Skip to main content

Super Tuesday left me Super Afraid

Author's Note: (This was written in the early morning hours the day after Super Tuesday primaries.)

I couldn’t sleep. Trump victories on Super Tuesday kept me awake worrying about the future of our country. Did that really just happen? People actually think someone who has called himself "The Donald" will make a good leader of the free world? It left many with many questions.

First, how will he maintain diplomatic affairs? Part of being a super power is maintaining positive relationships with other countries. He seems to alienate (and offend) everyone. He insults anyone who disagrees with him, or challenges him. This is not diplomacy. This is bullying.

Second, are we (Americans) so swayed by sound bites and hyperbole that we use our one voice to vote for someone who has not explained how he will address any of our problems? Again, I’m not talking about sound bites “we will make America great again” “build a wall”, I’m talking about HOW. How will these things be done. What tactics, what strategies will be used? Who will you get to help you in this endeavor? These are things I need to know before I cast my vote. That once voice, that one lone act that allows me to participate in the leadership – and future direction – of my country is too precious to waste on mere sound bites and fear mongering.

I believe in listening to each candidate before I make up my mind. I read news articles – many, not just from one source – I read commentary from those who spend their days immersed in the world of politics – surely, they have picked up a few insights – and then I go to the candidate’s website to read how they describe the issues. This tells me which issues they view as important. I visited Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s website recently. Under his Issues tab, he lists four categories. I visited Hillary Clinton’s website, she lists 28 issues and describes how she will address them. Marco Rubio breaks issues down into around 30 categories – he lists Russia and China as issues instead of lumping foreign relations under a nice tight umbrella (nothing wrong with that, I guess). He also lists “immigration” as an issue and has a separate category for “Sanctuary Cities” which could easily fall under immigration. But whatev. These are the types of nuances that, to me as a voter, I find worth looking into. I look at what candidates have to say under these headings. What is the substance? Do they convince me that they have studied this issue, that they understand how to solve the problem? Or are they just strewing key words together like “discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again (donaldtrump.org). What does this mean, exactly? What jobs? What number is "huge" exactly? Give me something meaningful.

Popular posts from this blog

For the Friends of Single Women

“We are complete with or without a mate, with or without a child.” Jennifer Aniston   I couldn’t agree more. I am not an actress. I am not a model. I am not a celebrity of any kind. I am a single woman . I have   no children .    Like  Aniston, I too want to participate in the larger conversation on how society views women. I particularly want to focus on the societal view of single women.  And like Aniston,  I too am fed up. F ed up with the  prevalent  societal  belief  that a woman is incomplete without a mate.  F ed up with friends, fami ly, co-workers, casual  a cquainta nces   insistent on  “fixing” my single status.  This sends the message that  a woman should not be single.  That it is unnatural.  Fo r a variety of reasons, I am a woman in my forties who has never married  and is childfree .    My single, non-mom status is  shocking, contrary, even wrong,  according  to some people in our society.  Yet by all accounts, I am a productive, model citizen. I

Movie Review: The Post

The Post seems like a straightforward movie. It recounts a time in US history when a whistleblower bordered on treason to expose government secrets about an unpopular war. I saw right through the facade. What I saw was a movie about historical events, that had significant relevance for the present time. When Liz Hannah and Josh Singer wrote the screenplay focusing on the role of Washington Post Matriarch Katherine Graham, I don't know if they had in mind the recent power surge by women. But the story of Katherine Graham and the role of the press, and the cover-up by the government all captured the current zeitgeist. On the surface, The Post is about freedom of the press. Beneath the surface, The Post reminds us that our government can be mired in subterfuge, that people in power can have questionable motives based on greed and ego, and most poignantly it shows how a woman found her voice.  Succinctly and eloquently put by a woman who herself was behind the scenes tending to t

I Stand With Meryl

In the court of public opinion, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. I am reminded of this adage as the annual Hollywood award season is now underway. Critics harp that these awards are nothing more than self-aggrandizing by an already spoiled Hollywood community. Yet, this year, when multi-award winning actress Meryl Streep gave a thank you speech for her Cecil B DeMille award at the Golden Globes, she put the spotlight on someone other than herself, yet still received criticism. Well, I applaud her. As befitting someone in a free society, she used the podium she was given to say what was on her mind. While I am not a decorated artist of any sort, I feel compelled to do the same. I have the capacity, the platform and the freedom to speak my mind. So I will use those privileges. I agree with Ms. Streep's comments, I believe "violence does incite violence" and we should all work to stem violence to create the world that many of us would like to live in.