"I Feel Your Pain."

Do you? Do you really care?

Those were the words of President Clinton, who resided in luxury for which we paid. He lived, as do all our presidents now, in a residence cared for by numerous servants eager (and employed) to satisfy every whim.

According to The Hill, on President Obama's last Thanksgiving in the White House, the menu included, as the first course, "mini BLT's, chicken satay with pizza chili dip, mini crab cakes, pizza bites, fresh veggies and hummus and pigs in the blanket."

The second course featured "thyme-roasted turkey with garlic jus and cranberry-orange relish, a honey-baked ham with apricot-mustard glaze, prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade, and fried chicken wings." I won't bore you with side dishes and desserts, but they were equally excessive in number and decadent in content.

How does someone eating like that, a meal prepared by an Executive Chef with 25 assistants, relate to a single mother who has no food to make for her children?

There is a disconnect between our leaders and us. I may not be poor, however I cannot help but see it. No rhetoric can cover it up, because the difference in life style between "the leader of the free world" and those whom he claims to represent (as well as the needy around the world), is flaunted and reported. It can't be denied by flowery and disingenuous words. We should prevent our leaders from using them.

Better. A way should be found to make the words true.

That's not so easy. People rarely go into politics with the aim of living like their constituents – of feeling their pain. Politics is the path upward, not downward – to power, not impotence. They don't want to feel that pain, however much they maintain that they do. They yearn for prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade. They're not interested in starving. But they have to appear to relate to the suffering of the poor, so they issue pious declarations of their concern. People almost believe them. (President Truman said "Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.") And they obediently vote for them.

That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't ways to deal with the disparity. I suspect there are other ways, but I'd like to suggest one. It's not guaranteed to bridge the gap, but it would be a start.

It would be useful if, at regular intervals (when no visiting dignitaries are expected), the president, and, for that matter, other politicians with significant input into the lives of our people, were required to live in settings similar to those of our most deprived citizens – to see how the other "half" lives and actually feel their pain. Allowance would have to be made for their responsibilities and for their safety, but it might make them more sympathetic to the genuine needs of the poor.

Perhaps it would mean the construction of an unheated and run-down shack in the rose garden. Perhaps the meals during the period of residence (perhaps a week at a time) would be spare or absent, but it would give them a taste of the lives of the lowest level of society – not the highest.

I'm not advocating the embarrassment of government officials, only a means or educating them to the real needs of our people. Foreign policy, and a variety of national needs require their attention but, at the moment, our own needy are getting little more than words – and words don't fill stomachs. I suspect that most of our leaders have never endured the deprivations of which they speak so knowledgeably, and don't relate to them at all – unless they are trying to gather votes. This would help them understand a little better what is the lot of so many Americans. And moreso the fate of so many around the world.

Requiring the rich – and all presidents are rich, no matter how they may deny it – to live, every now and then, the life of the poor may make them better understand the lives of the people around them, even it does not make them more sympathetic to their needs. And if, for no other reason than to improve the conditions for their next "sentence" to the life of the poor, they may consider measures that would help the needy. Really feeling the pain may sensitize them to their constituents' needs, in addition to their own.

June 13, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 5

Here are some more ideas. I know that all my schemes are not practicable, but dreaming up impossible scenarios and solving their problems is fun. Try it yourself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearings, independent investigators, and similar power plays seem to be the current vogue for defaming those you oppose (along with protest marches and social media campaigns). Even if nothing is discovered by one of those games, the fact that someone was investigated raises doubts about that person – doubts that will be exploited in the next canvass. That, I suspect, is often the goal. And the taxpayer funds it. We pay for a political exercise. It's one of many areas in which politicians use public funds – our money – to further their personal or party priorities.

We live in an age when newspapers have ombudsmen, hospital patients have advocates, and prisoners have legal advisors so their rights will be protected. Much as we might wish otherwise, our representatives cannot be trusted to look out after our interests. They have their own agendas. An individual taxpayers' advocate, or a panel of ombudsmen – principled ones of course – might be employed to protect us from our government. Is it possible?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's an app for it. Sometimes, but not always. Most of them deal with the needs of large numbers of people, not with individuals. What the world needs is an app that makes apps. An "app app." Someone who has a specific need or want could input the needs and create an app to deal with a particular need that has not been addressed. Perhaps you want an app that deals with all the problems of retirement. You might want one that searches for jobs for senior citizens, explains Medicare, helps with planning of activities (including the choice of those suited to seniors – especially, for example, those with disabilities), identifies discounts to which you are entitled, gives you easy dinner recipes, or reads you a book. You might want an app that hypnotizes you or, with the aid of virtual reality, puts flesh on your imaginary friend. Perhaps you're interested in a job and want to know, in addition to what's available, what are the requirements for a particular position. You might even want to know the long term outlook for that industry or advice on how to apply or interview for a particular position. And you'd want the information presented to you in a way that obviates individual searches regarding these topics.

Mass marketers are rolling out all sorts of apps that promote their products or their facilities. They're interested in individuals only as targets. But only the "target" knows what (s)he really wants. After he lists the particulars of his need a dedicated app would search the web for the information, programs, resources, and advice that he needs. It would extract the data and put it in a form that is usable to the one requesting it. And it would create a reusable and up-dateable app that would be available whenever needed. The app would aslo be changeable as the needs of the individual, and available data, change, and its designer could also add more features if they might be helpful. And you wouldn't have to go to an "app store" to deal with your unique need. Your app app could even find existing programs that might suit your needs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We now have self-driving cars. As they are perfected and the technology extended we'll have self-driving taxis, car services, and busses. With the proper sensors and computers they'll make driving safer. They don't get drunk and they wouldn't drive while distracted.

But what about ships and planes? Why do we need the crews that make travel so expensive? Certainly we need them to feed us and provide other services as well, and, of course, to entertain us, but even these functions can be, to a degree, made the responsibilities of computers and robots. Some people would lose their jobs – that always happens as society advances – but it has the possibility of improving safety and services while cutting costs. Sounds like a worthwhile trade-off.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've tried to raise real problems and a start at finding solutions. I'll try again, but I don't know when. Stay tuned.

July 7, 2017

Astigmatism

I'm troubled by the Trump presidency, but I accept the results. Perhaps I'm not as nervous as you, but I'm troubled. And there are many who tell me how to think about him.

What moved him was simply a craving for facile and meaningless banzais, for the gaudy eminence and power of the leader of a band of lynchers, for the mean admiration of mean men.

Indeed, another characterization labeled him as

the monumental fakir of history.

Those were the descriptions, however, not of our current leader, but of the first real “progressive” in American history, President Theodore Roosevelt, assessments by H. L. Mencken and Woodrow Wilson (as cited by David Greenberg in his book Republic of Spin, which is well worth reading). What they demonstrate is that even knowledgeable people may have slanted views of figures of their times. The terms they used then were comparable to what is said now about our president.

As I said in a prior message, history is not always correct – and even honest testimony of the times may be wrong. In this case they were misperceptions of honorable people, but they are more often the creations of politicians and their publicists. Those people have the job of convincing you that black is white, if you look at it the “right” way. And they have the responsibility for helping us form all our opinions in the manner they (are paid to) consider correct. And they also help us form images of the personalities they represent. Positive images, of course. Dedicated to truth and the American way. It's thought control.

But for every spinmeister who says “black is white” there is another who maintains that “white is black.” The script doesn't call for the view that black is black and white white. Accurate and objective determination of the facts is not part of the job; the challenge is to convince voters that there is only one way to understand the facts, and they'll tell you what it is, and anyone who disagrees – anyone who interprets events and people differently – is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Of course they are referring to those in the opposing camp.

Ideology is the prism of understanding. It is not only the moral and educated view, but the tool for convincing others of “Truth.” It's not always necessary. Some have internalized the prism and cannot see anything except through it. They're enlightened. Except to those with a different prism who consider them evil, while they themselves are virtuous.

“Spin-artists” are exemplars of this creative activity. They paint the activities of those they represent (and their families) in warm colors and attractive garb performing virtuous acts, while the opponents are depicted pejoratively, as unattractive stick figures out to do evil. And we can have no traffic with evil (except in a close election between unpopular candidates in which it may be necessary to proclaim our choice as the lesser of evils). And if we cannot tolerate evil we certainly cannot compromise with it. In the time until the next election we must stand our ground against those who aren't worthy of our admiration. In fact when the time comes we'll be pointing out whatever those specializing in spin tell us about the errors of the opposition. Almost all campaign publicity will be negative. It will be more a matter of why we should not vote for the opposing candidate than why we should vote for theirs.

When the election is over, then, we're faced with more contention than cooperation; with avoidance rather than action. And too often the supporters of those who were defeated are so convinced that evil has triumphed that they question the results, protest the acts of the winner, and refuse to cooperate with the opposition. Ideological purity, as defined by those hired to sell it, and teach voters to see it positively in every act performed by those they represent, is more important than honesty. Party loyalty and discipline trump doing the job for which the candidate ran, and for which some were elected. It is better to stand up for proclaimed virtue than to sit down and work things out with those whom your pitchmen have depicted as charlatans.

The challenge to us is to tease from the advocacy journalism we face – that of the spin doctors of the press – what we can of acts rather than the depictions of those acts by others. Difficult as it may be our job is to judge on the basis of accomplishments, not on the judgments of those who oppose those accomplishments.

“Spin” is not a new phenomenon nor a recent technique for controlling the mind of the listener, but it is a hindrance to objectivity. It is a barrier to intelligent evaluation. And it can – no, it probably will – obstruct any achievements by our government. That's the job of the practitioners of spin.

Happy Independence Day.  Make your mind independent of those who seek to take it over.

June 20, 2017  

Single Issues

If there is one thing all thinking-people oppose, it's the single-issue voter, who makes what should be a complex decision, because of a single factor: for example, an anti-abortion political candidate who favors trade with China, waffles on the issue of gun control, opposes global warning legislation, and supports LGBTQ members, may be chosen or opposed because of passionate statements about conservation – either for or against.

It is understood, if regrettable, that a decision may be made solely out of fear. Where there is no secret ballot, a “wrong” vote – like one against a tyrant – may be enough to get oneself killed. Only a fool or a selfless idealist – not always mutually exclusive – would take the risk of defying those more powerful.

But in a free society like ours – one in which no one will know what position we took on a particular issue or candidate unless we choose to disclose that information – there's no hazard involved in voting as our conscience dictates. Yet, to a greater or a lesser degree, we're all single issue voters.

And, while we're loath to admit it, we all know it to be true.

For some the single issue of consequence is the political affiliation of a particular candidate. The voter has decided before the election – even before the nomination – one way or another in regard to choice. Particular positions are irrelevant. The decision often represents views indoctrinated in childhood and based on the preferences or prejudices voiced by one's parents. And sometimes it is in rebellion against them. But it is a decision that takes precedence over any actual consideration of a candidate's stand on the various issues that make the campaign so complex for others.

There are, however, many “uncommitted” voters who are intent on basing their votes on the specific campaign promises made by candidates – what they say they will do in regard to the important questions of our times. Those voters are concerned with prospects in many areas – foreign policy, the economy, the environment, choice of a nominee for an available seat on the Supreme Court, and “rule of law” are examples. But, for the most part, they don't have clear-cut criteria for choices. They don't ascribe particular weights to each issue. They all must be considered. They're all important.

Eventually the time comes when a decision must be reached however. Since there are no strict points of reference, though, the eventual choice is usually based more on “feelings” than on science. And those feelings are often based on a particular issue which is, for the voter, the crucial “tipping point,” the issue most critical to that elector. And, absent the single factor of party loyalty, the uncommitted citizen – and that is what most of us claim to be – often finds the balance difficult to resolve, falling back on the one considered to be that of the greatest importance, whether it's gun control, jobs, abortion, animal rights, or whatever, basing the choice on a perception of a “right” or “wrong” stance on that issue. “Are you for me or against me on what really counts?” Not an intellectual decision, but one based on the gut. And, ultimately, based on a single factor. It's all-important.

And that's why politicians take clear and un-nuanced positions on so many issues so much of the time. Their goal is to attract the voters for whom that particular issue is the critical one. No one should believe that they actually mean what they say; what is more important is that they say it. And what is most important is that they get elected.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I write this we're in the middle of a presidential “battle” between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (I know this will be published long after the election, but that doesn't really matter in terms of the points I'm trying to make.) It's a bitter and very convoluted election with many substantive matters at issue – matters about which I have very strong feelings. Under ordinary circumstances I might even want to make a decision based on one of those issues. My problem is that I don't trust either of them. I usually try to base trust on past performance, but the more I learn about the two of them, and specifically how they have acted and performed in the past, the less confidence I have in their stated positions on my one issue. Or anything else. So I'll vote for Johnson. I guess my one critical issue this time around is trust. And I don't know enough about Johnson yet to distrust him.

What's To Come

Next week we'll elect a new President. And, as I have said before, we all lose. Maybe things will be better in four years – if we make it that long.

Chances are good that the winner will be Secretary Clinton. (Yes I know that no result is official until the vote by the Electoral College – but they're unlikely to overrule the voters.) Not a good result, but there is no good result. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has been disowned by many in his party. He may have attracted an army of supporters as a populist, but he's alienated the majority of American voters because of his rashness, lewdness, and, most of all, his ignorance. However nervous we Americans may be about him, it's likely that leaders of other countries would be unable to speak to him and negotiate meaningfully with him.

Not that Secretary Clinton is a great prize. Past performance – especially when considering her e-mails and Benghazi – suggests that she cannot be trusted (and, indeed, is not trusted) by her countrymen and women. Whatever transparency she promises should be taken as fantasy. Apart from her basic flaws she has had to make some commitments (not done publicly) to Senator Sanders; commitments that will probably bring her closer to socialism and a larger national debt, as well as an activist Supreme Court nominee. Her relationship to the current President is also no recommendation. He has brought us an imperial presidency, making decisions on his own that should be made by Congress. He has also left us with our highest national debt, and, notwithstanding a Nobel Prize based on the judges' hope for peace, he hasn't presided over a day when our country has not been at war. The Nobel Committee was rewarding him for not being President Bush. They were more involved in politics than in an honest search for a peacemaker. They blew it.

What's to be said for her? Why is she likely to win? Well, like the Nobel Committee, she'll be elected not for who she is, but who she isn't. She isn't Donald Trump. Neither can be trusted and both have the potential to be among our worst presidents (as does the incumbent who has weakened our country immeasurably in the eyes of the world) so the judgment of citizens is Clinton – no. But it's Trump – NO! However bad she may be, she represents less of a risk than her opponent. For better or worse she's likely to act rather than react. We may not approve of most of her choices, but they're more likely to be thought out by her and her advisers than controlled by her gut and guile. Those, however, are our prospects with Donald Trump.

In sports, there is a common cry to “wait till next year.” In this case we'll have to substitute “the next presidential election” for “next year.”

In the meanwhile, I recommend prayer.





October 13, 2016

Only Two

The more I hear, the worse it gets. Neither of the major party candidates is fit to be president. That doesn't mean that one of them won't be elected, but, as I've said may times before, it's a choice of the lesser of evils – and it's a bad choice. Unfortunately, only two narratives are available – one by a candidate who can only demonstrate ignorance and specializes in negative campaigning, and one who hides past activities and spends time primarily explaining why what is documented and reported is of no consequence. And the media take them seriously.

Below is a letter, variants of which I sent to several papers. As far as I know it hasn't been published, but that's not a big surprise. It deals with one of the (many) problems with our political system, and with the inability of voters to get adequate information to decide for themselves.

Before you vote for the lesser of evils, look elsewhere. More Americans oppose Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton than trust them, but perhaps there are other possibilities. Because candidates lacking 15% support are excluded from the debates, however, they can't make their views known. (Like Governor Gary Johnson -- who piques my interest as a "none-of-the-above" candidate.) It's important, therefore, that those polled express a preference for third-party candidates and increase that "support," irrespective of how they are likely to vote on election day. The polls are not binding, but if we don't hear what other contenders have to say we're doomed to choose between the major party candidates. It is possible that the devil we don't know isn't a devil. But unless we take steps to give others a voice, we'll never find out.

Rather than using the vote for the purpose of choosing our leader, let the referendum be about the Congress that will work with a new president, who would be selected by our trust, and by the confidence that our future is secure in his or her hands. There are many issues at stake that might benefit from a divided government, forced to bargain, rather than single-party leadership and a president who lacks our credence. For example, who will choose next Supreme Court Justice? It's possible that a third-party president will make a less doctrinaire choice than a chief executive bound by a party's dogmas. And a new head of state who has less partisan baggage than those whom he or she opposes might be better able to lead us while dealing successfully with the rest of the world as well. But we'll never get a chance to make an educated decision if we let the networks decide whom we can hear.

The American people will make a bad choice in the election. That's a foregone conclusion, because the choices they have are bad ones, and the means of getting the information necessary to improve on it is limited by sources that have a vested interest in the decision.

Some nations have many more parties than we. It's messier, but they allow for the presentation of more points of view. It's hard to know if that kind of arrangement would work here or if it would change anything, but it would provide the opportunity for more opinions to be expressed.

The Truth

At a time when she lacked the trust of most Americans, when indictment was being considered against her, President Obama said of the former Secretary of State

There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton, and that's the truth. That's the truth.

He said it at a rally in North Carolina.

George Washington always told the truth – we're informed that “he couldn't tell a lie” – and he was an above-average president. According to the incumbent, however, he was less qualified than the current Democratic candidate. While it may be true that she is more capable than the one praising her, it's hard not to wonder if Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson, or a host of others might not have had a better résumé or greater reliability than the former Secretary.

It's easy to chalk it up to campaign rhetoric. You'd have to. After all, in 2008, the candidate Senator Obama, maintained that she, (then his colleague in the Senate) Hillary Clinton, was “willing to say anything [in case you didn't get what he meant, that's a euphemism for “to lie”] to get elected.” He had other reservations about her qualifications then. Now – perhaps feeling a debt incurred by her service to him – he seems willing to say anything to get her elected. (Neither her, nor his, lying seems to be a disqualifying feature.) That's what makes America great. Loyalty. To party members if not the Constitution, the citizens, and the country.

It's an effort to inspire confidence in her at a time when she lacks the trust of a majority of our citizens. Perhaps it's her own fault, perhaps it's his. Perhaps it's the fault of the American people at this point in history, but there's no denying that she has neither their friendship nor what they consider the qualifications to lead us all.

Nor does her opponent.

Sadly, it's a given that we cannot believe what politicians say. In theory their calling, their burden, is to perform service for their country – to improve the lot of their people – even if there is a cost to themselves. Just as our “citizen soldiers” have fought to protect us, our “citizen politicians” claim to be willing to sacrifice for us, and it's something we need them to do. The reality, however, doesn't match that theory. The driving forces are, more often, ego, lust for power, and money. These are the rewards of office. And too many of our leaders are in it for the rewards rather than the burdens.

And we are willing, though unindicted, co-conspirators. We accept their words, if not as the truth, as unexceptionable rhetoric. We expect it. (All politicians are liars.) True, some of the media do some “fact-checking,” but who cares? We continue to elect those we know to be falsifying, “spinning,” or inventing “facts.” They're flexible and so are we.

The time has come, however, to fight back. It will probably be a losing fight – certainly initially it will be – but it's a necessary one if we are to restore “a government of the people.” The time has come when people should vote their consciences – not according to party line. It may be easier to have only two parties from which to choose, but it forces us to accept “the lesser of evils” too often – to brook evil. This is a democracy, and we are free to choose.

But we're not the only democracy. There are countries in which parties are formed based on beliefs that may differ from the mainstream; where a difference of opinion, or an antipathy to those running, may inspire the formation of a new political entity, more suitable to public wishes. There's no guarantee that its leaders won't lie, but when it's discovered that they can't be trusted there's precedent for dumping them and starting again. It's messy, but democracy is messy. (Mussolini may have gotten the trains to run on time [actually, he didn't] but it was at great cost.)

In the United States the step to take is to vote for a third party (as I intend to do). There aren't many around, and they're not likely to win, but votes that don't go to major party candidates are a message – one that we hope ultimately will be heard if sent often enough.

As Pogo (the voice of Walt Kelly) said

We have met the enemy and he is us.

And those we're willing to elect.

Impolitic

Many years ago, at a Board meeting in my synagogue, one of our members proposed himself for the position of President when the nominating committee presented its report. Actually he wasn't a member of the Board, nor had he been active in synagogue affairs up until that time. But he recognized that some problems existed, and suggested that he was the man to fix them. Chutzpah. One of the Board members suggested that rather than start at the top he become more involved in the congregation's structure as it already was, and work his way up.

I never saw him again.

There's a kind of leadership style which has a boss instructing his employee “Don't tell me the problems – tell me the solutions.” The approach bespeaks the view that the leader is there simply to supervise the difficulties that others recognize, and to get credit for leading everyone out of the wilderness. But it's an even more troublesome situation when the leader believes that he can identify – indeed he has already identified – the problems that exist, and that he can solve them all. It's the approach of the “outsider” who can correct the errors caused by those who had theretofore been involved. It's his view that it takes someone not caught up in the organization's internal politics.

And that's where we are now. The current campaign for the Republican nomination pits an individual who has no experience in organized politics and government against those who have. Whatever the personal qualifications of the various candidates, the current leader in the race has no experience governing but claims that he can solve all of our country's problems. He's a populist whose main qualification, in the eyes of voters, is that he's a strong (loud) advocate of positions which provide simple solutions to complex problems – the ones created by those who have spent their careers dealing with them. His lack of tact and his inability to relate to those with whom he would have to deal are also strengths, and would bring others around to his positions. Chutzpah! Bluster and ego are no substitute for knowledge, experience and alliances. Tired of international problems, his supporters are not concerned about whether other nations would eventually sign on. They view his opportunity to speak out, to voice their biases, as the long-lost benefit of a bully pulpit. They don't care that the inexperienced and undisciplined man using it is a pulpit bully.

Although there are marked differences, there is a similar “insider-outsider” battle in the Democratic Party. While both of the major contenders for the nomination are long-time politicians – both having served in the Senate – their backgrounds, especially in terms of relating to the party's members, is entirely different. While one is among the party loyal, the other has spent most of his career as an “independent,” only recently joining with the party he now wishes to lead. And he espouses an economic form (socialism) that is very different from what the Founding Fathers proposed and what what we and those who preceded us have experienced. He, too, is a populist, offering appealing and simple solutions to complex problems. They're flawed solutions that would be difficult for many of the candidate's newly acquired colleagues to support, but they raise the hopes of countless voters – many of them new voters.

From my perspective, none of the candidates is an appropriate choice. But my perspective isn't relevant. I'll vote in my state's primary, but I'll be focused on choosing the lesser of evils. And one vote won't affect the overall trend. Yes I know that according to our philosophy every vote counts, but I don't see that as the reality – and in this particular race the early politicking an sniping will carry the day. Whatever happens, we'll lose.

The Imperious Loudmouth

I used to view myself as an imperious loudmouth – a curmudgeon who knew everything and wasn't interested in the views of others. But it's clear to me that I have to surrender the title. There's no question that Donald Trump is dark years ahead of me in the category: a veritable black hole.

As a Republican running for president he has negative views of possible Democratic opponents. Clinton is “a major national security risk” and “not presidential material,” while Sanders is a “wacko.” (Actually I'm concerned about both of them, but I'd describe them otherwise.) Indeed, the entire Democratic Party shows “total weakness and incompetence that gave rise to ISIS.” Not surprising. He's running against them.

But he doesn't have the nomination yet, so he's still insulting the other Republicans in the race for the nomination. “Hypocrite,” “clueless politician,” “loser,” “ liar,” “weak,” “nasty,” “dumb,” “weak,” “puppet,” and “lightweight choker” are just a few of his appraisals of other contenders, and he is quick to say aloud, or to “Twitter,” offensive remarks about anyone who disagrees with him or with whom he disagrees. Being Trump “means never having to say you're sorry.”

Donald Trump is a man who has never spent a day in public office and, without any knowledge or experience (or program), wants to start at the top. And he has several advantages that may make the quest a little easier: first of all, he's rich and can generously fund his own campaign. He has no record in office and, thus, none to defend. Having offered virtually no platform apart from the derogation of others, he has provided little of substance for others to evaluate and criticize. His past attempts, however futile, to establish a gambling empire, fade in light of his wealth and know-nothing populist charisma. The latter is really a strong point. He has no filter, and, on the spur of the moment, says whatever comes to mind. As such he says what many others are thinking but are afraid (too smart?) to say. (In fact the only thing that most people remember him saying is “You're fired.”) Like all populists and rabble-rousers he radiates strength. He's afraid of no one. And no country. And he can whip a crowd of true believers into a frenzy of mindless passion. Lenin would view them as “useful idiots,” but Trump considers them a power base. And he would never accept the idea that anything Lenin said has any veracity, even if he would ape his tactics.

But Trump is a bombastic bully. His approach is combative – to “shoot first and ask questions afterward”; to “shoot from the hip.” He's a “loose cannon.” He swings wildly. He not only calls a club “a club,” but he seems eager to use it. Perhaps his threats will play well among potential voters, but there is a grave risk, if he wins, that the leaders of other nations will consider those threats too stark to be ignored. And they will be especially wary, recognizing his brash behavior and his unwillingness to listen or to lose. Or to learn. He's a man who won't back down, even when he has created a dangerous firestorm. Others will have to take him at his word and act accordingly. (The only time he “explained” one of his remarks occurred when he saw public reaction to his refusal to condemn David Duke or to refuse his endorsement. He was asked about that and blamed his reaction to a “faulty earpiece.”) They will be especially alarmed at his lack of experience in diplomacy and compromise, and the uncertainty that this causes may goad unfortunate acts on their part.

Perhaps what he says reflects the views of advisors in regard to winning the nomination, and he'll change afterward. But I doubt it. His past media performances suggest that we're seeing the real Donald Trump. Even if that is not the case, however, any candidate who would choose advisors as cynical as his might be, is “more knave than fool.” Whatever is the case, however, he is not one to be trusted with leadership. Apart from being rich and a star of “reality” television, his only public record is as a failed gambler. Perhaps he can lead a mob, but not a nation.

Sadly, though, the day is coming closer. Competitors are dropping out. More and more of those who may personally despise and fear him are endorsing Trump, along with the masses who foolishly follow him. Politics? Angling for an appointment? Jumping on the bandwagon? Whatever their motives, they do their country and themselves a disservice.

Donald Trump may be the only thing that would make me vote for Hilary Clinton.

I Was Wrong

It's hard for me to admit it, but that's the reality and I have to fess up.

I believed that notwithstanding the corruption and immorality in which they participated, politicians were basically good people, like the rest of us. Any missteps simply reflected their humanity. As I said. They were like the rest of us, and they were basically good people.

I used to believe that their major advantages over us – the ones that helped them to succeed as our representatives – were that they were knowledgeable about the way government should work and the way it does work. And they were well informed about the issues that confronted us – so much so that they could lead us to a higher level of humanity, and fruitful participation in world affairs, and they would do so even if they had to disregard our views in the quest of our betterment.ⁱ I believed that their actions would be well-considered and the result of honest deliberation and the agreement of all parties.

My failure resulted from trust. Like all good liberals,ⁱⁱ I believed that human nature was something that was inherently good, and would lead us to better ourselves. And I believed that our leaders actually wanted to encourage us in this aim. Perhaps some do, but more and more I see them as the minority.

So however sad it made me, I was only a little surprised when I saw a headline in an inner section of the Wall Street Journal todayⁱⁱⁱ that read: “Senate Coalition Ends, Independent Democrats Shun GOP as Threats of Primary Election Loom Large.” As it turns out, the article was addressing the situation in the New York State Senate, not the national Senate, but the principles are the same. I didn't read more than the first two paragraphs because I know the Journal to be as opinionated as all papers, and, knowing its politics, the rest of the article was predictable.^iv And I suspect that the facts it described were true, though I may have questioned the conclusions the reporter drew.^v

Actually, although I've always tried to repress it,^vi the truth is that we get what we deserve. And in one respect our representatives are just like us: their main philosophy is “I'm for me first.”

The first rule of politics is “Get elected!” The second is “Prepare for the next election.” If, in order to be reelected, you vote for something beneficial to your community, so much the better – especially if, because of that, more of your constituents will vote for you next time – but even so, that isn't nearly as important as whether the legislation improves the lot of your donors or, better still, you.

And it's also important to be sure that any high-minded legislation – designed to require citizens to help other groups get what they view as benefits^vii – doesn't apply to you.^viii Exemption from the laws for which you vote is often required.^ix People should do what you say,^x not what you do. Because of the importance of your position, you're entitled to some benefits they'll lack. And taxpayers should be generous, especially to influential people and voting blocs, so if they don't see it that way, you should be generous for them. Benefits for large groups are certain to earn you their votes, and that's what it's all about .

So where was I wrong? I was too trusting. My belief in human nature was misplaced. The idea that politicians would impose on us the measures needed to improve our country were naïve. As I noted before, they're just like us and our inclinations are too venal. And the pols follow our lead. If the polls indicate that the public opposes something that would help it,^xi there's no politician who will vote for it – unless there's something in it for him or his supporters. And if, because it will be useful to vote for the legislation, he mustn't risk alienating the voters, so it's important to support some amendment that they'll see as benefiting them^xii – whether it does so or not. The politicians don't lead us to the Good. Only to their Good. Otherwise they follow us wherever we go.

Perhaps it's cynicism, but I'd always assumed that their basic inclination was to make things work. After all, as Bismarck said,^xiii “Politics is the art of the possible.” But less than two years later he said, “He who has his thumb on the purse has the power.”^xiv And that's the message the policians picked up on. I wasn't cynical enough. Doing the possible is not the goal. The purse^xv and the power are paramount. Doing the possible is counterproductive if it muddies the message that the voters want to hear. Ideological purity is to be preferred over cooperation with those having a different point of view with only two exceptions: when the cooperation will bring the politician or his backers a particular benefit, or when the polls indicate that it is for the purpose of achieving something that the voters want and which will prompt their support in the next election.

I trusted our representatives to combine their corruption with some regard for the voters as well as their votes. I was mistaken. It won't happen again.

 

Next episode: “How To Lose Friends And Influence Nobody" – No more Mr Nice Guy

I        “[Bill] Maher stated that Obama should forget about trying to get 60 votes for it, 'he only needs 51.' 'Forget getting the sixty votes or sixty percent — sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country — he just needs to drag them to it, like I said, they're stupid; get health care done, with or without them.'” I may not agree with Maher on the issue, but the principle of politicians following their consciences rather than the views of their constituents exemplifies what I thought was the approach of most of our “representatives.” It's the “liberal” approach. Do for (to?) the people what you think is good for them, whether they like it or not. But I had hoped for more good will than I see there. And I had hoped that politicians would have a higher regard for the American People than Mr. Maher seems to have.

ii       I may have lapsed but that's the way I was brought up, and some beliefs from early childhood are hard to shake.

iii      Today is June 26, 2014.

iv       Since I didn't read the article I can't be absolutely sure I'm right, but I assume the Democrats were blamed for their partisanship. As I suggested, however, all papers prejudge situations and their reporters write stories that reflect the paper's slant. Had the article appeared in the New York Times with the same headline, the blame would have been laid at the feet of the Republicans.

v        When consulting the media for information (and when reading web-sites as well) the most important first step is to try to determine the source's perspectives and its biases. Everything it says – even if it sounds like a simple recitation of facts – will be spun to correspond, and should be understood to reflect those preconceived notions.

vi        And I was fooling myself when I did so.

vii     However harmful those “benefits” may be after the bureaucracy begins formulating rules for its administration. It's possible that they may be more restrictive than beneficial – but they sound good.

viii     You don't want for yourself the idiotic things uninformed voters demand. It doesn't matter if you restrict the voters. They're asking for it.

ix       They elected you. They deserve you. Make the rhetoric appealing and it doesn't matter what the facts are. But make sure that you don't suffer from their poor judgment. Leave an escape hatch for yourself.

x         Make them believe it was their idea.

xi       Never forget that the better the medicine is for you the worse it tastes, and the more you rebel at its administration.

xii      A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

xiii     In German: “Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen.” August 11, 1867. Cited inWikipedia.

xiv      May 21, 1869. Also said in German.

xv       Not just the money, but the votes that get them the job that will bring them the power and the money.

Don't Put A Cold In Your Pocket

                                                                                   

Why do we do what we do? What do we believe? Can we make intelligent decisions or do we lack the information? Do we give any thought to our beliefs? Do we care? Laymen follow (at least they think they do) common sense, or whatever it says on Google. But do we really know what we think we know? And is it true?

To a very significant degree this is a follow-up on the essays of the last two weeks. In this case, however, there's no science fictionⁱ in it. Rather it's an expansion on the issue of education. And it's a sad commentary on the state of what we learn. In the previous messages I suggested that education is, by and large, tailored to the desires of the audience. That's neither an original thought nor an unusual practice. But perhaps a little more exposition would be helpful in understanding my concerns in this area.

We usually associate education with schools. It certainly goes on there, although the results are often spotty, and the information given students is often contrary to what parents think or want. Indeed, sometimes the “facts” are wrong.ⁱⁱ But right and wrong are not significant criteria when it comes to what is learned. More important considerations are the student's age and interests, the frequency of repetition of the lesson, the ability of the teacher and the quality and attractions of the teaching materials, and the rewards and threats – implied and explicit – that accompany learning and not learning a particular lesson.

Childhood is best time for learning: baseball stats, movie star data, and the content of ads are good examples of what they're likely to learn. Kids don't always relate to school lessons but they remember other material that interests them. They learn best what they want to believe or want to know. And from those in whom they have confidence. Very young children trust adults and believe whatever an adult says, both for facts and philosophy. But as they get older, and primarily because of a need for independence, kids begin to rebel – to reject the teachings of their parentsⁱⁱⁱ and, to a degree, those of other adults – especially those not well skilled in getting their attention or who transmit messages in which they're not interested. They trust their peers, however, to be reliable sources of information – especially regarding subjects like sex, which the adults are loath to discuss.^iv Or popular music about which the adults know nothing.^v Actually, those we consider our peers, whether adults or children, are among the most important influences on our learning, even when their lessons are false. (It is they, our peers, who convince us, for example, that “natural” and “organic” are best for us, even if they don't know what the terms mean.^vi They heard it – or something on the subject – from someone else, or they read it in the paper.)

But the best teachers are those in the advertising business. It's not the tenured professor who will keep his job no matter what his students learn,^vii but the advertiser or copywriter who has to sell a product every day in order to stay employed, who is the best educator. It's up to him to convince us there's a problem that only his product can solve. Whether his “solution” has any value is irrelevant, as long as the goods sell. Ideally his product does what is claimed for it, but that's not invariably the case,^viii nor is it necessary. Claims usually precede knowledge, especially if the buyer is primed to accept the presumed value of the product or practice. That's certainly the case with panaceas, snake oil, and beauty products – usually accompanied by some promise of eternal youth.^ix It's also true of other health related wares. “Don't put a cold in your pocket” may be convincing advertising copy, but you can't catch your own cold, so if you use a handkerchief you're not really risking reinfection next time. And if you use tissues and there's no garbage can, you have a choice between littering, and putting the used tissue in your pocket.

Other important teachers are those who advise you to sneeze into your antecubital fossa,^x and that chicken soup is the best cure for a cold.^xi They may not be old wives, but they've learned from them. And they will try to convince you that vitamins are good for you.^xii But, no matter what they say, there's no proof that most of those nostrums they've been using for years have any effect. Don't waste your time offering contrary evidence. There's no changing the mind of someone already convinced. (As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The mind of the bigot^xiii is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine on it, the more it will contract."^xiv) Too often what we think is true is more important than what is true. Even if what we think is true was drummed into us by someone with an ax to grind.

It's nice to believe that all we've been taught is true. It's nice to believe that all of those who would provide us with the truth know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Too much of what we “know” has been programmed into us either by people who know less than we, but who had custody of our minds before we understood that we could question them, or those who have a vested interest in our accepting what they have to say, whether it relates to politics, advertising, propaganda, or something else.

In short, the time will come when scientists (presumably working on behalf of the government) will be able to load us with the desired “software” to be good servants of the State. We'll be properly educated to believe and to know everything our leaders want us to know. But even before that, our educational system, and a host of other interested parties, will teach us their truths – their catechism. And everyone will learn – whether it is their intention or not to do so. All, especially the young, are very open to whatever they are told. They are open-minded, and they fault their elders for not accepting new ideas. But as James Randi said, “There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out.” And for too many the exposed brain can be washed and the permitted knowledge inserted. That's what will happen if we let it.

But Winston Smith^xv showed us that this doesn't have to be the case. For at least part of his life he was not obedient, even though he had been taught that following the rules made life easier, and disobedience would lead to punishment, he didn't submit to the party and accept the “facts” he was told. He questioned them. And that is what the rest of us can do. If something that we are taught doesn't seem right, it may not be right. And if something we have always accepted seems wrong, it may be wrong.^xvi We can still fight political and societal “truths,” however, if we choose to do so – if we question them and determine their veracity.

But the questioning and the evaluation of new (and old) information is up to us. The learning of the facts that govern us and on which we base our thoughts is certainly a function of education. ^xvii But another function of education is to teach us to question what we are told. When we stop questioning – when we lose the ability and interest in questioning – we will have lost any chance to form correct and meaningful thoughts.^xviii “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” But if the “truths” are false, they shall enslave you. Soon enough, the authorities you don't question will be able to determine your thoughts and make them correspond to what is desired. And what is desired will be determined by the the bureaucrats, regulators, and civil servants and whoever controls them. They will monitor what you think, and they will control what you do. Доверяй, но проверяй – “Trust but verify.” President Reagan^xix may have been concerned specifically with its application to American foreign policy, but it's good advice for all of us.

“If not now, when?”^xx

Next episode: “A La Whatever” – Food for thought.

i         Future science.

ii        “Wrong” is a loaded word – both in terms of factual accuracy and cultural or philosophical acceptability. Who decides such things? How is the culture in which a child is reared (or in which an adult lives) a determining factor in “rightness” or “wrongness?”

iii      They know more than their parents anyway, so there's no real loss.

iv       Parents are simultaneously horrified that their children are learning about sex from their friends (juvenile delinquents with dirty minds), and relieved that the need to have “that talk” no longer exists.

v       And like nothing. Of course our parents didn't share our taste in music either.

vi       Given the choice between natural and unnatural potatoes, which would you choose? And “organic” used to mean that something contained carbon.

vii       Or don't learn.

viii     The FDA has just issued a warning that “antibacterial soaps” have never been demonstrated to be useful, and they may actually do more harm than good by fostering the growth of resistant forms.

ix      The cosmetics usually contain some amazing ingredients like prune oil, vitamin Q, and some unspellable scientific-sounding material that the hucksters try to convince us is the answer to all the ravages of time. The “expert” in the television advertisement will be wearing a white coat, and the “delighted” consumer will usually be a beautiful model.

x       See Tuck And Cover, October 11, 2010.

xi      Actually, good chicken soup is the best cure for almost anything. But it has no medicinal effect on a cold or anything else.

xii     Most medical authorities consider them a waste of money and, in large quantities, potentially harmful. But what do they know? The vitamin salesman knows best.

xiii     He said “bigot,” but the same truth applies to anyone absolutely convinced that he is right about something.

xiv      Conspiracy theories abound. There are so many things that “THEY” are doing to us and that “THEY” don't want us to know.

xv       See 1984 by George Orwell.

xvi     Even worse, we may be taught something that seems right but is wrong. Or we may have such a belief from childhood.

xvii    Much – but not all – of what we are taught is true, but,

xviii   It's also important to consider the reliability of the source. Too often we are given a biased source as “proof” of the validity of a particular claim. A comparison of different perspectives may be revealing, but it's often the case that we accept what we already believe and reject anything that disagrees with it.

xix     Citing a Russian proverb.

xx      Hillel. Pirke Avot, 1:14.