We all make judgments, it’s a part of daily life. Some may be fair, some may be very incorrect.
To vote, we must make judgments about politicians based on the information we have. Often that information is extremely limited.
This came to my mind with RFK announcing Nicole Shanahan as his choice for vice president. Myself and many others made snap judgments based on the info published about her. But I realize my initial judgment was unfair.
Many news sources are clearly biased and are taking the opportunity to cleverly slander her (and RFK).
Politico published “55 Things You Need to Know About Nicole Shanahan”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/03/26/nicole-shanahan-rfk-jr-2024-bio-00149015
“I grew up in a single parent household,” she said. “My mother raised my brother and I. We were low income and on welfare.” - Now depending on your own bias, this might lead you to assuming she will promote even more welfare to help low income families. Or you might think that she has experience with welfare and perhaps might be inclined to improve the system, not just expand it. Will she promote increased government spending? Or more sensible government spending?
Nicole studied “Asian Studies, Economics and Mandarin Chinese”. Possibly this gives her a better insight into the Chinese culture. Economics is full of various different theories and approaches so without detail we don’t know what her thoughts are on how the economy works (or what taxation policy she might pursue). Will she and Bobby pursue a tax policy like (his uncle) JFK of cutting tax rates? (this is the opposite of what I believe most people think!)
She claims to have been sexually assaulted in her mid 20s by a co-worker. (this has been claimed as a “#metoo” moment but that might be an inaccurate characterization) We really don’t know much about how this has impacted her outlook toward men.
Nicole is a lawyer with a fair amount of exposure to computer technology. Do we apply the stereotypes of lawyers to her?
She married and divorced Sergey Brin, a Google billionaire, does this make her pro-Google, pro-spying and pro-censorship? Or does it make her anti-Google and opposed to censorship? She said that we are tired of our government lying to us. She sought $1 billion in her divorce proceedings. Does this make her a “gold digger”?
Both of her marriages didn’t last long (two years and four years). How does this reflect on her personality? Ability to compromise? Or is she just a typical, normal person?
She is “rags to riches”. Should we look to her as a great example of someone who has advanced their life? Or a selfish, ambitious climber?
She hasn’t posted on Twitter for the past seven years. Does this make her wise? Or just busy with other things?
She describes herself as a “progressive through and through”. Is she meaning progressive in it’s positive sense? Or progressive as another term for socialist?
Both she and RFK are concerned about the climate, but neither pushes the global warming agenda. They both focus on pollution as the real climate problem.
She donated to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg and a “slew” of other Democratic politicians. Has she learned from her mistakes since she has left the Democratic party? Or does she still support most of the policies of the Democratic party?
Between her relationships with men and her prior political contributions, should we assume she has terrible judgment? Or do we consider this part of “life’s learning experiences”? Are you one that believes people can change? Or do you think that people never really change?
My initial reaction, to reading most of what was written about her, was to be horrified that RFK made such a terrible choice. I judged her! But I watched her speech, very carefully observing non-verbal cues, and came away with the opposite impression. She may very well be an excellent choice for vice president! If you look at her non-verbal cues she projects a strong desire to communicate with the audience. She’s quite the opposite of Joe Biden’s angry, aggressive, tyrannical style of speech.
To summarize, my point is that far too often we make quick judgments based on very little information (and often propaganda from others). For important decisions, we really should take more time to dig deeper before making a judgment.
As an ex-liberal, I was being pretty judgy. For her Silicon Valley ties primarily, but also that her website was scrubbed from listing the biography of a charity co-lead with ties to Open Philanthropy which funded event 201.
And I don’t know if that’s necessarily nefarios or fair to conclude guilt by association. She is young (insurance against Bobby assassination, perhaps), a little inexperience (nothing a little PR coaching can’t fix) and awfully easy looking on the eyes (which might not take away Trump votes, but it sure won’t hurt on taking away Biden votes.) It was a smart choice for Kennedy, no matter how you slice it. And I sure like the way they talk, I just have a nagging suspicion that he is being anointed. And if that’s the case, you know rule number one: no one gets to sit on the table unless he is compromised. Maybe he is playing some long game white hat con, but that would be pretty unbelievable.