Among the two thousand or so subscribers to this blog I suspect there are both Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps you have wondered what might be my party affiliation. The answer is that I have none. I have at different times in my life registered for both major Parties and have voted for nominees in those Parties and the Independent Party. So, you may ask, why have I singled out Donald Trump in my title when I usually critique politicians without mentioning their names? The answer is that I am not going to single out Mr. Trump. Instead, my intent is to try to explain his phenomenon: what some might call the Trump bump in the polls.

This blog addresses something that is so obvious that it goes unspoken in political discussions and in the broadcast media. The issue of Trump’s “success” in the polls has little to do with Trump. As a candidate for President, he exudes the same passion for America—or, at least, for his understanding and vision of America—that you might expect of any candidate. That passion is only exceeded by his passion for himself. But, then, ego has never been missing in political candidates. No, Trump’s “success” does not reflect on his qualities as a candidate, but on the mindset of his supporters. And here is where I see the problem.

History has welcomed demagogues at opportune times to call the masses to reform, self-sacrifice, a radical movement, or even revolution. The masses, however, only respond when properly prepared for the demagogue’s message. Our current President is a prime example. Seven years ago, Americans voted for a gifted speaker who promised to change the course of the previous Administration in terms of both domestic and foreign policies. The electorate was not only war weary, but caught up in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. His campaign was perfectly poised to win, even though his opponents had more experience in politics and in government. But once in office he was begrudged his victory and faced more political opposition than any President in recent memory. And there is the root of the problem.

At the outset of the Obama Presidency, the Republicans in Congress decided to make him a one term President. Nothing he proposed would be approved by Republicans, not even if he championed their policies. For example, they disregarded his support for the Heritage Foundation’s proposal for health care reform, for ‘sequester’ as a means of controlling Federal spending, for most aspects of the Patriot Act, for military action against Gaddafi, for his extensive use of drones against terrorists in non-enemy countries, for a rise in oil production on lands that fell under Federal jurisdiction, and for doubling down on Bush’s sanctions against Iran. Even though all but the first two actions were initiated during the Bush Presidency, Republicans were against them. The ‘sequester’ and mandated health care through exchanges were Republican proposals. Yet they impertinently strung these proposals around the President’s neck like millstones. The Affordable Care Act they termed a “job killer,” even ‘Hitlerist’ in its impact. His military support for NATO’s bombing of Libya they derided as “leading from behind.” In addition, every executive order undertaken by this Presidency was met with the Hitler attribution. This former Constitutional law professor was being accused of violating the Constitution on enumerable occasions. He was called a friend to terrorist, likely a closeted Muslim (a misattributed and nonsensical insult). Republicans painted him as an apologist for radical Islamic fundamentalists because he appeared far too conciliatory to Muslims as a whole. The legitimacy of his Presidency was called into question on several occasions: his citizenship by birthright was repeatedly questioned; his executive orders easing the burden on migrants have given rise to talk of impeachment. The impeachment question is particularly ironic since two previous Republican Presidents issued similar executive orders without protests. And his Republican predecessor had gone well past President Obama’s executive orders when he proposed immigration reform legislation that included a path to citizenship.

The Republican Party, even when it was in the minority, refused to be the loyal opposition in favor of being solely THE opposition. Later, after winning a majority in both houses of Congress, they were emboldened to snub the President even on matters of national security. When the President asked for their concurrence in bombing Syria over its use of chemical weapons, the Party united in doing nothing, never even bringing a motion of support to the floor for debate. Since February of this year, the President has repeatedly asked for war powers authorization to unite the country in America’s ongoing campaign against Daesh. The Republican majority has declined to support the war, while continually criticizing the President for not having a strategy to defeat Daesh. When asked for specific recommendations, Republican and some Democratic members of Congress have proposed measures already being taken or being actively considered by the Administration. My point is that the seven yearlong harangue and non-support of this President has created an atmosphere of distrust and dissatisfaction that has given rise to the Trump ascendancy in the Republican electorate. The San Bernardino terrorist attack has only added fuel to this demagogue’s fiery rhetoric. The Republican Party has long been preparing its constituency for this moment. The fact that the Party is now splintered into two opposing factions is self-explanatory. It is now reaping the result of the seeds it has sowed. In place of the pragmatism and business acumen of the past, the Party must now address in its body politic the discordant voices of xenophobia, incipient fascism, war mongering, support for torture, and even a proposal to “eliminate terrorist family members.” Perhaps saddest of all: the time to recover a broken Party may have already passed.

The emergence of the Trump bump may be a new phenomenon, but it actually began seven years ago. When the Republican Party decided to be naysayers in government, they created a vacuum in Congress and polarized Americans. Developing good policy became secondary to political gamesmanship. A portion of their constituency apparently could not see through their game face: they had successfully created the illusion of a liberal President violating First and Second Amendment rights, using his executive authority like a dictator, exposing America to terrorism, opening American borders to foreigners, and effectively destroying the American way of life. That illusion tilled the field for the demagogue that many Republicans now rue. He speaks to a base constituency that apparently comprises a quarter to a third of the Republican Party. And that constituency wants to establish fortress America, bar access to all migrants or refugees, and assuage fear by converting the U. S. into a police state within and an uncompromising and unrestrained military force without. More than the voice of conservatism may have been lost to Republicans. The Grand Ole Party may have opened the door for a type of radicalism far more dangerous than what we witnessed in the Japanese internments during World War II or the McCarthy communist purge of the 1950s.

The Republican Party has won the Presidency without winning the popular vote. Now they have won control of Congress without winning the popular vote. It is time for the Party to reform itself from within. Begin winning a majority of the electorate with policies that serve the public good instead of winning electoral seats with legal maneuvers, gerrymandering, rabblerousing, and saber-rattling. The country needs true conservatives to balance its innate liberalism. Remember America was founded by a revolution and is a secular democratic state governed by law instead of an oligarchy, aristocracy, organized religion, or dictator. Liberalism is built into our constitution. True conservatism protects that constitution against the potential excesses of liberalism. We need a respected Republican Party that holds America to its founding principles and protects its liberal origins. The current Party does neither.

Last week TransCanada suspended its application to extend the Keystone XL pipeline across the U. S. border. Its CEO in a recent conference call said the company “needed time to work through the Nebraska review.” In January I wrote a blog that questioned whether TransCanada would persists with its U. S. pipeline extension plans or revert to an alternate strategy (reference “Keystone or Philosopher’s Stone”). At that time I indicated that the judicial process in Nebraska—and potentially in South Dakota as well—were the main obstacles confronting TransCanada and not the Obama Administration. The company had already cleared its main hurdles with the Administration: rerouting the pipeline to the outskirts of the mid-West aquafer and mitigating leakage concerns pursuant to winning approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2011. The EIS found “no significant impacts” from the pipeline.

Though approval of the Keystone pipeline appeared to fair better with the Administration than with the States, TransCanada still faced further obstacles before they could open new markets and satisfy demand for its heavy crude. That demand existed in Europe where supply had been mitigated by the Iran oil embargo and the steep pricing of the Russian supply network. The American Gulf Coast seemed the perfect venue for exporting oil to Europe. But refineries there were already operating at capacity. The company wanted Congress to pass a bill that would allow crude oil exports to Europe. Congress quickly obliged. But after years of dealing with American environmental concerns, lobbying Congress, and litigating in State courts, TransCanada decided to develop a backup plan—that is, an alternate route for their pipeline. First, it explored extending a pipeline to Canada’s Western coast where crude could be exported to China. Then, more recently, the company refocused its ambitions on the European market. Perhaps it reassessed the recent resurgence of Europe compared to the slowing Chinese economy. Ironically, its proposal for a Quebec pipeline alternative was turned down for environmental reasons. Not to be denied, the company proposed an all-Canadian Energy East pipeline to serve a prospective European market. The newly elected and more liberal Canadian government has indicated it will work with TransCanada, provided the company passes “a robust environmental review.” So the company was actually further along in the environmental review process with its American venture than its latest Canadian alternative. So its request to suspend its application for the Keystone XL pipeline was a surprise and, predictably, a reprise of fevered political debate.

In that same blog just referenced, I tried to debunk some of the politicized arguments pro and con on the proposed extension of this pipeline. Since Canadian crude would be produced and priced in response to world demand, only its production, not its means of transportation, was relevant to world pollution. Further, since its export was aimed primarily at Europe, it had no relevance to the U. S. economy or energy use. From an American perspective, what needed to be weighed was the obvious benefit of a safer means of transporting oil against the need to seize land from individual property owners by means of eminent domain. Nobody would prefer dealing with the enormous explosions of rail cars carrying Canadian crude to the prospect of repairing a leaky pipeline. On the other hand, the fair exercise of eminent domain is a civil rights issue emanating from natural law, the very foundation of our legal system. This legal matter was still in the courts when TransCanada suspended its application, allegedly in order “to work through the Nebraska review.” Its action might be expected to depoliticize the underlying issue. But it did not.

Several days after TransCanada asked the Administration for a suspension of its application, our President announced his concurrence with the State Department’s rejection of TransCanada’s application. Does anybody think the timing of this decision was not political? As I pointed out in my previous blog, the Administration’s approval would have no effect unless the effected States approved the pipeline extension. However, the Administration could have rejected the pipeline at any time, effectively killing the project. Since it did not, one could have presumed it would favor its deployment once the proposed pipeline passed the approval process in the States and in the EPA. After the EPA concluded the pipeline presented no significant environmental hazard, the only serious hurdle for TransCanada seemed to be the “Nebraska review” in civil court. But what and who should we believe about these recent announcements from TransCanada and our President? For the last seven years, TransCanada has pushed its case for constructing this pipeline, arguing that the pipeline would increase U. S. jobs and decrease American energy prices. It published “Facts and Myths” on the Web to debunk arguments to the contrary, while paradoxically pursuing alternative strategies to service non-North American markets and slyly ignoring the fact that base oil prices are fixed in the world market (and only rarely tweaked by local taxing authorities). Meanwhile, the President maintained a “wait and see” strategy while intimating his likely approval to the previous, more conservative Canadian Prime Minister and stonewalling the progressives and environmentalists within his own Party. Is it possible that his recent, and apparently precipitous, decision to reject TransCanada’s application was based on politics? TransCanada’s request for a suspension of Keystone might be the result of weighing the feasibility of its alternative, specifically, Energy East. Or it could also be a strategy to wait out this Administration, presuming more favorable consideration of its application by a new Administration. The current President, on the other hand, might be reacting to this political strategy; or he might be aligning with the consensus opinion of the Democratic presidential nominees who oppose Keystone. At any rate, I would agree with the President that the Keystone XL pipeline represented “an overinflated role in our political discourse.” Regrettably, the President has become part of this political inflation.

The environmentalists who opposed the XL pipeline never really made an effective case against it. For their real concern was always about Canada’s oil sand extraction of heavy crude oil. This extraction process damages the environment and produces a highly pollutant grade of oil. But eliminating a safer means of transporting Canadian crude has little effect on its production. TransCanada will produce its crude oil and find a way to export it to any market that will pay for it—by rail a/o pipeline, and then by ship. The market force here is simply demand and the opportunity for profit. Both developing and developed economies continue to increase demand for energy. Environmentalists are not in a position to stop capitalism; but they can advocate for alternative clean energy sources, promote development of those sources, educate the public about climate change, and spur demand for cleaner energy.

I understand the environmentalists’ tactic to thwart a company like TransCanada from reaching its intended market. But that tactic is not an effective strategy. For it encourages the opposition to change the debate to extraneous issues like jobs, regulations, gas prices, the demand for foreign imports, and the President’s politics. These issues garner headlines and spur the media megaphone, completely obliterating the underlying issue. The debate over the pipeline is really just a proxy debate that sidelines the real debate about climate change and the need to replace a carbon based energy platform. Let’s have that debate instead of the politics of diversion.

The American media have begun the countdown to the 2016 Presidential Election. The major political parties are apoplectic about “stirring up the base” and “getting out the vote.” The demagoguery, the flag waving, and the wildly cheering crowds will gain momentum, reaching a feverish crescendo at the Party Conventions. There the baton will be passed to each Party’s nominee to carry that enthusiasm all the way to election night. There is no more anticipated or celebrated event than an American Presidential election. All of the speeches, the fundraising, the public debates, the folksy camaraderie, and relentless polling have only one goal: to win your vote. The voter’s dilemma, however, is more than determining who or what deserves his/her vote.

In an “absolute democracy,” every issue and every office would be determined by a plebiscite, i.e., a majority of legal citizens must vote on what and who will govern them. For example, in ancient Greece each citizen exercised the right of self-government by voting in the Athenian public forum. Although the Grecian model may have inspired democracy, it was rejected by our founding fathers. Our system of government, though instigated by the Declaration of Independence and defined by the Constitution, was voted into existence by representatives of the colonies in the Continental Congress. As one might expect, they chose a “representative democracy” with checks and balances built into an equal, but separate, tripartite system of government. That system was designed to steer America’s course in concert with the will of future generations and with the collaborative wisdom of elected officials toward a more perfect union, albeit free of any form of tyranny. America’s future would depend upon how Americans evolved this union. Whereas the Greeks had slaves and denied women full citizenry, Americans would eventually move beyond these limitations. To this day, we Americans continue to develop a more perfect union, inspired by these same founding documents. The realization of Lincoln’s phrase, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” rests solely upon the voting authority of the people and the fair, honest, sensible custodians of our tripartite system of government. And those custodians are accountable to the electorate—with the exception of Supreme Court Justices who are accountable solely to lady justice and the Constitution. Though amendments to our Constitution are rare, we citizens regularly define the course of America through our representatives in Congress and the President. We cast our votes and trust our elected officials will represent our interest. This trust is critical in determining our vote. But it is also at the heart of the voter’s dilemma.

You may well question who you should trust when casting your vote. Do you vote for the candidates who support your priorities or at least most of them? Should you vote the “Party line” where you believe your priorities are generally advocated? Perhaps you are a single issue voter and will vote for any candidate that, for example, will build an unsurmountable wall across our border—or for any candidate that will keep immigrant families together and grant them a path to citizenship. However you choose to vote you know you must accept the will of the majority if we are to have a stable democracy. It is that acceptance that bodes a cautionary tale: you must not vote for any candidate incapable of representing and serving the general welfare even if you agree with him/her on a particular issue. Such a candidate seeks something other than the public service demanded by our system. Most likely, his/her goal is to win office for its own sake, not yours. To some degree, all candidates attempt to manipulate voters by advocating for issues they support. “Speaking the voters mind” is the job of a politician. But the politician who rides a single issue into office in order to cater to special interest or to reward large campaign donors does not serve the general public. He/she not only violates your trust, but undermines a representative democracy (reference “The Weirdness of American Policy”). In this instance, you may feel like your vote does not count. And that feeling is the voter’s dilemma most of us face.

It appears that 63% of the electorate agrees with this last sentence since they did not show up for the last Federal election. Currently, both political parties seem to be attracting the most electoral fervor around candidates who claim, on one side, that our political leaders are “stupid, bought and paid for” or, on the other side, are subservient to “the billionaire class.” There is more than a kernel of truth in this sad assessment. Campaign fundraising competes with the time our elected officials devote to serving the public interest; and well-paid lobbyists control much of the public agenda in Washington. On the other hand, there are well intentioned office holders who are truly dedicated to our welfare and America’s future. Unfortunately, their voices are often lost in the media blitz where only the most outlandish make the news. Our system of government is deteriorating because we are losing control of both the public forum and our electoral voice. Congress has been high-jacked by single-issue minorities, who garner the broadcast news megaphone with claims of injustice and alleged “unconstitutional” behavior of the majority. In some cases, they even quote the First and Second Amendments to suit their purpose without regard to legitimate Constitutional interpretation or Supreme Court rulings.

Congress also has fallen under the sway of the moneyed class a/o corporate America whose lobbyists now write much of the legislation that is allowed to reach the floor. Matters of general interest, such as immigration reform or background checks for gun purchases, are tabled and never appear in the Congressional record. Some of our elected officials actually believe they can hide from the electorate their true allegiance by not appearing in the voting record. These officials should be exposed by the fact-checking, truth-verifying members of the media. But, instead, their behavior has become the norm. Their game-playing mechanisms to hold onto power go almost unnoticed; and their distortion of the public agenda in favor of loud minorities or the financial elite has become “business as usual.” The irony is that Americans have already voted against these miscreants while still losing the public forum. The current majority party in Congress actually lost the popular vote. This irregularity owes to another form of game-playing called gerrymandering. Americans have already shown their preference for specific issues in the polls—some have even represented their issues at the very doorsteps of Congressional offices and in Congressional committee meetings. But their voices still go unheard on the floor of Congress. So what does it mean when neither the vote nor the voice of the American majority is heard by its elected representatives? What does it mean for the state of our democracy and the viability of our system of government?

My answer to that question is simple: our system, if not broken, is frayed. If the 2016 election is not a turning point for America, then when and how will we revive our democracy? If we feel our vote no longer counts, then we are doomed to live with the dysfunction we all see in Washington. Being so disillusioned is a lot like living in the dark and liking it. But only mushrooms flourish in the dark. Maybe this disillusionment comes from the fear that even greater voter turnout cannot fix what ails our system. That fear is based upon an irremediable cynicism and is another form of the voter’s dilemma.

Our popular vote today is heavily influenced by an easily distracted media, by a barrage of mind-numbing slogans, and by political pandering more than by reasoned debates and open dialogue on substantive issues. This negative influence is paid for by well-healed, self-interested agents and is promulgated by a portion of the broadcast media more invested in ratings and paying sponsors than in journalistic integrity. The common denominator here is money. My previous blogs on this subject (reference “American Revolution 2016” and “The Shining City on a Hill”) addressed one way for Americans to recapture control of the Washington agenda. I urged reform of our electoral process and public financing of Federal elections. So far only one candidate has proposed public financing of elections. Obviously, I would like to see more candidates join him in that proposal. My intent here is merely to promote more dialogue on this topic. Consider taking #the2016pledge. Perhaps we can begin to resolve the voter’s dilemma and make our votes truly count.

(Take #The2016Pledge)

One day, an asteroid will hit the earth, causing a catastrophic event, possibly our extinction. Astrophysicists have told us so. Perhaps within the next one hundred years, global warming will make many of our coastal cities uninhabitable and wreak havoc on our supplies of fresh water and arable land. Many scientists have told us so. If we fail to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and/or to disarm existing nuclear powers, the earth may one day be ravaged by a drifting radioactive cloud, laying waste to all in its path under a stifling canopy. Many world leaders have warned us of this death-dealing specter slowly suffocating all terrestrial life. But do the Cassandra pleadings of these learned individuals have any more bearing on our daily lives than the Biblical or Koranic promise of an end of days and the final Judgment Day?

An individual life is short enough to limit our concerns solely within its boundaries. For many generations of human existence, the focus has been to overcome the immediate hazards, to struggle to survive, or to succeed with those temporal ambitions circumscribed by a singular lifespan. But I wonder whether the brave, new world we are entering may force us to expand our vision beyond the life of any individual, community, or even nation. Social media, for example, has made us aware of a refugee baby washed ashore in a distant land, of hurricanes ravaging a densely populated island, of kidnapped women killed, raped, and enslaved on another continent, of epidemics, of tribal conflicts, and of those suffering masses pinned under the boot of tyranny. Perhaps our compassion for our fellow human beings is now challenged to extend beyond the confines of our immediate family and neighbors. And perhaps we are approaching a threshold where that compassion can begin to extend even beyond our own time. The 22nd century could be filled with promise for humanity or not, depending upon how we live and interrelate with our world now.

No single individual can change the world, but each of us can make our place within it better not only for ourselves but also for those around us. And occasionally, we have the opportunity to band together to make improvements on a broader scale. Communities, for example, are built upon the bedrock of common interest and commitment to the general welfare of its members. America’s founding fathers built a nation on that principle. It is possible for our nation to be as united around that principle today as it was at its beginning. Furthermore, we can be that “shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.” It is even possible that our nation might bring about that new world order we have strived to build since World War II. But any such world order will be a reflection of who we are as a nation. And herein lays a deep rooted misconception in our self-image—actually, a propensity for blind spots.

Let me explain by way of an example from South Africa. When Mandela and Archbishop Tutu implemented the “Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995,” they were attempting to make their nation face the truth about apartheid—its dreadful human consequences for both its victims and its perpetrators. They were exposing a blind spot in their national self-image. They knew no real democracy was possible until their nation was reconciled with its past. White supremacy cannot be eliminated by merely relegating it to a past easily forgotten and painted over by a few systemic changes. The menace of racism merely goes underground where it is no longer seen for what it is—a blind spot in the moral character of a nation.

We Americans have several such blind spots that inhibit our ability to model or lead a new world order. Without writing a lengthy dissertation on this subject, let me point out a few sign posts that illustrate some of our blind spots.
 > If you have travelled the South, you are well aware of the many memorials erected in tribute to the army of the Confederacy. Now compare these memorials with those displayed all over Germany in remembrance of the horrors of Nazism and the holocaust. What we are hiding behind the courage of Confederate soldiers are the remaining visages of white supremacy. Not only was slavery wrong, but its legacy persists and still haunts us today. Germany, by contrast, has owned the mistakes of its past and moved on.
 > Although we are signatories to the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture, during the previous Administration we redefined torture as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” For a time we not only deluded ourselves about the nature of torture but hid one of those “inalienable rights” behind the mandate of national security.
 > In violation of our own Constitutional preamble to “provide for the common defense,” we have engaged in offensive, indeed, preemptive war under the false guise of an impending “mushroom cloud” over out cities. Once again the “invisibility cloak” of national security prevented us from weighing the ethical constraints on such a war.
 > Often those who plea for their first amendment rights ignore the ninth and fourteenth amendments and choose not to recognize that the separation of church and state is a basic assumption of our form of government. Our founding fathers were well schooled in the history of European religious wars. They established a Constitution and rule of law that allows individuals to practice freely their religion but limits the ability of any religious practice to “deny or disparage” the rights of others.
So America is not perfect. But what has made us “exceptional” is our ability to rise up and face a bad reality and change it for the better, however long it may take for that change.

Recently I wrote about a current blind spot that inhibits a fair assessment of government dysfunction. We are told that “big government” is the problem and an obstacle to fundamental change. And we are constantly exposed to the trivialities of the political back and forth, distracting us from the real issues. While large campaign donors and lobbyists have been successful at creating this “big government” bugaboo, the broadcast media determines what news we hear based upon what titillates our baser interests in an attempt to hold our attention long enough to attract paying sponsors. Distracted by this news blitz, we miss the really important stories: a political Party is using State governments to restrict voting; candidates for office woo our vote against “big government” only to serve the interest of lobbyists and large campaign donors. They are not really against government because they want to wield the power of government and assume that, once in office, they are the government. But, in fact, we are the government! They are elected to represent our interests, as generally prescribed in the Preamble of the Constitution. If control over government policy seems to be slipping away from the electorate, then we Americans have to take the initiative and exert the power of the vote. If we do so, we can begin to eliminate some of the other blind spots as well. If you do not believe this assertion, I have to ask how you would define a democracy.

My previous blog was intended to provoke debate on how we Americans might swing control of our Federal government back towards the electorate and away from wealthy campaign donors, super PACS, corporate media interests, and power hungry politicians. Towards that purpose, any who agree with me can take #The2016Pledge on Twitter or Facebook. Maybe we can inspire others to be heard as well. If we fail to act, we will continue to be mired in the morass of bickering politicians more invested in the agenda of special interest groups and big money donors. And the credibility of America’s leadership in the world will be further undermined, leaving big issues such as space hazards, climate change, and nuclear non-proliferation unattended. We can not only have a positive impact on our family, friends, and associates, but, in a democracy, we can also ban together and have a much larger impact on our country. Given the status of America in the world, that impact can become significant for many peoples and the planet we inhabit together. Our votes matter.

Democracy can be messy. The American experience is no exception. From the start, our founding fathers called each other names, warned of opposing positions’ dire consequences, and fought fiercely for their strongly held beliefs. What united them was the spirit of revolution from tyranny and from the prospect of a failed state. That spirit found its ultimate expression in our Constitution which states its purpose “to form a more perfect union . . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” for all. Its preamble not only defines the collective vision for America but precipitated many other highly charged contests born of the same revolutionary fervor: the Civil War, the women’s suffrage movement, the New Deal, and later the civil rights and social legislation of the 1960’s. These change revolutions churn under the surface for decades until abruptly exploding into our history.

Since the 1960’s, by contrast, we have had the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran/Contra affair, a failed trillion dollar war venture in Iraq, and the Great Recession, but no effective counter or change revolution. The only “revolution” has been against big government, beginning in the 1980’s. The odd thing about this “revolution” is that it reverses 200 years of the American tradition of empowering our government to right social injustice, enhance our union, and introduce needed systemic change. Americans historically did not want their government to shrink, but to serve their interests more effectively. The idea that government services should diminish so that American business might flourish or American military might dominate the world stage is completely alien to our founding principles.

Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the American financial system, projected a government secured from overthrow by a wealthy aristocracy and managed for the economic benefit of all. Thomas Jefferson was not disinclined to use military power, but only in defense of the American continent and citizenry. They did not consider the Federal government as the enemy, but as the protector of the American way of life. For nearly all of our history, our Presidents have followed this same course—until the aftermath of World War II. America, emerging as the sole world power, has since increasingly focused its domestic policy on accumulating wealth in the business community and its foreign policy on expanding economic and military influence overseas. This focus has marginalized the spirit of 1776 and exposes America to a not uncommon fate for a world power. Although the siren call of power has created the great empires of history, it has also hastened their demise.

Perhaps we are beginning to learn the lesson of this history as we turn more towards diplomacy instead of war, towards regional solutions to endemic problems instead of weaponized proxies. The latter, it should be noted, have never served our interests in the long term—witness the South Vietnamese army, the mujahedeen of Russia’s Afghanistan, and the Iraqi military. But even if we soften our military imprint on the international stage, we continue to advance the hegemony of the American dollar and business acumen. In terms of international influence, this expansion of American investment banking and international corporations would seem most beneficial. But this benefit is severely weakened when the resultant wealth is accumulated almost exclusively in the coffers of a few Americans. Power and wealth are the natural goals of all nation states, but their value is conditional. Their pursuit can never be exclusive of those they serve and of our founding values. Has America been detoured from its original vision and can we find our way back? Can the coming election in 2016 be our turnaround? Perhaps we are at the threshold of a new American revolution, circa 2016.

Unfortunately, the premature beginning for the 2016 campaign season currently seems to be on a track to nowhere. What explains the recent success of an avowed socialist to attract enormous crowds to his presidential campaign? And, likewise, how does one explain the media attention expended upon a billionaire who is funding his own campaign for the presidency? On the one hand, we have a campaign against unfettered capitalism that creates income inequality at home and pursues global economic hegemony abroad in lieu of neglected domestic social programs. On the other hand, we have a member of the privileged class, tired of buying political influence through surrogates, advancing himself as the only one capable of making America great again—meaning more wealth for American businesses, greater international influence, and an interventionist military abroad.

Here we have two adverse movements heading for a collision. What both of these candidates have tapped into, however, is the enormous dissatisfaction Americans have with their political system, whether on the left or the right. Military misadventures, income inequality, and a dysfunctional Federal government have brought Americans to a point of disillusionment. Those elected to right the ship have been more concerned with rigging its direction towards their respective hold on office and power. The media, or so-called “fourth estate,” has become more invested in soap opera preoccupations with style and tone and in the slightest intimation of alleged scandal than in either realpolitik or American values. In my humble estimate, our current media circus does not educate the electorate or serve the political interests of Americans. More significantly, the Political Parties’ deference to fundraising and to manipulation of the election process make questionable whether their priorities favor public service over title and power. Indeed, I think it is time for the American electorate to take back its power: to eliminate the media circus; to remove the influence of money from federal campaigns; to restore the power of the vote to all Americans; and to redeem the American values upon which this nation is founded. Towards this end, I’m recommending that every eligible voter participate in a new American revolution by taking the following pledge:

I pledge to vote for candidates who promise to support voting rights legislation consisting of universal voter registration, Federal fair election guidelines, and populist regulations governing Federal campaign funding and candidate debates. The following further specifies this proposed legislation:
• Universal voting registration requires all citizens to be automatically registered to vote when they reach age eligibility and identify residency;
• Federal election guidelines shall require all States to provide voters with absentee ballots and at least three weekends of precinct voting before Election Day. Further, candidates for national office may not commence campaigns sooner than six months before Election Day;
• Campaign funds will consist of public funds drawn from .01% of all collected income tax returns (approximately 200 million dollars in 2014). For each biannual Federal election cycle, the IRS will collect and apportion these funds equally for each branch of Congress and an accumulated Presidential campaign fund. The established Political Parties will be responsible for the distribution of these funds to respective congressional candidates and to their respective nominees for presidential election campaigns. Private campaign contributions will be limited exclusively to primary elections, will not exceed $2,500 for each individual or corporate entity, and will be restricted to Political Parties with officially registered candidates for Federal offices. These Parties will be the only organizations permitted to raise campaign funds and to administer those funds solely for the purpose of primary campaigns for Federal office.
• And, finally, the government will manage all televised political debates between candidates for national office by providing the C-Span network and equipping moderators chosen in equal numbers by each Political Party from the academic community.