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.

The Lesser Of Two Evils

Well, the political season is starting again. No, that's not really the case. It's been going on for a long time already. Years. And people are positioning themselves for 2020 right now. Or even beyond. Someone running for local school board this year will some day be a candidate for President. And chances are that he or she will be a crook, or at least someone who has, by that time, bent the rules or favored a campaign contributor.ⁱ Even if that's not the case and he's completely honest, his opponent will advertise his many crimes and tell us why we should not vote for him.

More likely, though, the accusations will be true. But they'll be just as true of the individual opposing him – the one proclaiming his faults. That's the nature of political ads. They tell us why we shouldn't vote for someone else, rather than why we should vote for the advertiser. The answer, however, is clear. There is no good reason to vote for him. Or for any of the others, if there are more than two in the race. So why bother?

That's a pretty cynical assessment from someone who votes in almost every election – even for school board. Believing what I believe about elections, participation doesn't seem to make much sense. The results will be bad no matter who wins. No one believes in the “Greater Good.”ⁱⁱ

But someone will win. So though I might wish to vote for the candidate most likely to do good for my community, I have to try to decide who will do us the least harm. And, consequently, my criteria for choice have to change. Decisions regarding right and wrong are irrelevant. Integrity is no longer an issue. We're left with reality. And the reality is that, for the candidates, election is the first priority, and reelection the second.

What are we voting for? Nominally it is someone who will support our positions and help to enact policies that correspond to our wishes. We are a democracy and our will is considered to be the basis for our society.ⁱⁱⁱ That's often not the case though. Our “representatives” tell us that while they have our interests at heart they are duty bound to vote their own consciences. And with Representatives whose constituencies may comprise hundreds of thousands of views – millions if they're Senators – it's unrealistic for any voter to actually believe that his perspective will always be followed.

Makes sense. But too often the argument only provides protective cover. Because an incumbent's primary interest is in reelection, his main concern is the view of what he perceives to be the majority of voters^iv – whether or not that is the majority of constituents. And party loyalty is an important interest. What may result is the trading of votes by Representatives or Senators – votes by each participant for the project of the other. Whether voters would approve of either “representative” is irrelevant as long as it is perceived as a vote-getter by the one proposing it. So if he can't convince his voters that it's in their interests, or if it isn't, he'll be sure to let them know that it it is good for America.^v Perhaps he told his district that he had their backs, but they're ignorant and trusting voters. The message to other politicians is “you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.”

The primary goal of the insurgent is to be elected for the first time. His best weapon is often a smear of the incumbent since he usually has no record of his own to trumpet. His justification of this tactic, apart from the claim that he is telling the truth and the other candidate has demonstrated why he is unfit for the position, is that he cannot improve the lot of the voters unless he is elected, and if this is what it takes, so be it. And that is his message to voters – and the rationalization that he uses for himself. No matter. We don't really expect anything else. We don't expect honesty of politicians.

So in the end it's our fault. We don't make more demands of our candidates, if we vote at all,^vi and voting is becoming less and less prevalent. And we don't vote out of office incumbents who aren't really doing their jobs. We compartmentalize integrity and reality. But we don't really understand either. Voters tend to pick apart Congress in general but favor their own representatives. Others don't compromise – and they should. Ours doesn't give in to pressure^vii – and they shouldn't. After all, we're (more or less) honest and so should they be.

In the end, we get what we deserve – a Congress which is not trusted by the public, and which doesn't accomplish anything anyway. We may not make demands of them, but they make demands of each other. They want their way. And roadblock is their tool. It's “my way or the highway.” Unfortunately the highway usually wins. “Compromise” is not in their lexicon. From their perspective they are right and those who disagree with them^viii are wrong. With that knowledge they can never reach any agreement with them. A compromise between right and wrong is wrong.

And the lesser of two evils is evil. But you can't beat City Hall. So why do I vote?

My approach to life has always been that I play the hand I'm dealt – whatever the game. And it's the only game in town.

Next episode: “The Constitution And The Second Law” – A reevaluation of a previous view.

 

 

 

I        For the moment, though – when running for school board – he's probably reasonably honest. The more he participates in the political process, however, the more he will accommodate to it and to its methods.

ii       Or, as Jeremy Bentham put it, "The greatest good for the greatest number."

iii      There are some limits on the expression of our will as the sole criterion for the determination of our nation's course. Protection, at least to some degree, against the “tyranny of the majority,” is built into the system, and there are other governing factors which I shall discuss either later in this essay or in a subsequent post. I haven't decided yet.

iv       Determined by poll or panel.

v        As Samuel Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

vi       Though we're happy to accept any time off for voting or for Election Day.

vii      At least that's what we want to believe.

viii    “Those who disagree” are those who answer to a different lobbyist or are members of a different party. Or those who threaten their reelection.

Silly Season

                                                                  

It's silly season again.ⁱ The candidates for President are roaming around the country making promises to every audience they can find, and, especially, to any group that has a particular ax to grind. Each candidate, naturally, has a better solution than his opponent to every problem, and a more all-encompassing promise than the other that he will be responsive to the needs of the voters. The speechifying and general campaigning will go on almost non-stopⁱⁱ until election day. Then it will stop abruptlyⁱⁱⁱ while the parties analyze the results and start their planning for the next general election.

During the campaign those running for office will, in their speeches and even more in their advertisements, spend more time bewailing the failures of their opponents than suggesting solutions to the problems they identify. They will, however, let us know that they have a plan to cure all the ills they perceive. They may not reveal the details of that plan, but trust them, it will do the trick.

That, however, is all show. For them and for most of us. If you didn't know three months ago how you'd vote in November, you haven't been paying attention.^iv And if you didn't know whom the various papers would endorse long ago, the same is true. For example, over the last few days (or maybe it's been weeks) the lead editorial in the New York Times has focused on why the Republican candidates will destroy America, and the vast majority of its Op-Ed columns also denigrate them.^v They don't have all that much to say about the President, but you get more mileage from negative than positive statements.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal is writing a lot about the Republicans, their nominees, and the convention – and most of it is favorable. It's easy to guess which candidates each will favor when the election rolls around. I suspect that the endorsement editorials have already been written. Indeed, they were probably outlined years ago with spaces left for the insertion of whatever seems timely to support their predetermined positions.

And none of it will have much impact on those papers' readers. They've already made up their minds. The endorsements' main value is to convince the lethargic that there is an important decision to be made and they are critical to it. The current goal of the campaigning is to be seen as the winner. And the incumbent has the advantage since he has the better chance to do things that attract attention, whether or not his acts have any real impact.

But now's not the time to pay attention. You'll go out of your mind. First of all, the candidates and their supporters can't be trusted now. They're saying whatever it takes to attract votes. Truth and sincerity are not important, although their appearance is. (After the election the winner can “clarify” his intent and the loser can point to the backtracking. Or he can skulk into, and sulk in a corner. In either case the original statements and the charges and changes will be quickly forgotten.) Politicking now is just that, politicking, and the high-minded (and highly negative – the ads you see will, for the most part be defamatory) rhetoric is not to be believed. What is said about the issues is what the candidates believe to be important to voters and it's all spin. Priorities now are looking good on television and appearing to act decisively, so there'll be loud proclamations and accusations, as well as negative advertising and rapid reaction to the polls and to anything that seems to have the voters' interest.

Batten down the hatches. Until election day your telephone won't stop ringing with robocalls, and your mailbox will burst with political brochures and pamphlets. And, of course, expect lots of e-mail and its analogues. But remember that anything you read in those pamphlets and hear on the telephone calls and in the media now can't be believed. The reality is that when the time comes, the red states will be mostly red and the blue states mostly blue.^vi Campaigning will focus on the undecided who, unfortunately, can't remember history, not even the last election. They have almost no knowledge of what the candidates actually believe or what they have done. Nor do they really care. They are the apathetic, ignorant, and uninformed ones, or, more euphemistically, the “independent” and “undecided,” and may not even make up their minds until they enter the voting booth. They'll be the focus of the ads and speeches from now on. Toward the end it's all about appeal to those undecided voters who will choose based on appearance and other non-political factors, though the appearance of decisiveness and action will help the image. Those who haven't yet decided have no interest in reality and past performance, only in images.^vii

Don't expect anything substantive^viii to occur. Both parties will make proposals that they know are doomed but will give the appearance of decisiveness and concern for the voters. But both parties will block the efforts of the other so as to avoid giving an issue to their opponent, or in order to get one for themselves. Don't worry though. Most of what's promised is of no consequence to the one promising it, nor should it be to you. Most of the proposed programs are ill-considered for the long run,^ix but that won't be of any great significance because none of what's promised will happen no matter who wins. Even those proposing the programs don't expect them to be enacted. It's all show for the voters.

So don't worry. It's silly season now.^x Nothing will change. And all we can expect is a continuation of what we've had, based on our knowledge of the candidates' and the parties' past performance.

Oh. We can also expect traffic jams caused by motorcades.^xi

Next episode: "Parsing Fancy" – All I know is what I read.

 

i      When is it not? In this particular instance, in the last week of August, things are just as idiotic as they'll be when this is published.

ii     There will be an occasional pause in the campaigning when some inevitable tragedy occurs. Everyone will remind us that some healing must take place before it can resume. To continue would show disrespect for those who have suffered. But those displays of “sensitivity” are themselves a form of campaigning and of humanizing the candidates. And it's fascinating how soon they determine that the time of sadness is over and they can get back to to educating the voters to the critical issues that will change the country – issues that only they can face successfully.

iii    But not for very long. Once the analysis has taken place, present and future candidates will begin telling voters about likely future problems – the ones that polls tell them have swayed the voters themselves – and their solutions.

iv     The reality is that most of us are single issue voters, though we may want to convince others – and ourselves – that we are basing our vote on everything that is being discussed. But having decided where a candidate stands on the issue that is most important to us, we “spin” his position on everything else to support our decision.

v      Today (August 29^th), on the morning following the vote for the Republican nominee for president, the Times's lead editorial condemned what it considered Republican “propaganda” at the convention.

vi      Pink, mauve, and puce voters will also be important.

vii     They may try to convince themselves, and anyone who'll listen, that they're weighing all the information about past performance and plans for the future, but the truth is that they haven't been paying any attention until now and will wind up voting on a whim, or for an image.

viii    Other than vigorous fundraising. It's amazing how much money is used in carrying on a campaign. It reflects how much the candidates consider the offices worth – to themselves and to those who support them. Apart from a job, a leg-up on the next election, and some prestige, the candidate, for whatever office, receives some valuable “perks,” some of them for life. And the benefits for contributors, including individuals, corporations, lobbies, and unions, are huge in terms of the ability to dictate political agendas and to get “set asides,” “earmarks,” tax benefits, and the like. It's a good investment if you're on the winning side.

ix     The unintended consequences would be more harmful than the intended would be helpful.

x       It's also two years since I began writing these essays.

xi     To rub salt into the wound, taxpayers will both suffer from these inconveniences and pay for them.