Elections seasons feed emotions like catnip for felines. Politicians stir up feelings that speak to our anger, our fears, our dissatisfactions, and our prejudices. A national campaign can release a flood of dammed up emotions. Although I have recently argued for limiting the time devoted to Federal election campaigns (reference “American Revolution 2016”), I may have underestimated the length of time required for Americans to move beyond our angst. But we must do so. In a diverse society of over three hundred million people, there will always be unresolved issues that challenge our sense of fairness, security, and unfulfilled needs. These issues will not be resolved by emotionally charged and unrealistic or misleading promises. The latter will not stand up to logic and sometimes they even defy ethics. Let me explain by way of a few examples.

One of the Republican candidates has stated that the Party’s frontrunner should not win the primary nomination because his presidency would be a disaster for the Party and for the country. But when asked whether he would support that candidate if nominated, he quickly acquiesced, saying he would honor his oath to do so. This position he justified as a man of his word. In other words, he was taking a moral stand. Let’s break down his logic:

The potential presidency of my opponent would be a disaster for the country;
However, I will support this candidate if he wins the Party nomination;
Therefore, I will support the disaster of his potential presidency.

The logic is sound, but the ethics are questionable. This candidate is more committed to his Party than to those whose vote he seeks and whose interests he promises to serve. Let’s look at another candidate’s promise:

I do not condone violence at my campaign events;
However, I will pay the court expenses for anyone arrested for attacking a demonstrator at one of my campaign events;
Therefore, paying court expense for someone attacking a demonstrator is not condoning violence.

Both the logic and the ethics defy common sense. But these illogical a/o unethical miscues are not the most troubling declarations we hear. Some of the policy proposals are appealing on the surface, but totally unrealistic on closer view. For example, a leading Republican candidate wants to eliminate the IRS and impose a flat tax of 10% on every citizen. For the well-to-do, this proposal would be a “god send”—eliminating many tax forms and significantly reducing the tax burden. But for the less fortunate, it would spell disaster: 10% of twenty or thirty thousand has a much bigger impact than 10% of one million. On the Democratic side of the ledger, both candidates want to change our health care system by either improving Obamacare or replacing it with a single payer system, aka, “Medicare for all.” Both of these positions are logical and ethical. But are they practical? Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare over 60 times now and are unlikely to advance any legislation that would strengthen, improve, or make it more cost effective. Likewise, Democrats have already turned down a single payer system in 2008 when they had control of Congress. The fact that a single payer system would costs less overall is mitigated by the fact that it would require more of the Federal budget. What Congress is likely to raise taxes or to reduce other Government expenditures on large ticket items like the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA? Neither proposal would even be considered unless the Democrats swept the Congressional elections in both Houses, which seems unlikely. Nevertheless, both Democratic candidates seem to be aiming for a strong electoral mandate to sway Congress in their favor. The Affordable Care Act changed healthcare from being strictly a business to more of a service. It would take a very strong electoral push before that service might become a right. (I have written about this topic more than once. If you are interested, review “Subtlety versus Bombast,” “What Follows Obamacare,” “Obamacare Five Years Later,” a/o “ACA: Affordable or Not?.”)

Perhaps more troubling are some of the candidates’ foreign policy statements. They not only fail the test of logic, but challenge the moral conscience of Americans. How does one justify carpet bombing, torture, and the elimination of terrorists’ families? Daesh, for instance, is certainly a threat; but, unlike Al Qaeda, they have yet to set foot on American soil. Except for “enhance interrogation techniques,” America did not even exercise these proposed options against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And Al Qaeda brazenly killed defenseless civilians in the American homeland. Moreover, some candidates seem to view America’s foreign relations as win or lose contests in commerce, technology, and military power. In this context, they believe we should not hesitate to increase tariffs, fight cyber wars, or even use military force to “win.” In this simplistic view, treaties, sanctions, and diplomacy should be subservient to aggressive use of force. If the current Administration had followed this path, we would already be bombing North Korea, invading Syria and Iraq, and facing Russian troops on a Ukrainian battlefield. We would be in a monetary tryst with China and a tariff war with both China and Mexico, two of our largest trading partners. In other words, our country would be overextended on several military fronts and trapped in a hyperinflationary trade war. Even if I appear to be exaggerating the consequences, clearly there are nuances to be considered and weighed in the balance.

Given time, I am sure we will survive the demagoguery and heated debates of this campaign theater. We only have to assess the substance of what candidates propose and set aside their attempts to manipulate our emotions. Elections only appear to be about winning and losing. They really are about governing—specifically, about how we choose to be governed and how America engages with the world.