In Defense of Drumpf *

Here on the morning of Super Tuesday, like presidential politicians and politics and the advertising that supports it all, this headline might be labelled as misleading and disingenuous. How appropriate. In any case, of course, Donald Trump neither needs nor wants my defense.

Let me be clear. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which I could vote for Donald Trump. Or any of the Republican candidates. I’m pretty much reconciled to this being the first election where I cannot find a way to rationalize at least some candidate to support. Whoever wins in 2016 will start his/her term with the support of less than half the voters, and being despised by a significant percentage. I am not optimistic and see no better days in the future. I for sure won’t be voting in any Missouri presidential primary.

Donald Trump is the Impressionist candidate – a significant number of people like the picture he paints even if the details (and process) are fuzzy. It must be admitted, however, that impressionists can create vivid images that allow us to see what we want. The man is intelligent, no doubt, but his solutions to problems resemble (often) ugly wallpaper over plaster cracks – neither permanent nor particularly effective. My opinion: we have more serious structural issues, both internal and external, that need to be addressed by more than changing up a façade.

Trump also seems to think that being the biggest, baddest, strongest kid on the block means others will do what you want. He’s not alone in this, as other candidates act like all we as a nation have to do is give orders to the other kids (nations), ignoring that they have their own senses of pride, independence, and, yes, exceptionalism.

I personally do not understand why anyone would want the awful job of president. And, as awful as it has been for some time, it is only getting worse. Who wants to be hated by so many people – and that is just in your own country! Yet many do seem to want the job, to the point of saying and/or doing anything to get it. No tactic is too sleazy, no promise too absurd, no principle too sacred to be modified for the right audience or the right number of votes. Because the men and women from whom we have to choose seemingly will do anything to be president, we must also assume they will do anything as president. (Actually, Jeb! Bush might have been able to draw the line; unfortunately, that was not viewed as a favorable trait and made him one of the worst campaigners ever. While I probably wouldn’t have voted for him nor would I have liked many of his positions and policies, I admit he might have turned out to be a competent president; unfortunately, he ran a staggeringly incompetent campaign.)

 Many, and I include myself here, have longed, loudly at times, for a candidate who would run an honest campaign, putting him or herself out there, to be judged for who (s)he is, not trying to be “politically correct.” Mind you, I do not object to sensitive phrasing and trying to avoid (deliberately) insulting people who think or look differently than you. Empathy is not political correctness, it is being willing to look at things from another’s point of view.

Donald Trump may be the only candidate insisting that the road to the presidency be on his terms (not ideological terms, but personal terms); compared to the other candidates (except maybe Bernie Sanders) he seems to be the only one who won’t do and/or say anything to be president. The rest seem more than willing to let themselves be massaged and manipulated by consultants who tailor their “message du jour” for whatever constituency's vote is being pursued on that campaign stop. Not Trump. He just barrels ahead, steamrolling anyone who gets in his way or disagrees with him. His attitude seems to be just what we thought we wanted: “If I can’t do it my way, I don’t want to do it at all.”

Proving, once again, be careful what you wish for.

* If you do not understand this, Google "John Oliver" + "Drumpf"

Cruise Diary 14: Days 8-11, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico

It would appear that the Pacific side of these countries is more affluent than the Caribbean side. Not that you will want to go house hunting any time soon, but still, not nearly as depressing as what we saw last year.

As noted previously, Costa Rica is proud of its accomplishments and heritage. However, the one constant on this trip is that every guide feels the same way about his (or her) country. It truly irks me when the drum-beaters for “American Exceptionalism” fail to realize that most people, or at least those with a sense of country, believe that their country, too, is exceptional. Those same loud voices are also critical of the trend to eliminate winners and losers, the trophies for all attitude. “We can’t all be winners.”

I get that, but comparing your country to mine isn’t even a parlor game and what rules there may be come from those who want to stack the deck so that their homeland becomes the winner. National pride can’t only be good when it’s ours. Who is to say that we’re better than anyone else? I’d suggest we’d be better off treating our attitude toward our country like golf, and working on just being the best that we can, knowing there is always room for improvement, without the need to “beat” some other country. In the unlikely event that I could beat you (or anyone) in a golf match, it still wouldn’t mean I was any good.

Being better than the competition doesn’t mean you’re good. Being louder than the other side doesn’t mean you’re right. Bob Dylan long ago got it right when he said, “Not to climb up any higher but rather drag you down the hole that he’s in.” We should be cheering these countries as they work to develop their economies, education, social services, etc., even if not always the same way we would prefer. Instead, the American Exceptionalists seem to want to put a ceiling on others’ ambition so that we can wave our foam fingers and shout, “We’re #1!” to justify any action we take. Let’s at least not be offended or surprised when we get a different finger in return.

On a slightly different note, I must admit it was a bit disconcerting to see all the soldiers with big guns on our last two stops. I know I’m in the minority here, but being surrounded by armed people, even if it’s obviously the military doing its job, does NOT make me feel safer. It only makes me wonder when they’re going to use them, and on whom. And if you’re a civilian toting a gun, well, hey, you may know you’re not crazy or a threat to me, but I sure as hell don’t. Quite frankly, your need to display your weaponry is enough to make me wonder.

But back to foreign travel, we remember seeing lots of guns and armed security in Europe, especially Italy, almost 40 years ago. Didn’t make us feel safer then, either.

In any case, we’re happy to be trading the snow at home for the 80+ degree temperatures here, at least temporarily. And now a few random pictures: