Author’s Note: I spent some time mulling over whether this would be an appropriate time to publish the following open letter to Mr. Trump. After all, he is now busy defending himself against charges of offending women, veterans, the elderly, people who he gave campaign money to, the current national administration, previous national administrartions, and several other people and groups to be named later.
Under these circumstances it seemed a little unfair to dump additional perspectives of his inability to function as a human being on him. After all, a true sportsman does not hit an opponent when he/she is down. Be assurred that this writing was done mostly before Mr. Trump’s most recent offending behavior and so was not motivated by it. My only question was whether to publish it at this time due to the sensitive position that Mr. Trump found himself in currently.
After consulting my spirituality advisor and morality advisor and meditating over a pot of incense for a few minutes, it occurred to me that Mr. Trump had ignored the rules of respect and decency and established a new forum in which the speaker was always right. Once I realized this, I could with a clear conscience publish the following open letter. It also occurred to me that there would likely be no time when Mr. Trump would be free of the charge of offending people, so now was as good a time to publish it as ever.
I wish to thank Mr. Trump for creating an atmosphere in which this letter could be published now.
I wish to express my deepest thanks to you for bringing entertainment to the political selection process. Usually such events as party’s selecting a presidential candidate are very dull affairs with sour-faced politicians trying to pretend to be serious about issues that the public supposedly takes seriously. Radio, television, social media, and sports arenas are full of “information” regarding how one or another of these people should “represent” us.
In contrast, you have brought levity to this process. Whether it is a natural aspect of your personality or is an intentional effort to be comedic, it has ripped the veneer of pretension off the manner of selection and revealed that all those other politicians are essentially the same underneath. Their loyalties, unlike yours, are to the monied interests which finance their campaigns rather than to those who voted for them. As an example you have claimed issues such as the US government collecting records of law-abiding citizens are of secondary importance to whether we have a “wall” between the US and Mexico.
The people of the United States owe you acclaim from freeing them from the odious burden of suffering through the torture of this and future party nomination cycles. Now we can laugh comfortably at the process and those who participate in it. Thanks to you the US may well be on the way to a political system in which the monied interests overtly select and install our national administrators including the justices in the court system.
If I may make a suggestion, however, it might be to your advantage to reconsider speaking. I make this in friendship and hope you take it that way. I have two points to make in this regard. One is that a silent presentation might accomplish your goal better than a spoken one. The people you are speaking for and to are much too likely to ignore your words because they have had the practice of ignoring the words of the other candidates.
Two is that when you have spoken, those who do listen do not seem to understand what you are saying. I point to your “blood” remarks, for example, where many jumped to the wrong conclusion regarding your reference. There was no reason for this except perhaps they have dirty minds. I did hear one person who pretended to be offended say something to the effect, “I hope he gets his whenever caught in a vice.” Certainly miming your actions would get you further than trying to use words. Your language at the beginning of the debate, for example, in which your raised your hand, spread your arms, and shrugged your shoulders when booed was much more effective than your verbal defense of “wall-building.”
I think you have made a major contribution to the evolution of the candidate selection process and hope that you can do even better in the future.
Tiny URL for this post: