Monday, October 31, 2016

Janet Smith: "Why I'm Voting for Trump and Donating Too"

Democrats know how to win elections. Why? Because they will band together to support their candidate even if he or she is a despicable crook. Republicans have the habit of shooting themselves in the foot. Like the pro-choice purist who won't vote for a candidate if he doesn't oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest. They seem to forget that politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal. Paul Ryan? Republican purists (such as he) spend so much time back pedaling and wringing their hands over their personal qualms that they seem to lose sight of the party platform positions at issue, becoming their party's own worst enemies. No. Check that. The worst would be those like the members of the Bush clan (or Mark Shea) who have gone over to the dark side to support felonious Hillary.

Dr. Janet Smith addresses the point at issue with thoughtfulness, candor, and -- if I may say so -- courage, in her article, "Why I am Voting For Trump and Donating, Too" (Catholic Vote, October 29, 2016).

Be forewarned: this is not a simple, brief article; it is a long and carefully considered piece of reasoning by an astute scholar and colleague who does not take these matters lightly. Here are three paragraphs from the beginning to get you started. But read on, because she's worth some careful attention; not only if you're Catholic, but especially if you're Catholic:
I know it is not attractive to vote for and support Trump, but I believe we must. The stakes are very, very high.

It took me some time to come to this judgment. I have watched all the debates and was horrified when the vulgar, shallow, bullying, mendacious Trump beat 16 other decent — and some very good — Republican candidates. When Trump became the nominee, I was seriously thinking of not voting.

But over time as I evaluated what Hillary has done – all the terrible things I know she has done — and when I saw that all of our worst suspicions of her have been verified by what has been found in her emails, I realized I needed to vote for the only person who can stop her. She is the most corrupt person I have ever seen in American politics.
Read more >>


3 comments:








c matt

said...

Technically, neither is unfit (yet). Both are natural born US Citizens over 35 years old, not convicted of a felony. I still see it as Trump is undesirable because of personal issues tangentially related to the duties of office; but Hildebeast is undesirable because of professional issues directly related to the duties of office. That puts Trump in the category of FDR, Kennedy, and likely a host of others we don't know enough about. It puts Hildebeast in the category of Clinton (Bill), the Bushes, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and likely a host of others we don't know enough about.

Kennedy seems likely to cause less damage than Stalin.





Anonymous

said...

Janet does not need so many arguments. LIke many, she wants to see four centuries of democracy, enlightenment and liberalism rolled back, and Trump is the best chance she's seen for this, ever. His election will/would be a huge body blow to hated Modernity.





le bourgeois gentilhomme

said...

Long, well thought out, but too squeamish by half. I found myself rolling my eyes at her studied pose of solemn fastidiousness at several points.

I think the bottom line is that this essay in self-justification is the product of a generally clear thinking individual trapped in the repressively totalitarian hothouse environment of American academe. I know that PP will immediately jump to the defense of his colleagues, but I have spent years of my own in such an environment, and I know full well how subtly the screws are turned, especially in these days of intolerant tolerance and uniform diversity. The fact that it is a specifically Catholic environment matters not a whit. Forgive me the pun, but Janet Smith's article is an apologia pro vota sua, whose audience is her colleagues and her social circles. The text may be a well-reasoned explanation of her decision to vote for an American populist; the sub text is a sad plea to her erstwhile friends not to marginalize her.

Is that too harsh? Perhaps, but that is what I get out of it. When Hillary made her celebrated remark about the "basket of deplorables," it is pretty clear that Janet smarted a bit: she is obviously moved to demonstrate that such phobias and "isms" do not darken HER door. I, on the other hand, had a "Les Deplorables"
t-shirt made, which I wore regularly around my university town, until the weather turned cold. My point is that Janet accepts the legitimacy of Hillary's categories, and the toxic environment in which she exists probably has a lot to do with it.

Oh well, I suppose if one chooses to live in an intellectual Chernobyl, one must expect thought processes defaced by an ulcer here, a metastasis there . . . . All in all she is holding up as well as one might reasonably expect.

BTW, anyone interested in a blistering satire on university mores should check out Joyce Carol Oates' "The Hungry Ghosts." Even the title is hilariously appropriate, and the stories are a series of paper cuts to the carotid.