To the Editor:
As recently as this past week (in South Carolina), Hillary Clinton reasserted her belief that taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance college for “Donald Trump’s daughter.” This statement appears to be a refinement of the remark she initially made back in November, during her debate against Bernie Sanders: “I disagree with free college for everybody. I don’t think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college.”
I wonder, is this slogan truly meant to admonish the children on account of Trump’s wealth, or is it meant, rather, to admonish “you and I” in consequence of what is to be seen as Trump’s political betrayal? After all, in this year’s political charade, it seems Trump is to be perceived as the frustrated, disfranchised Democrat, who (supposedly) has come to accept — with superlative vigor and exceptional pertinacity — the special interests of “the Right.”
Clinton, on the other hand, is to be seen as the wicked witch of “the Left,” jaded, infuriated and determined to exact retribution, taking aim against Trump, or so it is meant to appear. But I am inclined to interpret Clinton’s conveniently crafted rift with Donald Trump as a political ruse, intended merely to establish precedence (and a small smoke screen as well), enabling her to take careful aim against those very “children” Trump, himself, seeks to exploit.
And so who are these un-deserving “kids,” the intended targets of Clinton’s proclamation? Ordinary citizens. Particularly those who desire to acknowledge God and follow the dictates of conscience, who have been deemed guilty of clinging to religion and espousing the “wrong” worldview (by humanist reckoning). To impugn such individuals to the second generation — in effect, overthrowing the rule of law — would be a groundbreaking accomplishment, even for someone as deeply experienced in this area as Hillary Clinton.
Meanwhile, this entire episode underscores the fact that Trump, himself, lacks the discernment it takes to be the kind of President we need. Otherwise, he might have immediately understood and challenged the implications of Clinton’s strange assertion, instead of soaking it up like a sponge, having only the audacity to stand back and thank her for the free press.
He is either too proud or dreadfully remiss to point out that his children are — in point of fact — no less deserving than anyone else. As human beings, we are called to embrace an “inalienable” standard of right, which transcends all class, condition and circumstance. Anything beyond this moral standard is quite immaterial, particularly those indentations concerning the father’s wealth, prestige, power, influence, fame. And, yes, even his “reputed” political philosophy (whether favored or ill-favored).
Both Clinton and Trump are considered the “front runners,” having dominated the Virginia primaries. But are either of these two candidates a smart match for Virginia? I’m afraid not.
Joseph A. Glean
Two-time candidate for delegate, Virginia General Assembly, House of Delegates, Virginia 44th House District in Fairfax County, 2011, 2013.