One of the most difficult things I’ve been having to grapple with lately is the fact that my parents are going to vote for Trump. They’re not voting for him in protest, or voting for him because they even like him. They’re voting for him because he represents a party platform.
A platform he himself hasn’t always talked about.
The thing that sticks with me the most is that they’re also justifying it because he’s not Hillary Clinton.
Why is that even a bad thing?
That’s the question I’ve been asking myself repeatedly over the past year and a half. Back when Bernie Sanders was running, Hillary was too far to the right to be a good candidate. Her response to the problem was to actually take on some of Mr. Sanders’s policies, carrying them with her into the general election. The result was a ton of Sanders supporters calling her a corporate shill.
On the other side of the equation, you have people calling Ms. Clinton crooked and a fraud. She’s a liar, with a track record of lying (but not getting caught). As many times as she’s had her words gone over in the past three decades (that’s thirty years), she’s never been convicted for being untruthful. What’s worse is that her truthfulness is being held as reprehensible while her chief opponent is currently on trial for fraud.
All of this ignores the most glaring fact that nobody has seized upon in the last few months: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate running for election. Nobody talks about it because for whatever reason it’s seen as embarrassing or besides the point. People just don’t like her, regardless of any relevant fact to the contrary.
Where have I encountered that before?
And it’s not just in religious circles. I’ve watched atheist white male YouTubers talk shit about Ms. Clinton that’s not only false, but completely irrelevant to any facts in existence. I’ve read articles apologizing for Ms. Clinton’s candidacy. I’ve even had to resort to placating people to get them to at least admit that despite their misgivings, she’s more qualified to be President than the guy she’s looking to replace.
That’s right, this is probably the first election in U.S. history where a candidate has more experience than an outgoing sitting President in governing our country. Even George Washington can’t claim that. But we don’t hear much about it, because it contradicts information people already believe but have no justification for.
Why is this happening?
For the longest damn time, I’ve wanted to say it’s because Ms. Clinton is a known target to the GOP. Certainly that has not done her any favors. But I’ve also been having to ask myself if this wouldn’t be happening if she was Ms. Smith, Jones, or whatever other last name anyone can think of. That said, I can’t ignore the fact that part of it is because she’s a woman.
The reason I say this is because it’s too easily ignored. I have seen video after video of pundits giving shitty advice to Ms. Clinton (“smile more,” anyone?) that never gets thrown a guy’s way. Whenever people do get called out on it, they clutch their fucking pearls and say, “I declare, that is not what I meant!” And then it gets forgotten. The only problem is that it happens again moments later. You cannot fart without hitting someone making excuses for treating a female candidate one way and a male candidate another.
…and then watch as the ideas in this post get dismissed as besides some insipid point.
That’s actually why I haven’t written about this before. I am tired of seeing this get dismissed as not a problem. Even if Ms. Clinton wins the election, this problem won’t go away. It seems cruel, because there are going to be people who will claim this whole election wasn’t riddled with sexism when she wins.
I just want this post to exist so I can tell the relevant people to go fuck themselves when it happens.