the United States are that the person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years, and be at least 35 years of age. A criminal conviction does not affect eligibility, although a person can be disqualified by conviction in a Senate impeachment trial. In other words, the former president can continue campaigning in the next presidential election. The prospect of the former president becoming the 47th president of the United States while serving a prison sentence is unsettling, bordering on the surreal. One cannot help but wonder how the Secret Service would function in such circumstances.
Hunter Biden's struggles with drug addiction are widely known. When cocaine was discovered at the White House earlier this year, Hunter briefly came to mind, although I also wondered whether it might have been planted to falsely accuse him. Hunter is an easy target for those eager to damage President Joe Biden's character for political advantage.
As his plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department collapsed, I thought of the former president's two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. Many Americans have long suspected them of benefiting from their father's presidency. We've suspected Jared Kushner of using his influence to provide advantages to his allies while his father-in-law was in the White House. So is it unfair that Hunter Biden is now suspected of criminal activity when there may be evidence worth investigating?
His father being the President and facing an election has put a spotlight on Hunter's conduct, but we cannot give him a pass simply because we fear the political consequences. If Hunter committed crimes, whether federal income tax evasion, a false statement on the Firearms Transaction Record, or questionable relationships with foreign entities, those actions must be investigated and addressed. If we refused to do so out of political fear, we would be no better than Team Trump.
Clearly, I am not on Team Trump. This may shock some of you, but I am also not on Team Biden.
While my politics lean left of center, and I identify as a Democrat, I am also a realist who believes this nation desperately needs a centrist rather than increasingly polarized ideologues. Calling former President Trump a politically polarized ideologue rather than a dangerous narcissist may sound restrained, but I cannot dismiss 74 million voters from the 2020 presidential election. They voted for him because they didn't see him as a dangerous narcissist, but because they connected with him on at least one social, economic, or political issue while he was in the White House.
In the 2016 presidential election, nearly 63 million Americans voted for Mr. Trump, making him the nation's 45th president. Four years later, roughly 11 million more Americans joined them. Former President Trump is not the root of the problem. He is a hateful and ignorant bully, but he isn't powerful because of his hate, ignorance, and bullying. He is powerful because 74 million Americans legitimized all three. Without those voters, Mr. Trump would be another washed-up television personality, often escorting his businesses through bankruptcy courts. Six of his businesses have sought bankruptcy protection.
It is unsettling that 74 million Americans voted for him, isn't it? Those 74 million Americans are the political reality many of us prefer not to confront. We live in a deeply polarized society. Our views have become more extreme, and our tolerance for disagreement has steadily eroded. I'm sure there are bigots, sexists, and bullies among those 74 million Americans. I know a handful of bigots, particularly people whose behavior reflects entitlement, sexism, or bullying, among the 81 million Americans who voted for President Biden in 2020. Neither side is entirely free of ugliness.
I am not afraid of former President Trump. What unsettles me are the 74 million Americans who voted for him. I don't believe all of them are bigots, sexists, or bullies. Many are likely hard-working people frustrated with a social service system that often appears broken, even as the United States provides billions of dollars each year in foreign aid. We should help everyone we can, but is it hateful or ignorant to want our government to care for struggling Americans first?
I'm relieved when I read about undocumented immigrants arriving in buses from Texas and receiving housing, food, aid in connecting with family, and legal services from the city, nonprofits, and NGOs. Yet the contrast raises an uncomfortable question. Why can the city, nonprofits, and NGOs come together so quickly for undocumented immigrants, yet struggle to do the same for the 75,000 people experiencing homelessness in the greater Los Angeles area? Why do we welcome and provide aid to undocumented immigrants, while thousands of our own residents continue living in inhuman conditions on our streets?
Are some of those 74 million voters angry at how we value aiding those from foreign soil while neglecting those already in need on our own soil? I thought about that when I read about undocumented immigrants arriving in Los Angeles earlier this week. We should help everyone we can, but the reality is that our political and bureaucratic systems rarely allow us to help everyone equally. If we have to pick and choose, should we prioritize foreign aid, or should we first ensure that everyone in our own country has safe shelter, food, water, clothing, and medical care?
And should that aid be for a lifetime, or should we instead provide occupational rehabilitation and pathways toward self-sustainability rather than permanent dependence on the system? Are some of those 74 million voters frustrated with our overburdened and often failing social service system? Perhaps it is time to stop relying exclusively on ideological frameworks and begin applying practical management and operational discipline to our social service programs. They have struggled for decades. Perhaps the way we run them needs to change as well. As Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Is that what some of those 74 million voters want? Not perfection—just change. Any kind of change, rather than the sense of national exhaustion that comes from repeating the same policies for decades while expecting different results. Even an ardent Democrat would have to agree that former President Trump represented a dramatic change in American politics. I wouldn't call him a breath of fresh air, but he undeniably disrupted the system.
Former President Trump pointed at minorities for Americans to place their frustrations, anger, desperation, and fears upon. Scapegoats have always been politically convenient. Isn't it easier to blame someone for our frustrations and uneasy feelings? There is a strange emotional relief in having someone to blame. Trump understands this instinct well. He is, after all, a remarkably effective marketer.
I worry that we focus too much on the former president. While it is historically significant that he has been charged in four criminal cases with 91 felony charges, those charges may not persuade many of his supporters during the campaign. Years have passed since the alleged criminal activities took place, and the indictments began just as the Republican primary campaign kicked off. Former President Trump's indictment in New York relates to alleged criminal activities from August 2015 through December 2017. From the perspective of his supporters, the timing alone is enough to fuel conspiracy theories.
We should let the prosecutors do their jobs. At the same time, the country must find a way to speak with—rather than simply condemn—those 74 million voters. We need to work toward discussions, negotiation, and alignment on social, economic, and political issues that respect human rights while addressing legitimate frustrations. We must win over handfuls of voters across many issues, because those handfuls can eventually become millions of voters. We need to face the reality that “our way or the highway” politics is a luxury America can no longer afford. That highway leads directly back to former President Trump as the 47th president of the United States. If the country is to move forward, change cannot come only from the other side. It must come from all of us.
As his plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department collapsed, I thought of the former president's two adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. Many Americans have long suspected them of benefiting from their father's presidency. We've suspected Jared Kushner of using his influence to provide advantages to his allies while his father-in-law was in the White House. So is it unfair that Hunter Biden is now suspected of criminal activity when there may be evidence worth investigating?
His father being the President and facing an election has put a spotlight on Hunter's conduct, but we cannot give him a pass simply because we fear the political consequences. If Hunter committed crimes, whether federal income tax evasion, a false statement on the Firearms Transaction Record, or questionable relationships with foreign entities, those actions must be investigated and addressed. If we refused to do so out of political fear, we would be no better than Team Trump.
Clearly, I am not on Team Trump. This may shock some of you, but I am also not on Team Biden.
While my politics lean left of center, and I identify as a Democrat, I am also a realist who believes this nation desperately needs a centrist rather than increasingly polarized ideologues. Calling former President Trump a politically polarized ideologue rather than a dangerous narcissist may sound restrained, but I cannot dismiss 74 million voters from the 2020 presidential election. They voted for him because they didn't see him as a dangerous narcissist, but because they connected with him on at least one social, economic, or political issue while he was in the White House.
In the 2016 presidential election, nearly 63 million Americans voted for Mr. Trump, making him the nation's 45th president. Four years later, roughly 11 million more Americans joined them. Former President Trump is not the root of the problem. He is a hateful and ignorant bully, but he isn't powerful because of his hate, ignorance, and bullying. He is powerful because 74 million Americans legitimized all three. Without those voters, Mr. Trump would be another washed-up television personality, often escorting his businesses through bankruptcy courts. Six of his businesses have sought bankruptcy protection.
It is unsettling that 74 million Americans voted for him, isn't it? Those 74 million Americans are the political reality many of us prefer not to confront. We live in a deeply polarized society. Our views have become more extreme, and our tolerance for disagreement has steadily eroded. I'm sure there are bigots, sexists, and bullies among those 74 million Americans. I know a handful of bigots, particularly people whose behavior reflects entitlement, sexism, or bullying, among the 81 million Americans who voted for President Biden in 2020. Neither side is entirely free of ugliness.
I am not afraid of former President Trump. What unsettles me are the 74 million Americans who voted for him. I don't believe all of them are bigots, sexists, or bullies. Many are likely hard-working people frustrated with a social service system that often appears broken, even as the United States provides billions of dollars each year in foreign aid. We should help everyone we can, but is it hateful or ignorant to want our government to care for struggling Americans first?
I'm relieved when I read about undocumented immigrants arriving in buses from Texas and receiving housing, food, aid in connecting with family, and legal services from the city, nonprofits, and NGOs. Yet the contrast raises an uncomfortable question. Why can the city, nonprofits, and NGOs come together so quickly for undocumented immigrants, yet struggle to do the same for the 75,000 people experiencing homelessness in the greater Los Angeles area? Why do we welcome and provide aid to undocumented immigrants, while thousands of our own residents continue living in inhuman conditions on our streets?
Are some of those 74 million voters angry at how we value aiding those from foreign soil while neglecting those already in need on our own soil? I thought about that when I read about undocumented immigrants arriving in Los Angeles earlier this week. We should help everyone we can, but the reality is that our political and bureaucratic systems rarely allow us to help everyone equally. If we have to pick and choose, should we prioritize foreign aid, or should we first ensure that everyone in our own country has safe shelter, food, water, clothing, and medical care?
And should that aid be for a lifetime, or should we instead provide occupational rehabilitation and pathways toward self-sustainability rather than permanent dependence on the system? Are some of those 74 million voters frustrated with our overburdened and often failing social service system? Perhaps it is time to stop relying exclusively on ideological frameworks and begin applying practical management and operational discipline to our social service programs. They have struggled for decades. Perhaps the way we run them needs to change as well. As Albert Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Is that what some of those 74 million voters want? Not perfection—just change. Any kind of change, rather than the sense of national exhaustion that comes from repeating the same policies for decades while expecting different results. Even an ardent Democrat would have to agree that former President Trump represented a dramatic change in American politics. I wouldn't call him a breath of fresh air, but he undeniably disrupted the system.
Former President Trump pointed at minorities for Americans to place their frustrations, anger, desperation, and fears upon. Scapegoats have always been politically convenient. Isn't it easier to blame someone for our frustrations and uneasy feelings? There is a strange emotional relief in having someone to blame. Trump understands this instinct well. He is, after all, a remarkably effective marketer.
I worry that we focus too much on the former president. While it is historically significant that he has been charged in four criminal cases with 91 felony charges, those charges may not persuade many of his supporters during the campaign. Years have passed since the alleged criminal activities took place, and the indictments began just as the Republican primary campaign kicked off. Former President Trump's indictment in New York relates to alleged criminal activities from August 2015 through December 2017. From the perspective of his supporters, the timing alone is enough to fuel conspiracy theories.
We should let the prosecutors do their jobs. At the same time, the country must find a way to speak with—rather than simply condemn—those 74 million voters. We need to work toward discussions, negotiation, and alignment on social, economic, and political issues that respect human rights while addressing legitimate frustrations. We must win over handfuls of voters across many issues, because those handfuls can eventually become millions of voters. We need to face the reality that “our way or the highway” politics is a luxury America can no longer afford. That highway leads directly back to former President Trump as the 47th president of the United States. If the country is to move forward, change cannot come only from the other side. It must come from all of us.
More essays:
Comments
Post a Comment