None of the angry commenters responded. Just as with the progressives Keryl's comment addressed, it seems the principle of considering harm--and conversely, Cicero's ancient question, "Who benefits?"--can't compete with the need to sustain a self-image of purity.
I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. A big part of the reason I'm doing it is how worried I am about the future of this country when I contemplate the massive failure of empathy on the part of the privileged that is becoming increasingly evident in so many political exchanges. Under Trump, political life would be about fighting to hold the line against further incursions into human rights and freedom. Under Clinton, we'll be able to continue the great and increasingly widespread work being done to cultivate empathy and social imagination. Often, I have observed, it doesn't take much to strike a spark of compassion. Just helping someone imagine the consequences of a world without the Golden Rule may sometimes be enough.
Think before you vote, I beg you. If you refuse to vote for Clinton, is your choice expressing the conviction that your self-image is more important than the suffering of countless others? Forget about intent. Imagine someone who belongs to Trumps's vilified categories--perhaps you've brought to mind a Muslim who happens to be African American and lesbian. How might that person perceive your choice? When it comes down to real consequences, which side are you on?
Ruby Velle and the Soulphonics, "It's About Time."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
