The More Things Change

“All that the Lord has said, we will do and we will hear.” Na'aseh v'nishma. That was what the Jewish people said at Sinai when they received the law. They agreed to follow the law that G-d had set for them before they fully knew or understood what it entailed.

G-d was – and is – a populist. Perhaps we don't comprehend the meaning of all the laws He has ordained, but that's not important. It's more important that we abide by His teachings irrespective of our discernment of their meaning. We follow G-d and do whatever He prescribes for us. And that, pretty much, is a description of what a populist is. It is an “individual” whose words and commands are accepted unconditionally.

Populism isn't a new phenomenon, even if we tend to think of it as such. But there are different kinds of populists: G-d decrees laws which will improve us – His goal is for us to improve our lot by following Him – but the majority of populists have a different aim. A populist's purpose is to improve his own lot by attracting a following. So he caters to its wishes when formulating his own appeal. And he convinces them of his sincerity using the oratorical talents he has perfected; he convinces them that the ideas are his own – that he believes in them (as, indeed, he might) and that he will turn them into fact. As a result the word itself has taken on negative connotations because most populists have used their rhetorical skills primarily to excite the crowd for their own purposes.

The main goal of most of them is to acquire power, and the path is usually a challenge of existing authority. There are times when those who follow the new leader are the majority, and times when it is the aim of such a leader to inspire a minority – to mobilize them in order to overwhelm a less motivated, or even apathetic, majority. Most – but not all – are rabble-rousers although, as I said, their aims may differ. Huey Long was a populist. But so were Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who, along with their "indiscretions," introduced leftist reforms in Argentina. Marine Le Pen is quite the opposite – a right-wing populist in France who may some day serve as her country's president. And Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both populists. (Actually all politicians – indeed, everybody else as well – are. They want to be popular. They want you to like them, to vote for them, and to do what they say.) Their techniques and styles may be different, but their aims are similar. Brexit and Occupy Wall Street, different as they may have been, had, in common, that they were populist movements. Goals and likely results may not have been clearly defined, but that was of no consequence to true believers. 
 

Populists are convinced they're right, and they convince others of the same thing. There are some who are intent on improving conditions for those they rule, and others whose only concern is the religious fervor that motivates them and which takes precedence over any human concerns. Nonetheless, however, a commandment not to kill is much more beneficial than an order to kill anyone who disagrees with the leader; protecting refugees is far preferable to using the problem of refugees stir up emotions, so the inspiration of the people may be for good or evil.

People are the same. They haven't changed. But tools have. We can now do things that we wanted to do before but couldn't, for a variety of reasons. While only a few could be reached in the past, and even fewer at one time, the availability of electronic media makes the mesmerization of the masses a reality now. And its use is expanding rapidly. It was first used as an important means of communication by Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose radio “Fireside” chats (he made them from his desk, to citizens wherever they were sitting) mimicked the words of a deity to those who wanted to believe, and inspired their fealty and cooperation. And even more recently, television, the internet, and social media make it possible to inform and rally larger numbers and more quickly.

The media (and everyone else) view Donald Trump as a populist. And he is. He'eshardly the first, however. And while others may see his actions as divisive and contrary to the virtue of diversity (actually “diversity” implies division and difference), he sees himself as representing a forgotten group of citizens whose needs have been ignored by “the establishment.” And he uses the media, including the electronic media, to spread his message. Where others see the term as a negative description, he considers his actions as far more positive.

But doing the old things costs a lot more nowadays. There was much criticism of Donald Trump: that he was rich and able to buy the election. But, in fact, he and the Republican Party spent far less than Secretary Clinton. And many hundreds of millions less than President Obama in the two prior campaigns.

And a third way in which the tools have changed while the goals have not. Now we have more psychologists, consultants, “spin doctors,” and public relations gurus to help people get their messages across, and accepted by others. (People can also be tools.)

G-d was an early populist, but the people chose to obey His commands because He had already produced for them. He had given them reason to trust Him. He had taken them out of Egypt and performed miracles on their behalf.  His actions inspired them to follow His words.

Since then, however, loyalty has been based on promises of improvement rather than accomplishments. But the people are looking for those accomplishments. They have great expectations of what their government will do for them. So if those expectations aren't met they become willing converts to the preaching of someone who promises change and better things. And that's what people want and have always wanted: better things. Methods may have changed but that has remained the same.

The Big Tent

Our government is a circus. Three rings – all controlled by political ideology and the vying for media attention and for voter approval. Sadly, apart from the public relations aspect of the system, there is little concern by our government about the repercussions of what they do – the unintended consequences. If our leaders can convince voters that their efforts are in the public interest, meriting their votes next time around, it does not matter if their claims are true. They accomplish the purpose for which they are designed – just like the clowns they are.

Blaming the politicians, however, shifts attention away from those who are really corrupting the system – the protesters who demand benefits for all “oppressed” people. It sounds virtuous, but the loudest advocates have concern only for the impressionable folks they can stimulate – the Big Top's audience. They either understand and support the likely outcome of the proposals, or haven't considered them and really don't care what they are. The laws they introduce are among the greatest causes of unintended, and almost always detrimental, consequences that society faces. And so much of it is for show – the show they present under the big tent.

The Big Tent. It used to be a designation of the Republican Party – who could never make it work – but it is, perhaps, more appropriate to see it now as an instrument of the liberals. Designed to house all of those who have complaints, the only thing necessary is the assertion of oppression. Surely no one would lie about that. And no one would lie about misfortune. So if some complain about unemployment, illness, racism, police brutality, the one percent, or anything else, they must be telling the truth, and our society must be corrupt.

It only takes one complaint and it's national news. The loud complaint of one squeaky wheel ignites the media and the clowns. True or not, there will be many who are sympathetic of whoever claims to have been oppressed by society. It's a movement. And the politicians will express horror at the injustice that has been done. Proof is unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is a new program designed to correct such inequity. Damn the cost of such a program (or of all the necessary programs). It gets votes.

It's usually the same crowd of people who are protesting every time. And it's in part a matter of politics as well as “justice.” Each group that is vocally supported is directed into the big tent for direction on how to vote in the next election. The big tent winds up containing numerous interest groups which have little in common except for perceived (and their perceptions are sometimes valid) injustice, and a ringmaster who offers (but often can't, or won't provide) relief from all their miseries.

And the public buys in. We're all in favor of virtue in the form of justice for all our citizens. We all want the best for everyone – even those who are simply looking for a handout. And we're happy to pay for it all. Cost doesn't matter. (It's all in taxes anyway so we won't see it now. The theory is that the rich will pay for socialism, and it won't hurt me. So I can afford to be virtuous.) Equality. It's the American way.

Our magnanimity doesn't only involve those around us. It extends to our children, grandchildren, and the generations that follow them. And inspired by the protectors of our land, the enironmentalists, a goup devoted to protecting our “heritage,” we have come to favor the acquisition of more and more land to be incorporated into our National Park system. The land may be State property or under State jurisdiction, but we're ecstatic when the Federal government buys it, or acquires it otherwise, because it will give those who follow us the opportunity to visit the parks and see what a wonderful land we have. (That the vast majority of us haven't done so ourselves, and have no interest in doing so, is not relevent. And the reality that only the rich could afford to do so is also of no importance.) We owe it to our children to protect the land, not withstanding the costof doing so – to secure it for ourselves and to provide services and security for it now and in the future. It isn't just the virtue of protecting our sites and sights, a big tent should include environmentalists along with the other constiruencies.

And we also support those who protect endangered species – even at the cost of jobs and tax-paying industry. In the meantime – as we admire them from our seats, we'd do well to free the animals in the nation's circuses – we're profiting at their expense. (Of course the same logic would justify ridding our National Circus – our government – of the paying customers – taxpayers, because the management is profiting at their expense.)

But the idea that all interest groups should be gathered together to elect a government that will provide for them is contrary to our goals – if those elected actually do what they promise – an unlikely premise. As I write this (May 17, 2017) our national debt is approaching 20 trillion dollars. Add to that the cost of new programs and new land acquisitions and the debt will be much higher. When we talk about leaving a heritage of land to our children we ignore the heritage of debt we leave to them (indeed we add to it) – debt that politicians are happy to incur in order to get votes from those in the big tent.

However a tent has a high top, and the government that rules us has a high tolerance for debt that will be someone else's problem. Those seeking office fill their campaign balloons with all the promises they need to attract the voting public into their tent. But the balloons are also filled with helium and hot air and rise above the reach of those present. They're as helpful and healthful as the junk food at a circus. We'll glow now and feel the deleterious effects later. But they're well worth the cost when you consider that we're looking at the greatest show on earth.

And those in the big tent have chosen the performers.

May 17, 2017

Various Revelations/Ideas V

Boy am I arrogant. I viewed my ideas and the various thoughts I have as “revelations.” They're not, of course. Merely my uncertainties. That's the reason for the placement of “Ideas” along with “Revelations.” Next time around I'll drop the latter altogether but I thought I'd keep it for this transition piece – also, as usual, a hodge-podge of thoughts that I'm too lazy to convert into full essays.

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

On the back page of the first section of yesterday's New York Times is an ad for the “Nest Learning Thermostat.” it reads: “Global warming is a lot of hot air.” That's true, but a little misleading. From the point of view of denotation it's absolutely correct, but “hot air” has a connotation – “false bluster” – that strikes me as totally inappropriate to the message of the ad which is

Today and every day, our mission at Nest is to create a home that takes care of the people inside it. And the world around it.

Sounds noble, but the debate is political as well as scientific, and mixing metaphors, or whatever Nest is doing, doesn't help. But it may sell thermostats. And, after all, that's the reason they invested in a full-page advertisement.

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

Also in yesterday's Times was a 35 column-inch (actually it was much larger when you add in the headlines and pictures) on the race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska – a city of great importance to New Yorkers. Featured in the story were Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate, and Bernie Sanders who, though not a Democrat, involves himself greatly in Democratic politics and prides himself on his populist approach to party members. The article focused of abortion and the economy, two subjects of interest to Nebraska voters.

Interestingly, the article, which began on the front page of the Times (above the fold) neglected to mention the name of his opponent, Jean Stothert, Omaha's mayor, and the winner of the first round of the election. I suspect that in an article as long and as prominently placed as this one the editors could have found room to include this information for their readers.

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

A final thought relates to Jewish law. A group large enough to pray together is called a minyan. It consists of ten male Jews above the age of thirteen. How this definition came about is not the point of my mental maunderings and I won't pursue it.

Imagine, though, a situation in which the rabbi walked into a synagogue and saw a woman sitting among the men. Her outfit was tznius (modest) and her sheitel (wig) lovely. All appeared to be in accordance with Jewish law. But she was sitting in the men's section and counting her and the rabbi there were ten. When questioned “she” insisted that she was a man by birth but identified more with women than men, and dressed accordingly. No surgery had been performed and “her” sex could be confirmed. No one else came.

Because of the requests to say Kaddish (a prayer in remembrance of the dead) a decision has to be made as to whether there is a minyan present. At most non-orthodox synagogues women are counted, if there is a requirement for a minyan at all. But not here and the question exists. Should the “woman” be counted? She is certainly a man and eligible according to law, but her dress suggests a rejection of her status. And the question of maris ayin ("appearance to the eye") has to be considered as well.

I suspect this idle thought has already been considered by those in the know but I'm not one or them. So, in the meanwhile, I can imagine.

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

A few more IDEAS next time.

April 23, 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.

Never Amazed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rest In Peace

A few days ago, on the Op Ed page of the New York Times, there was a column by Gail Collins entitled The Senate Bathroom Angle. In it Ms. Collins related the tribulations of Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. (It will be soon be former senator, Mikulski having retired after four terms representing her state.) The senator bewailed the lack of adequate rest rooms for women in the Senate and the column's author, in fact, noted that “Almost every veteran woman legislator, in every level of government, has a story about the shortage of bathroom facilities at work.”

It's a valid criticism. When the original government was formulated, and when the government buildings were first designed, the idea of women in the government was not on the radar (and neither was radar). In relation to the particular situation, no one conceived of the idea that there might be a woman senator. So no rest rooms were included to meet the needs of a group of people that no one expected to exist. There were, of course, facilities ultimately constructed to serve senators' wives, and for tourists, but none for woman legislators. The public rooms, and the one meant for Senate wives, became the place for female senators to rest.

But with increasing numbers – about a fifth of all senators now are women, and it's likely to increase – a more fitting solution was necessary, and, in its wisdom, Congress authorized a rest room with two stalls to satisfy the women, and perhaps there will be more. Wait and see. But in the meantime, just wait.

It doesn't seem adequate, but perhaps it's excessive.

The same issue of the Times held an article entitled North Carolina Fails To Repeal Measure That Caused Boycotts. It lamented the fact that North Carolina didn't overturn legislation (H. B. 2) that “requires transgender people [and everyone else] in public buildings to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender [sex] on their birth certificate.” It's a touchy subject.

Elsewhere in the article it notes “Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, which opposed H. B. 2 and helped to organize the economic backlash to the law, said on Twitter that Mr. Berger's measure 'doubles down on discrimination … '” (Phil Berger is a state senator who had offered a compromise bill.) The Human Rights Campaign, which has, as its motto “Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights,” had this to say about Senator Mikulski: Sen. Mikulski received a 100% rating on the HRC Scorecard for the 113th Congress. The scorecard rates members of Congress on their positions on LGBT-related legislation.

With the knowledge that Congress is a government institution, and is housed in public buildings, I cannot but wonder that the senator sought additional, and separate, rest room facilities for women. Senator Mikulski's support for LGBT positions in the past suggests that a better solution from her point of view would be an elimination of the entire notion of sex-limited rest room facilities, and I'm inclined to believe that even for Senators and Representatives there is no reason why “people in public buildings [should have to] use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate.” Whether they're LGBT or not isn't the issue, and making it such is a disservice to the public that Congress serves.

It's a foreign concept I suppose, but shouldn't our representatives have to follow the same rules that they say should govern the rest of us?

I Pass

I have the vague feeling that I've written this already, but I can't find it among previous essays so I'll try again. I can think of three plausible explanations for this problem: the first is that I never wrote it. Perhaps I painstakingly worked out the details mentally but never wrote it down. Or, as an alternative scenario, it's possible that I actually wrote it down, but not in any of my essays. I could have written notes for a future blog or worked out the whole thing but recorded it somewhere else.

The third possibility is that I wrote it out in one of my previous essay, but simply can't remember where or when. I lost it. Because I'm losing it. (I know that is happening.) Unfortunately this seems to me to be the most likely explanation for what happened. Which leaves you to pay for it. (In fact if that's what happened, just you wait. I'll repeat my absentmindedness – euphemism for the real situation – and you'll pay for it again.) So if it looks familiar, please forgive me. (And if you know where it comes from, please let me know. I'll be your best friend forever. Or at least until Tuesday.) Chances are good, however, that no matter what the explanation, it won't affect very many people since very few read my words. I'm talking to myself.

In any event, with the presidential election coming soon, I wanted to comment on voting possibilities. As you probably know, I oppose both major party candidates. That leaves me with only limited choices and I'd like to outline and discuss them.

The first possibility (of three – parallels my mental state, doesn't it?) is to let the election pass without voting. If I can't vote for either of them in good conscience, why should I? How can I support someone whose views are anathema to me, whatever the reason for doing so. The major problem for me with that approach is that I subscribe to the obligation to vote. It's my civic duty. Corny as it sounds, I accept that. And since so few Americans vote, my absence from the polls won't be noticed, and it won't have any effect. It's a wasted non-vote. It's not the wasted vote that so many would consider it.

Another plausible response is to choose the lesser of the evils. There's no question in my mind that both of the candidates are poor choices, but perhaps one is worse than the other. However supporting the lesser of evils requires me to support evil. And, as I asked above, how can I support someone whose views are anathema to me – even if the views of the other are even more so? Voting for someone whose loss would please me really is a wasted vote. He or she might actually win.

It's not all that appealing, but there is another choice. It's a loser and I know it, but it gives me a chance to protest and be heard while remaining within the system. Voting for a third party makes a public statement that I consider the two main candidates to be unfit for the office. It's quite unlikely that anyone will believe such a vote to be a positive statement about the individual chosen because, frankly, so little is known about any but the candidates of the major parties. So if enough people opt for third party candidates the message of dissatisfaction will be heard, and may yet have some effect on the actions of whoever wins. Or it may have an effect on candidates and policies in the next election. It's even conceivable, even if unlikely, that some state may be won by such a candidate and both major party candidates deprived of a majority. I doubt that such a possibility will occur, but it would be very instructive for the candidates, the government, and the people, if the House of Representatives debated the issue and had the responsibility of choosing the next president.

And that's the option I shall choose. I'd prefer voting for a major party candidate whom I could, in good conscience, support, but since that alternative doesn't exist this time around, I can only place country above party and reject them both by selecting third-party candidates.

The ticket for me will be Johnson and Weld. How about you?

Who's Worse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ya' Wanna' Know What I Think?

Probably not. But I won't let that stop me.

There's no end of polls. You can't open up a newspaper without seeing the results of the latest survey of our opinion. They're often color-coded – blue for the Democrats and red for the Republicans – so you don't even have to read them to know what we're thinking. You don't even have to know how to read. And the more I hear of American public opinion, as conveyed by these polls, the more convinced I am that many of our voters don't know how to read. I know I became convinced long ago that most of them don't know how to think.

The presumptive candidates for the Presidency from the major parties are, apparently, both disliked and feared by the majority of voters, but that doesn't stop the electorate from expressing a preference when asked. Both candidates reflect the views of many of our citizens: one says whatever comes to mind. He doesn't waste his valuable time thinking about what he's saying or contemplating the implications. He has no interest in promoting the views of his supporters – only in expressing his own prejudices. “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.” Fortunately for him there are a lot of people who think the same as he, and will fight for their unconsidered views. So he is, strangely, representative of much American opinion.

The other candidate is focused on the wishes of a large number of voting blocs and, does her best to vocally support them all – after finding out what they want. Not surprisingly, then, she, too, speaks for a significant number of citizens – since she is leading them. From behind. “Look before you leap.” In the past she has made many errors of her own, but strives to ignore them and show how she supports everyone else. And her position has been (adversely in my view) affected by the stands of an opponent in the primaries with a large number of outspoken and opinionated supporters who place “intellectual opinions” above intellect – who also don't consider the implications of their positions, though they are ready to fight to defend them.

Of course no one has bothered to ask me what I think. I'm not sure, however, whether that pleases or disappoints me. As I look at the published polls – and they must be right or they wouldn't be in print (“Well, all I know is what I read in the papers.”) – the pollsters choose not only the questions they ask, but the acceptable answers. So participants are forced to decide between the alternatives they're offered. I guess that's necessary for the pollsters, but it really doesn't give the people whom they question the opportunity to say what they actually think. Instead they are faced with Yes/No questions (most of the choices are binary) or ones determining the degree of agreement or disagreement an individual has with a specific statement. I guess I'd be flattered to be asked my view, but frustrated at the limitations in being able to offer it.

I must admit, therefore, that I was delighted when I came across IStandWith (https://www.isidewith.com/) on line. I suspect that there are many other sites like it to help inform the voter of available choices, but they would be difficult to summarize for the media, so they're not the ones that make the news. Perhaps that's the reason that published polls are sometimes in error.

In any event, this poll not only offered the polarized choices, but both a variety of more nuanced views ("other stances") and the opportunity to state one's own thoughts ("add your own stance") on a very wide variety of issues (and their questions change from time-to-time). At the end the computer will compare your views with those expressed by the candidates of all parties, allowing you to determine how your ideas compare with theirs. It also lets you designate the level of importance of the various issues and breaks down opinions on those matters separately.

I'm not sure that I'm always happy with where my own views lead me, but it's a better start on informing myself than seeing the latest pol poll in the papers. I can't be sure the site doesn't have its own biases, and an algorithm that is designed to convince me that I favor some particular candidate, but it's a good start and spells out some of the candidates' views as well. Now if I make a bad choice, I'll be better able to defend it.

Equal Time

Last week I wrote about Donald Trump, concluding that he was not fit to be president. So today I'll comment on the other major party candidate. I made two mistakes last week and I'll try not to repeat them. First of all, I waited for his acceptance speech to make my judgment, but all that did was to give him some extra time to smooth out the rough edges. He didn't, but even if he had accomplished the rhetorical feat, it wouldn't have changed his previous record. In addition, I saved my conclusion for the end, as I was instructed to do by a high school English teacher. It's good advice to let the strength of the arguments make the conclusion inevitable, but WYSIWYG, “truth in advertising” and similar issues mean that I should tell you my view, rather than put you in the position of drawing your own conclusions. After all, you may make a mistake. If my arguments are not powerful enough to lead you to the Truth, I don't want you to draw the wrong conclusion.

To reveal the punch line first, then, the former Secretary of State is not fit to be president either. In fact, she wasn't fit to be Secretary of State. Even her nomination is tainted by the leaks of e-mails demonstrating efforts to undermine the candidacy of Senator Sanders. (Lest I be misunderstood, it's my view that his nomination would be a disaster as bad as that of the Secretary of State.) It appears that the Democratic Party is somewhat less democratic than we have been led to believe. But we were foolish if we accepted the idea that either political party was really interested in us.

But, as William Claude Dukenfield said, “I digress.”

Our questions begin with Whitewater and Castle Grande, the business dealings in which she participated in the 1970s and 1980s. While despite her involvement, no charges were filed against her, according to Breitbart (and I leave it to the reader to evaluate the source),

In the mid-1980s, federal bank regulators started taking a closer look at Madison Guaranty [a bank she represented] and concluded that Castle Grande was a sham, a crime, and part of a pyramid scheme to enrich insiders and hide the S&L's disintegrating finances. According to the newly obtained document [an unredacted version of the “original Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) memorandum in the Whitewater affair obtained by Judicial Watch.”], “Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell [an Arkansas businessman also involved in the “sham” deal] concealed their involvement in Castel Grande.”

Despite contrary documentary evidence, Ms. Clinton denied any involvement. “I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.” Memory is a strange thing.

Similarly, when questioned about her own e-mail server and the transmission of secret documents on it, her defense was that she didn't know the documents were classified, and besides, those before her had done it too. It is troubling that someone with her security clearance could not recognize a sensitive document (some subsequently judged too secret to reveal in the report of the problem) and take the proper precautions, and that she wasn't aware that the practice was then illegal though it had not been so during the terms of her predecessors. In terms of both the Arkansas business dealings and the e-mail controversy it is worth remembering that President Nixon was almost impeached not for the Watergate break-in, but for trying to cover it up. Ms. Clinton worked hard to cover up her involvement in the two scandals.

Another concern relates to the Secretary's performance during the episode in Benghazi, Libya. During the entire period of its happening, the State Department took no action. What it might have done would possibly have failed, but it did nothing, so we'll never know if the deaths could have been avoided. And, at least initially, the Secretary blamed conservatives in the United States (who had produced an anti-Islamic video) for the whole affair, although based on e-mail she sent at the time she knew that wasn't true. Another cover-up.

Ms. Clinton would have us accept her judgment that these matters have already been discussed, and “it's time to move on” from them – they're past performance items that we should ignore when we evaluate her – while she raises questions about decades-old business practices of her opponent.

Her past performance raises questions about her judgment and her trustworthiness. This is not an example of “genderism.” (More on that term in “Mixed Grill” which will appear on October 23^rd.) She should not be elected president for her service in that office would put us all at risk. But that leaves us with unfit nominees from both the Democrats and the Republican parties. Where do I go from here?

I'll have more to say on that subject in my next essay.

An Unfit Candidate

According to the Washington Post, Secretary Clinton has concluded that

Trump is ‘dangerously incoherent,’ [and] ‘temperamentally unfit’ to be president.

I agree. But he's not the only one who's unfit.

In a statement dated July 5, 2016, James Comey, the head of the FBI, though recommended that no charges be filed against her because “we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” But, said Mr. Comey, “We are pleased … that no further action is required. … We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

As the Secretary would put it, let's put this behind us and move on. (Mr. Trump doesn't agree with Mr. Comey however. Citing the actions taken against General David Petraeus – the filing of criminal charges – for mishandling classified information, he concluded that “the system is rigged.”)

Lack of criminal intent is a very low bar to exoneration. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for criminal behavior, the conduct of “participants who know, or should know,” but who lack criminal intent, should be viewed with even greater concern. And when the perpetrator who takes such an action is a public official and by doing so places at risk “seven email chains concern[ing] matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level,” our country is placed at risk. And lying about it – covering up – compounds the crime.

In its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal notes that

Mrs. Clinton claimed that her email was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account[s] of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and “readily apparent.” ... it is possible that hostile actors gained access gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

It would be prudent to determine if the Secretary would have any security clearance were she anyone else. I suspect it would be denied her. And her “careless” behavior places us all at risk.

The Secretary has urged that we “move on” from the discussion of her email activities, and from the lack of action that her State Department took during the difficulties in Benghazi. We should “put them behind us” although they relate specifically to her job performance as a member of the cabinet. They are recent events.

At the same time she raises issues about the actions of Mr. Trump, a private citizen rather than a government official, in the last century – twenty or thirty years ago. We mustn't put that behind us or move on from there. It is relevant and makes him unfit for public office. Perhaps it does. Certainly when considered along with his subsequent performance it seems that his presidency would be an unhappy experience for our country. But the Secretary has already demonstrated that her service as Commander-In-Chief would put us all at risk.

All that is left is prayer that delegates to the conventions rethink their commitments and offer to the American people candidates who can be trusted to govern us sanely and safely.

Johnson and Weld might be able to fill the bill, but in this real and dangerous world they're not going to win.

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.

Bloodsport

If only the stakes weren't so high. But they are. Politics isn't for the faint of heart. Perhaps it doesn't involve the actual shedding of blood – though popular literature, films, and television sometimes posit otherwise – but American politics suggests boxing or cock fighting to the observer. There is certainly a battle going on. And no quarter is given, No handicap is awarded, though many handicaps exist. Indulging in some mixed athletic metaphors, there is a toe-to-toe fight between the players who are racing to the finish line. No holds are barred. In addition, unfortunately, all teams are often off-side.

A chess match may be a more fitting analogy, yielding less actual blood, but a battle nonetheless. It surely includes the jockeying for position, and no moves seem to be barred – no matter how unseemly they appear. The rules are sometimes ignored by all participants in the quest to outflank the opposition. Consequently wiliness, response to attacks, and unexpected moves characterize the competition. Winning is the only thing.

Our Constitution is now over two-and-a-quarter centuries old. It originated as a document designed to unify a number of states with conflicting interests, but with a need for common defense. Having separated from the British Empire there was a need to establish a stable government for a new nation, and our founding fathers, under the influence of European political philosophers, and by the hand of James Madison, produced a system of government that, with the approval of the citizens of the new nation, has become a model for many subsequent democracies.

Creating our country required a document that would balance many competing philosophies, wishes, and economic realities, and be acceptable to voters. And it needed to provide a framework for governing long into the future. The debates were illuminating, but they were heated. Ultimately, however, they generated a system acceptable to a majority of delegates and to the voters in the new states.

An important element was a system of checks and balances designed to ensure the control of each of the branches by the others, with none preeminent. And there was a careful delineation of the responsibilities of each, and allowance made for the states to have responsibility for whatever was not covered by the text as written. The document wasn't complete, requiring amendment immediately, but provision for doing so was built into it. The founders realized that change would be necessary, and they provided for that need. They were building “a more perfect Union,” and there had to be a way to correct imperfections when they were discovered.

As opposed to chess, though, American politics scorns the “check” as all of the participants seek the checkmate. And there are frequent instances when our government is out of balance. It's often difficult for the amateur to follow, and participants have staffs and playbooks to guide them – outlines of previous matches, devices that they will either cite or ignore depending on the utility of doing so. They're more knowledgeable and better prepared than we. They're aware of the Constitution and the way to change the rules. But that's too hard, and there's no guaranty that things will go their way. Perhaps, amendment is possible, but change more often happens ad hoc. It's whatever some party can get away with. In the struggle for dominance in the present and future, they pay no mind to the past. And they demand dominance of the Federal government, not the states.

Moves, also, bring chess to mind. The Judiciary, as exemplified by the Supreme Court, seems to favor the approach of bishops, notwithstanding the First Amendment. As the Church may interpret the Bible, the Court “interprets” the Constitution, finding meanings that no one else can see. That means moving obliquely, and, by doing so, overpowering both the Legislative and Executive branches. They have conquered Congress, by deciding what its words mean (and their understanding is final, not Congress's intent) and, the President, by deciding which of his actions (according to their view) falls within the guidelines set by the Constitution.

Not to be outdone, Congress moves more in the manner of rooks – “in a straight line … in a rank [and] file” (I took slight liberties with the definition in The American Heritage Dictionary) and with force based on party loyalty. They march together. Although devotees of the board game usually refer to the pieces as “castles,” the meaning of “rook” as a swindler should not be overlooked, nor should their resemblance to confused birds in a rookery. Their advantage in the infighting is that they may choose not to fund Presidential initiatives, and the Senate may defeat the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

The greatest threat to all the other players, however, is the Executive branch, led by the President, who commands all the moves of the queen. He moves in an unpredictable manner in any direction and can go as far as he wants to in order to avoid the domination of the others, or in order to destroy them. The queen wants to be king. (Transgender issues, and the President's sympathy, will be addressed at another time. This is intended as a discussion of power.) The President takes an end-run around the Senate when necessary (as it was when he wanted approval of a treaty – which he decided to call an “agreement – with Iran), pressures Congress in general using his “bully pulpit” (and the control of the media enjoyed by the office) to convince them of our country's needs – as he sees them, and as they and the voters should see them. And he employs “Executive orders” to enact whatever legislation he desires, even though the power to do so is not in the Constitution. Like the Court and Congress, he wants to win. He he wants to be in charge. And he wants to leave office as world champion.

And, of course, there are the pawns. Us. We, the People of the United States. We sponsor the match and pay for the tickets. In theory we control everything through our franchise. But, as in chess, we can be sacrificed. The bishops, rooks, and queen have their way with us. We can be manipulated for their ends. We may have the vote, but the branches of government have control. In theory they are our servants, but in reality we are there to serve them.

Every now and then there arises among us a knight. He is prepared to go over and around the system, but he is too often defeated or directed by the others. That's the way it is with knights. They owe their loyalty, and their future positions, not to the people from whom they arise, but to their superiors. So we are left to do and die as good soldiers. Though we're the majority, we have little power.

In a way, it's all entertainment. It's bread and circus. It's an elaborate bullfight. It keeps us busy as they compete with each other for mastery. Sadly we ignore the warning of the red cape but are fascinated by the battle taking place. We don't recognize that it is our Constitution that is dying before our eyes. All the rest is bull.

A Few Political Thoughts

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court and had served since 1986. He prided himself as being an “originalist,” one who considered the original intent and meaning of the Constitution as the principles by which cases should be understood and decided. It's a conservative view – one that frowns on the use of modern social concepts in the interpretation of the law. He was one of the conservative voices on a Court that alternated between liberal and conservative opinions with alarming irregularity. Its positions were not completely satisfactory to either constituency. Which was the cause of much anxiety among citizens whenever a case was to be decided about which they had strong opinions.

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. The President will now have the opportunity to nominate another candidate for the Court. He has already appointed two members – both staunch liberals reflecting his own political philosophy. Because they replaced one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative (though both had been appointed by Republicans) his appointments changed the nature of the Court. In all likelihood he will nominate another liberal to replace the conservative Scalia in an attempt to establish a firm liberal majority before his term in office ends. Because the Justices serve for life, such an appointment appointment would affect our society for many years.

President Obama will assert his right and responsibility to do so. It is his Constitutional duty. And he will contend that he is the only official elected by all the people and, thus, representative of their wishes. And he will remind us that it the duty of the Senate to pass judgment on his appointee. “Advice and consent” of the Senate are Constitutional requirements, and the Senators must not shirk their responsibilities. And if they do pass on his candidate, refusing to accept him or her, he will make a political year issue of their “obstructionism.”

President Obama will not mention that while he received 51.2% of the popular vote in 2012, he only had the approval of 43% of the population in 2014 (Pew). Any claim to his popularity and representativeness should be taken with those numbers in mind. And it is hard to ignore the fact that voters have since chosen Republican (conservative) majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The latter is more of a problem for the President who will challenge them to perform their mandated responsibilities as he performs his. He will not mention his end run around the Senate when he declared the treaty with Iran to be an “agreement” which does not require the Senate's consent. Indeed, he cajoled the Democratic minority in the Senate to prevent a vote there so he wouldn't have to veto Congress's will (and the will of the American people) which would lower his popularity still further. Put differently, he prevented the Senate from performing its Constitutional responsibility when it helped him to do so, but he will insist they perform it when he believes that this will be to his advantage.

It is my hope that they will remain firm and wait to see the will of the people in 2016 before making any decision on candidates put forth by the President.

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

For better or worse, the United States, which was, at one time, the leader of the “free” world, has abandoned that designation. We once thought of ourselves as the world's “policemen” with the responsibility for protecting the weak from the tyranny of their leaders (primarily, of course, ones who disagreed with our policies). Our stance now is to defer to the United Nations and the European Union, and to the leaders of countries we once viewed as enemies. We talk and discuss problems. Perhaps that is better than taking a stand or taking action. As Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war.” But the recognition by other nations that we will only “jaw-jaw” gives them reason not to take our threats, red-lines, and deadlines seriously. In many senses we have returned to the isolationism of our past. Perhaps that is wise, but it implies the acceptance of injustices which we will permit to exist irrespective of our proclamation of American ideals.

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

At the moment, the leaders in the race for the Presidential nominations are Donald Trump and Senator Bernard Sanders. Because they are both disliked by so many voters, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may enter the race. It would be an interesting lineup. In a country that spawned the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and numerous other similar crusades against the oppression by the rich of all of the rest of us, in addition to an avowed socialist our choice would be between two billionaires. And in a country with (according to the ADL) more than 10% antisemites among the adult population – a country that has always had a Christian President (we can debate about President Obama at another time) – two of the three candidates would be Jewish.

What a country.

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

It's “silly season.” It's campaign time. That really started a long time ago and it's clear that some candidates for high office start planning their strategies many cycles in advance of their actual goals. Some countries limit the hullabaloo to a few weeks, but politics is an American obsession. We may not agree on anything else, but we love the time when we can argue. We all agree on that.

I'll probably discuss these issues again at another time, but I couldn't help commenting on them now. Silly season is contagious.