To the editor,
With all due respect for those who share a passion for and commitment to electoral politics, I must express my disappointment with any who would assume my support for any candidate would be dictated by gender or even a lengthy résumé (see comment to the February 24 letter to the editor). My support and enthusiasm is reserved for those that I believe to hold true to a north star, both in word and deed, and a candidate of unimpeachable character, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation or gender.
A number of years ago, many of us rallied behind a candidate with little or no political experience on the national stage. But that candidate’s life choices reflected core values of a person dedicated to social and economic justice. The fact that this candidate might be the first president who was a person of color was also exciting, but not the determining factor for my support. That candidate was inspirational and aspirational and offered a vision of transformation that won my heart. That candidate, lacking experience and a lengthy résumé, was Barack Obama.
Now, we need to elect a candidate with a similar vision, and the capacity to excite and engage a new generation of voters who will help us elect a more collaborative Congress.
I find unimpeachable character, wisdom to see the catastrophic folly of the Iraq War, and the inspirational vision of Barack Obama in Bernie Sanders.
Sincerely,
Sara Mattes
71 Conant Rd.
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Some of us warned about the shortsighted idea of allowing political letters not specific to our town.
Behold the results.
I am not sure what you are suggesting. The articles and posts I see here and have participated in are written from a place of mutual respect. It is perfectly appropriate to have a public debate in an election season. As Governor Patrick often said, we don’t have to agree on everything to work together on anything.
It is not just that Secretary Clinton is herself a woman but also that she has long been a fiercely effective advocate for women’s rights as human rights, here and abroad. No candidate has done more to support women and girls. Leaving gender out of the equation is aspirational and every voter’s decision is personal. There is a reason Planned Parenthood endorsed Hillary Clinton, when a woman’s right to choose is seriously at risk and male legislators (who are the majority) make cavalier decisions about women’s health. For me, until women get equal pay for equal work, make up more than half of Congress, have 9 seats on the Supreme Court, and hold the office of the President of the United States, it matters.
Few people question Hillary Clinton’s support for Planned Parenthood. I find her lacking on other issues I care about. For example, Hillary claims she will “fix” Social Security but does not specify how. Will she use Social Security funds to pay for government expenses they were never intended to fund now that the Supreme Court has made it legal to do so? What is her idea of “a fix”? Is her idea of a fix to pay a miserly or no annual increase for Social Security payments for seniors as has been the norm for at least the past five years. Will she increase the amount of income subject to the payroll tax to help keep the fund solvent? What will she do to reign in the high costs of prescription drugs? She has certainly already made sure she will be very financially secure in her retirement years whether or not she is elected president.
Let’s see if Hillary fills her cabinet with women, to boost women’s role in government. I doubt if that would even be wise. After all, did Barack fill his cabinet with African-Americans, who also need a leg up? Electing Hillary, whom I happen to favor, on the basis of women’s issues is not the right way to view this election IMHO.
Meanwhile, I wish I could vote Republican in order to cast an anti-Trump vote, maybe for Rubio who seems to have a chance. Will Trump even allow a Vice-President in his regime? If he names a cabinet, will he ever consult it? They say that every nation has the government it deserves. Are we in the USA so abysmally stupid that we deserve Trump? Yikes!
This election, in my view, is about much more than gender and resume. I’ll reiterate my previous posts that it’s about the rare opportunity of taking a first step to recalibrating a broken and corrupt political system by voting for Bernie Sanders. The Clinton’s are undeniable masters and benefactors of that system. Eleanor Fitzgerald alludes to the immense wealth of Hillary Clinton. She and Bill Clinton have a combined estimated net worth of 100 million dollars, which puts them in the ranks of the wealthiest 0.1%. All this money has been amassed as a consequence of their ‘public service’. How is that possible??? This much money is amassed by hedge fund managers. Hillary Clinton receives fees of over $200,000 for her speeches and, as I recall, Bill Clinton has received well over a million for a speech. Wow! Meanwhile Jimmy Carter builds houses for the impoverished and underserved. Hillary Clinton asserts she will regulate the financial and banking industry, yet she won’t release her speeches to Goldman Sachs so that we the people can judge for ourselves the integrity of her public pronouncement. That’s not leadership and integrity. People will vote how they will vote. I simply cannot understand why Hillary Clinton’s supporters ignore and excuse her manipulation of a corrupt system. It is note worthy that those in the system for years and decades endorse Clinton and those activists outside the system and young people endorse Sanders. In my view, none of the Clinton’s public service is remarkable. Some how a myth has arisen when many others have done more for the people.
P.S. A politician with integrity has broken from the pack. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, vice chair of the DNC, has quit to support Sanders. Check it out.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/28/senior_dnc_official_tulsi_gabbard_quits_endorses_bernie_sanders.html
Sen. Warren is notable for absence.
I don’t see anything wrong with working hard to build a secure retirement for oneself and one’s family. Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton were not paid as a lobbyists who leveraged political connections but rather they were paid because people rightly felt they had something to say that was worth paying to hear, whether it is hiring them to give speeches or buying their books. Let’s not forget the good work of the Clinton Foundation. In addition to dedicating their lives to public service, the Clintons have also donated their talents, influence, and hard-earned financial resources on behalf of those who need it most.
With all due respect (and it is a pleasure to engage in a civil discussion), most of us work hard to build a secure retirement for ourselves and family. That’s not the point. Although the Clinton’s have not declared as lobbyists, lobbyists are part and parcel of the corrupt system. The huge amount of money in the system is the principal driver of corruption. Bernie Sanders has shown that one does not have to depend upon Super Pacs to finance a campaign. Whereas, Hillary Clinton is not benefitting financially by the lobbyists for the financial and banking industry she is benefitting by the millions that the financial and banking industry contribute to her campaign. I disagree that the Clinton’s have not leveraged their political connections. That’s all they have to leverage. By the way, the Clinton Foundation is now under investigation by the Justice Department.
Ask Hillary to release her speeches that Goldman Sachs paid $675,000 for. Then you can judge for yourself their value. Personally, I don’t think any speech is worth that much money.
The unfortunate reality of politics in 2016 is that there is a major divide between the left and right across the country. The only hope of working in a bi-partisan way to address the serious issues that federal government has been gridlocked on, is to elect more centrist candidates – not more extreme, ideological ones. Republican primary voters seem to be missing this point, as seen by the poor results of their most centrist candidate, Gov. John Kasich – and, in fact, seem to be rallying towards ever more extreme (and politically inexperienced) candidates.
For Democratic primary voters, we need to ask ourselves: if President Obama was hardly able to achieve any bi-partisan cooperation in getting legislation passed, why would we believe that Senator Sanders, who is even further to the left of the President, would have any more success with a Republican or split congress? On the other hand, the last president of either party who was able to work in a bi-partisan way with Congress, with notable accomplishments, was a centrist candidate – Bill Clinton.
Even if Senator Sanders could be elected, it is almost certain that would be a path towards even more gridlock and lack of progress towards solving the real issues of the US and the world at large.
If we would vote on ideology alone, feeling that would lead to “change”, I cannot help but be reminded of the fact that idealistic Nader voters could have easily swung the balance in favor of a President Gore and how different the country and world would be today if they had (Iraq, Afghanistan, Isis, global warming, national deficit, alternative energy, Syria, 9-11, Katrina, European immigration crisis, gun control, Citizen’s United, etc.).
Whereas I understand what Bob Kupperstein is saying and agree in part and in principle, what we need are not party centrists but independent thinkers that endeavor to solve problems through collaboration. Bernie Sanders, if I recall correctly, has won 14 elections as an independent. I don’t consider him a leftist, but a progressive (Theodore Roosevelt was a leader of the progressives) and a problem solver. What we really need is to do away with political parties. The Founding Fathers warned against political parties. Unfortunately, they did not heed their own warning and bitter partisanship, exacerbated by political bosses, has been often a hallmark of the political process.
One might redefine ‘centrist’ as someone criticized by both the left and right. The party line Democrats and Republicans both criticize Bernie Sanders. Sanders knows that ‘the problem’ or issue depends upon one’s worldview and that a solution, thus, has different paths. which requires working with and respecting the views of a diverse constituency. By acknowledging the multifaceted nature of most issues he upsets both liberals and conservatives who have doctrinaire worldviews and demonize those with other views.
I am a passionate advocate of the processes of consensus building and collaborative problem solving. I have not the space to describe the specifics of these fields and the difficulties in implementing the processes and where they are appropriate. To get a sense of how these processes could be applied to the political system, I recommend reading “The Cure for our Broken Political Process: How We Can Get Our Politicians to Resolve Issues Tearing Our Country Apart” by Sol Erdman and Lawrence Susskind. For a primer on consensus building I recommend “The Consensus Building Handbook” by Susskind, McKearnen, and Thomas-Lamar. For full disclosure I am a friend and was a colleague of Larry Susskind for seven years at MIT.
A well-designed consensus process brings diverse actors together often in conflict with each other – in diversity though there is strength. Consensus building is not “decision by committee” and does not start out to seek compromise. A properly designed consensus building process seeks to add value to decisions that get made (it is based on the concept of Pareto optimum). Often, however, participants must settle for compromise.
For consensus and collaborative problem solving processes to work, at minimum, two conditions are necessary:
Recognition that different points of view are legitimate
Trust
Of these, trust is the most important. Every collaborative group that I have interviewed (I was a member of a high level federal government interdepartmental team that went around the country for four years studying collaborative groups) stated unequivocally that the only way they could function was through trust. One academic study of 240 groups showed that on average it took almost four years to establish trust.
Look at the “trustworthiness” poll figures for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The numbers are not even close.
As I’ve stated consistently I look at this election on a fundamental level that we have a chance to take a first step to reform a corrupt political system. I’m under no illusions that it will change. However, I do want to vote for a person of integrity and who thinks critically about solutions to problems instead of kowtowing to the party line. Only when enough citizens demand integrity of our representatives will the system change.
Although there is disagreement about the best candidate, perhaps we can all agree as to the truth in this quote:
“We shall never achieve harmony with the land, anymore than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve but to strive” (Aldo Leopold).
Illana, Pres Clinton gets $200k a yr for retirement
I think that is enough to build a nice nest egg without
Having to accept that high a speaking fee. And
For all good they may have done they have done bad.
Just look at their associates, Whitewater etc…