We all recall John Edwards’ campaign story about how there are two Americas and how that story was used to drive a wedge between the “haves” and “have nots.” And since Edwards was using the politics of envy to garner votes, he made sure to tell you that you were indeed a “have not.”
Fortunately for America, Democrats realized Edwards shouldn’t be given a pass on another one of our “two Americas” — the one where Democrats get away with infidelity because it’s a “private matter.”
Ironically, we can thank Bill Clinton — who got away in the privileged side of the liberal infidelity two Americas — for trapping Edwards. Democrats knew they could get away with circling the infidelity wagons for someone elected president, but also knew it’s a bad idea to run for president while being caught in an affair.
So you can see there are two Americas inside the Democratic Party as well. No one needs to tell Bernie Sanders that fact. As Bernie learned, the “two Americas” way of thinking usually results in those on the wrong side finding out the hard way — all while being forced to know just whose rules by which the rest of us are forced to play. Hint: It’s not the rules of fairness or equality. Those rules certainly don’t apply to the power side of the Democratic Party’s two Americas.
I’m going to address the larger arena of two Americas known as liberals and conservatives. While I realize those generalities always cause sniping and poking, they’re also a huge factor in this whole Trump/Russia “collusion” crime of the century.
I hate to think it’s close to time for me to give up. If you read this column regularly, you know I’ve written several times over the past few years that what we need is more communication between folks who think differently. While I still believe that, I’m also coming to the conclusion those on the one side of America — liberals — have no intention of listening or even having a chat with conservatives on any topic for any reason, and most certainly not about the rule of law and Trump.
I say this because I was talking to a buddy (over a few beers) about Trump and the whole “Russian collusion” investigation. No matter what facts I stated, this well-educated friend insisted on making the conversation all about Trump, even though I was simply talking about equal application of the law for all people and specifically NOT defending any of Trump’s actions we both detested. And folks, that’s a huge chasm to navigate on two items of what should be easy agreement.
You see, no matter what I said, my friend kept asking me how I could possibly defend Trump in any way on the subject. No matter how many times I told him I wasn’t but was rather defending every American and the rule of law, he always came back to how vile a man Trump is. While I’m no fan of vile men, I also realize that when applying the rule of law equally, it’s not against the law to be vile.
While my answers hindered agreement, I thought I’d take a different tact and try again. I know my buddy is well-informed on civics so I thought, “How about an approach using the rule of law in how prosecutors and the police are involved in law enforcement?” Anyone who’s watched the opening of “Law and Order” on TV knows the answers.
When a crime is committed, the police investigate. The police provide the results of their investigation to the prosecutor’s office. Prosecutors then decide whether or not to look further into possible criminal activity and press charges. If that confuses you, just do the opposite of how the Hillary Clinton investigation was handled. In other words, you don’t get to just make up a “crime” about someone you disagree with, let alone someone who beats your chosen one for president of the United States. And that’s all we have here for a “crime” — the “Steele dossier” our Department of Justice took no time to investigate that’s actually opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton. It bothers me no end that some think all one needs for anyone to stand “guilty until proven innocent” are rumors and accusations from (political) enemies.
Even if my friend doesn’t believe this applies to me, he believes it does for Trump since, “that’s why we have a prosecutor, to see if a crime was actually committed.” Really? Do many in America now believe someone can be prosecuted in hopes of finding a crime? It’s actually why we have so few “special prosecutors,” because they tend to be an entity in search of a crime. And as all loyal communists know: If you find the man, they’ll find the crime.
Are we really at a point in America where the rule of law is tossed out and we prosecute others because they think the wrong way or one detests another to a certain degree?
If your answer is no, I’m happy to chat. If your answer is yes, then eventually in the two Americas you will be on the wrong side as your “special prosecutor” finds your crime. I’m guessing you’ll heed my input then.