- Bearly Thinking
- Posts
- The Uneven Scale
The Uneven Scale
Why you shouldn't support Trump, even if you oppose Kamala Harris
Bear Smith
August 27, 2024
In partnership with
Hello, and happy Tuesday! I’ve been away for a couple of weeks due to jury duty and other similar events. But we’re back in the saddle with a comparison of the two main candidates for the presidency, and why I think there’s a clearly better (or less bad) choice. Part of it has to do with the fragmentation of our society, and the bias within our news sources—which is why I’m excited to be partnering with 1440 Media for today’s post!
We scour 100+ sources daily
Read by CEOs, scientists, business owners and more
3.5 million subscribers
A quick historical detour
In 1884, one of the most divisive elections in American history took place. The candidates, Republican James G. Blaine and Democrat Grover Cleveland, each had checkered pasts that provided plenty of fodder for the opposition to target.
Cleveland was a responsible reformer who took on Tammany Hall as Governor of New York. His conquest against the corruption, patronage, and inside baseball within New York politics made him a widely liked figure by Democrat and Republican alike.
But he had a checkered personal life. A few years earlier, he had a relationship with a woman named Maria Halpin, and likely fathered a son with her. After it was discovered that Cleveland was paying child support to Halpin, she publicly accused him of raping her. It’s unclear to this day whether this was an attempt to save face on Halpin’s part (having a “bastard child” was a social death sentence in many circles), or if Cleveland actually abused her. Either way, Cleveland’s private life was ugly.
A political cartoon showing Cleveland’s alleged child screaming “I want my pa!” This phrase later developed into the chant used by Republicans: “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?” After Cleveland won the election, a rejoinder from Democrats became popular: “On his way to the White House, ha ha ha!”
Blaine, on the other hand, had a quiet private life. He had a strong relationship with his wife, with whom he fathered seven children. In almost perfect contrast to Cleveland, his problems came from his alleged corruption as a government official. Rumors circulated that implied Blaine had taken bribes from the Union Pacific Railroad. Eventually, a set of letters related to the transaction surfaced, all ending with a damning phrase: “Burn this letter”.
In one candidate, an effective leader and reformer with questionable personal character; in the other, a family man with credible allegations of corruption, bribery, and fraud.
One Cleveland supporter explained their conclusion:
We are told that Mr. Blaine has been delinquent in office but blameless in private life, while Mr. Cleveland has been a model of official integrity but culpable in personal relations. We should therefore elect Mr. Cleveland to the public office for which he is so well qualified to fill, and remand Mr. Blaine to the private station which he is admirably fitted to adorn.
It seems that the electorate tended to agree with this reasoning: Cleveland was sent to the White House after barely winning the key swing states.
But does this reasoning hold true today? If we are faced with two bad choices, should we always make a pros and cons list, and then select the candidate whose political agenda benefits us most?
Reply