The Debates

The debates begin tomorrow, on Monday. For the Presidency. There will be two candidates trading blows – the candidates of the major parties. Neither is trusted by the majority of Americans, but those are the only ones from whom we will hear the justifications for their seeking the office. One of them has claimed that the election is rigged (against him), which is seen as an advanced excuse for losing the election if that should occur.

But it is difficult not to accept the idea that the election is rigged. Not against either of them, irrespective of the claims. And not against the lesser of evils, but against those of us who trust neither of them. Despite voter antipathy towards both of the major party contenders, and the calls for new ideas and new leadership, the media won't let us in on any third party candidates' views, and the debate managers won't let us hear what those who question the major party offerings have to say, so we can decide. While the majority of Americans reject both the Democrat and Republican, we are not being given the opportunity to hear other views and judge for ourselves. Is Johnson better than Clinton or Trump? We'll never know. All we know is that the lesser of two evils is evil.

It's not a big surprise. Long ago the media staked out their positions, favoring either the Democrats or Republicans, and they gain nothing by devoting their personnel and their space to anyone else. And it will simply confuse their readers, who have been reared in the context of a “two party system.” They haven't been prepared, as have citizens of other countries, for a political system that contains many parties – each claiming different ground, pressing different issues, and favoring different political leaders and different political factions among the public.

It would also make debates both more complicated and expensive. And that's not the American Way. We have a free press – as long as you support the major parties. The idea of a third party is not one that the media support. Or at least not one that they “advertise.”

But if neither the media nor those who run the debates support the concept that there may be more than two points of view – on problems, solution, and people – how can we? When they limit what we can hear they limit what we can think, and what we can do. They deprive us of the ability to choose, while telling us that “anyone can grow up to be President.” The reality is that “anyone” has be an advocate (or claim to be one) of the policies of one of the major parties. There is no room for independent thinking. It is disruptive and uneconomical. It would cause citizens to question the prejudices of the established media. It would not be well received by the ownership and editorial staff of an organ that has a long-standing policy of supporting a particular party or philosophy.

A good example is the New York Times. It is a paper that, for the last half-century, has only supported Democrats for the Presidency. We have had Presidents who were members of the Democratic Party and never had a day during their stewardship when the country wasn't at war. The Times supported them. There have been Republican Presidents during times of peace. The Times has opposed them. Economic difficulties, as the “Gray Lady” has chosen to define them, are the fault of the Republicans, as is any racial strife. Even if they occur under a Democratic President.

Today (surprise, surprise), just in time for us to evaluate the candidates in debate having been primed to know who is right, the Times endorsed Secretary Clinton. She was recommended as “A leader with the intellect and courage to face hard challenges.” She “has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas.” It continues

Running down the other guy won't suffice to make [the] argument [although they promise to reveal to us tomorrow “why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history]. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn't Donald Trump.

The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton's capacity to rise to them.

In view of the fact that so many polls have displayed the belief that she is unfit for the office, she will certainly have “to rise to them.” And the frequent misstatements she has made while creating her image – some would call them “lies” rather than “misstatements” – make it difficult to accept her campaign promises without questions.

This is not a defense of Mr. Trump who is also not trusted by voters and would also be a bad choice. But the great flaws of both make it important that other points of view be presented to the American people. One of the two major party candidates is likely to win. They always do, and it will probably be Secretary Clinton. In either case we all lose. But if other ideas are presented either in the press or during debates we will at least have the opportunity of having more to discuss next time. I'm not so naïve as to believe that a third party candidate will ever be properly covered by the press or allowed to participate in future debates, but if their ideas become part of the conversation, Democrats and Republicans will have to discuss them. And we'll all gain from that.

Only Two

The more I hear, the worse it gets. Neither of the major party candidates is fit to be president. That doesn't mean that one of them won't be elected, but, as I've said may times before, it's a choice of the lesser of evils – and it's a bad choice. Unfortunately, only two narratives are available – one by a candidate who can only demonstrate ignorance and specializes in negative campaigning, and one who hides past activities and spends time primarily explaining why what is documented and reported is of no consequence. And the media take them seriously.

Below is a letter, variants of which I sent to several papers. As far as I know it hasn't been published, but that's not a big surprise. It deals with one of the (many) problems with our political system, and with the inability of voters to get adequate information to decide for themselves.

Before you vote for the lesser of evils, look elsewhere. More Americans oppose Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton than trust them, but perhaps there are other possibilities. Because candidates lacking 15% support are excluded from the debates, however, they can't make their views known. (Like Governor Gary Johnson -- who piques my interest as a "none-of-the-above" candidate.) It's important, therefore, that those polled express a preference for third-party candidates and increase that "support," irrespective of how they are likely to vote on election day. The polls are not binding, but if we don't hear what other contenders have to say we're doomed to choose between the major party candidates. It is possible that the devil we don't know isn't a devil. But unless we take steps to give others a voice, we'll never find out.

Rather than using the vote for the purpose of choosing our leader, let the referendum be about the Congress that will work with a new president, who would be selected by our trust, and by the confidence that our future is secure in his or her hands. There are many issues at stake that might benefit from a divided government, forced to bargain, rather than single-party leadership and a president who lacks our credence. For example, who will choose next Supreme Court Justice? It's possible that a third-party president will make a less doctrinaire choice than a chief executive bound by a party's dogmas. And a new head of state who has less partisan baggage than those whom he or she opposes might be better able to lead us while dealing successfully with the rest of the world as well. But we'll never get a chance to make an educated decision if we let the networks decide whom we can hear.

The American people will make a bad choice in the election. That's a foregone conclusion, because the choices they have are bad ones, and the means of getting the information necessary to improve on it is limited by sources that have a vested interest in the decision.

Some nations have many more parties than we. It's messier, but they allow for the presentation of more points of view. It's hard to know if that kind of arrangement would work here or if it would change anything, but it would provide the opportunity for more opinions to be expressed.