Both are so very unpleasant, yet each side’s supporters are vehemently supporting their candidate, regardless of what is being reported about them or what their history says.
Somewhere between 40 and 47 percent of the country supports each, totaling for over 85 percent of our voting electorate.
Millions and millions will not change their vote, either — period. (Current polling has Clinton leading Trump 46-43, which means 89 percent of the country favor one or the other; each candidate’s lead sways as the reporting cycle goes.)
I just didn’t get it: two very unlikeable candidates, trashing each other, being supported so heavily.
Until now…
‘NICE’ VERSUS ‘MEAN’
Emotion. Simple raw emotion sans the facts.
Hillary’s (and Obama before her) policies are viewed as “kind” and “well intentioned,” albeit unpractical, expensive and further reducing our freedoms.
Trump’s policies are viewed as “mean” or “bigoted” and many are also impractical in application, potentially expensive, and may cost us more freedoms.
The rhetoric Clinton uses is seen as “diversity friendly” whereas Trump’s is seen as being “prejudiced.” People want to support the “nice” candidate and naturally oppose the “mean” one. But no one is researching the context of either’s platforms and what they are really telling you.
Example: Clinton’s plan for free college comes off as “nice” and “kind” to people who are poor or burdened with student loans. In theory, she offers the option of higher education to all.
But no one is concerned with how on Earth are we, as a country, going to pay for it. Yet it seems “nice” on its merits, so no details are provided or needed by her campaign. That doesn’t matter, because it “feels good” in theory.
On the flip side: Trump declared a moratorium on travel for Muslims coming from Islamic extreme countries. This is viewed as “mean” and “bigoted toward Muslims.” But, the truth of the matter is that virtually all terror attacks today are done by Islamic extremists. Whether this proposed policy is the right thing to do is another debate, but it is viewed as “mean,” so it is universally rejected.
Unfortunately, we are currently watching large segments of Europe fall into conflict as a result of being “nice” to Muslim refugees. We all see it happening. But because it is viewed as “mean” and doesn’t “feel good,” it is rejected.
HEADS STUCK IN SAND
That is where we are at today. The Feel Good Society. The average American does not want to comprehend the complex issues unfolding in front of us, be it national defense, stimulating the economy or social issues, among other things.
Much of it is boring, or takes too much energy to understand, doesn’t make sense to them or just sounds bad. We are all so bombarded with information all day long, that we collectively have stuck our heads in the sand because we can’t take it anymore.
Politicians are banking on this. So people now judge candidates strictly based upon whether what they are saying “feels good” or it doesn’t — facts be damned.
Clinton is directed at the social justice crowed; at the “corrupt government” crowd. Both are fueling the emotion of each, further dividing our nation.
This is dangerous because both candidates will tell you exactly what their constituency wants to hear for political expediency — and they will deliver nothing.
Or worse, they will deliver what they promised, further tearing down our great nation.
So, this election has been framed around voting for the nice person or voting for the mean person.
Whether this is an accurate portrayal is in the eye of the beholder, of course — and is a debate for another day. But, the devil is always in the details when you claim one is nice or the other is mean, or vice versa.
For the future of our republic, I plead with Americans to go find those details.
Let us remember that a good parent most times must make decisions their kids view as “mean.”
Shawn McCarthy is a Crestview resident.
This article originally appeared on Crestview News Bulletin: Why voters really support Clinton or Trump