I guess I don’t even know how or what to think about when it comes to that crazy person who also happens to be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. I’d use his name, but you already know it, and he doesn’t need any more attention, because that’s what this monster feeds on.
But that’s the thing: He doesn’t need any more attention, but his existence and ascent require our attention. This is just one of a heap of conundrums and contradictions that accompany coverage of this particular beast.
From the perspective of somebody who gets paid to think and write about things, it almost feels cheap to talk about him. It’s what he wants, after all, right? And doesn’t that feed into whatever it seems like his plan may be?
But then, at the same time we have this candidate whom White Nationalist David Duke and that sniveling cartoon villain type who inflated the cost of AIDS drugs however many times over before getting into some hot water over securities fraud are openly celebrating.
We have this billionaire celebrity blowhard who could very easily become the next president, and you think, “Well, I have to address this somehow, don’t I?”
Welcome to Perpetual Conundrum 2016.
Am I helping to perpetuate his narrative if I give him attention? The narrative in which whiny, liberal, egghead elites in the media obviously don’t get him and his followers? The narrative in which I write something that literally describes a thing the beast has actually done — such as treasonously calling upon Russia to commit an act of espionage against the U.S. — it sounds as if I’m putting some sort of spin on it simply because it’s coming from me and appearing in this newspaper.
These are the pitfalls of addressing what is at once absurd and legitimately threatening to our collective well-being. It is what I imagine a reporter covering The Joker comes to feel like in the D.C. Universe.
Every day we wonder if things will get crazier or more wild or whatever, and every few days we realize that, yes, they will.
I was a Bernie Sanders supporter. I caucused for him here in Maine, and I was proud to do so. I was a Ralph Nader supporter back in 2000. To see such widespread grass-roots support around a movement that favors an inclusive economy and the means to address the ill nature of corporatism is so meaningful and beautiful to me. Some remain angry that Sanders didn’t get to go all the way, and they’re angry with the way the DNC composed itself — rightfully so. For this movement to continue, there needs to be change at every level of our civic machinery. I look forward to participating in however that manifests itself.
And in spite of these Democratic Party missteps, I look forward to continuing this movement in an America in which Hillary Clinton is president. There is no candidate who can be everything to all 315 million of us, and each will represent things we don’t like or appreciate. But the beast represents a vision of the country that not only hates the aforementioned movement but doesn’t even appear unwilling to see it quashed by any means necessary.
Clinton was not my first choice, but she is most definitely the best choice available to appoint judges, carefully consider domestic policies and engage in foreign policy.
It doesn’t mean the movement stops, but we have the luxury of deciding what sort of leadership under which we continue it — a liberal leader with whom we don’t fully agree or an emerging fascist who has a lot of fans in Russia and the white nationalist crowd in his camp and who, we can imagine, won’t have any qualms about crushing everything we stand for.
Imagine Gov. Paul LePage but with access to Supreme Court appointments and nuclear weapons.
I have trouble seeing how there is even a choice in this election.
Alex Steed has written about and engaged in politics since he was a teenager. He’s an owner-partner of a Portland-based content production company and lives with his family, dogs and garden in Cornish.
