Never Amazed

I was going to note that I'll never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy of politicians, but then I realized that for them that it was business as usual. And they have very short memories. Like the media.

The particular origin of my concern is the brouhaha around Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There seems to be grave concern about his meetings with Russians last year, and about his failure to acknowledge them during his confirmation hearings. Afterward it came out that such meetings actually occurred, although he claims that they had nothing to do with election politics.

I don't know the truth of the allegations, and they are not the subject of this essay. I'm far more interested in the reactions to it. I'm not surprised by them – more amused by their predictability.

There are demands by Democrats for his recusal from any investigation of Russian interference with the presidential election of 2016 (and he has recused himself – a wise move – under pressure both from members of the Democratic Party and from his own) and for his resignation from office. There are demands as well for a special prosecutor to determine the legality of his actions and of the situation that precipitated it since the election won't be overturned – the view that the Russians tipped it in favor of the Republicans. The truth of such assertions is irrelevant – only the publicity it can garner.

President Trump has labeled the rhetoric of the Democrats a “witch-hunt,” and blames its origin on the loss last year of Secretary Clinton. He is opposed to the very idea of a special prosecutor and he defends his Attorney General.

But it should not be forgotten that he favored a special prosecutor, and, indeed, indictment, when it was learned that Secretary Clinton had lied to Congress and to the American people about her private e-mail server and about the situation in Benghazi.

On the other hand, those demanding action against Attorney General Sessions are, by and large, those who pooh-poohed any investigation of Secretary Clinton for illegal acts. They deemed such suggestions as political. Now, when the accusations are against the other party rather than their own, the are righteously indignant at the violation of trust of public officials. They seem to have very selective memories and reactions.

And they're aided – both sides – by media that favor one party or the other, and by popular figures in other fields who have relatively little knowledge (nor interest in the realities), but strong political opinions. Responses are predictable irrespective of the facts. Publicity is “the name of the game.” Only it's not a game, and the “players” are playing for keeps.

A similar situation pertains in the actions of political figures in other controversies. Each party opposes the candidates of the other; each belittles – indeed they're “horrified” – at the actions of their opponents, never acknowledging that they did the same things when it was in their interests. When they did it it was justified. When the other party does it it's an abuse of power.

The same applies to legislation. Compromise is impossible because whatever the other party proposes – even if it's a carbon copy (remember carbon paper?) of what they demanded before – is contrary to common sense and to American values. “The loyal opposition” doesn't exist. Hypocrisy and obstruction are more important political tools than truth and progress. There's nothing new in the recognition that those involved in the political process prefer to “spin” rather than act directly to advance our agenda. There are very few “good guys” any more. “Winning is the only thing.” Hence all the negative political ads and statements, and their publications in the media.

So what's new? Everyone's in it for himself (or herself) and there's no tool like decrying the actions of others irrespective of what they are. And a short memory helps in that regard. If you don't love it, ignore it. Change is unlikely.

Pinocchio And The Pirate

It will all end tomorrow. The election, that is. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And then we'll see the beginning of a presidency that most of our citizens fear. They'll vote alright, but there will be apprehension over the state of our country for the next four years.

The contest is between Pinocchio and the Pirate. Two candidates with massive egos. Of course you have to have a big ego to believe you can do the job of President, but our current alternatives are flaunting it. They're making previous aspirants look reluctant. One of those on the ballot has a foul mouth and an overinflated view of his own abilities, and the other has a past history of a long nose and of responding only to what is politically advantageous. And the voters are inclined to distrust both of them. It seems likely that whoever doesn't lose this election will lose the next.

There are many important issues at stake, but these are not on the minds of most voters. This has turned out to be a decision based on ad hominem arguments rather than any real discussion of policies. We face a choice of the lesser of evils – and they're both evil – rather than a selection of the better candidate. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the negative campaigning, but more is being spent this year on these tactics than ever before. Inflation certainly accounts for some of the increase, but the desire for power of both candidates and of those supporting them is also responsible.

Still, however, someone will eventually win. Whoever it is will face a hostile, and probably divided Congress. And whoever wins will attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with an ideology matching that of the winner's party, with a long delay before anyone is approved for the position. The economy, health care, taxes, and a host of other considerations are important nationally, but there hasn't been much discussion of these topics.

There is a wide range of international considerations as well, and the most important of these is the ability of our new President to deal with leaders of other nations. In all likelihood, they would be apprehensive about a boastful and impulsive leader of our country, fearing what he might do without considering the consequences. They'd probably be far more comfortable with someone known to lie and to make political advantage the touchstone of decision-making. In short, they'd prefer someone more like themselves. As boastful and impulsive as they might like to be, they're more likely to take the advice of advisers and to use diplomatically acceptable language than at least one of our candidates.

It's truly a distasteful election with candidates we'd prefer to have been defeated in the primaries. That's our bad, and there's nothing we can do about it now. With any luck at all we'll go back to a system in which politicians in smoke-filled rooms – no, we no longer permit smoking – choose candidates whom they believe party members, and many independents, can support. The current system may be what we've chosen for ourselves, but it's not what our country deserves.

But Election Day isn't all bad. Apart from getting some free time for voters, and a holiday for many, it will mark the end of the current silly season and of robocalls that urge us to hear the platforms of particular candidates and support them. Or, at least, to vote against the opposition.

The end of those calls will be the most positive result of the election.

November 7, 2016

Who's Worse?

Political negativism has gone mainstream. And it goes on for longer. (At least it seems that the political season, the “silly season,” never ends.)

It seems reasonable to me that those who consider themselves as potential officials charged with the responsibility of running our government and dealing with the problems which our society might face should offer the reasons why they believe they deserve our votes. They would tell us what qualifies them for the position they seek, and indicate what problems exist or are foreseeable, and how they would deal with those problems. In short, they would tell us why we should vote for them.

That, however, is not the case. Over the years the emphasis has been more on why we should not vote for their opponents. Less and less of the conversation deals with the proposals of the candidates themselves, and more involves the real or imagined faults of the individual running in opposition. What they want us to do is to vote against him (or her), which requires voting for them. And we get less and less information about them. That seems to be less important.

I used to vote for the candidate who had less negative to say about the individual running against him, but that's getting harder and harder to do. As the years go by there has been an increased emphasis on denigrating the other party, rather than presenting one's own qualifications. And the media aid in this tactic. After all, it sells.

For example – actually it's my favorite example of biased journalism – the New York Times, which is considered by many to be the standard of objectivity and excellence in American reporting, has adopted this approach to the presidential election which will take place in November (and to other campaigns as well). In recent weeks and months it has been the practice, on all too many occasions, for the lead article on the front page to be something finding fault with Donald Trump. That's not difficult to do. He has many flaws, and not much – if anything – to offer, but his failings don't deserve the prominence they are giving it. There are often several “Op-Eds” that belittle him as well, and a large number of letters to the editor which carry the same message. There is an enormous amount of coverage of a candidate whom they are sure to criticize strongly at election time.

In contrast, former Secretary of State Clinton is rarely the subject of a front page story or an “Op-Ed” in the Times. They have little to say about her. Nor are there many letters about her that are printed. It's possible that all they consider positive about her isn't newsworthy but a reader who doesn't already favor her – one honestly interested in learning about her views – is unlikely to get very much information about her in that paper. (In reality, she has numerous flaws as well.) Nor will there be much, if there is anything, about third-party candidates. It's almost certain that the Times will endorse Secretary Clinton when election time comes around, but they have almost nothing to say about her now. Their time and space are spent in disparaging Trump.

It's hardly a specific fault of the Times nor limited to this election, but as the years pass it is becoming more and more the usual pattern in election coverage. And in the way that candidates present themselves. Even in local elections there seems to be a plethora of brochures which spend more and more time denigrating a candidate's opponent than in telling us what “the good guy” is proposing – why we should vote for him. Negative advertising seems to be the primary method of addressing voters. Attacks. And the language used to describe that opponent has become increasingly harsh as the years have passed. The most important focus seems to be the message that “the other guy” is the greater of the evils, whereas I'd rather learn which candidate is the greater of the goods. And why.

Not surprisingly, I'm not alone. Unhappy voters are sitting out elections. The percentage of potential voters who actually go to the polls is embarrassingly low. Or they're voting for third-party candidates. (Interestingly, there was a letter in the Times in which the writer stated that she would not vote for a third-party candidate because that was the equivalent of giving the advantage to one of the other two. But she was reluctant to vote for either of the major party offerings, and would probably not vote for either on election day, leaving that choice blank. I find it hard to distinguish between the two approaches, but it seems to have made sense to her.)

Is there a solution to the problem? Probably not. As I mentioned, negative sells – especially when there are few positives. And negativity works. But it works less as more candidates adopt it, which is what they are doing. All it leads to is an increase in voter dissatisfaction and lower turnouts. Until we revolt and demand that candidates tell us what they have to offer rather than limiting their rhetoric to a description of someone else's faults, they'll continue to attack. And until a way is found to hear the positions of those who, because they are not candidates of major parties, have little interest shown in them by the media.

Seems unlikely to me. In front of every silver lining there's a cloud. And I fear that this one is here to stay.