Thursday, November 10, 2016

Purists liberals pull no punches, spare no one, including their own selves

From what I've seen in India and in the US: Liberals are the best at messing with their own. Elizabeth Warren says in a widely circulated video that Hillary Rodham Clinton took money from credit card companies. This has been one of the most damaging attacks on Hillary Clinton.

So I went ahead and watched the video. In the first four minutes, Warren presents evidence for Hillary's initiative, commitment to women and children, and action. Hillary talked to Warren and understood the issues, and, as a consequence, the White House veto-ed a bill that was bad for women and children. Later, when a Republican President was in power, and Hillary was in the Senate, Hillary voted for the bill. Warren casually and destructively ascribes this reversal to corruption, actually taking money from those corporations.

Hillary explains this reversal as something she was asked to do as a price for including provisions in the bill to protect women and children, under a Republican President, who she knew wouldn't veto the bill if it passed.

I believe Hillary. I believe that any one who is actually involved in doing good is faced with difficult choices and has to sometimes deal take a call on what would be the most pragmatic thing to do. Let's not kid ourselves pragmatism is a reality of life. If Bernie Sanders was President, he would have needed to be pragmatic with a Republican house and senate, whether you like it or not.

Purists need to think about the narrative that they fed - that neither candidate was really good enough. Hillary was not just better than Trump. Hillary was a great candidate. Instead of attacking Hillary, Bernie's supporters should have focussed on down-ballot. But they didn't.

One of the videos on Facebook that has 11 million views is called "Hillary lying for 11 minutes straight". The only thing that the video shows is changes in Hillary's positions or her articulation of them.

Yes, people have personal and policy positions and you know what, those positions change. Let's take the example of "gay" marriage. I agree with Hillary's earlier position that I don't believe in gay "marriage", though civil unions make sense.

In fact, I don't even agree with "straight" marriage. Marriage has strong religious connotations everywhere in the world. On the contrary, my faith in the tyranny of religion is so strong, that I abhor calling my most significant adult relationship a "marriage". Yes, are there legal consequences of this relationship? Should sign a contract giving each other special rights over our lives, our property, our person? Yes.

Hillary was right on this. She said that marriage is a "sacred" vow between "a man and a woman". She is right. Anyone who says "marriage" does not involve "religion" is smoking something. She eventually accepted that gay people do value the word "marriage" and value their "faith". I eventually decided that I valued my partner enough that I would swallow the bitter pill and get married and live in the marriage in the "traditional way".

Let's say 15 years from today, my view is the popular view, I would like to see today's liberals scurrying to find cover. But that's not going to happen. Because, in case liberals didn't notice, most of the world has taken a sharp turn to the right. The way back will not be easy.

Being a woman is all about compromising find a way to navigate the world. Everyday. Working in development is also the same. You believe in yourself and trust that your intentions will guide your actions do good, and better, not worse.




No comments: