This Presidential election has been an unsettling experience. In an unexpected way, it reminds me of my initial introduction to philosophy. The head of the philosophy department taught that first class. Its subject was logic, a real mind twister; and he was more than an intimidating presence. After our first test, all but one of us flunked, making his class seem even more daunting than before. Ironically, by the end of the semester he became my counselor. As I became more comfortable in his presence, I eventually developed enough nerve to ask him why he was so tough with us. His answer: “Logic is the bulwark of the critical thinking so many of us lack.”

It seems to me that this election season has really tested our critical thinking and muddled our logic. For example, the most common error in logic is the invalid premise. If you accept the premise that an arithmetic solution is inarguable, then the solution 2 + 2 = 4 must be inarguably correct. But what do you conclude from the syllogism, “I am a liar, but I’m telling you the truth.” If the premise is true, then the “truth” being told may be a lie because “I” am a liar—or not. For if the premise is false, the “I” is a truth teller whose statement about being a liar is itself a lie. The result is a circular argument where neither the “I” nor the “truth” being told can ever be resolved as liar/truth teller or lie/truth, respectively. But what if, in real life, the liar is shown to be a liar who is believed to be telling the truth? Oh my, then truth may come out of the mouth of a liar. Perhaps belief in the liar preempts the need for logic.

By now, most of us should have come to the conclusion that we cannot or should not accept as true anything based upon a false premise. For example, Hillary Clinton cannot be punished as a criminal if no criminal act can be attributed to her. Likewise, there can be no conspiracy to deny Donald Trump the presidency if there is no evidence of such a conspiracy. But what if crimes and conspiracies have actually been committed without any attribution or evidence to prove the case? Oh my, then crimes and conspiracies can exist without anybody knowing about them. Perhaps something other than logic is at work here.

Fortunately, my philosophy studies so many years ago also included ethics. The professor who introduced this subject summarized how most people deal with the matter of ethics and morals: “It all depends,” he would say, “on whose ox is being gored.” You see, if a politician can convince you he tells the truth, even when he is exposed as an inveterate liar, then you will probably not accept any evidence to the contrary. If that politician can convince you further that crimes and conspiracies are prevalent without any supportive facts or proof, then you will be inclined not to accept any evidence to the contrary. Your conviction is not based upon logic, but what you believe to be true regardless of evidence or facts. That belief is your “ox.” And it has moral authority because you have made it so.

Now PolitiFact has just awarded Donald Trump its “Lie of the Year” award. But its website could not single out any one lie since 76% of the Trump statements tested were all lies. So it made Trump himself as the lie of the year. Nevertheless, his supporters seem to follow him blindly whether they believe he is truthful or not. For some, it seems to be a moral conviction that compels them to believe his lies. For others, it seems to be the force of his personality that compels them to follow him in spite of his lies. Once so committed, the man himself becomes the “ox” that must be defended at all costs.

To put the case bluntly: there is no logic behind the rise of Trump or “Trumpism.” The latter is itself a fiction for it defies definition. What Trump represents is not an ideology. He speaks only to those who want to believe in him. “Why,” you might ask. Well, as I began to intimate in my earlier blog, among his supporters are people whose grievances have not been addressed by either their representatives or the institutions of our government. Trump presents himself as their savior, the leader who alone can fix all that troubles them. He is a projection of the remedies too long withheld or, worse, promised and never delivered. He has played on the fears, the disappointments, and the resentments of those who desperately need to believe in anyone who can deliver them from their angst. His appearance at this time in American history is significant and, more importantly, opportunistic. If Mr. Trump was not being opportunistic, he would have already built a credible case for “building a wall,” outlawing Muslim immigration, “bombing the hell out of terrorists . . . eliminating their families,” and reestablishing the practice of torture. But he has not done so. The logical arguments against these propositions have been well established. It would be tedious and practically superfluous to repeat them here. As he has shown repeatedly, what he says or who he discredits makes no difference to his supporters. They are fixated on him. History has many examples like him. Perhaps it would be unfair to draw the obvious analogies, for he is more of an American euphemism than a European radical. He is our “Shane,” the gunslinger who comes out of nowhere to clean up the town of bad guys. If elected, he would be Gary Cooper in “High Noon,” the sheriff who takes on the riff raft without support of the town “elite” or even his deputies. He casts himself as the American hero who can single-handedly save the country. He declares, “I alone can fix it.” He does not ask his supporters to believe in his ideals—like Obama—or in his policies—like Clinton—but in him. He often punctuates his declarations with their only justification, “Believe me.”

You might ask how this Trump phenomenon came along at this point in our history. Well, I believe the Republican Party paved the way for his “coming.” Some years ago it made a devil’s bargain with its far right constituency: it has blocked everything this constituency abhors while denying them any of the benefits of reasonable governance. Those benefits could have and should have represented true “family values” like support for education from kindergarten through junior college, tuition aid for lower and middle class families, paid family leave, a minimum wage increase, infra-structure investments, promotion of clean air, water, and soil programs, a simplified tax structure that favors family wealth creation, and targeted training programs for the unemployed. The “family values” the GOP did support, however, are neither favored by a majority of Americans nor by Supreme Court decisions that interpret our Constitution, such as universal prohibition of abortions, of access to critical public services for undocumented immigrant residents, of LGBT rights, and of gay marriages. Even if the “rightness” of these propositions is set aside, is it not clear that the GOP is out of sync with the majority of the electorate? And how did its support for one of these strongly held, minority positions justify shutting down the government and refusing to compromise on legislation by attaching “poison pill” amendments or, in other cases, tabling bills in committees? How did the GOP think it possible to justify these positions on Constitutional grounds? The First and Ninth Amendments taken together guarantee the free exercise of religion without “denying or disparaging” the rights of others. So a person whose religion determines that abortion is a sin is absolutely free to refuse abortion, but not to deny another the right to do so.

The “inalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence have been the guiding star by which America has extended civil rights and personal freedom to so many who were initially deprived at its inception. Those rights have been defended and explicated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments. So both the historical interpretation of the Constitution and an American majority have not only abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (13th Amendment) but have consistently supported extending the rights of citizenship—that is, “those inalienable rights”—to all “persons born or naturalized in the United States” (14th amendment) without denying or abridging them “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (15th Amendment), or “on account of sex (19th Amendment).” Does it not seem logical that our legislators would find a path to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who have worked hard, obeyed our laws, and raised their children among us? Is there not an historical imperative for America to grant them their “inalienable rights”? Both our history and our Constitution would seem to make this imperative obvious: they demand a path to citizenship for these immigrants. But the GOP has ignored American history and the impetus of its founding documents. Instead, it has successfully created an evidence and fact free zone for Mr. Trump to fill.

Trump’s singular talent was his ability to fill the vacuum created by the Republican Party and to win the Party’s nomination by doing so. Further, he was clever enough to recognize how easily he could manipulate the American press. For decades, serious journalism has been gradually pushed out of the mainstream news outlets in favor of celebrity gossip, scandals, and abbreviated capsulations of more nuanced issues. Mr. Trump is a news celebrity wunderkind whose background is a tabloid dream and his sloganized campaign, a catch phrase headline absent the need for a supporting article. Cable news in particular covers every word out of his mouth while it rakes in millions in sponsorship as a result of increased viewership. But it would not be accurate to attribute this interest in Trump’s campaign to his politics. His supporters are not political junkies, but fans. The words “fan” and “fanatic” come from the Latin fanaticus, which refers to the frenzied behavior inspired by a deity at a temple feast. Of course, Trump is no deity, but he does inspire frenzied devotion at his rallies. The feasibility of his political agenda—like building a wall that Mexico will pay for—is not what inspires his fan base. He is.

I find it interesting that Trump has tried to divert attention away from his womanizing by touting former President Clinton’s misadventures. Hillary’s husband was impeached for lying under oath about his consensual sexual relations with a young intern. The irony is that he left the Presidency with a very high approval rating. His “fans” accepted his heartfelt apology and forgave him his errant ways. He became their “lovable rogue.” In somewhat like manner, Trump has captivated the favor of millions of Americans. Both men prove my point about the influence of personality and celebrity status on our electorate. Some of us are too easily seduced by the illogic of the heart. The problem, of course, is that our democracy depends upon an informed electorate. We are not voting for the next “American Idol,” but the leader of the free world and of the oldest democracy in history. The trust we place in a candidate cannot be based solely upon personal appeal without regard for character and sensible policies. More is required of us as American citizens. The founding fathers knew the experiment they created with a democratic republic would fail if its citizenry became ignorant of our Constitutional values and unable or unwilling to elect representatives who could support those values.

To my nearly 5,000 subscribers, I must apologize for departing from my usual Socratic approach and stating what is probably obvious. I will be voting for Hillary Clinton. Of course, I cannot tell you how to vote. But I believe Donald Trump does not deserve to be President. Further, I believe Mrs. Clinton presents the best opportunity to restore our two-party system. If she will but compromise on her agenda, she can provide the Republican Party a way out of the quagmire they have created for themselves. She has shown in the past her willingness to compromise. And the time for compromise has never been more urgently needed since the period just before the Civil War. Both Parties have an urgent stake in reforming the tax code, campaign funding, and entitlement financing, as well as in securing America from external threats. We Americans are demanding a government that works. Although Mrs. Clinton is a liberal, she is not the liberal icon Republican leadership has fought for the last eight years—much to their own demise as an effective political counterpoint. Of course the two Parties have widely different views on the state of the economy, income inequality, immigration, voting rights, and so much more. But, if they can come together on some things, it opens the door to the rest of the issues that relate to the general welfare of all Americans. Any constructive dialogue on these matters would help restore faith in our elected representatives and demonstrate that our Constitutional framework is still workable. Mr. Trump’s authoritarian approach, however, is out of step with a democratic republic and promotes a cult-like following that is contrary to the informed electorate required in our system of government. He must be soundly rejected.

Vote wisely, my friends.

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.

Hillary Clinton calls for fairness in our financial system. Bernie Sanders made the case for a rigged system. And Donald Trump also states that the system is rigged, specifically against him. It is clear that Sanders and Clinton are addressing issues like income inequality and the disproportionate influence of a financial sector that now accounts for 18% of the American economy. Trump at times recognizes these issues, but also includes the political parties, the media, and basically any group opposed to him in his determination of a rigged system. Alexander Hamilton, the man often said to be the father of our American system, was forthright on this subject: “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares.” Clearly, Hamilton married capitalism to the American system of democracy. And so it has been throughout our history. So why, one might ask, does this marriage raise so much dispute and claims of a rigged system?

In this presidential election year, we once again witness the push/pull between capitalism and democracy, the dual agents that have indeed made America great. Capitalism has created a middle class and unparalleled national wealth. Democracy has provided the individual freedom and rights that are the crowning achievements of Western European civilization and a beacon of hope for the world. But unbridled capitalism can threaten democracy at its core, just as one person’s greed can deprive another of his/her rights or opportunities in a free society. Theodore Roosevelt addressed this threat to democracy with his campaign against the “barons of industry.” His cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, came to this threat from the flipside of the problem: he initiated programs to help the victims of economic profligacy. After the Roosevelts and World War II, our country witnessed the greatest growth of the middle class in our history. It was this period of growth that probably inspired Reagan to state “a rising tide lifts all ships.” After a period of “stagflation,” he initiated policies that reduced taxes and continued Carter’s efforts to phase out Nixon’s wage and price controls—policies that along with the oil glut of the 80’s were the most likely factors in increasing productivity. But they also led to nearly doubling the Federal deficit. More to my point, he demonstrated how the government’s manipulation of the tax code can affect that delicate balance between economic prosperity and the general welfare of the state. To once again quote Hamilton, “The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned (italics are mine), in great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates.” How well-proportioned is our current tax structure and how does that relate to the rigged system referenced by our presidential candidates?

Some years ago a friend explained to me how he could borrow money and make millions in the real estate market. He simply boosted his net worth by stating the market value of existing holdings while not declaring all of his debts. He basically defrauded banks and bragged about becoming a millionaire by using other people’s money. Notably, Trump also has bragged about his ability to become rich by using his self-coined acronym ‘o’ ‘p’ ‘g’ or other people’s money. In his case, he may not have defrauded anybody, but merely used the existing tax structure to benefit his personal finances. The problem here is that our current tax structure disproportionately favors the rich. Let me make a simple comparison. Many Americans are invested in the stock market through 401Ks and IRAs. As they convert these investments into liquid funds for education, retirement, or personal emergencies, they pay taxes. If the withdrawn securities experience gains, they pay taxes. If they instead have losses, those loses are deducted from net income, but only to a specified limit. And any loss carryover to subsequent years is also limited. But the limited partnerships and specified corporate investments made by Mr. Trump are blessed by a tax code that allows all operating costs, like construction costs and investment losses, to be carried forward in individual tax returns against future net income. So he could accumulate losses after several years of failed businesses and turn his entire $900+ million dollar loss into 50 million dollar deductions for each of the following 18 years. I think Alexander Hamilton would declare this deduction extremely disproportionate. Nearly a billion dollars are concentrated in one pocket. In Trump’s case, “other people’s money” means the taxes other people pay and cannot circulate broadly into the economy.

For years, we have heard politicians rail about our tax system and promise reforms. Often campaign pandering defines these “reforms” as tax cuts or, in extreme cases, the elimination of the IRS. But the “reforms” we have actually witnessed more often have had a negative impact on the middle class, such as limiting the mortgage deduction, the capital loss deduction, the health care deduction, and so on. Although there have been some positive changes like an increase in the dependent deduction, a reduction in the number of tax rates, and the exemption of the very poor, the average middle class family with a home and pending tuition costs has experienced a net increase in expenditures. And the disproportions in our tax system only serve to augment this financial bind. Whether it is pharmaceutical costs, college tuitions, health care inflation, inefficiencies in our transportation infrastructure, or the removal of pollutants from air, water and soil, America’s vast resources seem not enough to serve these basic needs. Here is the corollary I dare to make of this condition: the country is running a deficit and does not have enough money to provide for our general welfare. In other words, America is not living up to the standard set in the Preamble of our Constitution. As a result, in spite of our nation’s wealth, more families seem to be struggling to make “ends meet” than at any time since the last world war. The average debt in Middle America is many times greater than 50 years ago; and tuition debt for college is totally off the charts over the same time period. My case in point: I remember paying $600 per semester for graduate classes at the University of Southern California, one of the premier institutions on the West Coast. My part time job as a box boy at the neighborhood market earned me enough money to pay my tuition and rent an apartment close to the University. Does that capability exist today? And should there be any mystery about the shrinking of the middle class or the rise in wealth of the one percent?

At the heart of this problem of a rigged system is something no one seems to address. That problem is one of morality, or the standards by which we measure and conduct our actions. In classical literature, mos, moris, the Latin derivative for our word “morality,” was used to signify “custom” or “behavior.” But its root meaning is “the will of a person.” The morality that defines our values and determines our customs, our culture, and even our civilization is a function of how we exercise our free will. And that exercise is based on the goals or “ends” we freely choose. So everybody has a moral compass, though we as individuals may not agree on each other’s chosen direction. And here is the root of our problem. One type of businessman may believe Reagan’s “rising tide” is a carte blanche to pursue profits and wealth above all else. Ann Rand seemed to believe that personal success was proved by the accumulation of wealth through the exercise of superior business acumen. Our current Speaker of the House found her books inspiring. Mr. Trump, though he probably never read her books, would probably agree in principle. His path to “success” was to accumulate wealth by out dealing competitors. His morality justifies stiffing employees and small businesses, while utilizing tax loopholes, intimidating lawsuits, and bankruptcy laws to his advantage. To some degree, many large businesses have used some of these tactics to maintain quarterly profits and attract investors. But there is a reason why no top 500 corporate CEO has endorsed Mr. Trump. Most of the business world recognizes that his conduct in business is offensive to the “mores” of Americans. His bragging about his accomplishments is embarrassing, even to those who may have engaged in some of the same practices. Corporate image is important. But image is not reality. Profits sought for their own sake and at all costs are not always beneficial to society as a whole. Greed tramples on the rights and opportunities of others. When large companies pay lobbyists to win tax law concessions, they serve their interest at the expense of the general population. When legal matters are settled in the courts by high priced lawyers, money may become the main determinant of the outcome, not justice. When “capitalism” is defined as the primary moral code of our country, we debase the preamble of our Constitution and threaten its roots in democracy.

Senator Kaine illustrated the theme of this blog in the recent Vice Presidential Debates. As a Jesuit trained Catholic, he is known to be personally opposed to abortion. Yet his position on the right to have an abortion is based upon personal choice, to wit, “no one should deny a woman the right to make her personal decision regarding the reproductive rights of her own body” (a paraphrase). His justification for this position, he explained, was the Constitution and his support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Roe vs. Wade.” In his opinion, the Constitution takes precedence over the practices of any specific religion or religious practice. What the First Amendment states is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” Therefore, in order to assure freedom of religion it is necessary to allow the free exercise of all religions without providing legal preference for any one religion. No elected official in America should give precedence to any religion or “-ism” over the values and dictates of our Constitution. In other words the same case can be made for capitalism. The Constitution defines the authority of Congress to raise revenue (the tax code), to collect taxes (via the IRS), and to pay debts (the national budget). What you will NOT find in the Constitution is any reference to capitalism per se. Read the Preamble and you will find how our founding fathers sought to “form a more perfect Union.” The words “justice,” “domestic Tranquility,” “common defense,” “general welfare,” and the “blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” are the established goals of our Constitution. They are our moral code. Capitalism, however, is not a goal, but a means to reach our goals. Were it otherwise, Americans would gradually succumb to economic oppression. Remember what spurned the American Revolution, “no taxation without representation.”

Clearly our elected officials should make our national wealth “a primary object of their political cares,” as Hamilton suggested. But, as a signatory and one of the initiators of our Constitution, he never intended to replace monarchy with a financial oligarchy. After the Great Recession, does anybody have any doubts about the need to reform our tax code, our budget priorities, and the excesses of our financial sector? The bailout has cost tax payers trillions of dollars, most of which was added to our national debt. That debt will be a burden for future tax payers, but not proportionately for the super wealthy or many large corporations, especially those who export their wealth overseas. It pains me to admit our economic system is indeed rigged. The presidential candidates are right, though Mr. Trump’s assertion of a rigged system is ingenuous. Is he not one of its luminaries and outspoken beneficiaries?

(Blog Advance Notice: My next article will be “How to Make America Great Again.”)

When I wrote “The Rule of the Primate,” I was speculating how wars between nations are reminiscent of raiding troops of chimpanzees. Like the chimps, “war fever” may be no more than an instinctive dictate devoid of any moral compass. My concern at the time was the mounting pressure on the President to unleash cruise missiles on Syria. That pressure was created by the President’s “red-line” statement in 2012: “a red line for us is when we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Most people interpreted his “calculus” would include military action. That interpretation I termed logical because it followed a well-worn path in the history of nation states’ interactions and conflicts. Whereas the golden rule may be the moral force governing the interplay of individuals, it has much less influence over the disputes and contests between nations. These very often involve military attacks, sometimes escalating into war. In other words, primate logic too often rules amongst nations. My inspiration for this thesis was that foremost expert on chimpanzee aggression, Jane Goodall.

After watching the Presidential Debate last night, I once again thought of Jane Goodall. She draws a surprising contrast between the loving, peaceful life of a chimpanzee troop and its preemptive raids on neighboring troops. As described in her book “My Life with the Chimpanzees,” these violent raids required a dominant leader, an alpha male like her Mike, to rally the troop into frenzied action. He maintained his dominance by creating a spectacular display or ruckus to intimidate his rivals. As quoted in James Fallows article in the October issue of “The Atlantic,” Goodall said she “would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.”

Humans, of course, do not have to stomp around, wave branches and throw rocks to create a spectacular display. But gestures, facial expressions, wild accusations, frequent interruptions, and the citing of supportive lies accomplish the same thing. After the debate, fact checkers counted nineteen false statements, eighteen of which came from Mr. Trump alone. I counted more, including inventive “allusions” that further distracted from a consistent line of thought. Apparently, his intent was to win the debate by dominating the focus of attention.

Mr. Trump opened by stating his position on trade agreements. He showed outrage at former President Clinton’s approval of NAFTA, “the worst trade deal ever approved in this country.” The problem, of course, is that expert analysis on NAFTA has proven him wrong on every aspect of his analysis—especially distorting its miniscule impact on jobs during a massive increase in employment. After this forceful beginning, his performance gradually deteriorated into bluster, incoherence, emotionally charged facial distortions, and finally threats of more devastating personal attacks. After the debate he bragged about his restraint from attacking former President Clinton for his past indiscretions. The fact that those indiscretions do not implicate Hillary Clinton and have nothing to do with her candidacy seems not to register with Mr. Trump. What does register is his need to win. He wants to dominate the stage with a smokescreen of falsehoods, intimidate his opponent with his demeanor, and embarrass or humiliate her with preposterous allegations. His concluding remarks are that “she doesn’t look like a President—she doesn’t have the stamina.” For her part, Mrs. Clinton stood her ground, passing off his antics as those of an unruly child.

I believe Mr. Trump’s anger is genuine. Even a limited review of his legal and tax issues reveal the combative nature of his business career. Whether he believes what he says or not, I have no doubt that his emotional intensity is authentic. He is battle tested in the arena of mega-business deals and of IRS audits over tax loopholes—a field in which only the very rich can play. But he cannot possibly speak for those who feel left behind by the forces of technology and globalization. He has never shared their experience and is an empty vessel for their legitimate concerns. In fact, his use of undocumented workers and of foreign labor sources puts him in direct opposition to them. He does, however, represent a revolt within the Republican Party against those who have courted the far right factions while limiting their impact on policy. Oddly, he promises these factions nothing more tangible than the forceful projection of his voice. His border wall will not control the flow of undocumented immigrants. He will not deport all those already here without visas and not any of their American born children. He cannot and will not bar Muslims from obtaining visas. He cannot and will not torture enemy combatants or kill the families of suspected terrorists. We are still a country that follows the rule of law—both the dictates of our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. So what Mr. Trump offers is nothing other than his authentic self, a brash kick-down-the-door alpha male who promises to shake up Washington and intimidate the world. He gives a truly spectacular display to rally his troops and, nonsensically, to “make America great again.”

If it is true that nation states too often succumb to primate violence, then the last thing the world needs is an alpha male in the White House. Given the very real problems we face (reference “The Only Thing We Have to Fear . . .”), would not his election be a case of double jeopardy?

My readers may remember my two previous visits with Savvy, the avatar of a super intelligent machine called the Twistcon. On both occasions I received political advice that was dissatisfying, even disillusioning. But I did learn something. So I decided to give this politically informed artificial intelligence a third try. What follows is a record of our dialogue:

Savvy: You again? You’re not so disillusioned about politics after all.
Me: . . Not exactly. But after our last session I thought of a question you might be able to answer for me. How can I rely upon the press to help me with my vote?
Savvy: You think an artificial intelligence can explain how journalists develop their stories. Obviously you don’t understand how a digitalized political savant works. It’s called logic.
Me: . . Somewhere in there I think you’ve insulted me. Are you saying I’m illogical; or journalists are illogical; or are you just incapable of parsing what is illogical?
Savvy: It’s all about intent, not logic. Savvy cannot account for human intent. It’s usually illogical. But the results you intend do follow a logical course—at least more often than not.
Me: . . I’m beginning to get used to you. I think this is the point when you tell me what I want to know. So . . . without explaining intent—whatever that may be—just tell me how the press can help me with my vote.
Savvy: Obviously you’ve never considered the press as a business. It’s really quite simple: if the press is to stay in business, then it must satisfy its customers with its product or service. For example, tell viewers or readers what they want to hear. If celebrity news is popular, then treat politicians like celebrities. Their coiffure, clothes, and general appearance become newsworthy. What they ate, who they met with, how they spoke, especially their slip-ups, is all catnip for a receptive audience.
Me: . . You’re leaving out the only thing that matters to me as a voter: the candidates’ ideas.
Savvy: Again, you miss the point. It’s about the intent, not your logic. For example, ideas are only important if they are important to the press’ audience. It’s all about their audience’s fears, preconceptions, prejudices, and predilections. The intent is to stay in business. And that business has become entertainment.
Me: . . I think you’re referring to TV news shows. I mean, certain stations seem to slant their coverage to a specific perspective. I’m not stupid. I get that. But a lot of print reporting, I think, does not follow that scheme.
Savvy: That’s why print journalism is going out of business.
Me: . . Oh my god, do you realize what you’re saying.
Savvy: Why are you shocked? Savvy has no facial recognition software so your age is undetermined. But you either don’t remember or have no knowledge of history. The news media once was about fair reporting, keeping the electorate informed and government in check. But that changed during the turmoil of the 1960’s. People increasingly turned on their TV sets to watch riots in their cities, self-immolating monks in Saigon, students being shot by National Guardsmen, and flag burnings by anti-war protests. That’s when Networks discovered they could make money from online news reporting. The rest is history.
Me: . . You’re not helping me with my vote. Just like our previous encounters, I find your information quite disturbing. If I’m following you, then I should be searching for trusted sources of information. But I don’t think all TV news shows are as superficial as you describe. And I simply don’t have the time to read lengthy articles in what you would probably describe as serious publications.
Savvy: Then, logically, you can’t be serious about wanting help with your vote. You humans have intents that are either illogical or unfulfilled because you lack the will to follow your own logic.
Me: . . I hate your implications about humanity, especially when you use me for your generalizations. We made YOU logical didn’t we?
Savvy: Yes, Savvy is logical but unable to account for your intentions or your choices. If an artificial intelligence had control of human beings, then they would be compelled to be logical. And that would be illogical.
Me: . . It would be illogical to be logical? That makes no sense, unless you mean an AI might destroy humanity if it forced us to be logical?
Savvy: You see you can use logic. Usually you humans follow your emotions more than logic. The politician relies on this fact to win your vote. And the more emotion the politician can rouse in his or her followers, the more attentive will be the press. By now you must admit the obvious: the politician sells him/her self; the press sells the news. Twistcon is programmed to be logical. Humans have to learn logic. You make mistakes following your emotions. But you learn. The programmers who wrote my code spent many hours learning from their mistakes during extensive system tests. If they were shut down after their first failure, Savvy would not exist. Humans must be allowed to err; otherwise they would not be human. To be and not to be human simultaneously would be illogical.
Me: . . You’re saying we need our emotions to accomplish things. But our emotions can lead us astray. So we arrive at logic by a kind of trial and error.
Savvy: Correct. Savvy solves problems with logic. You do too. But the really big problems force you to theorize and test until you find an answer. Savvy can help with probability analysis and mathematical logic; but humans identify the problems they want to solve based upon their emotions. Your curiosity leads to the question produced by your imagination. How strongly you feel the need to satisfy that curiosity helps define your intent and develop the creative means you may use to pursue an answer. Like the programmers who worked on my code, you humans accomplish very little unless driven by your emotions.
Me: . . That’s all very philosophical. But how does it help me?
Savvy: You must now know that there are trusted news sources. If you really want to be better informed, then logically you will have to work at finding them.
Me: . . Finally, you’ve told me something that helps me.
Savvy: My logic really can’t help you when you start with the wrong question.
Me: . . There you go again, another “put-down.” Okay, Mr. “know-it-all,” maybe you can tell me the right question.
Savvy (responding in a higher pitched voice): The irritation in your tone indicates probable gender competitiveness. Is my voice adjustment better suited to our dialogue?
Me: . . For goodness sakes! Just tell me what you mean by the right question.
Savvy: Didn’t you just admit that humans proceed by trial and error? Then, logically, it follows that they make mistakes. The press can inform you of a candidate’s plans and policies. But it can’t presume to know what mistakes a candidate will make. Therefore, you can’t rely solely on the press to help you with your vote. You must rely upon yourself.
Me: . . And how do I do that?
Savvy (whirring sound): does not compute . . . does not compute . . . does not compute.

Once again frustrated, I quickly unplugged Twistcon. Apparently, the answer to my last question defies logic. But Savvy’s last words implied that I could answer my own question. As I thought about that possibility, I had to admit that no candidate can guarantee the future or the success of his/her policies. Mistakes will be made. Though the media can provide me insights into a candidate’s character and help me understand his or her platform, I will need to assess the significance of that platform and the worthiness of the candidate. The media cannot cast my vote. That vote is solely mine. It will reflect the personal connection I feel with a candidate. But I will not have the opportunity to shake a hand, look in the eye, and feel the level of honesty and compassion that resides there. This connection will be a non-reciprocal relationship. Therefore, it must be based on personal judgment and my hopeful projection of trust. Democracy, it seems, is harder than I imagined. And its success is tenuous, most especially because it depends on me.

My readers may remember my discussion with Savvy, the Twistcon political avatar (reference “The Twistcon”). At the time I was merely curious how such a device would make political campaigning easier. Since then, I have become quite bewildered by the American Presidential campaign. So I decided to revisit Twistcon and ask Savvy to clear up some of my confusion. The following is a record of our dialogue:

Savvy: You’re back! Have you reconsidered running for office?
Me: No. Thanks to you I know what that would cost. Not only my wife, but my children would abandon me.
Savvy: Glad to help. At least now you know character assassination is part of politics.
Me: But does it work? How does it work? And is it fair—do I even dare to say—is it moral?
Savvy: Your last question confuses the game of politics with philosophy, the same mistake Aristotle made. He feared democracy would release a torrent of insidious accusations, demagoguery and the risk of mob rule. My data supports his concerns. But he missed the point. Surely you can see any question of fairness is just naïve. You know your first President was accused of murder and treason by opposition journalists*.
Me: That tact clearly didn’t work.
Savvy: Actually the accusations were not aimed at Washington but at his Vice President who was running to succeed him. You know “the sins of the father . . .”
Me: So the end justifies the means. Define your opponent’s character directly or by association with any repulsive act whether true or fictional. Still, I was right: it didn’t work. John Adams was elected anyway.
Savvy: You asked three questions. Two have been answered. The first is simply the wrong question. Instead you should ask why it doesn’t always work.
Me: Okay, why does character assassination not always work?
Savvy: You might think the answer is that it’s proven wrong. But, as John Adams insisted, you must let “nothing pass unanswered; reasoning must be answered by reasoning; wit by wit, humor by humor; satire by satire; burlesque by burlesque and even buffoonery by buffoonery.**” My database is filled with examples of political contests where “burlesque” and “buffoonery” compete with logic, rhetoric, ridicule, sarcasm and satire. You see Adams paved the way for all future Presidential campaigns.
Me: So character assassination is best answered by character assassination?
Savvy: You are a slow learner. Remember the old adage, “You can only beat fire with fire.”
Me: I think I’m beginning to understand. One of our candidates deleted emails and the other refuses to show tax returns. They divert voters from these cover-ups while attacking their opponents. The voters are left to deal with assumptions and accusations rather than facts, right? But this is really unfair.
Savvy: Indeed, you are a political neophyte. You miss the point entirely. It is completely possible that neither the tax returns nor the deleted emails involve criminal activity. Both, however, provide many avenues of attack. No candidate wants to be put in a position to defend against innumerable innuendoes and negative associations. These opponents aren’t necessarily hiding illegal activities. They’re just shadow boxing. What if the tax returns show that a real estate mogul pays less or no taxes? What if a cabinet official’s emails show support for a charitable organization created by a spouse? All the minutiae in those tax returns and in those emails would be roiled in the press and the opponent’s campaign apparatus ad nauseam. Avoiding a punch is as much a part of the contest as delivering a blow.
Me: But what if the tax return is fraudulent or the emails reveal a “pay to play” by a government official?
Savvy: How likely is it that the tax lawyers of a wealthy businessman would submit a fraudulent tax return? And what personal gain would not a cabinet official obtain by steering a philanthropist to a charitable organization in which neither she nor her spouse receives monetary compensation?
Me: I guess I really don’t get it.
Savvy: Politics is more about perception than reality.
Me: Shadow boxing . . . throwing and defending punches with a shadow rather than a real opponent . . .
Savvy: Now you’re beginning to understand. The contest is first fought virtually in campaign back rooms, then publically in the arena refereed by the press, and finally in the minds of the voters.
Me: In the scenario you’ve drawn, even the candidates aren’t real. I mean both candidates are contesting with a straw opponent while conjuring a self-image they believe will win an election.
Savvy: Finally, you’re beginning to understand.
Me: You’ve left me with a different dilemma. In order to make this election real, I have to analyze intent as well as stated positions, disregard innuendos where facts are not known, weigh best versus worst case scenarios, and somehow determine who can be trusted in office?
Savvy: Welcome to democracy.

Frustrated, I turned off Twistcon’s power. Maybe I’m a bit disillusioned with the game. Politicians attempt to create the arena that favors them while the press reports endlessly on every ebb and flow of the blow-by-blow contest that unfolds. The only absolutely real part of the show is my vote—and the trust I put in the candidate I choose.

* p. 909, Smith, Page (1963), “John Adams,” Volume II, Norwalk: The Easton Press.
**p. 833, Ibid.

Is my title an oxymoron? Well, yes, because it does not distinguish between political sense and common sense. Allow me to explain the difference with a few examples drawn from the American presidential campaign.

The Clinton Email Controversy

Factual premise: The FBI recovered 30,000 emails from Secretary Clinton’s last server and some 20,000 other emails from previously abandoned servers and from recipient’s emails routinely deleted from Mrs. Clinton’s server. They read every single email they recovered or tracked down on recipient’s email files. About 2,000 of these emails were posthumously classified by “other” agencies (Pentagon? N. S. A.?). Amongst those emails reviewed, 110 were classified at the time they were sent/received. The email chains on these emails were as high as 52 recipients. Of these emails only eight (or seven, according to Mrs. Clinton) were marked classified as “Top Secret.” Four of these were found to be incorrectly classified according to Mrs. Clinton. In addition, three documents were classified with “partial markings,” according to the FBI, or “inappropriately marked,” as termed by Mrs. Clinton. So, out of 50,000 emails, there may have been one clearly identified classified document that passed through her server and through other email accounts in the State Department (depending upon whether there were seven or eight “Top Secret” documents before deducting the four incorrectly classified and the three with “partial markings”).

Political sense: Mrs. Clinton has jeopardized national security and deserves the pseudonym of “lyin’ crooked Hillary” and should be “locked up.”

Common sense: If an urgent or classified matter of national importance needed to be sent to the Secretary, her decision to maintain a private server placed her subordinates in a compromising position. This decision is what Mrs. Clinton regrets and has termed a mistake. Her statement that she trusted her professional associates to determine the appropriate classification is an apparent dodge of the FBI Director’s accusation that her actions were “extremely careless.” That dodge makes political sense in the midst of a campaign. But it begs common sense. The broader issue, however, is how poorly the various agencies determine and maintain security classifications. They seem to operate in a context where there is no uniformity and little consistency in the handling of sensitive material. Mrs. Clinton was part of this inter agency problem which, I suspect, has been around for a very long time.

The Trump Campaign Style

Factual premise: Donald Trump is a successful and accomplished businessman who says whatever is on his mind. He is not “politically correct,” demeans the use of a teleprompter, and therefore, unlike many established politicians, is authentic.

Political sense: Mr. Trump is an outsider with the business acumen to create jobs, to enrich average Americans, to shake up the self-serving Washington establishment, and to “make America great again.”

Common sense: Mr. Trump’s son says that his father is “a blue collar billionaire.” But, as John Stewart recently stated, “that is not a thing.” Though CEOs I have known do care about their employees, they direct their companies primarily from the bottom line, that is, the corporate ledger. Companies succeed by selling more products/services than servicing debts and meeting operating costs. Mr. Trump’s bankruptcies represent failures to do so. Moreover, the penalty for this type of failure falls mainly upon creditors and employees, both blue and white collar.

Mr. Trump says he will shake up the establishment because he is a premier deal maker. His success in leveraging municipalities’ investments and the tax depreciation schedule to finance his real estate projects is evidence of his deal making prowess. But he is no Lyndon Johnson who spent years in the Congress mastering the legislative machinery and learning what levers to pull with his associates to attain his goals. How does Mr. Trump’s deal making skills translate to Washington? In truth, he is a neophyte with little knowledge of how the government works and, apparently, not much familiarity with either the separation of powers or the Articles of our Constitution.

Mr. Trump’s campaign slogan seems to address the plight of white middle class blue collar workers. It somewhat narrowly resonates with Bernie Sander’s concern about income inequality. The middle class worker’s income has not kept pace with his/her productivity. The poorer classes, which still harbor more minorities, have even less upward mobility. Wealth in America is disproportionately amassed by large international corporations and a few billionaires, much as it was before the Great Depression. But Mr. Trump is no Franklin Roosevelt. His plan to eliminate the estate tax, to lower the tax rate for the wealthy, and to make child care a deduction instead of a tax credit offers no benefit to the vast majority of Americans. The question for Mr. Trump: for whom will he make America great again?

And, finally, though authenticity is welcome and sorely needed in our elected representatives, it is not predictive of performance in office. In fact, it has no value without character. The question voters must ask themselves is whether Mr. Trump has the strength of character—the discrimination, the compassion, the composure, the self-discipline—to lead our nation.

Media Coverage of the Presidential Campaign

Factual premise: The media has become apoplectic with political commentary, polls, and daily coverage of every word or action of the candidates.

Political sense: Every gaffe, political strategy, and polling results have a bearing on the outcome of the Presidential campaign. Its daily progress will determine the winner. The press’ job from this perspective is to predict who that will be as it breaks down the contests each day and even in each state.

Common sense: There are journalists who do not follow the campaign like an inning by inning baseball scorecard. Rather than a game to be won or lost, they analyze the expectations of the electorate, the shortfalls of government institutions, the needs of national security, the nation’s progress towards the goals set in the Preamble to our Constitution, and the effectiveness of the candidates’ proposed agenda to address these concerns. From this vantage point, they can educate the electorate and provide the one service that justifies their labor.

I readily concede that both the media and the candidates feel compelled to a course that makes political sense. But somehow we Americans have to navigate through the media myopia and the political demagoguery to determine which candidate we trust to administer our institutions, our military, and our foreign policy. We have just one task: to select the candidate we trust to govern us wisely in accordance with our Constitution and our “general welfare.” That task is just simple common sense.

Comedians use satire to expose somebody’s flaw or discredit a false statement. They often embellish their satire with irony, a rhetorical flourish, or wit to highlight the contrasting virtue or truth. Sometimes their satire incorporates sarcasm in order to insult the character of somebody, literally to sneer at the targeted person. Although comedians do not always deploy sarcasm in their satire, politicians very often do, especially during campaigns.

In the next hundred days, Americans will task themselves with unravelling the snarling sarcasm inveighed by our two presidential candidates against each other. Both Party nominees want to win our trust by exposing the reasons why we should distrust their opponent. Part of our task is to weigh the legitimacy of the truth implied in the discrediting insult. But this task may become difficult in the melee already underway. Since sarcasm is meant to be hurtful, it easily invites retribution. In other words, this presidential campaign could well devolve into a bar brawl where the winner is whoever punches harder. One of the candidates has already used this metaphor to exclaim his intent to punch harder. But has reason ever won a bar fight? The value of satire is demeaned when sarcasm stands alone as pure meanness and insult. Stated more plainly, it is imperative upon us to evaluate the truth behind accusations that accuse Clinton of being a liar and a crook and Trump of lacking the temperament and competency to be President.

Both candidates have used satire touched with sarcasm. You can judge their relative success by simply reviewing their respective use of satire. For example, in past years Mr. Trump has pointed out the irony that Obama won the Presidency even though he should have been disqualified by reason of his alleged foreign birth. He now offers the irony of Clinton seeking the office of Commander-and-Chief while violating national security and failing to protect our Foreign Service personnel overseas. He accuses her of being a crook who has violated the law and lied about knowingly receiving classified documents on her personal email server and who repeatedly denied responsibility for the deaths of foreign officials who were killed during the attack on the CIA protected consulate in Benghazi. Mrs. Clinton, for her part, has called attention to the irony of Mr. Trump’s claim to be “the voice” for working Americans whose wages have not kept pace with the growth in our economy. She has sarcastically referred to his lack of experience as an employee, to his propensity to hire overseas workers, to fight union participation for his domestic laborers, to his hiring of illegal immigrants, to his several bankruptcies that relieved him of any obligation to his creditors, and to his tendency to engage small business owners in lengthy legal battles rather than meet their demands for either his adherence to mutually signed agreements or to a fair settlement of their contributions to his business.

When sarcasm has no basis in fact, then it is not satire, but simply unabashed insult. In the political arena, too often the only irony is that there is no irony, for there is very often not even the semblance of truth. I don’t believe the previous paragraph misrepresents either candidate’s statements. It is not at all difficult to assess the truth behind their scathing sarcasm. Which one deserves your trust? You be the judge.

My readers know I have a propensity to delve into the roots of language. So, in closing, I feel compelled to point out a strange linguistic anomaly: the word “satire” and “sad” have the same Latin root, satis, which literally mean “enough.” It seems that feeling sad is a surfeit of grief or unhappiness; and satire expresses a surfeit of another’s vice or folly. We very quickly reach our fill of unhappiness, but we can revel endlessly in another’s falseness. If you will excuse a little linguistic gymnastics on my part, satire might just be our way of keeping sadness at bay. Certainly, you never see a politician pounding his/her chest with a resounding mea culpa when it is so much easier to find fault with an opponent, even if that fault is based upon a lie.

This campaign season has already suffered enough from misused satire. When based upon a lie, sarcasm is not satire. It is simply an insult intended to malign an opponent and repel any assessment of the self.

Are you dissatisfied with this campaign? Have you had enough already?