Featured Post

RACE: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

No sound-minded human being would ever say with a straight face, that human classification based on color [race], is inherently necessary...

Monday, September 28, 2015

Is Hillary Clinton Robotic and Amoral ?


Hillary Clinton recently said something that’s morally and politically unfortunate. For a world-class politician like Clinton to utter something so robotic, so dispassionate, is very disconcerting; and pundits and average Americans should be concerned.
Many people in the world are more concerned about American presidency and elections than we realize. And this might come as a shock and questionable to many Americans because non-Americans can't vote in US elections.

However, America meddles in the affairs of many countries; and the decisions taken by American governments affect the citizens of these countries more than Americans realize. The cult of expertism has made Americans ignorant of world's socio-political and geopolitical affairs; and also, too dependent on 'Experts.'
Beside the fact that America is the only super-power (in a vague sense) and that any vile American economic decision sends shockwaves throughout all economies in the world, it's prudent that we, as non-Americans, question the moral standing of aspirants for American presidency.

About a month ago, Democratic Presidential hopeful, Hillary R. Clinton, was asked by a group of 'Black Lives Matter' about what she could do to help their cause. Beside the fact that her response was cold, dispassionate and dismissive, she proved what pundits and analysts say about her: that she's not relatable on a human level.  Clinton talks to voters like a human-like robot!
With a straight, robotic face, Mrs. Clinton told the activists she doesn't believe in changing hearts but in changing laws. She later on acknowledged the fact that you can change some hearts but not others. Of course, the latter is the core of human social reality. No matter how good something is, some people will oppose it!

What bothered me as a moralist and humanist was the moral dryness and dispassionate manner  Clinton talked to the activists. A leader who’d possibly make very intricate and life-changing decisions needs to have humane ways of looking at things.
For Clinton to say she doesn’t believe in changing hearts but in changing laws, she betrays the a-moral nature of the would-be president of the most powerful nation in the world. In the scariest sense of the word, Clinton is saying she’s not obligated to regard African-Americans in a humane, passionate manner unless the law says so. She’ll only respect them and treat them well because the law tells her to. This is terrible!

Good people-to-people inclusive attitude is the only way to create inclusive societies where discriminatory practices are not systemically pervasive. Civil Rights leaders (both African-Americans and European-Americans) didn’t wait for laws to be changed.  Conscientious European-Americans didn’t wait for laws (Civil Rights Act, 1964) to make them respect African-Americans. Anti-Slavery activists and Abolitionists didn't wait for laws outlawing Slavery. They saw the inhumanity of segregation and acted because they felt the human-ness of African-Americans. Without the action of these humane hearts, there would have been no inspiration to changes in discriminatory legislations.
To change hearts is to make people understand the rationale behind any social campaign. Once people see the point of such social demands and understand why they should be met, their change of hearts becomes long-lasting and impacting.

Once you depend on laws to make people respect each other, you’re basically making people bottle-up their feelings. You have to address people’s feelings (bad or good, informed or ill-informed) instead of forcing them.
No matter how good something is, people will naturally resist it if you force it on them.