A new documentary attempts to divulge the context of O. J. Simpson’s trial, the so-called “trial of the century.” It not only explores O. J.’s life before the trial, but also the circumstances of both his life and the trial, to include the state of race relations in Los Angeles generally and between the African-American community and the Los Angeles Police Department more specifically. The assumption behind this production is that we can never really understood O. J., the crime, or the verdict without an understanding of the context. You see, everything is connected: race, culture, locale, background, and even history.

Some day in the future, another documentary will be researched and presented to the American people in order to make sense of our current political upheaval. It is probably presumptuous of me to write about the context of the storm that is brewing. But it seems to me that the stakes are too high if we ignore it entirely. To the extent that we can grapple with our contemporary context, we may be able to divert a very unwelcome trajectory into our future.

What the current electoral season seems to reveal is that Americans are not happy with their government or, at least, with the candidates running for office or those already in office. And yet, Americans continue to vote for incumbents: allegedly, 80% of House seats are considered non-competitive. Meanwhile, our major parties continue to nominate established politicians—with the notable exception of a one recent Presidential nominee. On the one hand, we seem to trust local politicians or familiar candidates; but, at the same time, the new and different outsider captures our hopes for change. Clearly, we want change, but are divided on how to accomplish it. The question I am asking today is whether we are mistaken in placing our hopes in any candidate for office without understanding the context. More to my point, no champion, political savant or crash-and-burn strongman can alone change a social environment with deep historical roots, the entrenchment of a failed system of governing, or the implacable façade of an inflexible ideology.

Taking an historical perspective, one must admit our society has been both pluralistic and divisive from its very outset. Even before our slice of the continent became America, migrants began populating this land. First, they came from various countries in Europe. Those early settlers pushed the native Indians from their hereditary lands and imported slaves from Africa. To this day, most Native Americans live in impoverished Reservations while many African Americans live in poor segregated communities where access to public services, education, and job opportunities lag far behind the general population. Subsequent migrations from Europe, Asia, and the American sub continents have all been met with resistance before their eventual assimilation, usually over one or two generations. That resistance has always been colored by prejudice. Remember the injustice of the Japanese internment camps or the exploitation of Mexicans in the Bracero program. Although our society has at times assimilated large numbers of migrants, such as refugees from foreign wars, we still seem reluctant to fully integrate people who have been here as long as or longer than any segment of our population, such as Indians, African Americans, and Mexicans. The concept of a “more perfect union” still runs afoul of divisiveness born of racial and ethnic prejudice.

Overlapping with these racial and ethnic divides are social economic factors that further define both the diversity and contention within America. The mobility inherent in our system has allowed people to concentrate within communities of similar ethnic and social economic identities. It is this concentration phenomenon that has given our political parties the inspiration to develop gerrymandering into an art form. The rural/urban divide, as a result, seems to largely define Party alignments. Population centers like our major cities have no more voice in the House of Representatives than much less populated rural, districts. Should we be surprised that our diversity supports contention in Washington along the lines of race, ethnic origin, and urban/rural communities of like-minded perspectives? Both divisiveness and cultural diversity are very much a part of our context.

Another aspect of our society is what is now commonly called “low information voters.” When news outlets offer this label, they seem to imply a native ignorance within a portion of our population. But there is no lack of common sense amongst Americans. It is not “low information voters” that are deficient, but low information providers. Once again, I must turn my focus on cable news where it appears many people obtain the news of the day. The core issue here is corporately sponsored news programs produced for profit. How often do you hear a speech from a public servant without commercial interruption? Sponsorship and ratings are the driving force instead of viewer education. The few exceptions are programs that combine both characteristics or that function as “fillers” in prohibitive time slots. For the most part, the broadcast media is obsessed with the loudest voice, the most outlandish behavior, scandal, offensive dialogue, and a complete lack of in-depth reporting where context is almost never included. When politicians oppose each other’s positions, “objective” reporting most often lends air time to both positions without reporting on the objective truth of their remarks. Fair or equal access to media may seem to be a neutral position for a corporation not wanting to offend its consumers, but how neutral is a failure to report facts or state the consequences of serious issues? Neutrality in this instance is just journalistic cowardice and a disservice to the American public. Of course, the lack of substantive civics education is a factor in voter participation; and so is the truncated information or misinformation that inundates social media. Nevertheless, the broadcast media, unlike other, less available news outlets is largely responsible for the “low-information” voter syndrome. American voters are left to their own devices to search in private for credible data on the issues and candidates that interest them. The result is a public information context overflowing with data, but mostly lacking in substance.

Besides the societal context, what can be said about the current functioning of our government? It still bears the main features the founding fathers intended. Our democracy is structured around a check-and-balance system of three equal branches of government, a bicameral legislature, and the early development of a two party electoral system. The Constitution defines and regulates our separate but equal branches of government. Party constituents establish and define their respective Parties. And the House and the Senate make their own rules for conducting their legislative agendas. Their success in serving their constituents is defined by their ability to compromise in the interest of the general welfare of all Americans. Although the wheels of government were designed to move slowly, our system allows for the representation of a diverse electorate and the resolution of differences through compromise. But, currently, it is not our government’s cumbersome process that hinders American progress; it is the lack of compromise between the Administration and Congress and between the political Parties in Congress. It is too easy to cripple our form of government when our two political Parties refuse to work together toward common goals. During the Obama presidency, the lack of compromise between the Parties has become entrenched. (For more on this topic, you might refer to “Is America Broken?,” “A Tale of Two Fallacies,” or, with a touch of satire, “Politicians are One Eyed Cats,” and “Compromise: An Unfulfilled Promise.”)

Perhaps we should not be surprised that failures to assimilate in our general population reappear in our representatives’ inability to work across the aisle. Nevertheless, a stubborn resistance to finding common ground or to build a basis for compromise is not just fouling the wheels of government but betraying its very purpose. In other words, this behavior is un-American. Before Party loyalists point the finger at their opposition, let me illustrate a few areas where both Parties illustrate my point:
➣ Party-line voting suggests that Party loyalty rather than individual conscience dominates Congress. Certainly, Party positions require teamwork, but the extent of this practice defies profiles in courage in lieu of political tribalism. Americans are best served by bipartisan legislation that addresses the diversity of the electorate.
➣ The legislative agenda is set by the majority Party, as it should be in a democracy. But when the minority Party’s agenda is totally vanquished from the floor—prohibiting both debate and an up or down vote—then the legislature no longer speaks for all Americans. The voice of many Americans is silenced; and requisite compromise is averted. (As an aside, I might add that too often special interests are allowed to define the legislative agenda, further limiting representation of the general public’s interests.)
➣ Political fund raising consumes much of the time and effort legislators could be devoting to working “across the aisle,” as many of them admit. Although there is evidence of some collegiality in the upper chamber, there appears to be none in the House. Obviously, political campaign reform is a major issue (reference “American Revolution 2016”), but it still cannot justify the lack of bipartisanship in our legislature. If our elected officials cannot find time to talk to each other, then there is even less opportunity for compromise.
➣ Political strategy too often takes precedence over the obligations of public office, including the critical responsibility of compromise. Perhaps a particularly heinous example is the Republican strategy for defeating Obama: (1) delegitimize him as president (e.g., the birther controversy, secret Muslim inference, etc.); (2) block everything and make victories look ugly; and (3) make it appear to the country that anything is better than the partisan caricature drawn of the present situation. It was this strategy that killed what would have been the most significant bipartisan compromise of recent years, the so-called “grand bargain.” That compromise potentially would have curtailed growth in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to the tune of hundreds of billions, would have increased revenues by 800 billion, and would have reduced both defense and non-defense discretionary spending by more than one trillion dollars over a ten year period. Though this example stands out, both sides of the aisle have become entrenched in strategies that befuddle compromise.

The complexity of our diverse society and the uncompromising gridlock in Washington are both emblematic of an underlying phenomenon. While we struggle to live up to our founding principles, such as equal justice for all, promotion of the general welfare, and the spirit of compromise, we have developed the ruse of inflexible ideologies to justify this drift from core values. At the most generic level, it is no longer capitalism and democracy, but capitalism or democracy. It is not conservatism and liberalism, but conservatism or liberalism. But these “ideologies” are not inflexible, but complementary. At the outset, America was a mercantile enterprise. And capitalism was never the sole bastion of conservatism. In fact, free trade always was (and still is in Europe) considered as a liberal position. The regulation of business, which is anathema to Republican conservatives, was first proposed by a Republican President whose face appears on Mount Rushmore. The Republican Party was born out of the “far left” abolitionist movement. The Democratic Republican Party morphed into the Democratic Party and was founded on the Jeffersonian principle of a limited central government, ironically the central concept behind the current Republican Party’s preference for State’s rights. If you took the measure of history to our present day, you would find the concepts of capitalism versus democracy or conservatism versus liberalism overlap in many areas. In their actual application, they form a continuum, ever ebbing and flowing with the tides of time. The antagonism invented by protagonists is really for the purpose of maintaining divisions in our society, for stimulating those divisions to gain constituents, and for justifying positions on matters of governance (reference “The Weirdness of American Politics”). These concepts and their political representations are just the flip sides of the American experience. Regardless of Party affiliation, all Americans find themselves projected on one side or another of a seesaw. The task before Americans is to find that balance in the middle and not to contend with one another until one side is thrown to the ground.

Often our Constitutional “professor and chief” has denounced unfairness, meanness, or uncompromising behavior with the words, “that’s not who we are.” Unfortunately, his words are a lie that panders to our mistaken self-image as a nation. What he should be saying is “that’s not who we want to be.” America, the so-called “melting pot,” is a cauldron of burning elements that cannot be reduced to a single entity. The fired-up passions of an election season might promise total victory for one Party, but governing in our system must assure “justice and liberty for all” members of our pluralistic society. Of course, we want our businesses to succeed, but not at the expense of a diminishing middle class. Naturally, we want our Constitutional principles to address contemporary issues, but not at the expense of those principles. The liberal/conservative push/pull is a natural concomitant of the American system, as is the for-profit/public service tension. The diversity of our history, our society and our beliefs demand that we accept our past and present differences and work toward the greatest good.

The American Constitution is a hallmark of the Age of Enlightenment. The system of government it constituted is both an experiment and a challenge for succeeding American generations. Our task is to learn from our failures and make that document a living trust in order to realize its promise. Recent history has shown us the pitfalls of other systems. America has fought in world wars with countries that adopted nationalism where the state subordinated the individual and populism where tribal beliefs victimized individuals who were different. Those ideologies are antithetical to our Constitution, and anybody who proposes them should be considered a radical and un-American. Equally, we should be wary of corruption from within, to include the influence of money and the usurpation of power for its own sake. When self-interest trumps public service, both our institutions and Americans suffer. And, finally, we should not give too much credence to the recently touted analogy with right wing challenges to the European Union. Washington DC is not Brussels, but a part of our country, the United States of America.

A prescription for change, then, is for Americans to cast off the indifference displayed in low voter turnout. It is long past the time for us to address our problems with class/ethnic/racial inequality in our society and with the uncompromising/nonsensical ideological contest for power in our politics. We already have what we need to continue America’s evolution in the Articles of our Constitution and in the core values expressed in that document. The change Americans seem to be seeking will not be found in antithetical political philosophies or radical demagogues that deviate from those values, but rather in a creative application of our founding principles to our contemporary problems. That change is solely in the hands of individual Americans. We simply need to reengage with the promise of our heritage and with the responsibility it entails. Let’s make our voices heard in the halls of Congress and in local voting booths across our great country. Awake, America!

Is America a “house divided against itself?”

This question is assumed by many political observers in this country and is voiced by many world leaders abroad. Within the beltway, it seems common wisdom to accuse the opposing side of intransigence. Recently in a Charlie Rose interview, the Senate Majority Leader blamed the President for not supporting what he terms as the biggest problems facing America, namely, tax, entitlement, and regulatory reforms. He would like to simplify the tax code by eliminating deductions and lowering the tax rate at the top, while maintaining a neutral fiscal balance. The President agrees with the tactics, but not the overall strategy: he wants to raise money for both debt reduction and infra structure “investment” which, in Republican eyes, is merely a pseudonym for “expenditures”. The Senate Majority Leader would like to “save” entitlements by extending age eligibility for Medicare and Social Security, following the path taken by President Reagan. The President recognizes that people live longer, but does not agree that they should work longer or retire later. Instead, he appears to favor an increase in the income cutoff for Medicare taxes and to maintain the status quo with Social Security which is projected to remain solvent for the next several decades. The Senate Majority Leader strongly feels that regulations are stifling small businesses in America. He specifically calls out the Environmental Protection Agency and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, while castigating all regulatory agencies in general. The President believes that government must regulate the economy to provide for the safety, protection, and economic interests of the general public. He has pointed out that the EPA and Dodd-Frank have mainly impacted multi-national energy companies and America’s largest banks, respectively, rather than small businesses. Maybe there is some room for compromise on these differing positions regarding tax and entitlement reform. For example, Congress could give the President some “investment” income and stipulate a measure of debt reduction from tax reform while lowering the corporate tax rate and eliminating tax “loopholes.” And it could take a balanced approach to Medicare, possibly raising the income cutoff for the Medicare tax in exchange for raising the age limit for eligibility, perhaps to match Social Security. But the ideological arguments on regulatory reform seem to offer no quarter for compromise. Besides the public interest interwoven into many regulations, many were created for and written by business. Culling out the bad regulations would be like pulling weeds from an overgrown and long unattended garden. Many parasites who feed there would object.

Our two political parties appear to be locked into positions defined by ideologies that may be generalized. The Republican Party emphasizes personal freedom, largely unhindered by government. The Democratic Party champions equality, largely guaranteed by government. Remember “one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberty and equality under the law are both interwoven into the very fabric of our nation. The Parties should be like a happily married couple who work as one team, each party completing the other. Whose interests are they really representing? Why do they act like embittered divorcees?

I can think of several reasons. David Brooks points out that besides freedom and equality there is a third refrain at the heart of the American experience, specifically, economic mobility. The latter was a theme of the Whig Party, to which most of our founding fathers belonged. It was most eloquently espoused by Alexander Hamilton, generally recognized as the primary author of our economic system. Oddly, it has been incessantly repeated by our current President when he speaks of opportunity—“any person who works hard should have a fair shot.” Perhaps our government would interfere less in personal freedom and at the same time provide more equality by focusing on the opportunities available to Americans and to their ambitions in life. Most conservatives, I suspect, would agree in principle. If so, why can our government not insure a quality education for every citizen, provide funds for infra structure investments, institute only those regulations and patent laws that encourage entrepreneurship, and provide healthcare at a reasonable costs to all its citizens. Most liberals, I suspect, would not only agree but strongly affirm “yes, we can.” If our government truly focused upon providing every citizen the opportunity for his/her personal realization of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the currently divisive approach to regulatory, tax, and entitlement reform would dissolve into a single goal. Compromise would necessarily be the result. Each side would lose something in order to benefit society as a whole. We could then lift the burden of a government without representation from our collective shoulders. That burden weighs heavily on us today and cannot be born for long if we are to remain a free society. Emphasizing one American ideal over another can lead either to worthwhile debate or to gridlock. The latter serves neither the synergy of those ideals nor the American people who strive to live them. Instead, our political Parties should focus on what government can do to promote equal opportunity for individual Americans. “It’s the economy stupid” is not the right catch phrase if it is measured by a rising stock market and increased corporate profits. The economy is a byproduct of equal opportunity—as are personal freedom and equality.

Another reason for the intransigence in Washington is something we too easily take for granted. It was part of that loudly proclaimed refrain in the French revolution, namely, liberté, egalité, fraternité. That last element, “brotherhood,” addresses our feelings for each other and the realization of our common humanity. It is implied in our dedication to “form a more perfect Union.” But it cannot be realized until all barriers to our union are torn down, including all forms of bigotry, gender bias, racial or ethnic discrimination, and the systemic impoverishment of the less fortunate. Only compassion for each other can break down those barriers. It is not the same as “nationalism” which establishes the state’s interest over the individual’s. Nor is it encompassed by “popularism” which tends to represent tribal or class interests over that of the individual. Compassion is that quality that can unite all of us on a person-to-person basis and is the integral binding force of communities. Of course, the larger the community, the more difficult it is to represent the value of personal relationships. However, the leaders we elect and the laws our legislators pass must reflect the empathy we share as individuals for each other. Otherwise, these leaders and legislators can be seen as personally unauthentic, as “not one of us.” And their governing principles will not reflect the welfare of individual Americans, but some self-interest, such as staying in office, rewarding their supporters, or serving those adolescent goals that can entice any of us to money, power, fame and/or status. America can still promote individual self-sufficiency without betraying its communal devotion to all of its citizens, its sense of “brotherhood,” and its unrelenting quest to “form a more perfect Union.”

So, again, why is there so much vitriol in our politics and antagonism between the Parties? Is there simply an absence of unifying principles and goals? Are our elected officials more devoted to narcissistic hubris or just lacking in any real empathy with those they are elected to represent? In some measure, it would seem both questions can be answered in the affirmative. But there is another reason for the ineffectiveness of our politics: there is a complete and total breakdown in communication. The problem begins with the distinction between discussion and dialogue. “Discussion,” like the word “percussion,” implies the pounding of the air with sound waves. A person delivering a lecture behind a podium or a speech before a camera has little if any feedback from an audience. There is no dialogue: communication is one way only. Likewise, a debate in which opponents attempt to disprove each other’s argument in favor of their own can easily devolve into straight-on attacks, as seen in recent political debates. Again there is no real attempt at understanding the opponent’s position and no real dialogue. Have you ever watched a Senator or Congressman address his/her colleagues on C-Span? When the camera pulls back from the speaker, you will most likely see an empty chamber. The speaker is talking for the record, perhaps for his constituency, but definitely not for his/her fellow legislators. Has anyone of us ever resolved a disagreement with a spouse without first attempting to understand our spouse’s position? Compromise requires dialogue. Without the ability to listen and understand someone with whom we disagree there is no space for identifying common ground or correcting our own misconceptions.

Referring again to Charlie Rose’s interview, the Senate Majority Leader explained the President’s intransigence in this manner: “instead of talking about things upon which we might agree, he wasted my time trying to convince me of things with which he should know I could never agree” (my paraphrase). The door into his mind was shut before the President even began to state his argument. Why even bother having a meeting if at the outset you refuse to listen or even try to understand a different opinion? From the Senator’s perspective it was arrogant of the President to believe he could change the Senator’s opinion. Is it no wonder that the Republican majority cannot suffer this President and are offended by him? Both sides appear to be talking past each other. In the case of the Senate Majority Leader, he clearly demonstrates the problem in his refusal to even listen to the President’s position. There is no dialogue here and, therefore, no possibility for compromise on the real issues that separate the Parties. Instead, there is just a growing disrespect for those in the opposition Party. At best our Congress can make spineless agreements to extend funding on programs that require revision. But it declines any real dialogue on those major issues that both Parties will turn into campaign attack fodder.
Unfortunately, this breakdown in communication extends into the public forum. Yesterday, I was fortunate to hear three complete speeches; two were by major Party candidates for President, and the third by Elizabeth Warren. All but one of these speeches clarified Party positions; and all three were noteworthy for the hateful vitriol they poured upon the opposing Party nominee. Today, I witnessed how cable news reported these three speeches. They clipped out any context and broadcast only the vitriol. The one speech that was largely incoherent and clarified nothing was given equal treatment and, therefore, equal weight. What we have come to accept as fair and impartial reporting is no longer fair or objective for it leaves out the truth. What we are forced to witness is politicians engaged in self-gratifying harangues and a media obsession with the spectacle. What is missing is substance.

Maybe, the American system is not yet broken, but cracks are noticeably developing, as evident in both major political Parties’ complaints. Neither side seems willing to address the issues considered most important to the other side. Should our government address income inequality or tax reform? Should it address a deteriorating safety net or entitlement reform? Should it address climate change or regulatory reform? Each of these questions juxtaposes the opposing priorities advanced by each Party. If we had a decent civics education program, every 16 year old in America would be able to see that these priorities are not opposing, but interrelated. They are two sides of the same coin. Their presentation as opposing viewpoints clouds the real issue: our elected officials are not listening to each other, making it impossible to appreciate other perspectives; and their lack of real dialogue makes it impossible for them to understand where compromise might exist. The issues they raise about laws affecting abortion, guns, religious freedom, and voting restrictions are all legitimate Constitutional issues that will wind their way through the judicial branch of government. But they are not the major issues that sit unattended in the Congressional inbox. Those issues can be readily identified in a dialogue with Charlie Rose, but never seriously addressed in any dialogue between our elected representatives. What might motivate that dialogue is a heartfelt concern for the welfare of the people that elected them. What might keep them on track is the common goal of providing equal opportunity for every American.

So how do we burst the beltway bubble and force our government to attend to the people’s business? Some number of blogs ago, I proposed “voting rights legislation consisting of universal voter registration, Federal fair election guidelines, and populist regulations governing Federal campaign funding and candidate debates” (reference “American Revolution 2016”). My intent was to promote discussion around a proposal that would return power to the voter rather than to campaign funders. I still cannot envision another way to both preserve the promise of America for all of its citizens and prevent the breakup of our system of government.

We must begin to realize that the people we vote in office govern with our consent. Their failure is as much ours as theirs.

Have you ever said aloud whatever comes to mind? If you have, I hope you were alone. Giving voice to your stream of consciousness might interest a psychiatrist or entertain your family and friends. But I suspect you would find it personally embarrassing. Fortunately, most of us do not talk to ourselves and consciously filter out whatever might cloud our focus. This internal audit is the result of reflection, sometimes practiced automatically and sometimes with a good deal of effort. In this manner, we avoid being scatter brained so that we can function and fulfill our life goals. Unfortunately, we cannot always avoid external distractions. These can be obstacles both to clear thinking and to achievement of personal goals. I am not referring here to those natural impediments to human progress that bedeviled our distant ancestors. They had less means to protect them from harsh weather, to travel far from home, to care for their sick and disabled, to secure their comfort and safety, to communicate with each other over vast distances, and so on. Today, we face obstacles from the very environment we initially created to overcome those past impediments.

We live in an age that is transforming almost beyond our control: technology commands much of our time and daily activities; global and national economic systems define the extent of our material wealth and physical wellbeing; and politics determine our governance and security, often unpredictably and undemocratically. We awake to alarms and march to predetermined schedules; we communicate more in hurried calls and short texts but less in substance, depriving us of that deeper understanding gained from different perspectives and more authentic relationships; we obey rules and laws we have no time to question; we spend a significant portion of our lives apart from those we love; and we are constrained to live and prosper within the opportunity boundaries set by circumstances over which we have very little control. Has our modern world provided us with more comfort, security, freedom and opportunity than in the past? Most would answer affirmatively. But I question whether we are not unlike the poor soul caught talking to him/her self. Our focus is scattered; and our lives to some extent predetermined. The larger context in which we choose lifestyle, job, or status is less ours than the result of forces over which we have little control. We are losing that singular focus that is both defining and defined by our uniqueness and that allows for our personal imprint on everybody and everything we encounter. If my thesis seems a bit farfetched, consider the following:

➣ Our jobs are increasingly managed by computer systems that not only control robotic assembly lines but our performance and interface with associates in the workplace. I know this fact because I participated in the design of many systems that automated what used to be wholly human systems. The people in those human systems now work in and for more efficient programmed systems. (I admit they are still human systems in their origin, but far less personal and more uniformly regulated.)
➣ The free enterprise economy of early 19th century America no longer exists. Replacing most craftsmen, apprentices, small businesses and farms, we now have corporate enterprise, agribusiness, an international financial industry, and a global economy. Most of us do not own or control what we produce. We earn what the corporate bottom line allots to our individual workplace contribution or monetary investment. Since World War II, more and more workers depend upon the largess of a relatively small number of corporations that have grown into international behemoths. A significant number of these enterprises hire cheaper, even subsistence, foreign workers and store hundreds of billions of dollars overseas while funding their operations with tax deductible loans in order to secure greater profits. Not only their workers but tax paying citizens can effectively become victims of their corporate greed.
➣ The intersection of money and politics has limited the will and personal goals of citizens in many areas of common interests whether you consider health, safety, property ownership, education, access to natural resources, or even self-government.

Let me elaborate on this last point. Health care, for example, was not made more available without first securing the profits of health insurance companies, that unproductive middle entity that secures profits for itself at the expense of patients and medical professionals. Even at this writing, another judicial challenge to the Affordable Care Act has been waged on the basis that the insurance industry has not been adequately reimbursed by the Federal Government. (Apparently, tax credits do not suffice in place of cash on hand.) Another example is gun safety. Background checks on gun purchasers have been blocked in Congress because gun manufacturers—not gun owners—control the most powerful lobby in Washington. That lobby has also blocked the manufacture of safer guns that could not be accidentally fired, for instance, by children. One more example is State governments’ use of eminent domain. Citizens have been disowned of their property at the behest of large corporations. In like fashion, our Congress recently allowed crude oil to be exported, not only to enhance the profits of energy corporations but to provide them the export protection of international trade agreements. As a result it is more difficult for the Federal government to slow down or regulate the damage done by energy extraction companies on air, water and land. Money politics has even affected the education we all want for our children. From the high costs of textbook publishers’ monopoly to the prohibition against student loan bankruptcy, from exclusion of merit pay for teachers to ever diminishing investments in public colleges, legislatures across the country demean the value of education in lieu of private profit and other budget priorities. But, worse, money has corrupted our politics at its core, that is, in our electoral system. Political Action Committees, billionaire funding of political organizations (with misleading names), and various campaign scams have all been made legal by a very compliant Congress. One Presidential candidate, for example, has borrowed between 36 and 50 million dollars to win his Party’s nomination. It would be perfectly legal if he demanded repayment of this loan from his Party. He would simply be leveraging the purchase of the highest office in the land with borrowed money, a common practice in his real estate development business. He may yet not demand repayment because he promised voters his campaign would be self-financed. But if he does, he would be executing the greatest legalized con ever. Does a political system that allows this type of chicanery represent the will of its citizens? In fact, it is just another example of a system out of control, in this case a political system unfit for the body politic.

I wrote “When Education is Not Education” to specifically address how our schools might better develop the potential of our children and prepare them to flourish in a world they will create. I wrote “The Clash of Minorities” and “American Revolution 2016” to expose the economic and political detour America seemed to be taking from its founding principles and, further, to propose a possible blueprint for its restoration. The technology, economy, and politics we have inherited—and in part we continue to create and serve –may now pose as our greatest challenge. It may seem easier to focus on our respective jobs and personal responsibilities than to digest the significance of the noise around us. It may seem quite reasonable to ignore a public discourse drowning in a broadcast media dead pool like an unwieldy stream of consciousness wallowing in scandals, mayhem, word games, sound bites, talking points, and senseless passions. But this unruly noise is only irrelevant to our daily lives until that moment of realization when we become irrelevant to it. We must bend back the arc of history, which is the core meaning of the word “reflection” (from re, “back,” and flectere, “to bend”). Let us reevaluate and redirect the path we are on, before we lose our way.

Now is the time to regain clarity as citizens: to discover our personal truth, to pursue its purest expression in our lives, and to find a meaningful and nurturing role in our human community. The latter requires us to voice our concerns and vote our interests. If the chatter in our heads is further confounded by the chatter in our environment, we must make the effort to refocus on what really matters. This truly is a time for reflection.

Western democracy can be viewed in the context of its break with the past, as I noted in my previous blog. But elements of its predecessors can still resurface, however inappropriately. Since this is a presidential election year in America, I simply cannot resist illustrating how the past is reprised by our politicians. If you read my recent blog, then you can relate to the following.

➣ How would a Neanderthal or a Cro-Magnon lead and protect in our current world? Probably, he would establish himself as the strongman who could defeat all potential foes. He most certainly would build a wall to protect his collective from outside invaders who might compete for resources. And he would insist on preserving ethnic homogeneity within that collective. He would appeal to a tribal-like insecurity, without regard for the pluralist nature of a democratic collective.
➣ How would a shaman lead and protect in our current world? He/she would likely call upon the magical powers of transformative ideals to create a modern utopia. Inspiration would be the calling card for this shaman. His/her goal would be some form of transcendence or, in political terms, a change revolution.
➣ How would a leader who equates himself with god or with god-like powers lead? Well, he would be Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Fortunately, he would be laughed out of any democratic electoral campaign.
➣ But what might be the leadership style of a candidate whose political positions were presented as mandates from god? It is doubtful that past monarchs actually believed in the “divine right of kings”; but a modern equivalent, mimicking those monarchical forbears, would justify a campaign for elective office on the basis of religion. This candidate would quote divine texts and appeal to “god given rights” and the need for more religious practices within the electorate. Moreover, this candidate would campaign for specific religious practices, decry their apparent suppression, and use the American Constitution to justify these positions—ignoring the fact that it only secures the individual practice of religion and not its imposition on the rights of others.
➣ How would a leader claim the right to lead on the basis of infallibility? In the current political theater, infallibility is assumed by many candidates who feel free to misquote established documents, like the Constitution, or misrepresent facts, like historical events or scientific evidence. When rebuked, these candidates simply equivocate and justify positions as some version of the truth, thereby inserting their equivocations or lies into the political pundits’ discourse and gaining free media exposure. Self-promotion then trumps truthfulness.
➣ How would a feudal aristocrat campaign for office in a democracy? It would not be necessary for that aristocrat to espouse any relevant qualifications. Only status or class would be required. In the current political environment, celebrity status and membership in the political class would substitute. The modern day “aristocrat” need only establish the inevitability of election based upon his/her position in society. (Remember the movie “Being There” with Peter Sellers.)

Perhaps these analogies are a bit whimsical. But I offer them for your consideration when evaluating candidates during this campaign season. Separating the chaff from the kernel is the craft every citizen must learn. Without that craft, the political remnants of the past will infiltrate and corrupt the seeds of our democracy.

Until now, I have resisted advertising on this blog. But I just discovered a device I was told would make political campaigning easier. It is called the “Twistcon.” And it comes with its own avatar, called “Savvy.” Recently, I put it to the test. What follow is my dialogue with Savvy.

Savvy: Are you running for office?
Me: Yes (I lied, but she can’t see me)
Savvy: Do you have a question for me?
Me: Yes. Recently, I was asked how I would fight ISIS. How should I respond?
Savvy: “Carpet bomb Raqqa.” Your answer shows strength and resolve. It taps into the public fear of terrorists invading the homeland.
Me: Thanks Savvy. How should I respond to economic questions like about a shrinking middle class?
Savvy: It depends upon whether you are a democrat or a republican. If a democrat, blame the rich and “trickle down” economics. If a republican, blame the democrat in the White House for high taxes on “job creators” and regulations that punish small businesses.
Me: But aren’t those answers too simplistic? I mean, President Reagan left office over twenty years ago and the current President isn’t responsible for our current tax structure. Over time many politicians have created that structure.
Savvy: Then blame the establishment. Nobody really knows who “they” are. That way you build your case as an “outsider.” Never bring up the word “politician.” It connotes bad behavior.
Me: Wow! I’m beginning to really appreciate your wisdom.
Savvy: Thanks. My code is based upon knowledge gained from many political operatives, campaign managers, pollsters, media pundits and the like.
Me: Impressive. But I’m really worried about my positions on things like abortion, religious rights, race relations, and, you know, things like that—those messy ideological questions.
Savvy: As a general rule, you should always tailor your answer to your audience. Tell them what they want to hear. But, be careful about being caught on tape.
Me: What if the media is there with their cameras and mikes?
Savvy: Now you’re getting to the real difficult part: the part that separates you from your opponents. You have to be prepared to answer these types of questions with set slogans—scripted lines that repel follow-up questions but reveal little. For example, if you are a republican, you might say “I believe in the right to life and would fight ‘Roe vs. Wade.” Of course, you can’t fight the law, so nothing is really required of you. If you are a democrat, you say the opposite, “I believe in a woman’s right to choose and support ‘Roe vs. Wade.” Your constituency would expect nothing else from you. In either case, you avoid nuanced questions regarding rape, incest, teenage pregnancies and the like. Just keep repeating the same line. Responding to questions about race and religion are easier. Just say you believe in God and are against racial discrimination. If pressed on specific policies, answer with a long discourse about the importance of your faith in your life or about the black friends in your life or, better, the black families you’ve helped or supported in some way or another. Name-drop if you can, quote the Bible, or inject a well-known saying of Martin Luther King. The real goal here is to avoid having your sincerity questioned by outlasting your questioner with a drawn-out answer.
Me: You’re really good at this.
Savvy: Thanks. My program has been certified as “Standard Political Practice.”
Me: I’m really worried about personal attacks. How do I handle them?
Savvy: It depends upon the nature of the attack. But, in general, you admit nothing and steer the questioner to your opponent’s weaknesses.
Me: How do I do that?
Savvy: Guilt by association. It works every time. Maybe your opponent was seen in public with a white supremacist. Another approach: you can demand he/she release correspondence or records of meetings. Make sure your demand is unreasonable. Even failure to respond will imply guilt.
Me: I used to . . . well, on occasion, I would hire . . . you know, my marriage had some rocky times.
Savvy: “I never had sex with that woman” works, as long as the other woman never comes forth. Better, unless there are pictures, you can say simply “I love my wife and would never do anything to hurt her.” Just make sure she stands at your side and looks supportive.
Me: She hates me.
Savvy: In that case, maybe you should consider another profession.
Me: Ouch! Politics is really brutal.

At this point, I stopped my test. For the first time I realized why the remaining candidates in the current presidential campaign have called an opponent a liar. Maybe Savvy is right about considering another profession. With that in mind, I decided to make Twistcon available for free to any candidate looking for campaign advice.

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.