My partner and I consider ourselves neutral in the political arena. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of our two-party system with our kids, making sure to avoid speaking negatively about either side. I explain that I sometimes align with Democrats and at other times with Republicans, highlighting that we can appreciate both perspectives on many issues. We truly embody the spirit of Independence.
However, this election seems less about the parties and more about the two figures at the forefront. It’s happening during a time when the information landscape is cluttered with media bias, sensationalized headlines, and misinformation disguised as news. I find myself sorting through a mountain of misleading statements to uncover the truth, while others wave around the same falsehoods as if they were fact. It’s frustrating.
My children are observing all of this and often inquire why we only have two options. I try to explain that alternative parties haven’t built the legislative foundation necessary for a viable third-party presidential run in our system. They ask how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump became the nominees, and why people support either candidate. I tell them some voters strictly follow party lines, regardless of the candidates’ merits. I explain how different sources of information can shape perceptions of truth and that people often cling to sources that align with their pre-existing beliefs, irrespective of factual evidence. I emphasize the advantage of being non-partisan when seeking the truth.
I share how I strive to find the most trustworthy, unbiased sources for information about the candidates. To steer clear of bias, I discard clearly sensationalist media outlets and approach slightly less biased sources with skepticism. Whenever possible, I seek out original content, check original videos, and provide context for quotes before responding. I always verify claims through sites like Politifact and Factcheck.org, since while complete objectivity is tough to achieve, these non-partisan platforms aim for neutrality and factual accuracy.
Through this process, I find it manageable to explain Hillary to my kids. I tell them that she served as First Lady for eight years, then as a U.S. Senator for another eight, and subsequently as Secretary of State for four years. While I may not be thrilled about her career in politics, her extensive governmental experience cannot be denied.
When my kids ask why some people dislike her intensely, I point out that partisanship and traditional views on women in politics play significant roles. I explain that after researching various claims about her being dishonest or corrupt, I’ve found that many of these accusations lack credible evidence and are often exaggerated or fabricated.
I break down what happened in Benghazi, discussing how multiple investigations led by her opponents have failed to uncover any wrongdoing on her part. I clarify the context of her infamous quote, “What difference does it make?” and how it has been misrepresented to suggest she was indifferent about the attack. I also mention her statement, “I take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi,” to illustrate her acknowledgment of the situation.
When my kids question the necessity and duration of the numerous investigations, I agree it’s a valid concern. I explain the email server controversy and how, while it raises questions about her judgment, there’s no evidence that she intentionally compromised security. I tell them that email is notoriously difficult to secure, and since there’s no proof her private server was hacked, I’m not overly concerned.
I discuss the allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation and how it’s common for powerful individuals to mingle in various ways, especially during an election cycle. I emphasize that speculation is not proof and that mere accusations without solid backing do not constitute truth.
I share that the Clinton Foundation has received an “A” rating from Charity Watch, and independent analyses show that 80 to 89% of its funds go to charitable causes, exceeding the 75% industry standard.
I explain that, like any long-serving politician, Hillary sometimes bends the truth or word things carefully to avoid being trapped. I also highlight that one cannot assume guilt based solely on numerous accusations; in our justice system, one is innocent until proven guilty. Despite the many claims against her, none have been substantiated under scrutiny, leading me to question the motives behind these persistent attacks.
I challenge my kids to consider what this reveals, leaving the question open-ended. To me, it seems either Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally cunning adversary or she’s been the target of an unprecedented smear campaign.
While I don’t view Hillary as the villain many portray her to be, I’m still not fond of politicians in general—most aren’t entirely truthful, and I suspect shady dealings happen in Washington regularly. I certainly understand the desire for change in the political landscape.
However, I cannot fathom why someone would choose Donald Trump as an alternative.
Having witnessed enough of the business world, I trust businessmen about as much as politicians. Moreover, running a government is not the same as managing a business. Can a racecar driver suddenly become a pilot without any flight experience just because they know how to make a vehicle go fast? Absolutely not. Government and business require different skills and knowledge, and Trump lacks any governmental experience.
He claims he’ll compensate for that by hiring the best people. But what about the intern who spread false, racist statistics about crime that originated from a white supremacist? Or the first campaign manager he dismissed? Or the second one he replaced due to questionable ties to Russia? I’m not impressed with his hiring capabilities.
I struggle to explain how someone who was sued for racial discrimination, who called for a total ban on Muslims, who has disparaged a federal judge based on his heritage, who mocked a disabled reporter, and who has consistently insulted women can claim to represent America’s diversity.
I find it hard to rationalize his behavior, like when he said after a speech, “They were really saying bad things about me. I was going to hit one guy in particular. A very little guy. I was gonna hit this guy so hard, his head would spin.” My daughter’s response was simply, “What the heck?! Why do people like him?” I had no answer.
I can’t seem to explain how a pompous reality TV star who communicates like a child has gotten so close to leading our country. I can’t grasp how someone who routinely tweets juvenile insults can be trusted with the serious responsibilities of a presidency. I can discuss the tactics of demagoguery and fear-mongering, but I can’t explain why so many Americans embrace it willingly.
I can clarify why Hillary is labeled a liar (even though she has been shown to be one of the more honest candidates), yet I can’t understand why those same critics overlook Trump’s frequent lies, which surpass all other candidates combined. I can articulate why Trump complains about media bias, but I can’t fathom why people aren’t alarmed by his offensive rhetoric.
I can outline Hillary’s positions with research and facts, but Donald Trump? Sorry, kids. I’ve got nothing.
In summary, navigating the current political landscape has left me able to explain Hillary Clinton’s background and controversies to my kids, but Donald Trump’s actions and appeal remain a mystery to me.