Donald Trump Is Right

The System is Rigged!

Not the election, that’s just silly. Election fraud on a scale large enough to change the presidential election would require a level of collusion (by state election systems controlled predominantly by Republicans) that is absurd on its face. Or a conspiracy so sophisticated and vast that there is no point in any of us voting – ever. And Mr. Trump’s statement that the system is rigged only if HE loses (see previous point re: who actually controls the system) should give anyone pause.

A system that works only when it comes out the way you want is NOT a system that is working for the rest of us. People you think are innocent will be found guilty. People you think are guilty will be found innocent (or perhaps not even go to trial). Your candidate will win — and lose. That’s just life and does not mean the system is broken. But perhaps a system that allows a (purported) billionaire to avoid paying any income tax for 18 or so years because he lost almost a billion dollars (of mostly his investors’ money) could be considered broken – and rigged, but not in any way that helps people like you or me.

But he is correct that the political system is rigged. Because the Democrats had experienced insurgent uprisings before, that party took steps to lock protections into the machinery in favor of those who had paid their dues and shown allegiance to the party. For better and worse. I have seen and studied how the sausage is made and it’s why I no longer go the factory, and even eating it (voting) requires an antacid. I predict, regardless of the 2016 outcome, Republicans will follow suit.

Political parties are power brokers. Power, more than ideology, is the common denominator and the party establishments will do what they must to maintain it. Because the party poohbahs are true believers who feel the end justifies the means, making them little different from leaders in industry, the military, etc. It is why I have little hope for reform of the system itself, because money and power will be forever intertwined. Even if not corrupt on its face (with quid pro quo) it will appear so and provide evidence to those on the losing side. Grassroots (popular) movements are derailed all the time, often because leaders achieve a certain measure of power and either buy into the current system (to work within) or get bought out (and watch their idealistic followers scratch their heads and stay stuck in the status quo).

Polling companies affiliated with parties or candidates have been around for years, using their polls to create (or blunt) momentum for an election cycle. Ironically, candidates often complain about phony polls while using their own phony polls to create the impression they want. It’s all part of the game, but it doesn’t mean all polls are phony, just because they don’t show what you want or believe to be true. It does, however, require attention and critical thinking to find them.

Neither is media bias a new phenomenon. Thomas Jefferson subsidized a newspaper to do a hatchet job on George Washington. Newspaper names carried their party affiliation on their masthead. The conservative St. Louis Globe-Democrat harkened back to when Democrats were conservative and Republicans were progressive. While Fox News is neither fair nor balanced, it does provide balance to the (undeniable but exaggerated, IMO) liberal tilt of the so-called the mainstream media.  Whatever your world view, you can find media to support it. (A topic for another day, maybe soon, maybe not. Sooooo tired.)

Maybe this is the year the system will be broken. I don’t know. But this I do know. If it does break it will be replaced with another (probably at least equally flawed) system.

Lose-Lose

In just over two weeks we will cast our ballots for the next President of the United States (if you haven’t done so already). At least one national nightmare (Campaign 2016) will end, but at least 40% of the country will contend that a new one has begun. If that is, or will be your stance, I humbly beg you to please reconsider.
Back in the day….

I had an activity that I picked up doing my MAT at Webster (when it was still “just” a college) called Win as Much as You Can. Some of my formers may remember me running it in some class or another (or even staff at an in-service, because it didn’t matter how old you were, the point/lesson was still appropriate). The upshot was that no one “wins” if your victory must come at someone else’s expense, makes a “loser” out of someone else. In other words, if someone must lose in order for you to win, then the win is at least diminished, if not negated. Win as Much as You Can advocates Win-Win outcomes.

While this obviously doesn’t apply in the sports arena very well (although I might argue that respectful competition improves everyone’s game and that disrespecting and/or destroying the opposition makes you a loser, not a winner), it works as a model for most other aspects of life. You could even make a case for it in business. If you destroy all your competition you will not only run afoul of the government but consumers will resent you. Sooner or later someone will find a way to beat you at your own game; and destroying competition also damages innovation.

But this is about politics and the toxic competition that has become the norm in our country. Sadly, it is no longer enough to try to defeat the opposition with ideas, you must also make sure that even should they win, their status and reputation are so damaged or destroyed with a significant percentage of the population that they can get nothing done. The concept of loyal opposition seemingly, sadly, no longer exists. Instead we have the new normal: “If I can’t win, I’ll make sure you don’t either.” That attitude is not appropriate for the USA (United States of America), but the DSA (Disunited States of America, or perhaps Dismantled States of America), and assumes that our country isn’t one team. If that is our attitude, our once great nation may actually realize Donald Trump’s self-fulfilling prophecy and we truly will no longer be great. That results in ALL of us losing, because here is the problem with poisoning the well.

In political contests when even the winners lose, we ALL end up having to drink that water until the next election — after which the water is still poisoned. Thus, we all lose. Both sides justify this scorched earth policy by pointing fingers at the opposition; and both sides are equally correct, and equally guilty, IMO. “They started it” sounds more like elementary and middle school than adult behavior. It does not matter, in this respect, whether the next president is Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; each will ascend (descend?) into office carrying the poison of this campaign, some of it self-inflicted, some of it injected by the opposition, but all of it with a radioactive half-life that ensures years of damage beyond his/her term(s) – to all of us.

What can we do about this? In some ways, as individuals, very little. But this I pledge (again!), as a citizen of the United States of America: My next president (or senator, or governor, or….)  gets the benefit of the doubt, my trust that (s)he is acting in what (s)he truly believes is the best interests of the country, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those actions, because (s)he won the election.* He (or she) gets to start with a clean slate. You cannot claim to love your country while simultaneously working to destroy it or undermine the successful candidate because the election didn’t go your way.

Rush Limbaugh’s attitude from Day 1 of the Obama presidency (“I want him to fail”) was un-American, unpatriotic, selfish and self-centered, bordering, in my opinion, on treason. Although that attitude is easy to rationalize, it is only that, rationalization; I rejected that approach then and ask you to do the same now, whether it’s for President Trump or President Clinton. That’s a little thing each of us can all do if we choose to. Because the next president won’t be yours or mine, the next president of our country will, in fact, be ours.

* I would suggest this a true pledge of allegiance and is far more significant than whether I stand for the national anthem or wear a flag lapel pin or manifest any other symbolic gesture.

Unfriended

I was recently “unfriended” by a former student, probably because I called her out on the use of what I consider to be an offensive, even hateful, divisive term, “libtard,” even though it was NOT personally directed at me. I wonder if she refers to mentally challenged people as “retards”? 

She was not the first to take this action (but please note, it was SHE who severed the relationship, such as it was, although I certainly implied an invitation for her to do so), perhaps won’t be the last. However, I have had numerous conversations with my right-tilting friends, and pride myself (and compliment them) on keeping the civil lines of communication open, making whatever points we want considered in a respectful manner. That is democratic thought and communication, a foundation of our country.

I’m not losing any sleep over this loss, but I have obviously given it some thought on my almost daily walks through the ‘hood. As a casual student of human nature, I now think about her and the decision she made with a combination of curiosity and sadness. My memory of this woman as a student is nothing but fond (and I knew her better than many, because she was a former softball player); I remember her with a perpetual smile on her face, friendly, kind, giggly, just a “nice kid” from a solid family.

Everyone’s life path is different and everyone faces different challenges and obstacles. But I wonder what happened to turn this seemingly cheerful optimist into such a (again, seemingly, judging solely on the torrent of FB posts and shares) bitter, angry person, almost filled with hate? It seems unlikely I will ever get an answer to this question (although I am still friends with her sister), but I hope she finds her own answers that will bring her peace. I doubt the outcome of this election or the political arena will do it for her, though.

A Skeptic's Definition of Politics

Or is it a cynic’s definition? Or a realist’s? Or maybe just a pragmatist’s?

“Politics is like sausage. The more you know what goes into it, the less you want to eat it.” That is an old, old adage, (and included as one of the shocking, big revelations from a Wikileaked speech by Hillary Clinton to the Wall Street crowd) but one that has certainly retained, if not enhanced, its credibility as the years roll (roil?) on.

Instead of that analogy, however, allow me to offer a skeptic’s definition of politics: Politics is the art (and science) of using power and self-interest to reward friends, punish enemies, ideally with the goal of benefitting your constituents by solving their problems (too often even if they don’t know or think it’s a problem, or at least their problem). However, it cannot be denied that power will always be intrinsically linked to money. To think that electing any candidate to any office anywhere will magically effect a sea change ignores mountains of evidence going back millennia and represents little more than a delusional pipe dream.

We can debate how big the self-interest piece is, and where it fits in both the big and small picture, but it is naïve to fail to recognize its importance. The day of the selfless public servant is long gone, if it ever existed after the Founders (and not even all of them, either). To think anyone works or acts against their own self-interest borders on the absurd. No one who runs for president (of anything) will pursue courses of action that damage his/her personal, economic, or social standing, no matter how much of an outsider or reformer s(he) claims to be.

Please note, this definition fits more than the government sphere; it applies to the workplace, social groups, schools, even families (although good parents at least try to sublimate their interests to those of their children). [See the Berndt Power Theory for more on this.]

I would suggest that the manufactured outrage to those actions (by others) is either politically opportunistic, hypocritical (and hypocrisy in the political arena is a bi-partisan beast with centuries-old roots), disingenuous or even downright dishonest, or any, all of the above, or more. While I am not trying to excuse it, politics is practiced by human beings programmed to protect their self-interests. I don’t see how that system (and it's as true under Putin as it would be under Trump or Clinton) can or will change as long as it’s other human beings trying to make those changes.

If that fits your definition of corrupt, I cannot and will not argue with you. But I will argue that corruption is often in the eye of the beholder and that no candidate or office holder is immune from that charge. Although I have no argument that we deserve better, should demand better, my realistic view of human nature suggests we are unlikely to get better. While your/our agreement or disagreement with the political positions of any office (power) holder does not make him or her either more or less corrupt, it does reinforce the perception you/we already have of that person.

Have the Clinton and Trump Foundations used their wealth and connections to power to benefit themselves and the causes they favor? Have they used their power and influence to attract supporters to their foundations? Have they used their power to attract donors and money and thereby increase their own influence (in other words, more power; should Donald Trump be the next president do you really expect the influence of his foundation to  diminish–or grow)? Of course, because power unused is like a muscle – it atrophies and, perhaps more importantly to its political practitioners, ebbs from the vacuum to someone else who will use it for their own benefit. Power begets power as money begets money. Move along, nothing new here, nothing to see, no surprises.

I would ask that we all recognize that the perception of corruption is directly tied to our perception of a candidate, up to a point, of course. (Dennis Hastert leaps to mind, as does William Jefferson.) Two things to consider. The first thing is the “stink test.” If the same accusations were leveled at someone we liked and supported, would our outrage reach the same level? Not an easy answer, because it’s often hypothetical, so it is easy to emphatically say “Absolutely!” Second, consider the source, always. What does the accuser (or spreader of accusations) have to gain? It is unlikely that gain is solely “justice” or honesty. Like politicians, we act in our own self-interest, and that self-interest colors our perception. That applies to politics of every stripe and on every level.

Did the Clintons use their political influence to build their wealth and power? Of course. Is that corrupt, or just politics the way we practice it in the United States? Are they any different than Rex Sinquefield, the Koch brothers, the Bush family, George Soros, the Kennedys…. It’s a long, long list. What do you think will happen to the IRS audits of Donald Trump should he be elected president? Is the fact that a large percentage of the so-called personal money he has “donated” to his campaign has been used to pay bills submitted by companies that he owns in whole or in part, companies that serviced his campaign, corrupt? Or, if you’re a Trumpeter, just smart business? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Do I wish our system was more honorable? Do I wish our office holders were as self-sacrificing as George Washington (while noting that he was possibly one of the richest, if not the richest man in the country by the time his political career ended)? Of course almost all of us want that. But even if the president himself (or herself) is completely “honest” in the strictest sense of the word (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barak Obama were all personally honest as far as we know, IMO), how many of those past presidents have been used or sabotaged by people they trusted? Because, as long as money is flowing, there will be people using their positions to ensure it flows their direction. And that, my friends, like it or not, is the American political system. Whoever wins on November 8 will change that not one iota.