WHY I'M DECIDING FOR HILLARY CLINTON IN IOWA

After a lively debate on my wall that was informative in a number of ways, I have decided – at least as of today – that Hillary Clinton should be the next president.

I have nothing bad to say about Bernie Sanders. He is an admirable human being and an admirable and important advocate in the Senate for the marginalized, and he is running an admirable, if not downright heroic, campaign..

And, should he wrest the nomination from Hillary, I will do everything I can do (which isn't much) to see that he becomes our next president.

But Hillary is my first choice.

I have looked at the world wide shenanigans going on here and abroad through the lens of my Christian faith. (Not, necessarily THE Christian faith, just my own.  )

What do ISIL, Shia-Sunni enmity, global climate change, disruptive technological advance, militiamen, Tea Party, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Walls Street, Anonymous, and – for that matter – the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump candidacies - say about our current situation?

My theo-political analysis of all this is theologically grounded in the prophets of the Old Testament, Gospel of Mark and the core writings of the Apostle Paul. As far as my political perspective, I have found Thomas Friedman (despite his misguided support for the Iraq invasion) and David Brooks (with Edmund Burke peering over his shoulder  ) the most useful analysis.

Our problem is – and always has been – alienation.

First and foremost, alienation from God in Christ.

That's a whole 'nuther discussion but, as it relates to the topic at hand, that can be practically considered as alienation from others, alienation from nature, and alienation from ourselves. (Anyone other than me feel, at least occasionally, the burden of tolerating themselves? :-) )

My belief, informed by Thomas Friedman, is that our technology allows people to be super-empowered. An impoverished community in a third world nation, with access to the internet and sufficient basic infrastructure, can have access to education or can start a business. Other people can buy goods from all over the world as a result of globalization.

The dark side of this is the super-empowered, alienated individual or community or nation (think ISIL or North Korea) can use a single agent equipped with the firepower, explosives, and technical expertise to shoot up a shopping mall, an elementary school, a football stadium or, on the other hand, shut down a city's power grid.

SUPER-EMPOWERED, PISSED OFF PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY A LUXURY THE HUMAN COMMUNITY CAN NO LONGER AFFORD.

If the core problem is alienation, the core solution is reconciliation.

My strategic analysis finds the core solution in the good news of God in Christ. Again, I'll not divert to address that beyond saying if someone is telling you something that lays FURTHER burdens on you besides the ones of which you are already aware, IT IS NOT THE GOOD NEWS they are giving you.

On a more mundane level (and here I am inspired by what I've heard from David Brooks and Edmund Burke), reconciliation takes the form of forgiveness IN THE CONTEXT OF JUSTICE and the re-building of community, whether within our families, our neighborhoods, our cities, our states, our nation, and our world.

My role models here are more Bonheoffer, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King rather than Che Guevara or Robespierre.

I am no pacifist. There may come a time for a Che Guevara, Robespierre (or, for that matter, John Adams and George Washington), or Bonhoeffer who, despite his pacifist leanings, became involved in the bomb plot against Adolf Hitler.

But that time, at least in America, has not yet come and may arguably never come if we can all maintain our collective sanity for at least a while longer.

So, tactically, the goal is to RESIST both individual and systemic injustice AND to PUT ONESELF AT RISK by an attempt to build community and reconcile with those with the very people whose injustice we resist.

This makes me an incrementalist rather than a revolutionary. 

I believe in making the system work, in moving the ball down the field, rather than blowing the system up a la Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, militiamen, ISIL sympathizers, and even Bernie Sanders.

Though, believe me, if the forces of revolution win this one, I would damn well rather have Bernie Sanders leading me to the barricades rather than Cruz or Trump.

Regarding the Iraq war, yeah, she blew it. So did John Kerry, decorated Vietnam War veteran and subsequent leader in Vietnam Vets Against the War.

Sometimes good people make bad decisions which often are not apparent until AFTER it's too late.

In defense of BOTH of them on this, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS FEEDING THEM MANIPULATED INTELLIGENCE to over-determine Congress's vote to authorize force.


Both of them believe in projecting American power around the world, through the military and through soft power, because of our vital security and economic interests, and I am CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH to accept the legitimacy of that WHILE SHARING OBAMA, KERRY'S, AND HILLARY'S RELUCTANCE TO USE FORCE, until all the soft power options have been given a chance to work and only for the most critical situations.

ALL THAT BEING SAID…

Hillary Clinton is, as the New York Times said in their endorsement, "one of of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history."

Her CHARACTER, her lifelong ACTIVISM on behalf of the marginalized, her EXPERIENCE in foreign and domestic policy, her RESILIENCE in the face of TWENTY YEARS of unceasing smears to her character on the right and, sadly, now, on the more extreme left, her DEMONSTRATED BIPARTISANSHIP in working across party lines in the Senate to INCREMENTALLY create change, make her my candidate of choice.

After a day long back-and-forth on my Facebook page, I am convinced that the NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS against her character, her commitment to the rule of law, her associations with Wall Street, and her poor judgment in decisions regarding her email server – TO THE EXTENT THEY MATTER AT ALL – are not decisive.

Would I revisit this decision later?

Yes. The Pennsylvania Primary isn't until April 26th and the fat lady may have sung by then.

I will look, in particular, at electability. I WILL NOT RISK a wing-nut in the White House. (One Republican sticker in Iowa says, "I'm voting for the crazy one." Who says Republicans don't have a sense of humor. :-) )

I will be VERY DISAPPOINTED with even a QUALIFIED Republican in the White House, but a Trump or Cruz in the White House is a very, scary, thought.

Should Hillary be indicted, I would support Bernie but – honestly – that is not going to happen. She will be hammered on this politically until the general election and, no doubt, beyond but so far as I know there is no evidence supporting charges against her.

The other thing I will look for is the amount of political power behind Bernie Sanders.

It will be VERY, VERY, DIFFICULT for Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, and IMPOSSIBLE for him to be elected president, unless he can capture Hillary-sized margins of minorities.

Those minorities are not dominant in Iowa (or New Hampshire) so, if Bernie can not only win the Iowa caucus but win it decisively, then I'll keep an eye on him. And then we'll see what happens in South Carolina where the voter demographics are definitely out of Sander's base support.

But, frankly, if he loses or barely gets a win in Iowa, I think he's toast come South Carolina unless he can turn it around in the newly-added debates.

BUT, AS OF TODAY, IT'S HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT

My liberal friends are all cordially invited to start hating me and maligning my character and intelligence – my conservative friends are already on-board with that so, by all means, pile on. :-)

Hillary Clinton (Wikipedia)