Last week, I penned a piece about my take on Donald Trump finding himself in a pot of water he himself had boiled. The man quite literally is in the crossfire of a “he said, he said,” because he said that he did things, and when people came forward to qualify it, he deflected to the media being somewhat biased against him.
I will get to that.
But this was the second piece I had written somewhat in opposition to Trump for a president, and although it was not intended to be an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, it would not be an unreasonable thing to infer. I came under fire for being supposedly biased as a reporter and ominously not reporting the two sides that much of the conservative right seems to think there are.
The “two sides” notion is a faux news fallacy, because rarely is it the case that merely two sides of anything exist. More often, there are many, and in some rare cases there is only one, but the format of presenting two opposing views for the sake of giving the reader a choice is just that — a format. It is insulting to intelligent people and furthermore indicative of the intellectual condition of those who purport such. There are facts. Many of them. This is how it should be approached.
Also, I am not a reporter. I am a columnist. I present facts on which I opine. I take a side or a stand and provoke a conversation. I lay no claim to being unbiased about anything. News anchors, reporters, or commentators with opinions are not new. Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite are often lamented upon as being the last of dying breeds in journalism who stuck to the rigidity of just reporting the facts, but remember something here.
Murrow took on McCarthyism with an almost vindictive vigor. Cronkite did the same with the Vietnam War. These were issues that in and of themselves presented an aberration to what is most dear in our country: exposing of abuse of power levied upon its people. They were not unbiased at all. So to address the assertion that a bias against Trump exists, I would say that perhaps it does. But it is one that he has all but created himself.
I said that my last few pieces about Donald Trump were not intended to be an endorsement of Hillary Clinton but it would not be an unreasonable thing to infer. The operative word here is “infer.” To infer is to deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements or facts. Saying that because I have not come out equally as critical of Clinton somehow implies that I am biased against Trump is a blanket statement that is tantamount to an inference, a deduction or conclusion that is not premised in facts.
I am not necessarily for a Clinton presidency so much as, much like Murrow and Cronkite saw the issues of their time, vehemently opposed to Trump being the leader of this nation. He has, in my opinion, shown himself to be a dangerous option for a plethora of reasons, the least of which are the things he convicts himself of by what he says he has done and will do. He is the embodiment of what Epicetus referred to as “the vulgar.”
My reasons for also not endorsing a Clinton presidency notwithstanding, they have nothing to with emails or contract CIA employees abandoning their posts to heroically attempt to save people at an embassy. Inferences about this are purported by the right as things that cannot be argued, but floating allegations like this and pretending they are beyond debate is sophomoric.
The better part of Clinton’s adversaries are asserting and applying opinion that is not premised in anything that looks like fact but rather conspiracy. This is the collective cry of much of those in opposition to her. She has so many quantifiable objectionable qualities, that it is confounding how heavy the reliance is on conjecture and certainly conspiracy. They are presented by the likes of Trump as foregone conclusions in the face of facts and evidence that do not support them.
That is what you will get with a Trump presidency, and while it may suit those who support him now, it will not when the day comes when he does something they disagree with. We are not a nation of inferences but rather a nation of laws. At present, Hillary Clinton has not been so much as charged with a single thing with regards to some of her arguably questionable behavior.
But to give a little insight here, I am a Republican. And I do not say this to assuage the appearance that I am terribly hard on Republicans. To quote Aaron Sorkin here, “I call myself a Republican because I am one. I believe in market solutions and common sense realities and the necessity to defend ourselves against a dangerous world and that’s about it. The problem is now I have to be homophobic. I have to count the number to times people go to church. I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con. I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride. And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect … in the 21st century. But most of all, the biggest new requirement, really the only requirement is that I have to hate Democrats. And I have to hate Chris Christie for not spitting on the president when he got off of Air Force One. The two-party system is crucial to the whole operation. There is honor in being the loyal opposition. And I’m a Republican for the same reasons you are.”
The issue at hand for me is simply that the Republican party has been hijacked by the fanatical tea party conservatism that demands that the one true religion or party knows it all and requires everyone to live by its precepts. Utah being one of the single worst offenders not withstanding, I live here and I see the embodiment of all that is in direct contradiction to an actual conservative party, and realize that much like Utah conservatives, what is desired by these people is a one party system. The sad part is, by putting Trump up for their candidate this year, they may have sealed a one party system in fate. Just not their own. And I for one, am not happy about it.
But it is an issue I am willing to continue to mete out without Donald Trump as my leader.
See you out there.
I really enjoy your column even when I don’t agree with you which I will admit is rarely. On the Diane Rehm’s show last week, I can’t remember if it was thursday or friday’s there was a really good discussion along this same line. The panelists were liberals and conservatives. The conservative panelist used Trump’s own comments and actions to show how Trump has brought all this negative attention upon himself. He had the perfect response to a caller who questioned why the show appeared so one sided. If you didn’t get a chance to hear the show it is really worth a listen.
I’m very disappointed that you claim to be a Republican. I suppose it’s easier to go along with the majority of oppressive bigots here in Utah rather than stand up for the rights of everyone. Oh well, I’ll be leaving St. George soon after the recreational cannabis issue is accepted in the rest of our neighboring states.
Dallas why do you and so many others refuse to consider a third party candidate? Maybe you could do an article about it.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, Hyland, Clay Jones, NOT journalism as clearly stated, RATHER OPINION. My error. Few more weeks to go, so keep up the fine opinionating. Facts don’t matter, just multi-sided opinion unless you are Plato, but he’s a philosopher, a different vocation. Guess I’m just fool as I see at least TWO sides of the equation. No doubt there may be a third side, or even a fourth. Plato did mention the dodecahedron.