Discussion about this post

Commenting has been turned off for this post
David Roberts's avatar

Matthew,

I'm glad you wrote this and glad you decided that you could no longer tolerate Trump.

That said, it is worrisome to me that someone as thoughtful as you could have persisted in your support for as long as you did and that someone as thoughtful as you disaggregated morality from leadership for so long.

I know it would be more gentlemanly to simply say thank you for a brave email. Please take my worry as a mark of deep and continued respect.

Best,

David

Maureen Doallas's avatar

Matthew, I won't "cancel" you, and I can appreciate and also deeply respect your willingness to write here that you voted for What's-His-Name (I refuse to acknowledge him by name, which would give him a dignity he is not owed) and that you bear what I imagine is a great burden on your heart and mind. But, forgive me: I still cannot understand how anyone could vote for him the first time, nor especially the second. He had no qualifications whatsoever for the presidency, had declared bankruptcy at least seven times, was unarguably a racist (recall his statement about the "Central Park 5"), as was his father; was clearly a misogynist, was embroiled in lawsuit after lawsuit, and had as his mentor Roy Cohn(!), who gave counsel to Joseph McCarthy who ruined many men's and women's lives. It was well-known he figured out ways to deprive his contractors and subcontractors of what he owed them. And even when it appeared - an important word - as if he was contributing to the welfare of society, he subsequently was found to be taking advantage as the grifter he's always been and lined his own pockets, as do his children as well.

How can all that be known and yet be set aside when one steps into an Election Day booth?

I've never understood, or perhaps I should say I have never received adequate explanation of why a person votes Republican or Democrat strictly because that person has declared him- or herself to be a Republican or a Democrat. I consider myself independent of either party and have never given a dime of my own to either. Were we allowed a vote on having or not having a two-party system, I'd argue for none, that we consider nominees on established qualifications for the presidency and elect based on merit (the only current requirement is being age 35). (I've a raft of other changes in our election system that I'd like to see this country commit to as well.)

Forgive me: I can't say I can grasp intellectually what allowed you to make the decision you did and withhold your vote for the other candidate.

What has happened to the concept of "an informed electorate"? What has happened to holding our representatives to accountability to us when we can see they are only accountable to themselves, making the system work for them at every turn? How many more examples can we find of that? Why have we allowed wealth to buy influence? Why do we not insist as citizens, as is our right, that no person is above another?

We all have a responsibility as voters to weigh the pros and cons of every candidate before we take the time to vote. If understanding the issues and the candidates' positions or statements only occurs outside the voting site where people hand out their party's literature, it's too late.

How do we turn all this around?

Would that every person who voted for What's-His-Name do as you have done, take responsibility, and then also advocate mightily and continuously for correction and vote everyone out in the mid-terms.

I'm a child of the 1960s. For all the tumultuousness of those years and into the early 1970s of its continuance, I saw how advocacy and persistence, and courage to speak out, peaceably, could bring about change. That's how treatment for AIDS in the 1980s happened. People took it on themselves to work together to make change. Now in 2026, I see how there are no safeguards in place; advances in science and medicine that benefit the world are dispatched with the wave of a hand; peaceful protest is met with armed resistance, even killings; discrimination is acceptable, whether on the basis of gender, sex, race, or other categories once protected; what belongs to the nation (our parks and historic areas, the White House itself, the Kennedy Center) is destroyed by a name signed in ink; unelected aides make policy (Stephen Smith anyone?); our long-regarded and long-sought rights disappear overnight; where, frankly, we have no effective government at all, it now being a hollowed out shell of itself (read The Atlantic's interviews with the dedicated and vastly knowledgeable government workers fired or in limbo to understand what we've lost).

So, no, I want to but don't understand a single vote for What's-His-Name.

65 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?