Last week, popular YouTuber Casey Neistat released a video where he not only urged his viewers to support Hillary Clinton for President but also to call out other big YouTubers and get them to discuss politics, even if they don’t necessarily feel comfortable doing so. This generated a lot of controversy, as some people perceived this as Casey sending a ‘mob’ after all the big YouTubers.
For me, the interesting thing about Casey’s video was how he framed his choice to support Clinton as one based on morals and principles, rather than policy. It is heavily implied that he believes supporting Donald Trump, and perhaps even refusing to support Hillary, is immoral, and objectively the “wrong” thing to do. This made me a bit uncomfortable, as it seemed to be veering into dogmatic territory where we think we know it all and those who disagree with us are objectively wrong, rather than simply having a different opinion.
I’m no fan of Trump, but I always welcome people who have honest and civil disagreements. It’s also important to remember that just because someone supports a candidate, it does not mean that they tacitly approve of or endorse everything that person has said and done. Sometimes you just believe that a person’s politics is best for the country, and it’s not hard to imagine traditional conservatives supporting Trump over Clinton, even if they disapprove of some of his words and actions.
Election season is always kind of depressing to me. It is such a perfect time to have deep conversations about society and broaden our perspectives by hearing opposing views. Instead elections generally serve as a means to divide the nation, if not the world.
I’m not saying we should ignore or excuse bad ideas, but we need to make sure we know exactly what those ideas are before we judge them. Simply going off of what candidate someone supports isn’t enough.