Dear Editor,
In last week’s Collegian, Peter O’Rourke and Rachael Reynolds attempted to make the case for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively. Both writers argued that their candidate is not a lesser evil but actually good. But they succeeded in demonstrating only one thing: that they need to start thinking before they vote. Their arguments are nonsense.
Reynolds’s only argument in favor of Clinton is that she is compassionate. False and irrelevant.
Clinton’s altruism becomes doubtful at best after considering Benghazi, her e-mail server, and the Clinton Foundation. All three instances — and there are more — point to a self-interested and corrupt person, not a compassionate one. But for sake of argument, let’s ignore those and grant that Clinton is compassionate. It does not make her principles or policies good.
To prove Clinton’s compassion, Reynolds cited her support of Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health care, largely abortions. Is that compassionate? If you’re pro-choice, yes: they help women control their bodies. If you’re pro-life, no: they mass-murder babies.
Similar arguments hold for the other policies Reynolds cited. Voters can either view Clinton’s health policies as compassionate or as a form of government overreach. Voters can either see her support for military intervention in the Middle East as compassionate or as the destruction of entire nations. Compassion does not identify good policy, so her only pro-Clinton argument crumbles.
O’Rourke fares little better. He assumes the United States government, in collusion with the elites, tramples the blatant interests of the American people. As such, he discards principles. He claims we need only to elect an energetic leader to fight against corruption for the People. O’Rourke thinks Trump will do the job.
To support such thinking, O’Rourke cites Trump’s immigration policy, but this unravels his entire argument. Trump recently changed his stance that called for the deportation of all illegal aliens. Now Trump says he will “work with them” as long as they pay taxes. Trump’s flip-flops show that the interest of the American people are blurry and that he doesn’t understand what the country needs.
Reynold’s and O’Rourke’s arguments are based on unfounded assumption. Compassion is not a principle. Standing against the elites in Washington is not a principle.
I have no doubt that Reynolds, O’Rourke, and those who agree with them see themselves as defenders of liberty. But they should start by liberating themselves from whatever misconceptions led to the arguments they published last week.
Sincerely,
Jonathon Misiewicz
