Archive: Opinions

I guess it is inevitable that as I grow older I have less patience with presidential politics.  But at least I have always understood why certain people get elected, even when I don't agree with the decision.  In the wake of Super Tuesday the battle isn't over, but it certainly looks like we will have two candidates that I can't stand.  Still, I understand why some people want Hilary Clinton to win.  I am completely baffled by all those votes for Donald Trump.

At least I was until I heard a comment by Rachel Maddow on, of all things, The Tonight Show.  She was talking about a fomenting Republican plan to give the nomination to a candidate they approve at the last minute during the Republican Convention, even if Trump wins the requisite number of delegates in the primaries and caucuses.

"It seems like it is irretrievably cleaving the Republican party," Maddow said.  "The two sides are all the people in Washington, all the people in the beltway press, all the people in the Republican establishment who are like, 'Trump!  We can't give our party to Trump!!!'  And then on the other side is... all the voters."

The Democrats have been accusing the Republican leadership with being out of touch for a very long time.  This situation seems to illustrate that it is true.  It illustrates that the Republican establishment is out of touch with Republicans, not just Democrats.  It is clear that I am completely missing the boat when it comes to Donald Trump, because all I see is an extremely self-involved, insensitive bully with a knack for pushing people around and making the world an unhappier place.  I have seen the charming side of him as well, but it doesn't -- pardon this inevitable pun -- trump his just plain bad behavior.

But there are two things about him that I suppose voters are liking.  He more or less says what he really thinks, something that has become so rare in politics that it is virtually an endangered species.  And he is an anti-establishment candidate, clearly an anti-Republican establishment candidate, but even more, an anti-politics establishment candidate.

This is not good for America, because what it really illustrates is how far politics has gone to turn what should be a race for ideals and a better life for all Americans into a nasty game of dodge ball.  I hate dodge ball.  Its about athletic kids with a mean streak throwing a ball at less athletic kids so hard that they are knocked silly and permanantly scarred both physically and psychologically. 

On the Blue side, I am not a Hilary fan, and while I do believe a woman president would be really good for the country at least 50% of the time, I agree with those who argue that you should elect the best person for the job regardless of their gender (or race, religion, or anything else).  She is not it, and the prospect of her winning the presidency only because a majority of the general electorate don't want Trump is not a happy prospect for the country.

If you apply the same logic to the Red Team, is Trump really the person we should elect just because he is an anti-establishment candidate?  What about all the other things he is and does?  It certainly plays well on television.  I even liked The Apprentice when it first went on the air, because there was a dark humor to its depiction of American business, and you actually did get to see young business men and women solve problems in innovative (yet superficial) ways.  I especially liked his two advisers on that show because they were an upbeat dose of actual reality offsetting Trump's larger than television's version of life bluster.

But when you put all of that in the White House, or at a negotiating table, or in a place to inspire millions of people it gets scary.  To me it's scary on the Blue side as well.  And I don't want to vote for the least terrible choice for president.  i want there to be a best choice.  or two or more really good choices.

And by the way, who assigned colors to the parties?  Was there some ironic intent in assigning red to conservatives who have a history of accusing the Blue team of being red?  Would that make Democrats purple?

Some say that television changed politics forever and was responsible for President Kennedy being elected, because he was young, attractive and erudite, qualities that wouldn't have been very apparent before television.  And Nixon was... well, Nixon.  He had many good qualities, but he was stiff on television, even when he played his own original piano piece on The Tonight Show with Jack Paar.  Although he did loosen up when Paar quipped he had hired 15 Democratic violinists to accompany him.  (Are you noticing how important the Tonight Show is in presidential politics, going back to the 1960s?)  Anyway, this was two years after he had lost to Kennedy, and he was still not so swell a television personality.

I am not implying that Nixon should have been elected instead of Kennedy.  But the more pop frufru gets in the way of actual ideas, ideals and substance, the more it weakens our country because the truly best people don't have a chance of being elected unless they are 'good TV'.  And it seems to be a law of nature that the 'good TV' gene doesn't often mix with the 'good for the country' gene.  That, to hijack one of Mr. Trump's favorite catch phrases, certainly does not make America strong again.

This is why I am calling for an election do-over.  Anyone who has run in the primaries so far would be forbidden to participate.  Let's start from scratch with new candidates, new caucuses, no television, no pundits, and real ideas.  That is what will make America strong again.

v12i9