Predicting The Future

The hardest thing to predict is the future.

That idea is so old that it's long past the cliché stage. But we never stop trying. For example although we may want to know when the Messiah is coming (for the first or second time depending on your theology), our sages have never been able to come up with any kind of prediction that has proved true or that is likely to do so. Indeed, we are taught that this is not something we should be speculating about.

Still, through the ages, we've been fascinated by the possibility that we might be able to foresee what is going to happen (please forgive the tautology). From the ancient oracles through Nostradamus, and to Jeane Dixon and other similar personalities, we've wasted undue attention to the interpretation of “signs,” intestines, tea leaves, Tarot decks, crystal balls, and the like as we plan our lives. We've made astrologers and psychics rich.

And we've also contributed to the coffers of pollsters and the media, by seeking and studying their “scientifically-based” guesses about our future behavior. Often, but certainly not always, they're right. Polls and surveys have long been used in the planning of political campaigns, business models, product offerings and similar enterprises, while others, for example those who inform us of the latest fashions and the music that's likely to be popular – rather than foresee they try to force the future. And because we're so easily led, their prophesies are often self-fulfilling.

One of my biggest heroes is Harry Truman. He was viewed as an undistinguished senator who made it to the vice-presidency because other candidates were unacceptable. Yet he has turned out to be what most historians view as one of our best presidents. Whether or not you agree with his decisions, and the continuation of Roosevelt's nuclear policy was one of them, it is clear that he successfully shepherded our country through a difficult period and made it great at a time when the world was in turmoil. And he did it his way – with strength and determination. Notwithstanding predictions of his failure (polls and “Dewey Wins” headlines for example) he led America through a difficult post-war period; notwithstanding “informed” guesses that he'd be indecisive, and criticisms that he didn't have the knowledge and the background for what would certainly be a difficult and torturous responsibility, he demonstrated that this very responsibility brought out the knowledge and the wisdom of a man who represented the highest of our values and the will to achieve them.

I raise this idea now because it is three days before the inauguration of our newly elected president, Donald Trump. By the time this essay is published and you read it he will have been in office for a year and you'll be able to make a preliminary judgment of his performance. Right now what we're hearing dominating the news is a very negative representation of his qualities and ideas. He is viewed by the media as ignorant, thin-skinned, impulsive, bigoted, and egocentric – and that negative assessment is conveyed daily (and strongly) to everybody who happens to read or hear what they have to say. The media's view is that he hasn't the temperament, background, or knowledge to help him through what is likely to be a difficult and torturous responsibility. There are daily protests of his election and statements that his election was “illegitimate.” (It should be noted that those protests come, largely from supporters of Secretary Clinton who, though not trusted by a majority of Americans, was viewed as “the lesser of evils.”) Other countries are accused of interfering in our election process (something America doesn't hesitate to do around the globe when it suits our purposes) making the election indefensible, irrespective of its fulfillment of constitutional requirements.

Donald Trump will be a minority president. While he received a majority of electoral votes, the same was not true of the popular vote and, as periodically is the case, there will be a call for the revision of the Constitution and an amendment that makes the determination of the president a popular decision rather than reflecting the choice of those who represent the diverse needs of the states that make up our union. Perhaps rethinking of the issue is justified, but it isn't as clear an issue as it is characterized, and it isn't the subject of this essay. Donald Trump is our President and we have to get used to that fact, at least until the next election.

The issue I want to address is the idea that some have already predicted what will happen during his administration. There is no question that some of the reservations that people have about him are valid. At least (to me) at the time of this writing. Consequently there are those who feel that his impulsiveness will lead to war. It is of no consequence that we have been at war every day of the eight years his predecessor was in office. Some are certain that he will divide our country. No mention is made of the fact that we are already more divided than we have been in previous years, for a variety of reasons – some based on the policies of the administration which the new president followed. There is also a fear that the poorer among us will suffer from any economic changes that will occur under President Trump, but no acknowledgment of the fact that it was those people, dissatisfied with the current situation, who elected him. In short, the current opposition (I don't know what it will be like a year from now) seems to be basing its opposition on ideological grounds rather than reality.

I must admit that President Trump wasn't my choice. And I am fearful of what his administration will do, but the reality is that our country has survived predictions of doom as well as prophesies of glory. There are times we've “taken a lickin' but [kept] on tickin'.” Only time will tell. Our guesses are of no consequence. All we can do is hope for the best.

January 17, 2017

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.

Death And Denial

The massacre in Orlando was horrific. “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The words are those of John Donne. The thought reminds us that we are all united – or should be – in our humanity, and all equally vulnerable to its loss. There is no protection against inhumanity if we choose to view it as inevitable feature of our condition. And if we choose to hide from it, the bell will toll for us all.

But there are steps we can take to limit its effects if we do not bury our heads in the sand; we can minimize the risk if we recognize it and correctly identify it. If, however, we use such calamities as tools to promote political ideas, rather than as teaching tools that can help us avoid recurrences, we ensure their repetition. If we find that struthious behavior is useful for shielding ourselves against truths we don't want to accept, we're likely to seek false solutions to problems that we don't want to consider. And Orlando is an example of this reality.

Although it is unclear to me why the murders of attendees at a gay club by another frequenter of that club should be mourned as a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, that is the narrative that is being promoted by too many of our leading figures and by too many of the organs of the media. According to an editorial in today's New York Times (June 15, 2016) , “the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear [and the perpetrator] was driven by hatred towards gays and lesbians.”

The shooter claimed allegiance to ISIS and had already evaluated other possible sites, but these facts are omitted in the editorial. They would detract from the message of political correctness that the paper promotes. And they would remind us of our county's enemy which they fear to identify.

There is no denying the fact that a gay bar was chosen for the action, but the idea that notwithstanding the perpetrator's own sexual status, and his other actions and claims of allegiance, the shootings took pace there as a “hate crime” against gays can only be viewed as a distraction from the truth. Our President refuses to suggest that there is a stream of Islam that poses a threat to the present time and modernization, and to the existence of non-Muslim societies. He and his followers, including those in the press nationally and internationally, eschew such language as “radical Islam,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “jihad,” claiming that acknowledgment of such ideas will only strengthen the movement, since it will suggest that we are prejudiced against Islam, and that we take seriously the menace its violent stream poses. As we should.

For too long our government has tried to downplay any threats by those who oppose us, even to the point of seeking our downfall, while we court them and attempt to force our friends to defer to their demands. We are careful not to “[do] the terrorists' work for them” by confronting their hostility. We are less careful in our accusations against those who oppose gun control and those who promote homophobia. We have no concern that we are strengthening them by our naming and vociferously berating them.

Perhaps the reasons for our actions have little to do with the ostensible problems – at least as they are understood on the surface. Perhaps our greater fear is of terror, and refusal to name it is a denial of its existence. If we ignore it, it will go away. And reminding the voting public that the threat exists is counterproductive to the President and those with a similar political agenda – especially during campaign season.

Favoring and publicizing issues that will appeal to a large and sympathetic bloc, however, is a much more desirable goal at this time, and, for those seeking a “heritage” and friends, a far more profitable approach. “Preaching to the choir” is always a winning tactic.

At least it's a winning political tactic. It's certainly less likely to benefit our nation as a whole. Dividing our nation as the President, and both candidates for his job, have done, will ultimately result in our diminution. We have already lost prestige around the world and contributed to a willingness of other nations to ignore our needs and to follow the course of acceptance of evil. It's easier than opposing it – unless there are negative political consequences. And it's easier to accept the political aid of a “squeaky wheel” with increasing support by “fair-minded” advocates who feel virtuous by doing so. There's no need for them to worry about other problems that way.

Harsh and unfiltered words by one political candidate won't solve the problem, but neither will its conscious avoidance by the other. The longer we deny the threat, the more likely we are to face it. And then the bell will toll for us all.

Uncivil War

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

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

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

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

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

The Imperious Loudmouth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Best And The Brightest

 

I don't really like any of our Presidents. I don't trust them. As a matter of fact I don't trust anyone who's even run for the office. Indeed, I have misgivings about anyone with the hubris to believe that (s)heⁱ can decide who should live or die, and especially those who would fight for such a position. And that's part of the job description – it comes with making wars (yes, I know only Congress is supposed to be able to do that, but I also know better than to believe they are actually meaningfully involved in such decisions), giving or not giving pardons, and a bunch of covert actions that cannot be disclosed for a variety of real or imagined security reasons. Those who got into office by accident – like President Ford – have something of an excuse, as do Vice Presidents who inherited the position when the President died in office. (Unless, of course, they became Vice President after failing in a presidential bid.) And even if they run for a full term afterward, there are often reasons other than conceit for doing so. So I'll give them a pass this time around.ⁱⁱ

Actually, I don't care for politicians in general. President Kennedy,ⁱⁱⁱ in his inaugural address, asked Americans to favor what they could do for their country over what it could do for them. But by and large, all who claim to represent us are in it for the gains.^iv For some that may be glory or the “legacy”; for others it's cash – by bribes, programs from which they can profit – or the benefits of the position, such as pensions, health care, “expenses,” and the like.

That wouldn't be so bad if they also accomplished something that helped the rest of us who may or may not have supported them. Especially if that help were given because it was “right” and not because they gained from it, whether directly or because it helped their supporters. But that's wishful thinking. The most I can hope for is that I benefit from programs brought to my area by a representative who wants to influence my vote in the next election. For politicians are an ambitious lot.

And that's a problem. To win election they have to take positions,^v and having taken such a stand they cannot back down.^vi That would be evidence of weakness – a lack of backbone. Or they are told by their party that a certain view is the “correct” one and that it would be wise (if they ever want to run for another office) to support it. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible, but politicians make it a way of life to ensure that nothing worthwhile is possible. Their view is “my way or the highway.” Then they try to sell their stand as one of character. They will not compromise with something that is “wrong,” and they should be reelected because they're “outsiders,” and they stood up against the “politicians.“ Somehow I'm not convinced.

So on election day, after we have been forced to endure months of negative advertising, it boils down to a choice between a corrupt politician who has been lining his (or her) pockets (or pocketbook) with taxpayer money, and who is guilty of untold unethical acts and acts of misconduct – usually sexual in nature – or the candidate who brags that he has no connection with the politicians and is not beholden to anyone – even though it's also true that if elected (s)he will have no allies in government and would be totally unable to govern, assuming (however unlikely it may be) that (s)he knew how (or really wanted the position^vii). That's the usual description of third party candidates who want to throw out all the members of the major parties.^viii

But, we're told, it's easy to recognize problems. We're admonished not to raise them, however, if we can't do better and have no solution that is more likely to work. That's silliness. I can't pitch, but I know a weak bullpen when I see one. I do, however, know the solution to the pitching problem. It's money. Buy better pitchers. Buying politicians, though, isn't as savory an endeavor, even if it assures you of the result you want.

So we're left floundering for a solution. In this electronic age perhaps the answer is a computer program that would govern us. Our Constitution is excellent but it requires people to implement it, and people are not to be trusted. A machine wouldn't have that problem. A computer is too stupid to deviate from its program. But, of course, it would take people to write that program. Aye. There's the rub.

Winston Churchill once said “The Americans will always do the right thing ... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." I'm not so sure.

Maybe we should try monarchy.

Next episode: “Klutz Or Kluznik” – Hell freezes over.

i     I don't know why I bother with this PC silliness. But I guess political correctness is appropriate in an essay about politics.

ii     Chances are they don't deserve it but I'm in a good mood.

iii     He was quite a politician himself, coming from a family bent on saving the country. They all believed they were better equipped to do so than anyone else.

iv     They really do represent us.

v     Although some studiously avoid taking positions when they suspect some voters will disagree. They suddenly find themselves otherwise occupied when it's time to vote.

vi     Though, when necessary, they can usually find a way to make reality conform to what they said, no matter how different the two may be.

vii     During the New York mayoral campaign of 1965, when asked what he would do first if elected, William Buckley, candidate of the Conservative Party, said: “Demand a recount.”

viii   If they do manage to get elected, their corruption and misconduct will be demonstrated to the public before the next election.