Hate, ageism and the 2016 presidential election

On Trump

I’m saddened by the hate expressed in my state last week as demonstrated by Trump’s sweep in the Republican primary. It was manifested again this week by the events in Chicago, where reports are genuinely upsetting and heartbreaking. Trump protesters faced verbal and physical assaults outside of the venue. At the same time the media replayed video from previous Trump appearances where he encouraged his followers to attack protesters and offered to pay their legal defense fees. Is this really who we want as our president? (Time.com, March 10, 2016)

NPR - Getty Images

“This Can’t Go On In Chicago,” Says Anti-Trump Protester,” NPR Weekend Edition, March 13, 2016

Listen to the disrespect this American suffered at the hands and minds of Trump supporters. Listen to his message. “America is great without the hate.”

On ageism and the presidency

Senior Planet

Those around me who think Bernie Sanders is too old to be president have captured my attention. He’s 74, Hillary’s 68 and the Donald Drumpf is 69. I don’t get it and apparently the youngest voters among us don’t get it either since they seem very comfortable with everything Bernie.

When Hillary started up her campaign machine again, so shortly after the 2012 election, “too old” was a common question and comment among the pundits. (“Is Hillary Clinton too old to be president?” MSNBC asked. ” Hillary is too old to run,” the New York Post claimed. Politico opinionator Pete Seat echoed the sentiment: ” Hillary Clinton is too old to be president.”) (Erica Manfred, Senior Planet: Aging with Attitude, May 28, 2015)

Senior Planet looked at this question in a great article: How Old is Too Old to be President? (May 28, 2015). In the article, the experts are split on the effects of age and office holding. Dr. Nir Barzilai, professor of medicine and genetics at Albert Einstein and director of the Institute for Aging Research, says, “biological and chronological age are not the same. The older you are, the more your genes rather than lifestyle are likely to predict longevity...Someone like Hillary, who functions at very high intensity, has the gene for longevity. “ Her mother died at 92.

Barzilai also points out that Alzheimer’s isn’t a forgone conclusion with age: “[t]he more educated and intelligent a person is, the less you’ll see the decline even if they have Alzheimer’s.” (According to Barzilai, if one of your parents lived to be over 85, your likelihood of getting Alzheimer’s is reduced by 25 percent, even if that parent had the disease.)

Also quoted in the article is Dr. Robert Epstein, a research psychologist and former editor in chief of Psychology Today. “As long as the candidate shows no signs of senility – say, from early Alzheimer’s – an older candidate is probably your best choice if you think the world is a fairly stable place. As we get older, our judgment regarding matters we know about generally gets better. Experience is a great teacher.”

But, Epstein says, “If you think the world is rapidly changing, that’s another story. The older we get, the harder it is for us to quickly learn, master and evaluate new information.”

The article goes on to point out that the issue for candidates today isn’t about age but about how visible they are to the voters through social media and how savvy their campaigns are in using these communication platforms to reach all of the voters.

Does age matter? You can vote 

Erica Manfred, the article’s author reports that the “jury is still out on age and the presidency.” You can vote on the site for how old is too old to be president. (at the bottom of the article)

Civility has left the building...

... and with it the Republican Party's attempt to offer the nation a qualified candidate prepared to act on behalf of the electorate and represent the U.S. internationally --- you know the countries that haven't yet banned The Donald from their shores.

www.cnn.com

I'm stunned by the lack of decorum at Thursday's Republican Debate. Particularly by The Donald's disrespect toward his fellow candidates ---- the name calling, the interruptions, the sheer inability to actually address the issues...or the serious questions asked of him.

I'm equally stunned by the media, CNN here, sponsoring the debate and thus surrendering the independent debate process and decorum to his ill-mannered behavior. This seemingly solely for the sake of ratings and advertising profits rather than for the benefit of informing the voting public. What has happened to third party objective hosts such as the League of Women Voters, that actively protected the integrity of the process for all of us?

I'm old enough to remember civilized debates where the issues and the responses of the candidates took center stage. And, where the candidates were respectful toward each other --- waiting their turns, you know, like grown ups. There was no chance then of the debates being mistaken for the voyeuristic reality shows of today.

During a 1988 vice presidential debate in Omaha, Senator Lloyd Bentsen respectfully took exception to his GOP opponent's comparison of himself to John F. Kennedy. Sen. Dan Quayle had just defended his inexperience as similar to that of Kennedy. Bentsen's response was strong but civil: "Senator," he said, "I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy." (U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 7, 2008)

Republican candidate John McCain, in 2008, did not seize the opportunity to mock his opposition at one of his own rallies. When a McCain supporter told the crowd in Minnesota that "Obama is an Arab," McCain took away the microphone and with respect to both the supporter and candidate Barack Obama, he responded, "No ma'am, "[Obama's] a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." Huffington Post, Nov. 10, 2008

I give Marco Rubio credit at the debate for stepping up where his opponents would not to challenge Trump to focus on the issues, only to end up the target for The Donald's rudeness the rest of the evening and throughout the weekend. Sadly, Rubio has since stooped to Trump's level, mocking The Donald at his own political rallies.

What happened Thursday night and is continuing to happen on the Republican side of this election is everyone's fault.

• A Republican Party that has for some reason allowed The Donald to set its political agenda upon a foundation of ignorance, hate and fear. 
• His opposition for stooping to his level.
• The media for becoming the primary sponsors of debates (being the news rather than covering the news) rather than protecting the democratic process by allowing third party objective sponsors to manage these events.
• A national media that is ignoring the serious candidates and the real issues for the entertainment value of Trump's universally cavalier attitude and contempt. 
• A public that claims to back him because he isn't part of the "political establishment" and for his entertainment value. What they really mean but won't admit is that they love his hate and fear mongering. The things they don't have the guts to say out loud. 
• And finally, that lazy silent majority, again, that presumes someone else will clean up this mess for them before it threatens their personal lives. Until then, what does it really matter?

Trump has said he loves "the undereducated" because he's been so successful at preying on them. Here he is doing it again, the very people who are backing him are the ones he's screwed in the past and will screw along with the rest of us if he is elected.

As one friend commented recently, if Trump is the nominee, he alone may sweep Hillary into the White House.

It is on us to stay informed, to challenge candidates and platforms at necessary and to vote.