I was ten years old: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Those were the days.
Now we are watching both candidates scramble to re-write their biographies. It is political malpractice that they need to do so. They had every opportunity to show a record of sacrifice and patriotism.
Instead they took care of themselves.
Yesterday a guest post by John Coster spoke of the call of Christian faith to serve the poor around the world and at home. This spirit of gratitude and obligation still exists, perhaps as much now as ever. People volunteer. People do good things for others. I know people in the Peace Corp now and I know people who served over the years, and they speak of this time as one of service, motivated by profound gratitude for their own good fortune which causes an obligation and opportunity to help others.
Trump and Clinton had an opportunity in the preparation for this campaign to demonstrate that they share that attitude and that their first duty is to others. They didn't. Things that don't happen are the hardest things to notice, until it is too late.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump expressed what I consider to be astonishing level of political malpractice. Each of them are now under attack from their opponent with charges that have credibility and political traction. Each are being accused of being unpatriotic and self-serving. What makes it malpractice is how easy to make that case against them.
Trump and Clinton had an opportunity in the preparation for this campaign to demonstrate that they share that attitude and that their first duty is to others. They didn't. Things that don't happen are the hardest things to notice, until it is too late.
 |
| Avoidable story for Trump |
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump expressed what I consider to be astonishing level of political malpractice. Each of them are now under attack from their opponent with charges that have credibility and political traction. Each are being accused of being unpatriotic and self-serving. What makes it malpractice is how easy to make that case against them.
Donald Trump is being accused of a failure to work for the common good of Americans and instead to have undermined the common good by illegal and should-be-illegal selfish acts. In Trump's case it includes the hypocrisy of manufacturing products in Mexico and China, of cheating workers by refusing to pay them, by having a fraudulent university, by bankruptcies what hurt others while he saved himself, and most recently by having lost so much money that he complains about taxes but tacitly admits that he doesn't pay them.
Trump's defense is that he is a private businessman and under no obligation to serve anyone but himself and his family business. He told a TV interviewer that his service to veterans was to have built great buildings and made a great deal of money. His surrogates call him a "genius" for avoiding taxes. He calls himself "brilliant." Democrats ridicule this defense and it is a source of a negative TV ad. Trump looks grandiloquent and selfish.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton. I watched Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire attempt to borrow her mother's log cabin story of poverty. In the debate last week she referenced her father's small drapery business and likened him to one of the subcontractors that Trump may have abused by underpaying. Her ads show a life of public service. She wants to look like someone who empathizes with people who struggle for money.
But she is easily attacked and ridiculed. In the sixteen years of Bill's post presidency they developed a big foundation and have made themselves seriously wealthy. They trade on their fame and their past and present offices. They have influence. There is implied access and good will. They give speeches to Wall Street investment banks. They get big contributions from companies and nations with interests in American foreign policy. It looks questionable and in some sort of gray area of legal-but-not-quite-right. They no doubt sought and received excellent legal counsel and whatever they did would be legal
It is very equivalent to the situation for Donald Trump, with his own foundation, its own receipt of contributions which are then re-gifted in a way to benefit Trump personally. And it is equivalent to Trump's apparent tax status. No doubt his tax returns were prepared by people who knew they would be examined closely in an audit and that they were legally defensible.
What is unlovely and corrupting is not what is illegal. It is what is totally legal when done carefully with the assistance of top accounting and legal advice.
The political malpractice done by each of them is that each of them knew they were likely to run for president this year. Each had four to eight years to clean up their records. Any sins of the past could be repaired and the past behavior repented for. Trump could have arranged his taxes so that they would not be an embarrassment. He could have moved his necktie manufacture to America, or at least tried to do so and then he could complain that crazy regulations stopped him from doing it. Trump could have seen to it that he made a few strategic donations to politically opportune causes. He might have made a few of them anonymously so that when their source was strategically leaked this year it would bolster his reputation for generosity, not narcissism. Trump could have made himself a hero, but it would have cost him some money. He has plenty of money, but he chose to seek even more.
Trump's defense is that he is a private businessman and under no obligation to serve anyone but himself and his family business. He told a TV interviewer that his service to veterans was to have built great buildings and made a great deal of money. His surrogates call him a "genius" for avoiding taxes. He calls himself "brilliant." Democrats ridicule this defense and it is a source of a negative TV ad. Trump looks grandiloquent and selfish.
 |
| Amputee veteran hears Trump: "I've made a lot of sacrifices." |
But she is easily attacked and ridiculed. In the sixteen years of Bill's post presidency they developed a big foundation and have made themselves seriously wealthy. They trade on their fame and their past and present offices. They have influence. There is implied access and good will. They give speeches to Wall Street investment banks. They get big contributions from companies and nations with interests in American foreign policy. It looks questionable and in some sort of gray area of legal-but-not-quite-right. They no doubt sought and received excellent legal counsel and whatever they did would be legal
It is very equivalent to the situation for Donald Trump, with his own foundation, its own receipt of contributions which are then re-gifted in a way to benefit Trump personally. And it is equivalent to Trump's apparent tax status. No doubt his tax returns were prepared by people who knew they would be examined closely in an audit and that they were legally defensible.
What is unlovely and corrupting is not what is illegal. It is what is totally legal when done carefully with the assistance of top accounting and legal advice.
The political malpractice done by each of them is that each of them knew they were likely to run for president this year. Each had four to eight years to clean up their records. Any sins of the past could be repaired and the past behavior repented for. Trump could have arranged his taxes so that they would not be an embarrassment. He could have moved his necktie manufacture to America, or at least tried to do so and then he could complain that crazy regulations stopped him from doing it. Trump could have seen to it that he made a few strategic donations to politically opportune causes. He might have made a few of them anonymously so that when their source was strategically leaked this year it would bolster his reputation for generosity, not narcissism. Trump could have made himself a hero, but it would have cost him some money. He has plenty of money, but he chose to seek even more.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton, who should know better and who had the example of Jimmy Carter to show her the priceless repetitional benefit of patriotic selflessness, instead gave her opponents every opportunity to portray her as self-interested. Trump, in Pennsylvania Saturday "We’re going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit. Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping your jobs and your dreams to other countries. . . . Whatever Hillary’s donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we’re going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton, dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends."
 |
| Today's news |
Bill and Hillary Clinton could have carried out most of the presumably good work of the Foundation, plus made speeches for money but only if they scrupulously and publicly made clear that the money earned went directly to the good, politically acceptable cause, that they were hands off benefactors. They did not do that. Their actions with the Clinton Foundation and collecting speaking and directorate fees make Trump's speech in Pennsylvania ring true. They could have been heroes but decided instead to cut it closer to the edge, be legal probably, yes do good work, but also get very very rich. Had they been willing simply to be very comfortable, the story of their lives might have multiple terms of Clinton presidencies. But, like Trump, the extra money was there for the taking and they chose to take the money.
 |
| Not paying taxes a virtue: "Absolute Genius." |
This election could pit a patriot versus a selfish sleaze. It could have been a person fighting for America versus a person who cuts corners and finagles.
Instead, each of them went for the cash, which means that we have a candidate who is forced to claim it a virtue not to pay taxes, versus a candidate whose family trades access and influence based on a career in public service to make herself rich, possibly reducing her ability to serve that public.
Either one could have had a straight shot to the presidency, but each chose money.
# # #
October 2 Podcast: The Truths that Hillary and Trump know full well, but must not say
This October 2 podcast talks about the polls, about Trump's self-inflicted wounds, and about the things that Trump and Hillary know full well to be true, but must not admit. The podcast is a spirited conversation between me and Thad Guyer, an attorney who represents whistleblowing employees, with an international practice. He watches the election from home base in Saigon.
# # #
Check out my podcast:
October 2 Podcast: The Truths that Hillary and Trump know full well, but must not say
This October 2 podcast talks about the polls, about Trump's self-inflicted wounds, and about the things that Trump and Hillary know full well to be true, but must not admit. The podcast is a spirited conversation between me and Thad Guyer, an attorney who represents whistleblowing employees, with an international practice. He watches the election from home base in Saigon.
No comments:
Post a Comment