GET OUT THE VOTE - PART 1
The 2016 US Presidential campaign has been long and difficult. There has rarely been a day that it was not front-page news — and a lot of Americans are a bit worn out from all of that. At the same time, we are a resilient nation – always ready for a challenge, always able to see a positive point if it is shared, and always willing to listen to a fellow American’s viewpoint.
With that perspective in mind, I sat down with Karl Becker although he was 500 miles away from me in St. Louis and I was at home in Michigan. The joys of technology!
You may recall from Presidential Debate #2 in St. Louis on October 9, 2016. It was a Town-Hall-style debate with a dozen or so questions to the candidates over a 90-minute period. While the debate atmosphere was highly charged, a number of interesting conclusions could be drawn from what was “in between the lines.”
First, Mr. Trump’s behavior and demeanor was oppressive and imposing rather than congenial and contrite. Even as a fellow New Yorker (from Western NY), I still found that this was way outside of the normal range of Type A passion that some people from my home state may display at times. He also avoided answering a number of questions and found that interrupting Secretary Clinton was an easier way of making his points. In a way, his actions were almost gorilla/guerrilla-esque as Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page reflected in a recent article.
On the other hand, Secretary Clinton was much more relaxed. She used eye contact and a welcoming demeanor along with her answers as she responded to each question from the St. Louis residents. In a small number of words, her responses were respectful and fully intact and holistically representative of her positions.
The last question in the debate was by a St. Louis resident named Karl Becker, which I have the honor of talking with in this article. Karl asked both presidential candidates, “Regardless of the current rhetoric,” he asked, “would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?” (View recording.)
The answers to this question were quite profound, and created a lot of national and even international media attention. Also, I wrote about them in Part 2 of my 3-Part series on the Presidential Debates. With that said, I will write the final article immediately following the third debate.
In answering the question about respect, each candidate took a moment to be kind, considerate, and positive. It was a sixty-second lapse of time when all the negativity in the campaign was turned off. The response nationwide was also incredibly positive. Karl was interviewed by MSNBC. TMZ Live , and the Washington Post — to name just a few — and had many opportunities to share reasons why Americans want to remain positive and hopeful for this election rather than dismal, apathetic, or upset.
With all that said, I asked Karl my first of eight questions. It seemed I struggled a bit with wording it correctly.
1) This is a tough election. Thinking of at least one or more strengths of both candidates makes it easier to compare them. (I.e. If we have a positive perspective of each candidate, it’s easier to see who might be the right choice.) What do you think about that?
(KB) I’m not quite sure I understand this question but I’ll try my best. Both of the candidates have strengths that are comparable. The concern may be that the strengths being shown aren’t necessarily ones equated with positive leadership skills.
In the Washington Post, you also offered some thoughts that addressed this question:
(KB from the Washington Post, 10-10-2016) I asked the question to be representative of my kids, but it’s taken on a life of its own. If it can help bring about some type of dialogue among individuals at lunch today or even bigger than that if the third debate turns into something more substantial . . . as opposed to the argumentative nature that has permeated the campaign for a year.
I fully agree with your perspective, Karl. It seems that we’ve moved in a direction that does not focus enough on what matters inside the White House. And this may not help in getting more undecided voters to go to the polls.
2) There are Americans who are considering not voting this year. What would you say to them as potential voters?
(KB) While I could say all I want, the right to vote along with the right not to vote is a very intimate decision to most people along with which candidate to vote for. I encourage all Americans to vote but I realize apathy may set into people’s psyche causing them to refrain from voting.
3) Such a long campaign trail spread across over a dozen candidates has the country a bit election weary. What do you think Americans should think about to get more energized?
(KB) I can really only speak about what I think about. I think about my 18-year-old daughter and 15-year-old son. I think about them and their peers. Earlier in the campaigning, the Millennials and Gen Y-ers were so energized and engaged. What I personally believe Americans should think about is our youth and how to get them energized.
That is a great point. After all, in just a short number of years, the youth of today will be leading this country in so many areas. This election really is, and should be, about them more.
4) As we look toward January 1, 2017, we really need to think long and hard about the idea of "hope" and how to nurture this in our family, workplace, and community. What are some potential ways that people can focus on having hope for the next four or eight years?
(KB) This is a very interesting question posed. My suggestion to all is to focus on more empathy, start engaging the high school and college students over the next four years. Begin bringing about change at the local levels of government to possibly avoid the current situation people feel we are in now.
By empathy, I think you mean to really understand the plight of other Americans and think of ways we can help. We’ve all got many types of people in our social network that we can reach out to. Empathy means that we seek their opinions and listen to their needs with a willingness to respond. Yes, it is important as a skill for all Americans.
5) What unanswered question(s) do you think remain now that we have had two presidential debates? You don't have to answer these, but if you have any thoughts on them, it would be great to hear from you. Do you have any other ideas, hopes, reflections, or even advice to the media (me included)?
(KB) · What are their plans for Social Security? · Healthcare? · Immigration? · Supreme Court Justice nominee? · College tuition and tuition debt? · Which of these candidates will undertake an agenda of complete campaign reform agenda during their presidency? Those are just some thoughts that immediately come to mind.
6) Do you think that all the infighting between both candidates and parties results in less focus on education and improvements for children and families in our country?
(KB) Yes, most definitely. This campaign, my opinion, has become a sitcom the world is watching. The average American such as myself goes to work every day while the individuals running for the leadership of the free world, continue to their warfare toward one another.
7) What do you think about inaccuracies or lack of relevance on the campaign trail?
(KB) I’m not sure what to think. Whatever inaccuracies there are, assertions and denials will continue to be bantered about while the relevancy of the campaign continues to ignore the average voters’ concerns.
Yes, indeed this is correct. I’m recently surprised by a newsworthy moment involving Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Mike Pence. Time Magazine did a piece on this and eloquently shared the heart of the matter.
Mr. Pence said he could not understand why Michelle Obama thought that Mr. Trump’s behavior and physical presence in the second debate of towering over Secretary Clinton was more in line with the behavior of an oppressor. As I mentioned earlier in this article, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page did an excellent exposé about these behaviors and it warrants everyone’s reflection.
This leads me to a final question for you, Karl. It comes from my niece, Lauren, who is a 9th grader in Washington DC at a performing arts academy. She asks a question of both candidates. I wonder what your response is while we wait for a larger national response.
8) Lauren asks a bonus question for this article: “What are the changes that the Presidential candidates are claiming they will do and how does it benefit the country or my family?”
Now Karl, I am so thankful you have been in today’s interview and just wonder if you could entertain this final question.
(KB) There are numerous issues the candidates are claiming to change if they were to become POTUS [i.e. the President of the United States].
(KB) From their stance regarding individual rights on abortion (Clinton agrees that it’s a women’s unrestricted right; Trump disagrees).
(KB) To [the] absolute right to gun ownership (Trump agrees and Clinton disagrees). Depending on your belief system and/or your family’s political views, I am sure whomever is elected it will impact the country. How it benefits country or your family, I am unable to answer that portion of the question.
Thanks for all you do, Karl. And my best regards to your family and two wonderful children. It really will test our nation’s resolve as people head to the polls in a few weeks or they vote early.
(KB) It was my pleasure. Thank you as well! I'll be interested to see what Wednesday night's debate brings us.
***
Dr. Jonathan Doll is the author of the book, Ending School Shootings: School and District Tools for Prevention and Action. He is a registered voter with no allegiance to either party, but votes his conscience every 4 years. His opinions are his own.
Also, Karl Becker’s opinions are his own and not representative of any affiliation, party, or platform.