Like most people, I have a few things that really bother me: abuse against women and children, the mistreatment of animals, pointless wars, or people who stand in the middle of doorways. However, double standards pluck a very particular nerve. You know, the one with a direct link to a stubbed toe or a subcuticular splinter made of fiberglass... That SPECIAL kind of burning annoyance that makes you want to bite something.
Being an election year, we have no shortage of double standards on display. However, the notion of a convicted felon being considered suitable for the highest office in the United States, while incarcerated individuals and the justice-involved face significant challenges in securing employment, underscores a STRIKING hypocrisy in our societal standards and practices. The example is as ludicrous as it is hopeful.
Bear with me, I promise I haven't joined the Orange Cult.
He can run for president, but in some states, an ex-con can’t even vote. Make it make sense!
The formerly incarcerated are often stigmatized and face bias from employers who are concerned about all manner of things: safety, security, reliability, and potential legal liabilities. Many industries even have strict legal restrictions preventing individuals with certain types of convictions from being employed. Fields such as education, healthcare, and finance typically exclude individuals with criminal records regardless of their qualifications. Ironically, the real estate business is particularly difficult to enter.
Despite these barriers, the support for Donald Trump, a convicted felon, as a presidential candidate reveals a glaring double standard. When trust and integrity concerns prevent average ex-cons from finding work, it's perplexing that his supporters overlook these same issues. To be clear, this practice extends beyond employment practices. Let's examine just the obvious standouts, shall we?
Immigration: Trump's base historically expresses strong anti-immigrant sentiments, yet his wife is an immigrant. Not only that, but she practiced the very concern so many MAGA proponents rail against: She imported family members to the U.S. through her marriage and then had a child to secure her citizenship. The same practice Trump's supporters derogatorily refer to as having an "anchor baby" when discussing any other demographic.
Huh... That's weird. Anyway, what else? Oh.
Sexual Morality: Many of Trump's supporters criticize women's sexual freedom and autonomy, yet again, his wife has a verifiable past as both a porn star and an escort. She was literally on the job when she met her husband—he was a client. Additionally, Trump's infidelity with yet another porn star during his wife's pregnancy further contradicts the moral standards his followers claim to uphold.
Hmm...
These are only a few of the contradictions that highlight a deeper issue of selective morality and inconsistent standards. The consideration of a convicted felon for the presidency, juxtaposed with the significant challenges faced by ex-cons in securing employment or even voting, is a clear example of overt hypocrisy. This discrepancy underscores the need for a more fair and consistent approach to how society views and handles people with criminal records, whether they are ordinary citizens or those seeking the highest office in the land.
The hope in all this is that if Captain Comb-Over qualifies as presidential material, then I am DEFINITELY running for public office the moment I'm able. My first decree? Anyone caught blocking a stairwell or a doorway will be sanctioned 20 hours of community service and have to wear a placard detailing their vile acts.
Then I'll make sure they have a job. ^_^