As a parent who prefers to stay neutral in the political arena, my partner and I have always taken an Independent stance when discussing politics with our children. We strive to present the merits and drawbacks of both major parties without casting them in a negative light. I emphasize that I sometimes align with Democrats and at other times with Republicans, underscoring that understanding both perspectives can be beneficial. However, this presidential election has shifted the focus from the parties themselves to the individual candidates at the helm, and the landscape is muddied by rampant media bias, sensational headlines, and misinformation. It’s a challenging environment to navigate.
My kids are keen observers of this chaotic political climate. They often ask why our electoral system limits us to just two candidates, and I explain that alternative parties struggle to gain traction in our current system. They want to know how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump emerged as the frontrunners, and I tell them that some voters stick to party lines regardless of the candidates’ qualifications. I also explain the impact of biased information sources and how people tend to trust only those that echo their existing beliefs.
I prioritize finding neutral and reliable information to help my kids understand the candidates better. To avoid bias, I steer clear of clearly partisan outlets like MSNBC or Breitbart and approach slightly less biased sources with skepticism. I often refer to original sources, aim to provide context for quotes, and fact-check claims on non-partisan sites like Politifact and Healthline, an excellent resource for understanding intrauterine insemination (IUI) and pregnancy.
In this information-seeking process, I find it relatively easy to explain Hillary to my kids. I share her extensive political background: eight years as First Lady, eight years as a U.S. Senator, and four years as Secretary of State. While I’m not thrilled about her being a career politician, her experience certainly qualifies her for the presidency.
When my kids ask why some people dislike her, I discuss how partisanship and outdated views about women in politics play significant roles. I explain that many of the accusations against her—like being a liar or corrupt—often lack substantial evidence. For instance, I clarify the details surrounding the Benghazi incident and how extensive investigations have yielded no proof of wrongdoing on her part. I also explain the context behind her infamous quote, “What difference does it make?” and how it has been misinterpreted to suggest she didn’t care about the attack.
When they question the lengthy investigations, I acknowledge that’s a valid point. I also address her email server controversy, explaining that while it raises questions about her judgment, there’s no direct evidence of a security breach. In fact, since the State Department’s server was hacked, I find it less concerning.
I explain accusations surrounding the Clinton Foundation and how conjecture does not equal proof. Many powerful individuals interact in ways that invite suspicion during an election year. Still, the Foundation has an impressive “A” rating from Charity Watch, and independent analyses reveal that a significant portion of its funds—80 to 89%—goes directly to charitable efforts, exceeding the industry standard.
It’s clear that Hillary, like many politicians, sometimes stretches the truth or avoids giving direct answers. Yet, the idea that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” doesn’t hold up in politics. In our justice system, you’re innocent until proven guilty. Hillary has faced countless accusations, but none have been substantiated, aside from the beliefs of those who already oppose her.
I ask my kids what this indicates, leaving them to ponder the implications. To me, it suggests either Hillary is an unparalleled supervillain or she’s been the target of an extensive smear campaign over the years. While I don’t view her as the malevolent figure some paint her to be, I admit I’m not a fan of politicians in general; I suspect many aren’t fully transparent.
Yet, when it comes to explaining the appeal of Donald Trump as an alternative, I’m at a loss. My experiences in the business world have made me wary of trusting businessmen as much as politicians. Running a government is fundamentally different from running a business—skills and knowledge bases differ vastly. Trump lacks any governmental experience, and his claim to hire the “best people” has proven questionable at best.
I struggle to comprehend how a man with a history of racial discrimination, who has made inflammatory comments about Muslims and mocked a disabled reporter, can claim to represent a diverse nation. His petulant behavior, such as making threats during speeches, raises further concerns.
My daughter’s bewilderment mirrors my own when she asks, “Why do people like him?” I can’t explain how a reality TV star with a fourth-grade vocabulary has managed to come so close to leading the free world. The chaotic insults he tweets seem incompatible with the responsibilities of the presidency, and while I can dissect the mechanics of demagoguery, I cannot understand the embrace of such behavior by so many citizens.
I can address the criticisms of Hillary, despite her being one of the more honest candidates in this election cycle. But I cannot fathom why some overlook Trump’s more frequent and severe lies. I can explain the media’s spin but not the acceptance of his remarks, which often defy basic decency.
I can clarify Hillary using research and an understanding of the political landscape, but Donald Trump? Unfortunately, kids, I’ve got nothing.
In summary, the political discourse surrounding this election is fraught with confusion and bias. While I can articulate the complexities of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, explaining the allure of Donald Trump remains a challenge. It’s a testament to how deeply divided opinions can cloud understanding in the political arena.
Leave a Reply