American Democracy

A few months ago I wrote an essay about the protests over the President's election. As the days passed some of those protests turned into riots. It's my hope that by today, Inauguration Day, they will have abated, and we can return to the important job of healing the rifts both within our democracy and with the other countries of the world. The time for questions has passed and we need to address the answers.

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

America looks bad. The country that has promoted democracy as the ideal political system is beginning to look like a Third World republic. It is enduring protests at the results of a free election and the procedures of our Constitution. Our image in the world, which has been diminishing for the past few years, is being further tarnished. It is a self-inflicted wound.

There had been anxiety about riots by his supporters if Trump lost, but now that he has won there are riots in the streets by those who claim he is not their president. They once castigated him for not pledging to accept the election results but now won't do so themselves.

Is this the real America? Are we a country of whiners? I don't recall this happening in the past? Have we become a “democracy” in which the losers refuse to accept the results of an election? Should we anticipate the same reaction in state and local elections?

Admittedly the President-Elect didn't receive a majority of the votes, but neither did Secretary Clinton. She, Like Mr. Trump, would have wound up as a minority president. Had she declined to accept the results of the election like her supporters we would have faced a constitutional crisis, but she graciously conceded the election to Mr. Trump. Indeed, Barack Obama, the President and a large contributor to the Secretary's defeat, conceded the election and has begun transition procedures.

One of the causes of the unhappiness is the fact that it wasn't expected. Mrs. Clinton was a “shoe-in”in the minds of many voters. The polls and the media assured us that the only questions revolved around the makeup of the new Congress. The various minority groups and their supporters had little doubt that they would soon have the executive office and an improved position in the legislature. And they were confident that the new Supreme Court justice would favor the programs that they favored. And the boosters of Senator Sanders were certain that their new leader, President Clinton, would promote their agenda. But they were wrong. The polls were wrong, the media were wrong, and the expectations of many of the voters were wrong.

I didn't support Mr. Trump (nor Secretary Clinton, for that matter), but he's my president. The test of a democracy is our support for its institutions even when we disagree with the policies of our leaders and our representatives. There won't be a “do-over.” If they're still going on, it's time to stop the tantrums and to move on.

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

November 14, 2016

Pinocchio And The Pirate

It will all end tomorrow. The election, that is. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And then we'll see the beginning of a presidency that most of our citizens fear. They'll vote alright, but there will be apprehension over the state of our country for the next four years.

The contest is between Pinocchio and the Pirate. Two candidates with massive egos. Of course you have to have a big ego to believe you can do the job of President, but our current alternatives are flaunting it. They're making previous aspirants look reluctant. One of those on the ballot has a foul mouth and an overinflated view of his own abilities, and the other has a past history of a long nose and of responding only to what is politically advantageous. And the voters are inclined to distrust both of them. It seems likely that whoever doesn't lose this election will lose the next.

There are many important issues at stake, but these are not on the minds of most voters. This has turned out to be a decision based on ad hominem arguments rather than any real discussion of policies. We face a choice of the lesser of evils – and they're both evil – rather than a selection of the better candidate. In recent years there has been a marked increase in the negative campaigning, but more is being spent this year on these tactics than ever before. Inflation certainly accounts for some of the increase, but the desire for power of both candidates and of those supporting them is also responsible.

Still, however, someone will eventually win. Whoever it is will face a hostile, and probably divided Congress. And whoever wins will attempt to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with an ideology matching that of the winner's party, with a long delay before anyone is approved for the position. The economy, health care, taxes, and a host of other considerations are important nationally, but there hasn't been much discussion of these topics.

There is a wide range of international considerations as well, and the most important of these is the ability of our new President to deal with leaders of other nations. In all likelihood, they would be apprehensive about a boastful and impulsive leader of our country, fearing what he might do without considering the consequences. They'd probably be far more comfortable with someone known to lie and to make political advantage the touchstone of decision-making. In short, they'd prefer someone more like themselves. As boastful and impulsive as they might like to be, they're more likely to take the advice of advisers and to use diplomatically acceptable language than at least one of our candidates.

It's truly a distasteful election with candidates we'd prefer to have been defeated in the primaries. That's our bad, and there's nothing we can do about it now. With any luck at all we'll go back to a system in which politicians in smoke-filled rooms – no, we no longer permit smoking – choose candidates whom they believe party members, and many independents, can support. The current system may be what we've chosen for ourselves, but it's not what our country deserves.

But Election Day isn't all bad. Apart from getting some free time for voters, and a holiday for many, it will mark the end of the current silly season and of robocalls that urge us to hear the platforms of particular candidates and support them. Or, at least, to vote against the opposition.

The end of those calls will be the most positive result of the election.

November 7, 2016

What's To Come

Next week we'll elect a new President. And, as I have said before, we all lose. Maybe things will be better in four years – if we make it that long.

Chances are good that the winner will be Secretary Clinton. (Yes I know that no result is official until the vote by the Electoral College – but they're unlikely to overrule the voters.) Not a good result, but there is no good result. Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has been disowned by many in his party. He may have attracted an army of supporters as a populist, but he's alienated the majority of American voters because of his rashness, lewdness, and, most of all, his ignorance. However nervous we Americans may be about him, it's likely that leaders of other countries would be unable to speak to him and negotiate meaningfully with him.

Not that Secretary Clinton is a great prize. Past performance – especially when considering her e-mails and Benghazi – suggests that she cannot be trusted (and, indeed, is not trusted) by her countrymen and women. Whatever transparency she promises should be taken as fantasy. Apart from her basic flaws she has had to make some commitments (not done publicly) to Senator Sanders; commitments that will probably bring her closer to socialism and a larger national debt, as well as an activist Supreme Court nominee. Her relationship to the current President is also no recommendation. He has brought us an imperial presidency, making decisions on his own that should be made by Congress. He has also left us with our highest national debt, and, notwithstanding a Nobel Prize based on the judges' hope for peace, he hasn't presided over a day when our country has not been at war. The Nobel Committee was rewarding him for not being President Bush. They were more involved in politics than in an honest search for a peacemaker. They blew it.

What's to be said for her? Why is she likely to win? Well, like the Nobel Committee, she'll be elected not for who she is, but who she isn't. She isn't Donald Trump. Neither can be trusted and both have the potential to be among our worst presidents (as does the incumbent who has weakened our country immeasurably in the eyes of the world) so the judgment of citizens is Clinton – no. But it's Trump – NO! However bad she may be, she represents less of a risk than her opponent. For better or worse she's likely to act rather than react. We may not approve of most of her choices, but they're more likely to be thought out by her and her advisers than controlled by her gut and guile. Those, however, are our prospects with Donald Trump.

In sports, there is a common cry to “wait till next year.” In this case we'll have to substitute “the next presidential election” for “next year.”

In the meanwhile, I recommend prayer.





October 13, 2016

Are We Great Again Yet?

Donald Trump, the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, delivered his acceptance speech last night, and I learned that he speaks for me. He said so, and he wouldn't lie about something so important. He said so, so it must be true, but I must admit that I have reservations about his candidacy. I certainly agree with some of his criticisms of what is happening in our country, but I'm less confident that he is the person to solve them.

My concerns begin with what we've all observed during the campaign thus far: Mr. Trump is quick express his perspective. His views are often critical of others – no, they're almost always critical of others, with special venom saved for his soon-to-be nominated opponent, and the President under whom she served. Whatever the validity of the criticisms, it is apparent that his words are unfiltered. There's a lot to be said for “transparency,” but much can also be said in favor of analysis of people and issues before offering opinions – before shooting from the hip – before shooting your mouth off.

The disposition to offer publicly his off the cuff opinions may play well with his numerous supporters – he is, after all, a populist – but it is less likely to be appreciated by the rest of us, and especially by the leaders of other countries. Confidence and boldness are important in a president, but they should be based on experience, analysis, judgment, and maturity. Unfortunately Mr. Trump seems to lack these qualities, and his entire appeal is based on bluster. He has yet to give any indication of how he would reach his goals, or of who would keep him informed and grounded. It's one thing to enunciate objectives, but quite another to accomplish the tasks you've set for yourself.

In short, I don't trust him. And, I suspect, neither do many of our voters.

Equally important, however, is that I doubt that he has the trust of those who lead the rest of the world. I fear that, for good reason, they would question his credibility, stability, and reliability were he to head our government. He has been critical of the current administration for antagonizing our allies and causing our enemies to lose respect for us – criticisms that are not without merit – but he has yet to reveal how he would deal with those problems, possibly because the suggestions of his advisers are not sufficiently patriotic and “macho” to fit the image of himself that he has and that he would like others to have. Even for the competent it takes time to build trust, although their starting level is much higher than that of the Republican nominee. However legitimate his instincts, it will be a long time before anyone trusts him or believes that his positions have been well thought out.

And however insightful his recognition of the problems we face, however popular his proposals among his followers, some of the solutions he has offered are more likely to aggravate than ameliorate them. As an example for, a wall along our southern border will not solve the perceived immigration problem with Latin America, let alone deal with questions that have been raised about immigration from elsewhere in the world. Yet a wall is all he has to offer – and this is one of the few areas in which he has a specific proposal.

There have been many threats and statements he has made concerning issues of safety and protection, both for our country and for our citizens. Beyond our borders he will defeat ISIS and bring stability to the Middle East, while here at home he will restore “law and order,” giving us the peace and quiet we all seek. Unfortunately he does not tell us how he will achieve these ends. And the reality is that he probably won't achieve them, surely not in ways that most of us would find acceptable.

I may agree with Mr. Trump that our country has suffered in the last eight years; I may believe that his appointee to the Supreme Court would be more representative of American feelings than that of Secretary Clinton; I may share his ideas about necessary changes in the way our government is run and in the size of that government, but someone who sees the presidency as the first step in politics, and someone as lacking in experience in governing as he, cannot be the one we choose to lead us.

Much more could be said about someone who “talks a good game,” but gives no evidence that he'd be able to play a good game. It's enough to say, however, that he isn't fit to be president.

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.