What is the intent of the two slogans that attempt to summarize the themes of this presidential campaign? “Make America Great Again” presumes a return to a former greatness. The campaign it references seems to appeal largely to middle class white voters, especially to the male component within this group. “Stronger Together” presumes not only a diverse electorate, but one divided that needs to be united. This sentiment is intended to appeal to a wide range of constituents from college educated and upper middle class professionals to women, minorities and the poor. Interestingly, neither campaign seems to target publically the very rich or large corporations, except for fundraising. The latter is done mainly in private sessions closely guarded from public disclosure.

Many political savants have claimed that national elections turn on the state of the economy. If true, then the shrinking of the middle class, most especially the blue-collar worker, might explain why Mr. Trump’s supporters reject “politics as usual” and distrust other groups such as the opposing Party’s constituency. Issues that benefit that constituency such as tuition aid, immigration reform, expansion of healthcare, and reform of inner city governmental programs are not only of less concern but more often adverse to this group. Moreover, the white male blue collar worker has suffered disproportionately from the Great Recession and likely harbors deep resentments to other groups. The rich, for example, have prospered more than any other group from the recovery and promote their interests unheeded and unimpeded within the halls of government. Meanwhile, the poor just had the largest upward mobility ever recorded for a single year (2014). The professional or college educated is at least better positioned for higher paying jobs. And minorities have continued to increase their assimilation into the American economy. Although the white middle class may still represent the largest single voting bloc, both politically and economically it is losing its influence on America’s future. With the ground shifting beneath it, this group is more likely to fear the future, support any reconstruction of the past, and resent any Party or candidate that opposes it. Hence we have the anti-establishment and anger-filled faux revisionist movement of “Trumpism.” Nostalgia for a more empowered past trumps hope for a better future.

The anger and angst that fuel popular movements are fertile soil for demagogues. But these movements have underlying causes that any society would have to address, especially a free society. Opportunists see these movements as stepping stones to power. Democratic idealists see them as causes de la journée or causes of the day. Defeating Trump’s supporters in an election will not resolve their issues or concerns unless we actually address them. As a free citizen in this great democracy, allow me to humbly suggest a course of action.

_________________________________
1. Assure job training and career opportunities in advance of job displacements caused by globalization, technology and new trade agreements.

The costs of goods are generally cheaper in America than in Europe as a result of globalization and free trade. Our jobs and routine activities have become more productive because of technology. But not everybody has benefited from these lifestyle enhancements. Those whose jobs have been displaced suffer not only from lost income but also from the absence of opportunities. At the minimum we can address the latter. Should we instead close the door to these engines of growth to protect the jobs they displace? Should we reverse not only the benefits they bring to civilization but also their role in reducing world poverty? If you answer in the affirmative to these questions, then your view of progress is very myopic. Of course, it is no easy task to find replacement jobs for coal miners whose industry is less needed to power America. Nevertheless, the difficulty in finding jobs for these miners is no justification for ignoring their predicament. Job training is an option.

Moreover, since much of this job displacement is foreseeable, it can be addressed before it happens. For example, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) may still be approved, or less likely renegotiated and approved. What jobs will it affect? And what can be done by Government now to provide job opportunities/training for those so affected? I do not believe the wheels of progress need to be reversed. But we must address the consequences of change, especially when they are foreseeable. Free trade usually involves “give and take” between multiple parties. As in any agreement between parties with different interests and needs, America will not win every concession it wants. Whatever deficiency exists in a trade agreement must be addressed by our government. NAFTA was renegotiated. Much of what we learned from its failings was applied to the TPPA negotiations. What TPPA still may lack must be addressed, just as American schools are attempting to address student preparedness for the technology revolution by enhancing the math and science curriculum. Foreseeable change should never catch us unprepared. The critics of TPPA, for example, must provide a specific argument to either reject this trade agreement or specific remedial actions to facilitate its acceptance.

2. Separate the issue of immigration reform from undocumented immigrants already assimilated into the American workplace and culture. These are two different, though related, issues.

Much of America’s advantage in the world economy is based upon its more youthful workforce as compared to Europe and China. That youthful workforce is largely due to the influx of immigrants. Why would any politician advocate the removal of this workforce? Economically, such an advocacy is illogical and, for some advocates, xenophobic as well. For those peacefully assimilated and working in America, their undocumented status is an issue that needs to be addressed. They are excluded from political representation in our communities and too often victimized in our labor force. As a result they are easily stereotyped as “illegal” and “alien.” They are neither. In fact, they are undocumented immigrants like the first settlers of America. Rather than deportation, the only realistic solution to this issue is a path to citizenship and to equal opportunity in an expanding workforce. The Senate bill that addresses this issue appears to have enough votes to pass the House. But its provision of a path to citizenship offends a minority within the Republican Party. Politically, Party leadership is afraid of those who oppose it. Reasonably, there is no excuse for tabling it.

Strengthening the borders is also part of this legislation; but, frankly, I believe more needs to be done. It is not a bigger or more extensive wall that is needed. We have already spent billions of dollars on physical barriers and made border control the largest law enforcement agency of our Federal Government. But what have we done to make visa applications more available? The application process allows the U. S. Government the opportunity to properly screen applicants. We should have ample auxiliary consulates throughout Mexico and South/Central Americas to service visa applications. The problem at our southern border does not originate at the border. Just as NAFTA reduced border crossings by supplying jobs in Mexico for its citizens, a more expansive visa program could further reduce these border crossings where they originate. Maybe we should allocate some of the funds spent on border guards to the State Department.

3. Revise the Tax Code by simplifying its structure and removing the loopholes that encourage the “pay for play” phenomenon that spawns them.

Why is it so difficult to remove the tax loopholes that both political Parties decry? The answer is really quite simple: those loopholes were bought and paid for by their beneficiaries. In many cases, the loopholes were even written by the lobbyists who worked for these beneficiaries. Mr. Trump, for example, bragged about how his donations to politicians of both parties “always got what I wanted.” Notably, his proposed tax plan, while it takes away Romney’s “carried interest” (remember Trump does not like Romney), leaves intact the loophole that allows his deduction of more than $900 million. Now I recognize that every tax payer has his/her favorite deduction. But, as indicated in my previous blog, these huge tax loopholes represent a very serious mismanagement of the American economy. The problem is not that our tax system is not progressive. The problem is that the system is too easily gamed by those who can afford to influence our overly complex tax code. A simplified code would be fairer for businesses unable to pay or win support for tax “favors.” It would save billions of dollars in tax preparations for all individual and corporate tax payers. And it would promote competition and wealth creation more broadly in our country.

4. Limit the influence of money on political campaigns and the legislative agenda.

We need to remove the influence that PACs, bundlers, and billionaires have on our election campaigns and that lobbyists have on our government officials. Elections should be funded by limited private donations and by public funds (reference “American Revolution 2016”). And private citizens should have more access to elected officials than lobbyists. They are, after all, the petitioners referenced in our Constitution. In other words, we desperately need to strengthen the regulations that control lobbyists and their access to public and elected officials. Our legislators in particular need to spend more time on the people’s agenda than on that of moneyed interests.

5. Emphasize the role of our Constitution by advancing universal civics education and by encouraging public service opportunities.

We must reinforce the goals of the Preamble to the Constitution in the minds of all citizens by bolstering our civics education programs and demanding that each and every elected official reflect those goals in office. We need to redefine the moral basis for our society or risks losing it (reference my previous blog, “A Rigged System?”). Frankly, the size of the American population will never rid itself of extreme (defined as “un-American”) ideologies. White supremacists and conspiratorial fanatics will not suddenly disappear from our midst. But they should never gain so strong a voice that they can upset reasonable debate and discourse in a free society. The new generation of “millennials” should carry pocket sized copies of our Constitution. We need a generational rebirth of American ideals. Let us reassert the onus of responsibility on each citizen to advance the goals of our Constitution to make this nation “a more perfect union.” And as a practical measure, we should reward and advance public service with tuition subsidies for those who want to leverage such service into professional careers.
_________________________________

It will not be easy to implement these five actions. Two specific obstacles must be overcome: reconstitution of the Republican Party and clarification of recent Supreme Court decisions.

The actions suggested here not only attempt to address Mr. Trump’s supporters within the Republican Party but the related malaise that seems to have infected many Americans. If we can give some credence to polls, many of us are unsatisfied with our country’s current course. The current Presidential election just magnifies this dissatisfaction with all the groundless conspiracies, falsehoods, and errant accusations promulgated by Mr. Trump. Within his imagined Pandemonium (i.e., the capital of hell in “Paradise Lost”), we can see the byproduct of recent Party politics and of our general malaise. Over the past few years, a growing incivility has emerged between our political Parties. The Republican Party in Congress has actually refused to govern, not only finding it impossible to compromise on practically any issue, but also more than willing to shut down the government to appease a minority constituency it clings to like a lifeboat. The GOP now faces a crucial decision, much like the Democrats in the sixties. Do they cut loose a constituency that does not represent the general welfare of the country and spend the next several election cycles as the minority Party? Or do they maintain a course that does damage to the country and opens the door for somebody like Trump?

As Americans become more and more disillusioned with this political gridlock, they become apathetic about the system as a whole. The percentage of eligible voters who actually vote in national elections is in a death spiral: 61.6% in 2008; 40.9% in 2010; 36.4% in 2012. Meanwhile, Republicans in control of State legislatures have been busy gaming the electoral system with voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering in order to empower their avid minority of mostly single issue voters. Their path to victory is through the disgust and apathy they largely create in the majority of the electorate. The problem with this combination of anti-government behavior and electoral angst is the threat it poses to our democracy. The Republican Party must recapture the political correctness of Abraham Lincoln in order to win the heart and soul of a majority of Americans. And it must do so for the sake of America as a whole.

The issue of recent Supreme Court decisions on corporate entities and campaign fund raising is beyond my expertise. I complained about the consequences of these decisions to a Republican friend, who happens to be an outstanding lawyer. He retorted that the Justices considered legal precedents and ruled correctly. I am not qualified to determine how we might avoid the consequences I fear, that is, whether we need a Constitutional Amendment, as some have suggested, a reversal/clarification by the Supreme Court, or future legislative action along the lines I have previously proposed. The specific question: how do we unwind the actual/potential effects of the Supreme Court’s definitions of corporations as individuals and of campaign contributions as free speech?

If the provision of contract rights to corporations qualifies these artificial entities as free individuals in a democratic electoral system, then we will soon have to give voting rights to artificial intelligences. For they will have far more ability to analyze the background of candidates and determine their likely performance in office than the contractual constructs we call corporations. The only difference is that the latter can contribute money to elections. And corporate contributions can far outweigh individual contributions, making elections more likely the outcome of such fundraising.

And if a campaign contribution is an expression of free speech, then which of the candidate’s political positions does it support? It can only reflect generic support for a particular political party or candidate. Money cannot express individual policy preferences or specific assessments of a candidate’s attributes, because it has no words. It cannot participate in any democratic dialogue in the public forum. Its only significance is as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment. If campaign contributions are free speech, then the campaigns—and all political dialogue—can be reduced to fund raising. Elections are no longer contests between political philosophies and policies, but merely the outcome of fundraising.

In conclusion, America now faces obstacles and opportunities that may rival other pivotal points in our history. When I recall its founding in revolution and its trials with racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination, I become ever more aware of its resilience. The last of the five suggestions above explains the nature of that resilience. We meet the challenges of each generation with courage and hope in the spirit of our Constitution. Without that document and our will to support its aspirations, there is no America.

Vote wisely, my friends.