I like to tell people that I am a perfectly faithful stoic - until something happens that I do not like. This podcast, being grounded in stoicism, is by far the most helpful that I have listened to in recent weeks. I have this prediction about the upcoming election that I strongly belief is true and the main reason I have for supporting …
I like to tell people that I am a perfectly faithful stoic - until something happens that I do not like. This podcast, being grounded in stoicism, is by far the most helpful that I have listened to in recent weeks. I have this prediction about the upcoming election that I strongly belief is true and the main reason I have for supporting Harris: If Vice President Harris fails to obtain a constitutional electoral majority to win the Presidency (excluding a 2000-like Florida-like scenario), Vice President Harris will give a concession speech and then, on January sixth, she personally, a President of the Senate, will count the electoral votes and certify her opponents victory without incident. I am supporting Harris, because I believe this is true - and disillusionment is not enough to describe how I would feel if that does not turn out to be true. If the election results are the opposite of that, and Harris wins, I am equally confident that Donald Trump will do the opposite. He will never give a concession speech and will continue to breath out his fascistic anti-democratic lies that have already taken root in the minds of tens of millions of his beguiled followers and which would then continue to incite violent crimes against our republic - even until his last breath. (Can a stoic write that? Would a Cato have written that?) If Trump wins and Harris concedes as I described here, then if we can learn and apply anything from the stoics, then maybe we should focus on the concession speech and Harris presiding over the peaceful transfer of power and then politely ask Trump supporters "Do you honestly think Donald Trump would have, if the situation was reversed, conceded?" Could that be a powerful argument? Maybe we need to stop trying to appeal to emotion because Trump's followers already have plenty of that, and many of us may already have too much of that. Maybe our objective should be to get those among his supporters who are still reachable to also stop emoting - and maybe start thinking again. If we become the voices of reason - maybe some will listen? Might that be an example of what Marcus Aurelius meant by "acting with courage, discipline, justice and wisdom"?
I like to tell people that I am a perfectly faithful stoic - until something happens that I do not like. This podcast, being grounded in stoicism, is by far the most helpful that I have listened to in recent weeks. I have this prediction about the upcoming election that I strongly belief is true and the main reason I have for supporting Harris: If Vice President Harris fails to obtain a constitutional electoral majority to win the Presidency (excluding a 2000-like Florida-like scenario), Vice President Harris will give a concession speech and then, on January sixth, she personally, a President of the Senate, will count the electoral votes and certify her opponents victory without incident. I am supporting Harris, because I believe this is true - and disillusionment is not enough to describe how I would feel if that does not turn out to be true. If the election results are the opposite of that, and Harris wins, I am equally confident that Donald Trump will do the opposite. He will never give a concession speech and will continue to breath out his fascistic anti-democratic lies that have already taken root in the minds of tens of millions of his beguiled followers and which would then continue to incite violent crimes against our republic - even until his last breath. (Can a stoic write that? Would a Cato have written that?) If Trump wins and Harris concedes as I described here, then if we can learn and apply anything from the stoics, then maybe we should focus on the concession speech and Harris presiding over the peaceful transfer of power and then politely ask Trump supporters "Do you honestly think Donald Trump would have, if the situation was reversed, conceded?" Could that be a powerful argument? Maybe we need to stop trying to appeal to emotion because Trump's followers already have plenty of that, and many of us may already have too much of that. Maybe our objective should be to get those among his supporters who are still reachable to also stop emoting - and maybe start thinking again. If we become the voices of reason - maybe some will listen? Might that be an example of what Marcus Aurelius meant by "acting with courage, discipline, justice and wisdom"?