The Economist magazine is ideologically far from Clinton and the Democrats, yet endorsed her. Their editorial is well worth reading, because it puts things in proper perspective. It recognizes Clinton’s faults, but also her strengths. Trump has none.
A lifelong Republican and libertarian, I too am ideologically as far from Clinton as one could get. I have harshly criticized her character. And I’m still voting for Johnson. But this hasn’t deranged my objectivity – Clinton compared against Trump is like Snow White versus Voldemort.
Such objectivity seems nonexistent in Trumpland. Likewise truth and facts. The attacks on Clinton over the e-mails and other such issues are ludicrously overblown. The latest FBI letter was a disgraceful interference by that agency in the election – there is no “there” there, no actual new information, nothing added to what was already known. And none of it remotely compares with Trump’s well-documented turpitude hurting so many real people, like the victims of his Trump University fraud, his bankruptcies, refusal to pay bills, sexual assaults, and on and on.
Wall Street has also given its verdict: falling for an almost unprecedented nine straight days over fear of Trump winning. Market investors understand what a disaster that would be for the economy. People voting for him out of economic anxiety are sadly deluded – his idiotic program if actually implemented (as The Economist explains) would hurt them most of all.
Since 1964, many elections have gone against my choice. Alternation of power is a strength of our democracy, making me love America all the more. But this time is different. I’ve never been so worried about an election and the nation’s future.
My final plea to Trump voters, quoting Oliver Cromwell (1650):
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”