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.
