Impossible Choice

I recently joked about the possibility of writing in the name of Vermin Supreme or Harry Truman for President. It may have been amusing then, but I'm not laughing now.

I heard on the radio yesterday that Donald Trump had the number of delegates he needed to secure the Republican nomination, and that he had accepted a challenge to debate from Senator Sanders. Secretary Clinton (or perhaps her staff) had miscalculated the significance of a similar challenge from the Senator and had dismissed it, viewing her dominant position in the quest for the Democratic nomination as more important, and not wishing to be placed in a situation where an error might threaten her lead. And by ignoring his bid she also indicated a view that she didn't see him as a serious contender for the nomination, one on whom she wished to waste her time.

Her decision was a mistake. She'll still win the nomination, but in the interim he will have had a national pulpit on which to air his views to the American people. Both of the debaters will be populists with large, loyal, and fanatical followings, with throngs ready to cheer at anything they say. I consider the Senator's views as both irresponsible and unworkable, but in contrast to Mr. Trump, whose ideas (at least the very few he's seen to have) are even more reprehensible, he's likely to earn increased support from the mob he's already attracted, as well as some who have not yet settled on a candidate.

That means that the ideological gap among our voters is likely to increase. Secretary Clinton will be forced to move her positions – at least those she's willing to express, whether truthfully or not – to the left, as a sop to those who have rallied behind the Senator. Similarly, the Democratic platform will be pushed in that direction. That's not necessarily the choice of all Democrats, but it's the reality of a polarized election.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who is not viewed as conservative enough by many in the constituency he hopes to attract, will probably move rightward. And it's likely that he'll become more stentorian as he does so, but he'll also try to sound more presidential, if his handlers can convince him to do so. It's also likely that backing off a little will ease the concerns of the leaders of our allies and adversaries, many of whom are baffled by someone who seems to utter decisions without thought (perhaps that's the way he got into a debate with Senator Sanders).

It's a little late for a third party, and they never do well anyway, so we're stuck with a choice of extremes – a (n ex-) Secretary of who has been accused of exposing state secrets to those who might hack her secret computer, and a reality-show host who probably couldn't keep a secret if tried – he'd rather shout it out; two egotists whose goal is to win, irrespective of the effects on the country and Constitution to which they swear loyalty. It's a lose-lose situation. And we're the big losers.

It's time to look ahead with our 2020 vision. Let's hope America survives. At least with Vermin Supreme I'd get a pony to ride off into the sunset.

Uncivil War

Today's New York Times, on the Op-Ed page, features an essay by Charles Blow entitled “Election From Hell.” Tangentially he was discussing the likely match up in November, but he did so in the context of a battle for the Governorship of Louisiana in nineteen-ninety one. As he depicted the election, it was very much like the one we face – two dysfunctional candidates, Edwin Edwards and David Duke, were struggling to convince the people that they were more qualified to lead than their opponent. 

In the end there was one winner and many losers. The losers were not only the second-place candidate, but the people of Louisiana. They survived, although ultimately Edwards, the “winner,” was indicted for corruption and served time in prison for his crimes. (He was also a television personality on A & E network. It was a “reality” show.)

It's interesting that, through all his trials, Governor [Edwin – the current Governor is John Bel Edwards who is no relation] Edwards has retained his popularity among the good citizens of Louisiana.

Mr. Blow used his experience as a voter in that Gubernatorial election as a springboard to the writing of his essay, suggesting that there were multiple similarities between the two elections. Indeed, noting the unpopularity of the two current probable Presidential candidates, Mr. Blow's commentary struck a frightening chord. It will be a terrifying battle won by the lesser of the evils – the candidate less disliked – irrespective of qualifications. More frightening, however, is the possibility that Senator Sanders will find a way to gain the Democratic Party nomination. Pitting his violent mob against Mr. Trump's could well initiate a Civil War. Been there, done that. And it was ugly.

Of interest, according to Wikipedia Edwards legally changed his name to “None of the Above.” He wasn't the first to do so, but it's enough to make you think.

None Of The Above

When the presidential election of 2016 takes place in November, my older son has informed me that he intends to write in the name of (extraordinarily) dark horse candidate Vermin (Love) Supreme. This isn't Supreme's first rodeo, having run for president on several occasions in the past. Admittedly he hasn't done well, but he is persistent. His platform includes

1. Mandatory tooth-brushing laws ("Gingivitis has been eroding the gum line of this great nation of ours for long enough and must be stopped.");

2. Time travel research ("I'm the only candidate who is willing to fully fund time travel, go back in time and kill baby Hitler with my bare hands before he's even born.");

3. Zombie preparedness ("I am the only candidate who has a plan to protect America from the imminent zombie invasion and I will be harnessing the awesome power of zombies to create electric energy utilizing the latest in giant hamster wheel technology."); and

4. Free ponies for all Americans ("A federal pony identification system and you must have your pony with you at all times.").

I recently saw a comment by a college classmate of my wife's (his name is Steve Berger, Brandeis 1959) – an opinion piece that commented on the upcoming suffrage (and sufferage). It reads

Several of you have commented on the (November presidential) election. My advice is get an absentee ballot and do a write-in for Harry Truman on the grounds that Harry dead is better than any of the bunch of them alive.

It was written a while back, when there were more candidates in the main parties, but, while on the surface they are ludicrous, both of the opinions expressed reflect the general anxiety of voters. There is no lesser of evils. Both of those likely to be candidates represent a threat to our country: one is acting like a populist – a “loose cannon” – whose primary goal is to stir up the fury of the masses, and the other is seen as someone with overweening ambition– a “liar” – whose only goal is to be elected, irrespective of what it takes. But how will that affect the rest of us?

We'll be faced with a choice between two politicians with vastly different styles: one, an inexperienced billionaire who speaks (and, I fear, will act) without thinking. In frontier tradition, he shoots first and asks questions afterward. He lacks a filter, which is very appealing to the frustrated who share his views but, until now, haven't had the nerve to utter them. He presents no practical plan for implementing his policies. Indeed, he presents relatively little in terms of what his policies are. His campaign is primarily aimed at acting macho. He is adored by some members of his own party who have all but made him the nominee. But the majority of that party, and most of the independents and members of the other party fear what he might do. And with no political experience, there is great concern that he will also act without thinking when dealing with leaders of other nations, as well as with our own.

The likely nominee of the other party, only a millionaire, tends to lead from behind – finding the issues that will sell best, and building a campaign around catering to the voters. She's an experienced politician, and has no compunctions about raising funds from those she will publicly attack, although it is not clear that her verbal assaults aren't simply window-dressing and that she might not serve their needs if elected. Past performance suggests a propensity for position changes and “spinning” that are the cause of great apprehension by voters. She, too, is seen negatively by the majority of voters. And her primary fight with a socialist (also a populist but at the other end of the spectrum from the one already described – and also a man without practical and implementable policies) has pushed her away from the center she hoped to conquer.

Our current President vowed to bring us together, yet we're probably as polarized as we've been in a long time, and he has some responsibility for that. Dangerous masses support both candidates, and any rescue by a third-party candidate with reasonable policies and with integrity seems unlikely. It appears that it will be necessary to tolerate a President we fear for one or two terms, and to hope that our nation will survive and return to its senses after that. Let's hope it does.

In the meantime, we can hope for execution of the Supreme dental health mandate and bite the bullet. But, in view of the current rhetoric, we can only hope it's not really a bullet.

If I Were A Rich Man

A certain kind of rich man afflicted with the symptoms of moral dandyism sooner or later comes to the conclusion that it isn't enough merely to make money. He feels obliged to hold views, to espouse causes and elect Presidents, to explain to a trembling world how and why the world went wrong. -Lewis H. Lapham, editor and writer.

Unfortunately, that's not the whole story. Too often he begins to believe that he actually knows something. Something beyond what it was that helped him make (or inherit) money. And others believe it, too. His self-delusion is shared by those yearning to be like him.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes! (From Fiddler on the Roof, lyrics by Sheldon Harnick)

That's the problem. If you're rich, people think you know something, and so do you. And if you're rich you can afford a platform from which to proclaim your message.

That's not the only platform of course. Friends, Romans and countrymen eagerly lend their ears to those whom they admire – very often stars in entertainment, or heroic athletes. For some reason we automatically attribute wisdom to those we idolize, even if for reasons completely unrelated to the issue in question.

What's in a name? Everything. People buy Air Jordans^®; they take beauty advice from super models, and political advice from movie stars. Sometimes a familiar name and an admired personality can attract followers. We're a wannabe society and we imitate those who are rich or beautiful or famous. Sometimes, though not very often, the famous are also wise. Ronald Reagan's popularity won him the governorship of California and, with the experience and platform that office gave him, he moved up to the Presidency, and did reasonably well for our country in that position. Most of the time, however, prominence or stardom is unassociated with good sense. (Think Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, and Dennis Rodman.)

And, while also often lacking good sense, the media control people's thinking on a wide variety of subjects. They have the broadest platform of all, and even though most people claim that they don't trust journalists and the press, their sources of information – right or wrong – sway voters. As do those with loud voices.

We're easily influenced. We may claim to be independent thinkers, but if we hear something often enough and loud enough we believe it. And if what we hear is something we already believe, if our biases are confirmed, we become deaf to counter-arguments, no matter how logical they may be. In a time of dissatisfaction, a populist with a loud voice becomes the spokesman for the disillusioned; and the means for advertising his opinion – money, notoriety, and a loud voice, for example – trump experience, tact, and wisdom. He thinks he has all the answers, and his followers believe him.

And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!

Sheldon Harnick was as much a philosopher as a lyricist. And he was certainly a perceptive viewer of human nature. Hidden in his homily about the situation in eastern Europe so much earlier, he described a danger to American society; indeed, a reality about all societies. It is our assumption that those who succeed – or are believed to have succeeded – know everything, and that we know nothing. But some of those “successes” are the know-nothings. And if we can get beyond our own disillusionment, we can see that.

Super Tuesday

Yesterday was “Super Tuesday,” and the nomination process is all but over. That the two main candidates, Clinton and Trump, may both be indicted, didn't affect their momentum. Should legal actions be undertaken (Trump for fraud in his on-line university and Clinton for illegal e-mail practices and lying to the American People) both will probably claim that it's all political, and will use it to stir up the masses against the system. Trump certainly will, and in no uncertain terms, but Clinton will have to be a little more subtle about the message, since it will reflect on the government of which she was a part. I'm certain, though, that she'll find a way.

They have similarities, but also big differences. Both have been faulted for statements they have made, but while Clinton tries to explain them away, Trump glories in them and brags about them. Clinton wears her heart on her sleeve, bemoaning the plight of the underprivileged, and appealing to the numerous interest groups that view government as the answer to all their difficulties, while Trump wears his hate on his sleeve. His appeal is to all those whose interest is in America's strength – however that is viewed by others. In fact he would exclude all others. Both are populists, though their constituencies are very different. Those favoring Trump are ignorant and bigoted, and they don't care, as long as America is strong and proud. The supporters of Clinton's campaign are also ignorant, but believe themselves to be intellectuals. They are embarrassed by their country and can only see its faults – or what they consider its faults. And they're quick to point out what they view as the defects of other countries – defects which reflect more their own bigotry than the flaws they project on those countries. They represent parties that are becoming more polarized, at the end of a regime that promised to bring us all together.

I was speaking to my sons about the situation a few days ago and both mentioned the possibility of leaving our country. They foresaw disaster irrespective of which of them might win. (And Bernie Sanders would also be a frightening possibility.) It's hard to know how serious they are, but it's hard to dismiss what they said out of hand. I'm too old to start a new life somewhere else so, concerned as I might be, leaving isn't really an option. And, I suspect, there are millions of other Americans who are equally troubled by the candidates likely to be on the ballot.

A solution that has been proposed is a third party effort. Typically, third parties don't get a majority (and typically mayors of New York City go no further politically). Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated this problem as, more recently, did Strom Thurmond and Ross Perot. There's no reason to think it would be any different this time. But all of them siphoned votes from other candidates and won electoral votes for themselves. Wilson only won in 1912 when he was chosen by the Electoral College after earning what was a minority of the popular vote. Michael Bloomberg has floated the possibility of running such a campaign, and were he to do well enough it might mean that the decision becomes the responsibility of the College. Perhaps practical electors will rethink the ideological issues and the populism, and compromise on a candidate less tainted by them. Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg has both experience in government and in business and economics. And he is far less caught up in polarized ideology than either of the other candidates. At the very least, a respectable showing would send a strong message to the winner.

The times are frightening. We face an election that is likely to split our people as never before. The only positive feature is that old party loyalties will be rethought by many who would be unable to vote for their party's offering. Unfortunately, that positive feature is not enough to justify the cost to our country – both locally and in world opinion.

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.