My Republican Friends (And America) Deserve Better

You can’t grow up in a state like Iowa and not have close to an equal number of Republican friends, friends who are Democrats and friends who are politically independent.

That’s certainly been the case for this kid from southern Iowa.

Through the years, I’ve had some enjoyable debates with friends over the pluses and minuses of various candidates of all political stripes. Sometimes we agreed. Sometimes we agreed to disagree. Other times we came away with a deeper understanding of an issue and a better appreciation for why friends believed the way they did.

Then along came the 2016 campaign, and I’ve wondered many times if I should give my GOP friends a hug. More about that later.

During my time on Earth, I’ve lived under equal numbers of Republican presidents and Democratic presidents — stretching from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. Some were conservative. Some were liberal. Some were middle-of-the-roaders.

My parents grew up during the Great Depression. Like countless other people from that era, their political thinking often aligned with Democrats due in large measure to Franklin Roosevelt’s tenure as president.

Under Roosevelt, the government stepped up to provide an important helping hand when one-fourth of adults did not have jobs, when families wondered how they would eat. They recognized the importance of the Civilian Conservation Corps in providing meaningful work for young men whose families were having a tough time financially. They saw the importance of Social Security in the lives of so many elderly people whose savings were nonexistent.

Roosevelt’s legacy helped turn the tide of Iowa’s political history. For much of our state’s existence, Iowa was reliably red in its political coloration, and the Civil War was a big reason.

My maternal great-grandfather illustrates this. He enlisted in one of the Iowa regiments mustered into the Union Army, and he was among 6,600 Iowans who fought in the bloody battle at Shiloh in 1862.

Years later, when politics were discussed in southern Iowa, he would say, “I shot too many Democrats at Shiloh to ever vote for one.”

Although I don’t have any quotations nearly as memorable as Great-Grandfather Masterson’s, I’ve always enjoyed a lively political discussion. Working for newspapers, I have been fortunate to be able to spend time with politicians and pepper them with questions.

But this year, I have felt downright sorry for my Republican friends. Those feelings grew stronger last week with the disclosure of the videotape of Trump expounding on his strategies for sexual gratification around women.

The only attributes my Republican friends share with their party’s nominee is a membership card in the same party.

My Republican friends are more likely to sprout wings and fly than they are to spout off about women or immigrants or disabled people the way Donald Trump has.

My Republican friends are good, decent people. They generally want the same things as my Democratic friends. The two groups just disagree on how best to achieve those goals.

But the bottom line is this: My Republican friends — and all Americans, for that matter — deserve better than Trump has given us.

The American political system depends on having candidates who are thoughtful, principled people who treat others with dignity and respect, even if they disagree. We need candidates who are interested in what is best for our nation more than the “what’s in this for me?”

During my time with The Des Moines Register, I was able to quiz numerous candidates seeking public office. Four years ago, I spent a couple of hours with Mitt Romney and lesser amounts of time with some of the candidates who lost out in their quest for the Republican nomination.

Romney had some shortcomings. But if he were the GOP nominee this year, my Republican friends would not be buying Maalox by the gallon and Tums by the pickup load. My Democratic and independent friends who dislike Hillary Clinton would have a viable option when they vote.

Imagine how much different the race would look just a month out from Election Day if Mitt Romney were running against Clinton — or if it were Jeb Bush vs. Clinton, or John Kasich vs. Clinton, or even Lindsey Graham vs. Clinton.

The campaign dynamics would not be shaped by the Republican nominee spending a week talking about a woman’s weight problems or his dislike of the parents of an American war hero or trying to explain away his comments about his sexual aggression toward women. The GOP nominee wouldn’t be boasting that he knows more about ISIS than the generals do.

Instead, the Republican nominee in a Romney vs. Clinton race would be talking about specifics of his plans for tax reform, balancing the federal budget, significantly reducing government debt, and dealing with the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare.

With Romney or another mainstream Republican at the top of the ticket, the candidate and Hillary Clinton would be engaging in substantive debates about important policy matters. There wouldn’t be this nonsense about the GOP candidate’s philandering and his boasts about sexual conquests.

A presidential campaign should be focused on the candidates’ goals and policy ideas. Too much is at stake for the campaign to be another episode of “The Apprentice.”

by Randy Evans
Reprinted from the Bloomington Democrat
Posted 10/19/16