Hamilton, Response to Asbury Park Press Editorial

November 23, 2016



My response to the Asbury Park Editorial, " 'Hamilton' shot itself in the foot"
(The online version of this editorial was titled, "Poor Staging by 'Hamilton.' ")


I am not an emotional person so I was surprised by my reaction to an editorial I found in the Asbury Park Press today.  It takes a great deal to tick me off, but for many reasons this editorial raised my hackles. The online version can be found at:
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/11/22/hamilton-mike-pence-trump/94294264/

The editorial appeared to have been written by an elderly dowager who was offended by a wrongly perceived lack of civility rather than by the editorial staff of a newspaper.  Considering everything that has been said and done during this election cycle I was astonished at the attitude and tone,

I felt that I had to respond.  At this point, I don't know if they will publish my letter or not.  They limit submissions to 250 characters, but the editor has the discretion to make exemptions.  I submitted two letters.  The first was around 450 characters.  I deleted the first and next to the last paragraph and submitted a second version.  The following is the first version in its entirety:

Re: Your November 23, 2016 editorial, ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot

There was a letter to the editor the day this editorial ran.  In it, the author called those who did not support President-elect Trump as “educated elites.”  I found it ironic, because your editorial, “ ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot,” came across stuffy, self-righteous and elitist.

The editorial stated that the message delivered by cast member, Victor Dixon, was a “major turn off” and that it was perceived as “inappropriate and disrespectful.”  President-elect Trump doesn’t know the meaning of either word.  He mocked John McCain’s service.  He ridiculed a handicapped reporter.  His comments about women, Muslims, Mexicans and Jews have been beyond the pale, yet we should be offended by a few actors expressing their concerns over their place in his presidency?

Yes, Pence took the high road in his response to their plea, but his political stances on women’s reproductive rights and his antagonistic history with the LGBT community are cause for trepidation.  This man supports gay conversion therapy and people aren’t supposed to speak out about that?

African-Americans are afraid of being stopped for traffic violations.  Muslims are afraid of having to register.  The members of the LGBT community are afraid of losing their rights.  People are genuinely frightened by Trump’s rhetoric and Pence’s positions. By speaking out, the cast didn’t just express their fears, but the fears of many Americans.

People were horrified by what happened in Ferguson, yet are offended by the cast welcoming Pence and asking for his help?  The purpose of protest is to garner attention for a cause.  Protest isn’t supposed to be pretty.  It is supposed to make you uncomfortable.  You can’t tie it up in a pretty bow to make it palatable or wish it away.  Gandhi showed us that you can protest peacefully which is exactly what the cast did.  So what this boils down to is that some members of the audience were offended by their approach? 

The editorial stated that, “ ‘Hamilton’ ” shot itself in the foot,” the implication being that by speaking out the cast did themselves harm in some way.  I saw no evidence of this on social media.  The majority of posts on Facebook and Twitter were supportive.  Thousands offered to buy tickets from anyone who was offended.  The show is sold out for over a year so financially there will be no impact from those who called for a boycott. 

We are fortunate to live in a country where we can speak our minds.  This isn’t about rudeness, but is about fighting racism and bigotry.  When given the opportunity, I will choose the latter every time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

WHEN NOT TO VOTE

October 22, 2016

I take my right to vote very seriously.  Your one vote not only affects your life, but the lives of millions.  So you might be surprised when I suggest that there are times when it is appropriate to exercise your right to not vote.

I have taken a great deal of heat for this statement in the past.  People drag out the cliché, “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain!”  I call BS.  If the two parties in this country cannot come up with one viable candidate that I can in good conscience vote for, then I have every right to complain and to complain LOUDLY!

Others are offended, “Men and women have died for your right to vote!”  I agree, but they also died for my right to protest. 

We live in a country where we have the right to not vote.  There are twenty countries in the world where voting is compulsory. The repercussions for not voting vary.  In Australia, you receive a letter demanding to know why you didn’t vote.  If you don’t give the electoral commission a satisfactory answer, you can be fined A$20.  In others, you could lose your passport or your driver’s license.  (Check out: http://www.citizencapitalism.com/2011/04/06/it%e2%80%99s-illegal-not-to-vote/ or http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-10 to learn more.)

This election cycle has been heated and divisive.  We are weeks away from the election and there are still undecided voters.  Many are so disgusted by the vitriol that they will choose to either not vote or vote for a third party candidate.

I understand how they feel.  This election the majority of us will not be voting for a candidate, but against one.  We will be voting for the person we perceive as the one who will do the least amount of damage or is the lesser of two evils.  There are those who in good conscience cannot bring themselves to vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate.  So what should be their course of action?

In the past a protest vote has had little or no impact.  I have voted for a third party candidate in the past and I have not voted.  I am a passionate political animal.  I truly want my choice to win when I pull that lever.  So although it has only happened a few times, I have made the decision to reject the main stream candidates.

At the time, I knew that I was throwing away my vote and that my action would have no impact on that election.  This one is different.  Not voting or choosing a third party candidate will have an impact.

I would rather see an uninformed voter not vote than one who votes for the sake of voting.  I applaud an informed voter who cannot vote in good conscience for either candidate.  I have no problem with someone choosing to vote for a third party candidate.  That is their choice.

However, as I said, this election is different.  I am asking that if you vote for a third party candidate, please be informed about the candidate you choose.  Don’t vote for them, because you feel you have to vote, but because you genuinely believe that they are the best person for the job.

Third party candidates have very little chance of winning an election.  However, this year, the margin between the two candidates could shrink dramatically.  A large third party vote could determine which candidate wins.  Please take that into consideration when you head to the polls.

Keep in mind that not voting has the same effect, but don’t beat yourself up if you choose to do so.  It is your right.  However, if you still feel you have to vote and can’t make up your mind, try this.  Throw a coin up into the air; heads for Clinton, tails for Trump.  Your reaction to the result is your answer.