108 Pine Hill Dr.
Winchester, VA 22603
May 19, 2016
Letters to the Editor/Open Forum
Imagine the following scenario: A very wealthy person who is known primarily through television shows and regular stories about him in the tabloid papers bursts on the political scene. He has previously been noticed mostly for his flamboyant, over-the-top lifestyle. He is a fanatical self-promoter, who makes sure that he gets publicity when he makes a big real estate deal or when he changes wives. He loves to name things after himself: buildings, clothing lines, golf courses, etc.
Most people view him as an "entertainer"--and a bit of a caricature. His entry into the national political arena is predicted to provide more entertainment. Established politicians do not regard him as a serious threat. Some even think that his brass showmanship could even bring some extra publicity to the Party. . . and then he will fade out and they can all get down to the "real" work.
But while the other politicians are not paying attention, the "entertainer" grabs the high ground and immediately defends it by laying down lethal fire in all directions. The others seem to not know what to do about the vicious (often false) insults which are being hurled down upon individuals and upon entire groups of people--religious and ethnic groups, females, the disabled. They must have forgotten--or they never learned--the only viable strategy for dealing with an aggressive bully: You punch him in the nose.
With no one really standing up to him, the bully (of course) escalates his aggression, while he attracts and grows an army of supporters. The loyalty of the supporters to this "king of the mountain" is powerful--they are prepared to fight for their new leader, both verbally and physically, if necessary. He has tapped into their most basic fears and anger. He speaks their language. He has expressed broad, emotionally-laden positions, but he has presented no specific plans. Irregardless, his followers are okay with that. They like his attitude--and he will do what he says.
Outside observers start to grow appalled at this spectacle, raising questions around the subjects of "respect", "decency", and "truth". The other politicians are completely unprepared. Some of them think that appeasement may be their safest course. ("If I don't criticize you, you won't beat me up, right?") Others toss paper airplanes towards the bully, but these, of course, only elicit cruel smiles and personal attacks from the bully.
Most of them continue to try to act like this growing force will soon just go away--or maybe he will decide to join their group, instead of trying to crush it. But before they realize what is happening, the other politicians come to be grievously wounded, in ones and twos. All but 2 have limped from the field (some of these still attempt to get the bully to accept them). Then the remaining 2, while still grumbling, are forced to raise the white flag.
Now, step back from this scenario and objectively evaluate the person who is at the center of it. If one takes into account only the bare-bones scenario presented above, is this the kind of person who should be called "The leader of the free world?" Really?
But we certainly do know more--much more--about the habits and character of this person who thinks he should be President. We have all heard the distortions, fabrications, and outright lies from him. Many people say that they will never again trust someone who has lied to them. But this is an individual who, when caught in a lie, immediately tries to cover it by telling more lies! Don't we all want to get as far away as we can from people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions?
Space does not allow for even a minimal listing of this "leader's" lies, distortions, insults against women, name-calling, possible sexual preoccupations, and his shocking bigotry towards entire categories of humanity.
Put aside the fact that this person is not even qualified to be President. Because of his significant personality and character deficits, this person should not even be under consideration for the position of leader of our country. All people who know the importance of good values--and try to practice them in their own lives--should categorically reject this individual. This is not just a case of extreme narcissism. This man has demonstrated that he lacks empathy for others.
It is disheartening that many Republican politicians are falling into line behind an individual such as this. Party loyalty matters more to them than the integrity to stand up and say, "No! This is wrong!" The head of the RNC has said that "winning" is the most important thing. I do believe that there will be some Republicans who will decide that choosing the "right" action is the most important thing.
This should not be treated as if it is a "normal" election. It is not. Whatever negatives might be attached to the other candidates we have been presented with, this individual's negatives place him in a whole different, lower, realm.