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

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.

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.

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.

Between Jobs

                                                                                       

As I write this, we – or at least the Roman Catholics among us – are in an interregnum (that, however, doesn't seem to be the right word). By the time you read it, though, a new Pope will probably have been elected.

Elected.

That also seems like a funny word. While “elected” is often understood to mean “chosen by G-d,” in this instance it is the College of Cardinals that is doing the choosing. Perhaps they're working under His direction, however the discussion seems to be more about management than sanctity. Should the position be entrusted to one of the Old Guardⁱ or to a reformer? There's little discussion about saintliness or miracles.ⁱⁱ There seems to be more attention paid to politics than theology.

Many religions do not accept any distinction between secular and religious law. There is G-d, but not Caesar. Consequently some governments hold this view. The American perspective is different. Our Constitution, in the First Amendment, forbade Congress from making any law regarding the establishment of a state religion, and many have interpreted the meaning of this stricture more widely. They consider any law regarding religion, or any action by the state which may be seen to help all religions as violating what Jefferson termed “a wall of separation between Church & State.”ⁱⁱⁱ The amendment, however, only deals with the establishment of a single official faith. In any event, any politician whose faith deviates from normative “American Protestantism” is looked upon with some suspicion. Indeed, when John Kennedy ran for President he had to state that he would not let his (Catholic) religion influence his political decisions, and there cannot be much doubt that his election would have been far easier had he been a Protestant.

The choice of a religious leader, however, follows different rules. There is an assumption of faith in all of the candidates, although each may understand the requirements of that faith somewhat differently from the others. And no one declaims or disclaims any political views – at least not publicly. We all have views on a wide variety of different subjects and it is unrealistic to believe that our decisions will not be molded based on everything we have been taught and everything we have experienced before. We cannot separate ourselves from any aspect of our beliefs, whether they be social, political, or religious, and we are fooling ourselves if we think we can.

Absent events like those leading to the election of Pope Fabian in the third century of the common era, the new Pontiff will be chosen by fallible humans based on what are primarily political concerns. As his predecessor was a man of unshakable faith, so must the new Pope be. But the man elected will have a political agenda along with a religious one. We can only hope that the choice will be well-advised and the new Pope will guide his “flock” with faith, love, and wisdom. We can be sure he'll have political savvy as well.

i      Not the Swiss Guard, but a supporter of the Roman Curia – one favoring “inside” control of the Church.

ii     Although many think it will be a miracle if the new Pope can make the scandals of the past disappear.

iii    The quotation appears in a letter that Jefferson sent to “a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.” The letter dates from 1802.

Politics As Usual

 

Conservatives and Liberals: they're all the same. Both Democrats and Republicans have been found to violate ethics standards; both engage in sexual abuse and extra-marital affairs. But that's because they're human; it has nothing to do with politics. Politicians are just interested in scoring points and getting elected.ⁱ The policies they claim to support are simply those they think will help in their quests. It's a problem for those who really believe in the policies.

Those in office press legislation that is likely to sound appealing to voters irrespective of the content of the bills. In fact, the congressional supporters may not even be aware of what is in the bills, but they're willing to back them in exchange for votes for their own legislation, for the inclusion of earmarks bringing benefits to their own constituents, or because there is a need to support the party position. Those out of office oppose any such legislation although they, too, may be completely unaware of the contents of the bills. It's a rare member of the opposition who will support a government initiative “on principle.” At the moment it is Democrats who are supporting proposals which are long, complex, and confusing, and though they may containing local or personal benefits, they are likely to be expensive, and, in the long run, short on the values they claim to promote. Many of them are unpopular for these reasons.ⁱⁱ And the Republicans oppose virtually any proposal by the Administration ostensibly for these reasons, but more likely in order to stymie any action which may benefit their opponents. As was recently said by a commentator,ⁱⁱⁱ if the Democrats favored motherhood,^iv the Republicans would oppose it. The same kind of behavior would hold, of course, if their roles were reversed.

But they're the only game in town. The various “third” parties usually have no chance of winning, or of governing if, by some miracle, they won. Not that it really matters. The middle level people – the “functionaries” – are the only ones who get anything done and they have no interest in official policy, only in what is likely to benefit or interest them and ensure their continuity in what are tenured positions. It really doesn't matter who is in office, except to those running for election.^v

That's a cynical position. I know that. But each time there is a new President or Congress it blames its failures on its predecessors and claims any successes for itself. And it winds up doing pretty much the same as that which preceded it. That's certainly true of the President who, during the campaign, may have sworn to make changes in the Government, but whose actions, when in office, usually mimic those of the previous President. That's not surprising. It's easier to make claims when you have no responsibility; and the desire to score points encourages such behavior.

That's the way our democracy works. Conservatives and Liberals have a lot in common. But many of our policies will remain unchanged irrespective of who's in charge. Typically these are foreign policy issues, however even some of our social policies have taken on lives of their own and their continuance is assured. We rant a lot and demand change, but fortunately we have one of the world's most stable governments, even if we are very negative about it.

The only solution is to be more positive and to play the hand we were dealt. It's a good one that really should please us. And it would if we took it more seriously. Not enough of us vote because not enough of us care. In reality, I'm not sure the result would be any different if there were greater participation, but it's worth a try. The Founding Fathers set a course for us that may not be perfect, but it seems to work.^vi And despite our efforts to change everything, our democracy is holding up. We've tried all kinds of changes, toward more conservative and more liberal, but we come back to the same overall policies no matter who's in charge. Maybe we've tried too hard to change and not hard enough to follow our original principles. Perhaps we should return to them.

It's worth a try. We've exhausted the alternatives.

Next episode: “Lessay Fare” – That's easy for me to say.

i      As well, of course, as their general human interests in the earthly pleasures.

ii     Who knows what it will be after Election Day.

iii    I don't remember who it was, but I heard it on the radio. It's got to be true.

iv    This is not the best place to discuss abortion policies.

v    They tell us it's critical to us, but the only change that will occur if they're elected is that they get the paycheck and the note on their resumé. It really won't help us at all.

vi    The main interest of the political parties is in the Funding Fathers.  They have little interest in the Founding Fathers.