|Polonius advising his son Laertes|
In the second place, how is authenticity being defined, and on what basis does one attribute it to someone else? It is someone’s subjective opinion, not an objectively provable quality. One can suspect but not presume to know with absolute certainly, another person’s hidden motives.
So what does it mean to be authentic? Is it being what Polonius urged his son Laertes to be: “This above all: to thine own self be true. . .” (Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3). If so, to which “self” must I be true, for I am a complexity of ‘‘selves.” I know am not always true to my best self, so does that mean I am not an authentic person? We all wear masks at times. I once wrestled with that dilemma in a poem entitled The Real Me, which includes these lines:
The "me" others know is not the real me;
nor is it the "me" I want them to see.
I'm not what I seem. Yet is it not true,
that masquerade "me" is part of me, too?
Beneath the facades the world need not see;
the masks that I choose reveal the real me!
Indeed, I confess that it may well be
those phoney facades are closest to me.
In other words, everyone is “authentic.” We all are who we are, masks and all. We can’t be anybody else than who we are. If we try to be somebody else, we are ourselves trying to be somebody else. That’s who we are. The real me and the phoney me are still me! It ill behooves us, therefore, to question anyone’s “authenticity.”
|Bernie Sanders "telling it like is"|
Nor is authenticity something one can claim or aspire to “have.” Once you try to be authentic you automatically cease to be! Authenticity is like humility: the moment you think you have it, you’ve lost it!
I have been angered by the way the main line press and news commentators have treated Hillary Clinton throughout this campaign. They harp continually on the so-called email “scandal.” What scandal? The term itself is pejorative. She hasn’t broken any laws. She has been totally forthcoming about her private server. She has admitted that it would have been better not to have used a private server. But come on folks, what’s the big deal? The press accuses her of being hung up on the email controversy instead of focusing on the issues, while ignoring the many substantive speeches she has given, which have been filled with specific ideas and suggested programs. Hardly a mention was made of her outstanding address at the New Hampshire Democratic Party Convention, when those present and those watching on television were given a golden opportunity to listen critically and objectively to her and Bernie Sanders back to back.
I appreciate Bernie for what he is and I agree with most of his positions, but there was no doubt whatsoever in my mind after watching the two of them, that Hillary was and is by far the more Presidential and the better qualified of the two. Nor was there any question in my mind about which of them was the better speaker: Bernie was a Johnny One Note; Hillary touched a gamut of emotions, with a variety of pitch, volume, and intensity, and a much wider range of topics. As a former Seminary professor, I would have given her an A+ on that speech. If you question my evaluation, I urge you to go on YouTube and listen for yourself.
|Hillary Clinton is being pilloried|
We now know also that the favorable testimonies of some key witnesses were never released to the public. The whole, long process has been a Republican witch hunt. And note the timing of the forthcoming Congressional hearing —right in the middle of the presidential campaign!
I appreciate Bernie’s intensity in attacking those things with which he disagrees. Except on the issue of gun control he has been consistent in his ideas. People know where he stands. But I can’t see him as President of the United States. His bombastic style gets tiresome after a while.
I know what he is against; I’m not always sure what he is for.
In my view it is time for a woman President, and we would not have a more qualified and capable candidate for that office than Hillary Clinton.