Running Against the Devil: : A Plot to Save America from Trump--and Democrats from Themselves by Rick Wilson

When, as in a John LeCarre novel, an agent from the KGB comes to the West and offers all the goods, one must pause. Members of the CIA or MI6 must ask: "How can we know that we can trust this guy, that what he's the real thing and not a plant for sowing misinformation? Are we being played? Perhaps he's a mole. Why should we trust someone who's done us in so many times in the past?" Democrats should be asking these questions of Rick Wilson, a Republican operative since the 1980s who's been slaying Democrat candidates for almost three decades. "Why should we trust him, the dirty, stinkkin' Republican?" 

Wilson realizes that he needs to prove his bona fides before anyone will heed his plea, and he has done so by publishing a previous book by the title Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever (2019 update) and by spending about the first 75 pages of the current book bad-mouthing (even foul-mouthing) Trump. His public recantation of Trump establishes his Never-Trumper credentials. He's proven--at least for the 2020 election--that he wants to see the Democrats vanquish Trump and his ilk. One may suspect that he won't retain this attitude if the Republican Party returns to a vision of center-right normalcy and fidelity to constitutional and democratic norms. But for now, Wilson and those steadfast few who've remained Never-Trumpers have earned their place in the fight against this nefarious foe of constitutional government, the rule of law, and democratic norms. 

Indeed, I became impatient with his recitation of Trump's almost innumerable sins: tell me something I don't know. It's like a KGB agent spending his de-briefing explaining how bad life is inside the Soviet Union. We already know that, let's get to giving us your playbook. When Wilson gets down to giving us his tradecraft and analysis, the message he provides isn't so secret. In some sense, it's already in the open but Democrats don't want to believe it. Here's an executive summary: 

1. The president is elected by the Electoral College and only the Electoral College. To say that Hillary Clinton or Al Gore won the popular vote is like commenting upon how big, bright, and shiny your runner-up trophy is. It means nothing. All power goes to the winner of the Electoral College. 

2. A corollary of the first point: the election will be won or lost in 15 states that could go either red or blue. The Democrat nominee must kiss California and New York and all the loyal blue states good-bye at the convention and tell them "I'll be back right after the election." After the nomination up to Election Day, the nominee will need to focus--even obsess--on 15 states. 

3. For the record, I list the states Wilson identifies as controlling the outcome of the 2020 election. I list them in their order of Electoral College magnitude. I include the 2016 winner and electoral votes:

• Florida (T-29)
• Pennsylvania (T-20)
• Ohio (T-18)
• Georgia (T-16)
• Michigan (T-16)
• North Carolina (T-15)
• Virginia (C-13)
• Arizona (T-11)
• Minnesota (C-10)
• Wisconsin (T-10)
• Colorado (C-9)
• Iowa (T-6)
• Nevada (C-6)
• Maine (C-4)
• NewHamphsire (C-4)

Of these 15 states, Trump carried nine of them in 2016 for a total of 141 electoral votes. Clinton received only 46 electoral votes from the in-play states. Wow. For the Democrats to beat Trump in 2020, they will need to drastically change this list and hang-on to their other states. But as Wilson notes, most Democrats will crawl over broken glass to vote against Trump, so there's little reason to believe that solid blue states will defect. 

3. Democrats must focus on winning the Electoral College. (This mantra repeats throughout the book.)

4. This upcoming election will not be like Federer-Nadal tennis final with the contestants holding a deep respect for one another and the game of tennis while playing under carefully delineated rules governed by an umpire, line-judges, and infallible re-plays. Oh, no! It will be a  knife-fight with Butch Cassidy rules--it's the only way Trump fights; it's the only method by which he can win.  If the Democrat nominee doesn't come ready for a knife fight, he or she will be gutted before realizing what happened. 

5. Like all presidential elections involving an incumbent, the election will be a referendum on the incumbent. The election will have one issue: Donald Trump. The best thing that the Democrat can do is run against Donald Trump: his corruption, his ineptitude, his ignorance, his cruelty, his lying. Details about issues may play for some in the primaries, not in the general election. No voter reads the party platform and decides how to vote based upon it. Most voters are only marginally informed and are motivated by feelings like trust and fear. Trump feeds on fear, Fox News feeds on fear. The Democrats must neutralize the fear factor by promoting a candidate who disarms fear and instills trust. Wilson sums-up his point:  

This race has absolutely nothing to do with policy. This race is about Trump and a competing candidate’s personality and presentation, not about soon-forgotten policy papers and the administrivia of running a government. . . . Policy is a luxury good in this election because this race is against a man, not a party, a platform, or an ideology. Democrats are fighting a cult and a cult leader, until they realize that the referendum against Trump is about Trump, he has the winning hand.

6. Democrats gained control of the House by winning over suburbanites, women, and disaffected Republicans. The Democrat nominee can't afford to alienate these groups. Also, there are Obama-Trump voters out there who can be won back. Farmers, businesses, and wage-earners have all taken economic hits with Trump's trade shenanigans, the stock market and overall favorable economy news notwithstanding. These folks, too, can be won back. But the Democrats need to figure out one big problem. 

7. The Culture Wars. Democrats will have to set aside long-running habits, accentuated by some of late, toward ideological purity. The great temptation is to mirror the Republicans who have exiled (as all revolutionaries do) those who might challenge the most extreme ideological purity, who might taint the revolution by questioning the leadership or confusing the masses. Instead, the Democrats will need to find a way to defuse topics like abortion, immigration, guns, and other like emotional issues. What might this entail? Wilson makes some suggestions that don't seem unreasonable. Democrats must find a way to make anti-abortion, immigration, and "2nd Amendment" voters realize that Democrats won't take radical steps on these issues but will act in ways that are reasoned and sensible. (By the way, such positions of a moderate, reasoned nature will sell well with most folks who self-identify as Democrats.) Wilson suggests that Democrats will need to change some minds and that what sells in Berkeley, Boston, and Bronx-Queens won't sell so well in the heartland areas of the swing states. Dems are going to win in Berkeley, Boston, and Bronx-Queens (AOC's district) in any event. Wilson makes his point: 

What do you think sells in western Pennsylvania? Mike Rowe, or some stern-faced, super-woke, commissar telling a white working-class guy he’s got to give up eating meat, driving a truck, and hunting? You may want him to, but how well do you think that sells? The guy who used to make $37 an hour in a union auto-parts manufacturer doesn’t give a flip flying f#@k about climate change, genderless bathroom mandates, or paper straws. He does care about getting and keeping a real job that can support his family and--stop me if you’ve heard this one before – his guns and religion. 276

I could go on at length about various other perspectives and recommendations, but this sampling should provide a sense of Wilson's offering. He writes in blunt words that are at times rough and scatological. One non-scatological example: "Trump loves digital advertising. He loves it like a fat kid loves cake." Certainly a vivid image, but perhaps not the best register of discourse in a book about a very serious topic. He describes his recommendations as "tough love," and one has to take it for what it's worth. But I certainly believe that Democrats ignore him at their peril. 

And one final topic before signing off. Wilson doesn't say much about the Democrat field of candidates. He does describe Pete Buttigieg as " a man who is demonstrably smarter than most of the field," an assessment that I agree with. Of Elizebeth Warren, he writes: 

For being a clunky and terrible candidate in a number of areas . . . Warren has gotten closer to a winning message, broaching the ideas that government doing socialist-adjacent things doesn't have to be socialist itself. It's smart politics. My conservative eyebrows are raised. As an ad guy and message strategist, I think she's closing in on something that resonated with Trump base the first time around--that the little guy without an army of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. gets f@#%ed and everyone else gets rich. I hate to admit it, but she's not even wrong. 

 
This is a message window for the Democrats if they can just skip plying "The Internationale" at the convention. 

But Wilson expends the most ink about any candidate (other than Trump) on Bernie Sanders. Because I'm planning on writing a blog to come about the Sanders phenomenon (he's not just a candidate, he's a phenomenon), I'll keep it short. Here's a part of what Wilson writes about Sanders: 

In a year when Democrats had a stark, bright-line ideological contrast before them--sane, stable-to-a fault HRC vs Donald F@#$%^&* Trump--one group stood out in switching their party preferences radically: the Bernie bros. Somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of Sanders voters switched their preferences on Election Day to Trump. These aren't principled progs; they’re arsonists. 

Bernie is Trump re-election insurance.  

If he's the nominee, I say to my Democrat friends, get ready to lose forty-five states. 

Now the first thing to say about this quote is that the only gravity that binds Wilson and Sanders is the Dark Star, Donald Trump. In normal times they are light-years apart in their thinking about political economy and travel in entirely separate orbits. Thus, one can argue for all his tell-it-like-it-is-tough-love, Wilson's judgment is warped by his ideological animus toward Sanders. But because Wilson isn't the first, nor certainly the last, to raise these points, his words to give me pause. After all, what if he's correct? Well, that's a minefield to traverse in a later blog. 

The Trump Diaries 29 November 2016: Systematic Mendacity & Complicity

I call upon the woman who wrote about "Men in Dark Times" to aid us now. The woman is Hannah Arendt. Today her words are those of a guardian angel, a prophet.

I've been thinking a great deal about how one would reply to a post that contends that the "systematic mendacity" (Hannah Arendt's term) of Donald Trump is the equivalent in quantity or quality to any statements by Hillary Clinton that might be considered false. Reading such a contention makes me wonder: should I enter into an argument that a circle is not a square, that the leaves on the summer trees are not blue, and that witches didn't cause my last case of the flu? One must conclude that someone making such a contention is either a nihilist or a fool. Number 1 on a list of 10 "Hillary Greatest Hits," for instance, is the contention (presumably false) that she is named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Really? Who could possibly give a damn? Of course, there is also the usual Benghazi nonsense and other alleged falsehoods; maybe some are accurate, I don't know, but none interesting enough to investigate. But put aside the rather fascinating yet crazed continuing (post-election) infatuation with Hillary Clinton, a "has been" for political purposes, the pressing issue is how one can claim to find moral equivalency between her and Donald Trump? Is it a purposeful deception, truly nihilistic, that attempts to bring down the system by a cynical and concerted effort by making all players seem equally corrupt? (This is certainly what Putin & others of his ilk would like to see; leaders of any autocracy would.) Or is it an unwilled blindness?

But because of Trump's mendacity and that of many of his followers, this "systematic mendacity," is so widespread, it gives me pause. By allowing repetition of contentions that I believe so outrageous and fundamentally at odds with any reasonable concept of reality that I could honestly engage, do I become complicit by allowing a repetition of such a lie? I believe that free and open discourse is a public good in which we should engage. But I am not the government, which is bound by law (1st and 14th Amendments) to remain neutral in the competition between "ideas" (yes, very broadly defined). If I repeat something that I believe false--not just wrong as an opinion--but fundamentally false--do I have a moral obligation to just say "no" to it? The answer, I must conclude, is "yes."

The sad fact of our world is that a lie repeated often enough becomes a "true." Indeed, with Trump's recent tweet about "millions who voted illegally," I gained a fundamental insight: Trump believes in word magic, and in a sense, he's right. A lie repeated often enough becomes "true" to enough of the gullible and the complicit to alter reality. One may have thought that reason defeated magic some time after the Salem witch trials, but perhaps not. A new type of word magic has arrived, in a more deceptive, alluring form, that proves no less lethal.

Hannah Arendt coined the term "systematic mendacity" as a part of her attempt to describe the Nazi regime, and specifically as a part of her attempt to understand the phenomena of Adolf Eichmann. I think that she would say, as would Orwell, that when words and the truth upon which they rest lose their meaning and dependability, we are in a corrupt regime. All of the nonsense, blather, puffery, and pandering that I've heard in over 55 years of following American politics, nothing rivals the shameless and unprincipled mendacity of Donald Trump. There is no peer, no rival, at his level of mendacity in my political lifetime in the United States, at least on the national level. That so many are willing to give him--and who gave him--a pass on this is truly frightening.

The Trump Diaries 23 Nov. 2016

When I was more buff & had happier thoughts

What's on my mind? Damn, it's Mr. Trump.

I have to say that while I hold Mr. Trump in low regard, he is not without a set of skills. He is shockingly ignorant about the Constitution, American government, and public policy. He has a tiny attention span and speaks in a 4th-grade vocabulary. He doesn't read books or anything of any nuance or complexity. He's addicted to Twitter and easily distracted. He is ill-tempered and easily baited. But he is very accomplished at one thing: he's a master salesman.

His sales pitch, his hype, sold enough "Trump" to get him past the Electoral College minimum. So what does he do now? Here's where it gets interesting. He has just disavowed any intention of pursuing Hillary Clinton further on any criminal charges. (Not that it's his choice, but that's another matter.) During his interview with NYT, he came across as open minded about climate change. He has signaled an infrastructure upgrade plans that mimics (on first glance only) the recommendations of Paul Krugman and others. Trump has not gone after gays or gay marriage, unlike his attacks, explicit and implicit, on Muslims, Mexican-Americans, and immigrants in general. In the meantime, his appointments have been of toadies and cronies. What's going on?

Trump wants to retain power. (Of course, all presidents want to retain and deploy power, the only differences arise from the ways they find to do so and their self-imposed limits, such as honor, shame, the judgment of history, and so on.) To maintain power, Trump has to enlist support from elites; people who run and control institutions that allow our society to function. Elites are (on the whole) better educated, more tolerant, and more grounded in science and other realities about how the world works than most Trump supporters. In fact, like all contemporary politicians, Trump must attempt to bridge these two constituencies. Also, it's now obvious that Trump will remain infatuated with his business operations while seeking to lead the American government. How will he keep all of these interests happy?

In order to do so, you can expect to see a very pragmatic Trump. This pragmatic, power-seeking Trump, will prove tempting, deceiving, and perhaps useful to those who oppose him in principle as a demagog and pretender. "Forget about prosecuting my old friend, Hillary Clinton? No problem" he's in effect saying. He says things potentially reasonable about climate change and he says that we'll dig and drill like crazy for more fossil fuels? No problem! Like any demagogue (and any politician, the difference is one of degree), he'll try to say things that disarm us. The challenge for we American citizens and the rest of the world is to gobble up the tasty bits thrown at us without dropping our guards. I'm hoping that the American public will prove smarter than the average guard dog.

Trump is the master of bait and switch sales. He made a lot of money doing so. (Not to mention having avoided paying taxes on a great deal of it.) But I suspect that Trump has few returning customers. He plays for the one time win, as in a prisoner's dilemma, but running a government creates an iterated (repeating) game, and we (should) learn not to fall for his blandishments. Too many failed to see this before the election, but they are seeing it now. Slowly, deliberately, we must drain the power of this huckster.

Some First Thoughts

I'm slowly recovering my mojo after the election, and as I would do after a losing jury trial, I'd move past my emotional bender and begin to perform an autopsy. What went wrong? What should I have done differently? Why didn't I anticipate X? Why on earth didn't those morons agree with me! (With the last statement I realize that I have to back off into clinical mode.)  It's a slow, painful process, but a necessary one. In fact, my reading and thoughts will be mulling over this election and the reality surrounding it for some time. The good news? If you don't care about this stuff (or my take on it), you can stop reading. Relief is just a click away. 

The following is a Comment (which I rarely post) on a blog post entitled "It's Not About Hillary." The blog is provocative (to me), written by a Brit ex-pat I've met here in Bucharest. What follows is my first serious reflection on events after the election, following commiserating with friends and relatives. (I've changed just a few words; I can't resist endless tinkering with my prose.)

You're right: it wasn't about Clinton. Regardless of her perceived faults, from full-blown Clinton Derangement Syndrome to her patent mistakes and faults, anyone with any modicum of political judgment knows that she was a landslide loser in the faults category. The president-elect is a liar, a bullshitter, a tax-and-draft dodger, a misogynist, and a racist who promotes violence. He has the temperament of a spoiled, petulant little boy, the character of a huckster, and the experience of a used car salesman. (He is a terrific salesman. He sells baloney and people buy it. Once.) He has no real friends, only toadies and cronies. Who admires Donald Trump? (Envy? Yes.) He is a man of low character, without a moral compass, a sociopath. I wish none of this were true! If this had been a loss to Mitt Romney, character and moral compass would not be the topics of discussion. Trump is sui generis in American politics. 

The sui generis aspect of Trump is that U.S. electoral college system (not the voters) have elected a classic demagogue. A nation that followed FDR and refused the blandishments of Father Coughlin, Huey Long, and other crackpot demagogues in the Great Depression now succumbs to this? A nation that put aside Joe McCarthy and George Wallace surrenders to this huckster? This is like a second fall, a loss of innocence, the end of American exceptionalism.  

How do we account for this? Going back to the original point, it's not about Hillary Clinton. She’s a Methodist do-gooder who developed political savvy and power through mastery of the material and the system--surely intimidating to the weak-minded males. The smart, hard-working girl who left behind the lackadaisical boys like Donald Trump. But Trump had inherited wealth and privilege, but his voters, especially the less educated white males that voted as a minority group (which they increasingly are), don't have this cushion. The class clown and bully just beat the smart, ambitious girl for class president--and that's about how seriously many voters thought about this election. Clinton had to have grave character faults--A liar! A crook! Benghazi! Emails!--because Trump voters needed justification for their license, their willingness to set aside tradition and civic decorum to vote for this monster from their damaged ids and egos. 

But why take this reckless risk? That’s the deeper question. I agree with those who see this vote like Brexit, only this choice will have more tangible, significant consequences. But the common thread is that the herd is spooked. What is making them so restless, so willing to trample the Establishment? Voters act as if they were young French radicals eager to "Épater la bourgeoisie!" But these people want the good life, the middle-class--if not fabulously wealthy--life. The establishment has made mistakes and has ignored the festering problems of working class America, but this willingness to risk the political order to express grievances is classic, but not rational. The cost of the balm will very soon exceed the temporary satisfaction. The hangover will become apparent soon. 

If you think that the media was unfair to Trump, you're wrong. The media created Trump—a classic television "celebrity.” He received a free ride early because he drove ratings higher by his antics. Only later--much later--did conservatives who take political principles seriously raise a hue and cry, and they work mostly in print. Only two general newspapers endorsed Trump, and many prominent conservative intellectuals spoke out against Trump. But who was heeding them? The degree of Establishment (elite) unity opposing Trump was impressive, but the voters were out to goose the elites, come what may.  

I’m headed back into the books, deeper into history and political thought. Arendt, Niebuhr, Lukacs, Lippmann, Ophuls--those who've lived and written about dark times. The American body politic is ill and needs serious and sustained attention. But first, we must know the disease and follow the lead of the those who have identified the symptoms and chronicled the outbreaks. 

In response to the Reply, I wrote the following: 

Despite the fact that I'm an older white male from small town Iowa, I have a hard time picturing myself the member of an oppressed minority. However, I do understand that much of middle America has been left behind for a variety of reasons, and that elites, Democrat & Republican, have been negligent in addressing these simmering problems. The Republicans, the worst offenders, but that's an apparent point. See, e.g., Kansas.  

Neither Krugman or I really care that whites (however defined) become a minority. Defining Americans by race or ethnicity is a habit, but not a good one. Nativism is an atavistic response by the ignorant (sorry, I can't sugar-coat this) to perceived loss of status. (Read Richard Hofstadter). It's true that too much immigration taxes the ability of society to incorporate new arrivals, and the U.S., is--perhaps more than any other nation--"a nation of immigrants". 

The tribalism that Trump plays upon is truncated, small-minded form of community. Christianity and Islam met their success--and for the Catholic Church, continues to have surprising success--because of their universality. The liberal tradition inherited and seeks to expand this outlook. The American experiment has extended the idea of universality with its "novus ordo seculorum", but it regresses at times. My only hope that the election of this demagogue, this man with all the markings of a would-be despot, doesn't ruin the noble experiment. 

And in response to another Reply that asked "Atavistic and ignorant are just insults. Please can you explain why nativism is bad?", I wrote: 

"Nativism is an atavistic response by the ignorant (sorry, I can't sugar-coat this) to perceived loss of status."  

No, these are not intended as insults, but as descriptions, although I realize that the connotation of each is negative. 
Nativism, in U.S. history & in U.S. political discourse is anti-immigrant sentiment. I suspect my Puritan ancestors may have opposed my Irish Catholic ancestors, but these tides come and go as assimilation occurs and economic circumstances vary. Nativism is not based on reasoned argument about the effects of immigration, but the perceived need for scapegoats based on social and religious prejudice. Immigrants are different, and different is hard for most folks to deal with. Nativism is atavistic because by definition atavism is appeal to a more primitive form of social allegiance, the tribe of native born Americans (excluding, of course, the first native born Americans (i.e., American Indians). While civil society is a must, tribalism is a regression on social and political organization and belief.  

Ignorant has a pejorative connotation, and I intended that, but the plain truth here (and I'm revealing my conservative bona fides here) is that most of the electorate is ignorant--lacks knowledge of and about--what goes on in the political economy. They feel those effects exquisitely, but they look for scapegoats rather than causes (of which there are many). Of course, this is true for all of us (I'm one who believes strongly in the reality of human finitude), but we are not all equally endowed to comprehend different aspects of the world. E.g., don't ask me to fix your car. Indeed, a pressing problem, one long known (centuries?) is that most of the voting public is abysmally ignorant about government and political affairs and are prone to believing the ridiculous. (Obama a Muslim or foreign-born, the most recent manifestations.) 

The U.S. has for for all of the 20th and 21st centuries placed limits on immigration, which have been difficult to enforce, mainly because the American southwest has always been marked by Hispanic culture and families. Culturally and ethnically, the Rio Grande has never been a real divider. The net flow of immigrants is in recent years turned back south, but it's a problem that the U.S. can (and has) lived with for decades. 

Venting: Polls, Voters, & Demcracy

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” --Winston Churchill

I have to admit that that Churchill's witticism strikes me as especially pertinent as I read about Trump closing on Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls. The thought of it spirals me into a despondent mood. 

How could voters be so foolish and fickle? (And thus by this statement I signal my intention never to run for public office.) 

What has changed since Clinton held a wide lead over Trump? Trump has reduced the number of offensive statements that he makes, but his lies (e.g., about the support of the Iraq War), demonstrably poor judgment (Putin as a role model for an American president), and policy howlers keep pouring forth from his mouth and Twitter account. Clinton, on the other hand, did make a traditional gaffe in saying that half of Trump supporters were a "basket of deplorables," a statement that is certainly in some measure true, even if the mathematical qualifier may not be exact--if anything it may be too low. Politicians aren't supposed to utter such comments regardless of their veracity. Ask Mitt Romney. Trump, on the other hand, has issued so many insults that by dint of sheer volume many people, including the media, no longer consider them. 

Clinton also suffered the misfortune of becoming ill from an infectious disease at a time when right-wing rumor machines were touting speculations about her ill-health. That Secretary Clinton is a private person not eager to expose her entire life to public scrutiny is understandable, but it's terribly difficult in an age where voyeurism is confused (in some measure purposefully) with transparency. Trump, in terms that reflect his usual braggadocio, claims to be in excellent health. Of greatest concern about him, of course, is his brain function. His seeming inability to focus, to form complex sentences, and to read challenging material--all handy attributes for a president--should alarm us far more than a case of viral pneumonia. 

Clinton has also suffered from the peripheral or non-issues of her email account and the Clinton Foundation. An incredible amount of digging has turned up nothing of merit or disqualification. Meanwhile, Trump's business and "charitable" (really, the quotes are necessary) activities raise the gravest of questions about his character, not to mention their legality. And then there are his tax returns. What a fakir! 

So what does all of this amount to? In short, Donald Trump has become no more qualified to become president than he ever was--and he began at unqualified. And Hillary Clinton has become no less qualified. (President Obama is right: her resume of qualifications is second to none, including his and Bill's). So what is going on here? 

This is where I must reference the quote above, and I must venture my thoughts about the value of democracy. The demos, the vox populi, "the people," are once again demonstrating their inability to make complex, justified political decisions. The Founders of the American constitutional regime feared pure democracy and hoped to be able to create a viable republic (see Madison's Federalist No. 10 for details). Their fear of democracy arose from deep reflection on classical, Renaissance, and English history. Perhaps it's time to begin thinking about the drawbacks again. In fact, in choosing presidents, a mass vote of those Americans who bother to vote (consistently less than 65% of those eligible) treat the exercise as they would a beauty contest, with the appearance of congeniality and the ability to strike poses as the defining features upon which to base their choice. (Thank goodness we don't have to see Donald Trump in a swimsuit!) Policy is a preached, but of real concern to only a few. Given this state of affairs, it's no wonder that we have the most grossly unqualified candidate for president nominated by a major party in the 20th century. (Sorry, Warren G. Harding.) 

But I still retain the hope that a majority of American voters will emerge from this mix of adolescent tantrum and romantic infatuation to make a mature choice. And let me be clear: I'm not a Pollyanna claiming that everything is just fine; it's not. Voters have real reasons for concerns and dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. But things could become much, much worse with such a loose cannon as Trump in the White House. And with wiser policies--many of which Clinton advocates--we can improve our nation. 

But my faith in mass electoral democracy is deeply shaken. This pattern of foolish radicalism is becoming apparent throughout the world. Poor electoral choices could trigger a massive system crisis that could plunge most of the world into a crisis, either acute or smoldering. Improving our democratic system, even if requires making it ostensibly less democratic, may be necessary to protect it. It's something that we all ought to be thinking about. 

A final thought from the master

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." --Winston Churchill in 1947, not too long after having been voted out of office near the conclusion of the Second World War. 

Wherein I Take the @nntaleb IYI Test & Fail

Your image of this writer

Herr Doktor Professor: stern master

I’m going to take the Nassim Nicholas Taleb (NNT) test to determine if I am an IYI (“intellectual yet idiot”). Of course, right off the bat you can see I’m trying to play chess with Washington Square hustlers or a pick-up game with NBA studs—I’m out of my league here. I’m not an intellectual, I’m not an academic, and I don’t write for a living outside of legal briefs and memos. I’m just a practicing lawyer. But I do have an abiding interest in ideas. I’ve always been fascinated by how the world works, how it came to this point, and how we might tinker with it. I've enjoyed and believe that I've benefited from reading NNT's books (Bed of Procrustes excepted). But I must emphasize, unlike NNT, I’m an amateur, not a flâneur.

So with my disqualifications in place, let me go through the NNT test, line-by-line, to obtain my ranking. Taleb’s criteria are in plain type followed by my responses in italics.

What's IYI?

 Intellectual Yet Idiot:  [I just said, I’m not an intellectual. Whether I’m an idiot or not is open to further discussion. I imagine—nay, know—there are compelling arguments in the affirmative for this conclusion]

semi-erudite bureaucrat [I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the bureaucratic party. I’ve been either in a partnership or self-employed for about 30 years]

who thinks he is an erudite [I aspire to erudition, I do not claim it];

pathologizes others for doing things he doesn't understand not realizing it is his understanding that may be limited [Maybe, sometimes. Who hasn’t made this error?];

imparts normative ideas to others [Like NNT?]:

thinks people should act according to their best interests [A question of definition here: narrowly or broadly defined? And note “should”, not “do”]

*and* he knows their interests, particularly if they are uneducated "red necks" or English non-crisp-vowel class. [Well, to some extent, yes. I’ve had people pay me for my advice & opinions for over 30 years. On the other hand, I hope I have some sense of humility. Do you know this word, “humility”?]

More socially: 

subscribes to the New Yorker [Yes, I do. Are you suggesting Paris Match instead? In the New Yorker I skip the ads and focus more than I should on the cartoons; indeed, we have a whole book of New Yorker cartoons—quite fun. Is there a penalty for having a New Yorker book--or two?];

never curses on twitter [Although known on occasion to use profane, scatological, or crude language in person, I abjure it in public discourse. There’s already enough vulgarity out there—plus someone would always out do me.  I do, however, admit to excessive snark on Twitter. Perhaps there’s a New Year’s resolution in there]; 

speaks of "equality of races" and "economic equality" but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver [We’ll I’ve lived and hung with people of different races, and I’m in favor of a greater degree of economic equality than what we currently experience. I grew up middle-class in a small Iowa town where rich kids (by local standards) pretty much had to mingle in school with poorer ones because there was only one school and too few of us to avoid some mingling. As to drinking with a cab driver, no; but with my fellow road construction workers? Oh, yeah. It was, you may say, satisfactory]; 

has considered voting for Tony Blair [N/A. I’m not a Brit! But I did vote for Bill Clinton 2x & will for HRC (see below)];

has attended more than 1 TEDx talks and watched more than 2 TED talks [Never been to a TED Talk, but I’ve watched more than two. I rather like them on the whole. I’ve also watched NNT on YouTube at festivals (presumably not literary and not in the UK). How does that score? BTW, some of my favorite peeps have given a TED Talk]; 

will vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable [Deferred to the finale];

has The Black Swan on his shelves [I have two copies: one hardcover in storage & one on my Kindle. Do I get extra credit?]

but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence [It’s a catchy slogan but I have to bone up to determine if the converse is also true: absence of evidence may be evidence of absence. In which case, how do we distinguish the two instances? I will say this from my humble perch as a practicing attorney: try convincing a judge or a jury that X exists when you have no evidence (an absence of evidence) that X exists—a case not to take on a contingent fee. If I find no evidence of tigers in my yard (sightings, paw prints, scats, animal carcasses, etc.), then it's highly likely—although not certain—that there are no tigers in my yard. Despite appropriate and convincing examples in The Black Swan, NNT tries to skate too far with this slogan];

is member of a club to get traveling privileges [no, just credit card miles; no clubs. I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!];

if social scientist uses statistics without knowing how they are derived [Not a social scientist. I’m respectful but wary of statistics, suspicious that they may conceal lies and damned lies];

when in the UK goes to literary festivals [I’ve never been to a literary festival in the UK, but when in India I go to the Jaipur Literature Festival. How did you like your sojourn there, NNT?];

drinks red wine with steak (never white) [Usually red, but then I’m from the Midwest and care more about the steak anyway];

used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed [True--after learning about Art DeVany in NNT’s Fooled By Randomness (read in 2007), and then on to Gary Taubes, Mark Sisson and other others of their ilk];

takes statins because his doctor told him so [No, not necessary. Good cholesterol profile because of good fats; see the previous answer];

fails to understand ergodicity and when explained forgets about it soon later [Got me! I’ll check it on Wikipedia later. Allowed?];

doesn't use Yiddish words [Only a schmuck wouldn’t!];

studies grammar before speaking a language [no, my wife—an ESL teacher—wouldn’t let me be so foolish. Besides I need to eat and use the restroom];

has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen [Really? Come on, are all your readers from the UK? I don’t have a Queen];

has never read Frederic Dard [Who? Okay, you got me. But have you read Hammett, Chandler, McDonald, Elmore, Greenleaf—you know, authors that others read? Okay, the last name was a plug for my cousin],

Michael Oakeshott [no, on my list to read, but you’ve read Collingwood & rate him ahead of Oakeshott, correct?],

 John Gray [short pieces only],

or Joseph De Maistre [read about him in the autumn of 1975 in Shklar’s After Utopia & he didn’t seem worth my time; on review, he still doesn’t. Time better spent on Burke. Yes, I know, but Burke is Anglo-Irish and writes in English]; 

has never gotten drunk with Russians and went breaking glasses [Guilty, but I don’t feel guilty];

doesn't know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba [Not off the top of my head, no]; 

doesn't know that there is no difference between "pseudointellectual" and "intellectual" [I’m not sure, but you’ll tell me]; 

has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past 5 years [No, I don’t understand it, although from what I know, it is intriguing];

knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation [I follow GW (for non-Americans, George Washington) do attempt to maintain a good reputation. I don’t buy the Trumpian notion that any publicity is good publicity.]

But a much easier marker: doesn't deadlift. [I do, but not as often as I should. Do you get credit for kettlebell swings and standing presses? Pavel would give me credit]

The IYI, Taleb adds, look down at the great unwashed Plebes who haven't read Foucault in college [Mme neither, I’m too old, he wasn’t a big deal then]

and treat them like crap - as if they were inferior forms of life incapable of directing their own affairs. [Nope, I don’t truck with that attitude].

But when you make them feel uncultured, lacking in intellect, and unlearned, like all bureaucrao-journalists, being all tawk, they get very queasy: hit them where it hurts.

They are arrogant down, they will be arrogantified from up.

Speaking of arrogance, back to my deferred answer about “will vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable.” A few words:

NNT is using—what is to his mind—guilt by association. Perhaps it’s my attorney-mind or perhaps my wishful thinking that reason can ultimately trump [irony] innuendo, but I have to call “baloney!” on this. (I concede demerits here for not swearing.) Maybe NNT has a good argument about Monsanto and GMOs. As a matter of personality and pragmatics, I give a lot of credence to the precautionary principle. But a lot of those who’ve given these issues serious thought disagree with NNT about the safety of GMOs. I don’t claim to have a definitive answer. Nor does Hillary Clinton, I suspect. (Neither on her campaign website nor in an issues Wikipedia entry could I find anything about GMOs.)  The meme NNT wants to draw upon is that HRC is an insider and therefore in cahoots with multi-national corporations who want to mess with our food while lining their pockets. (Can I get credit for “cahoots” as exotic, albeit not Yiddish?)  Well, okay, the part about the corporations is probably true, but it assumes a naïve understanding of what a person—even a president—knows or can do about any particular issue, especially one not likely to affect the outcome of an election.

The other point is that I support Hillary Clinton for president. I don’t do so because she’s “electable”, I do so because she is the best choice for my vote, and has been since the beginning of the primary season. An unusually large number of people want to kvetch (award Yiddish use points please) about the candidates this year, and if it makes them feel better, go ahead. As Clay Shirky has so persuasively explained, in the end, one of two persons will be elected the next president. One is an experienced prototypical politician with insider experience and credentials—thank goodness! (Non-swearing demerit acknowledged.)  The other is a demagogue. Each election tests a voter’s political intelligence and savvy in deciding whom to vote for or (if politically active), whom to support. But this year it isn’t just a test of political judgment, it’s a test of character and of fundamental issues of political morality. To suggest otherwise is reprehensible.

And if supporting Hillary Clinton means I fail the test, then screw the test! (Can I get half-credit for this last phrase, Herr Doktor Professor?)

Ezra Klein, Robert Reich, and Theda Skocpol

Ezra Klein, founder of Vox.com & now podcaster

Ezra Klein of vox.com has launched a podcast featuring interviews a variety of guests, and I've listened to two interviews so far, Robert Reich and Theda Skocpol. I recommend both, and based on these samples, others will likely prove worth listening to. And since these two interviews proved informative and provocative, they merit some comments.

Robert Reich: progressive, Sanders supporter, Clinton knower

Robert Reich served as Secretary of Labor during Bill Clinton's first administration. For this, he is perhaps best known. During the podcast, I learned that he went on a date with Hillary Clinton (she at Wellesley, him at Dartmouth), he worked for Robert Bork (Yale Law connection), and he was friends with John Kenneth Galbraith. Each point merits some further consideration. As for Galbraith, he was very tall, while Reich is very short. (I can personally attest to this as he campaigned in Iowa City for Bill Bradley in 2000, speaking at fellow lawyer Jim Larew's office. When Reich arrived, I could only tell by the slight commotion. He was hard to see. But, what he lacks in physical stature, he makes up in intelligence and general panache.) As to Bork, he liked Bork personally, but he disagreed with him about politics and antitrust. (He worked for Bork at the DOJ on antitrust issues.) And finally, despite what seems to have been a pleasant introduction to Hillary and a later friendship with Bill, Reich has endorsed Bernie Sanders. What gives?

Die-hard anti-Clinton folks or HRC conspiracy types will be disappointed. He shares not anti-Clinton animus.Instead, he believes that Sanders represents a movement that can transform American politics, and Reich argues, our politics needs some serious transformation. Here's where his thoughts become thought provoking and bear some discussion.

I agree with Reich that the growing inequality in society and the distorting role that big money plays in our politics are of primary concern. Both of us want to remedy this situation. He argues that Sanders represents change, while HRC represents the best management of the status quo. (By the way, he labels Hillary "a thousand times better" than any Republican alternative.) He argues that like Obama before her, HRC would work within the system and make more marginal changes. He believes that Sanders can bring about much more.

I disagree. He cites, for example, FDR as a role model. But FDR, who brought about a major realignment of American politics, did not do so as the head of a movement, but as a cautious, calculating, and canny politician. FDR would throw bones as to the right, such as austerity and balanced-budget nonsense (that extended the Depression as a consequence) while he crafted significant changes in our laws and political landscape. Lincoln, too, was a cautious, calculating, and canny politician who, like Roosevelt, was careful not to get too far ahead of this electorate or the Congress. (Consider Spielberg's film about Lincoln and the 13th Amendment, as well as Emancipation, as examples of this.) As Garry Wills argues, prophets, like Martin Luther King, Jr., or other activists, get out ahead on issues, politicians follow behind and put things in order. We need both. As head of a cause or movement, Sanders has hit upon a nerve, showing a base for progressive change (as Trump has discovered a base for a nativist populism). The energy and spirit of the Sanders movement are vital and could crucial to progressive success, but a movement alone can't get things done. Sanders, as a governing politician, would prove wonderful on the ideas and speeches, but weak on getting legislation enacted. (Sanders displays shortcomings on the realities of getting legislation passed, and progressives like Paul Krugman have had to call him out on this.) The president is the person who must work with Congress to get real results. Congress, by its very nature, makes sausage; it's not gourmet, but it feeds people. Sanders offers fillet minion, but Congress couldn't serve fillet minion in a million years. It didn't' during the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, or at any other time. (They do, some of them, seeming willing to try to serve pie-in-the-sky, but let's pass on that.)

Reich makes as good a case for Sanders as can be made and does so without any anti-Clinton animus, but it falls short, as does the Sanders candidacy.

Theda Skocpol, whom Klein also interviewed (separate podcast), is a respected political scientist at Harvard. Her insights, from political science as a discipline to the Tea Party to right-wing American politics in general, are insightful. But one thing I take from her and from many other sources is key. While Donald Trump is a joke with the potential for a disaster, the people who have voted for him have valid concerns. Not well expressed or understood (thus their susceptibility to Trump's demagoguery), but real. Elites and political parties this group at our peril and to the peril of our Constitutional system.

Ezra Klein did a good job with both interviews, and I look forward to more of them.

Some Remarks & an Endorsement for President

Preliminary remarks

Preliminary Remarks by Mr. A Hamilton

Before I commence my endorsement, I’m calling upon Mr. A. Hamilton, of current Broadway fame, the face on the ten-dollar bill, and political genius, to provide an invocation with an eloquence that I can only aspire to.

. . . . The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

 This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

 . . . . I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

 And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

 In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. . . . Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt [the Constitution, or, in this case, this person to serve as President.] I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

 “Publius” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1.

Mr. Hamilton was writing in favor of what became the United States Constitution. However, I believe that his words can—and should—guide me in giving an account of why I favor a particular candidate to serve as President of the United States beginning January 2017. With Hamilton’s invocation in mind, I shall proceed.

"Fiduciary?"

A Thought Experiment                                                   

Before beginning a consideration of any individual, and to further set the tone for my undertaking, I want to propose a thought experiment that will help guide me, that will provide a talisman for my thoughts. The fantasy is this:

I am a shareholder in a very large corporation. There are about 219 million shareholders each holding an equal vote about hiring a new CEO for the corporation. I am no different than any other shareholder, at least in theory. I have only one vote. I have no insider information, no special financial stake, no personal connection with the candidates wanting to hold office as CEO. In fact, because I have no direct stake, no inherent personal bias, I’ve been awarded a proxy by all of the other shareholders to make this selection! My only duty is that of a fiduciary. I have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. If I am negligent in discharging my fiduciary duty, I will be held accountable—someone will sue me “for every penny you’ve got!”. I don’t have all that many pennies, but still, it’s all I’ve got! But more importantly, I feel a strong moral obligation act in the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders. This includes me, my family, my friends, my fellow Americans, and the rest of world. Every one of us and future generations will feel the effects of my decision. I can’t guaranty that things will work out all for the best. I could misjudge. But my duty is to make a diligent inquiry and use my best judgment based on fact and reason that I can now muster. On what criteria should I base my selection?

As you have no doubt discerned, the “corporation” that I’m speaking about is the Federal Government of the United States of America, and the “CEO” is the office of president. My fellow “shareholders” are the citizens of the United States, with the rest of world (or most of it) holding an interest in its well-being. It remains a beacon of hope and a model of billions around the world.

By the criteria set forth above (in addition to a great number of other reasons), I exclude Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Since Trump remains a viable nominee, I will limit comments to him. He wants to serve as CEO without any prior experience in government; in other words, he’s working on his undergrad degree (campaigning), and yet he believes that he should become the head of the company. He has no strategic plan, he has no compelling history of financial success (his money would have done better over the years in an indexed fund), but he is a salesman. This, I can’t dispute. However, a successful political leader must have return customers; i.e., supporters with whom he will have to deal successfully on a continuing basis. But Trump is a huckster, a P.T. Barnum, who sells snake oil and then plans to . . . what? Trump can only offer more snake oil as he appears to act on impulse and improvisation, as do most demagogues. No, to select Trump or Carson would be a prima facie case of breach of fiduciary duty.

My Criteria

So by what criteria should I judge the candidates for this most powerful office while meeting the requirements of my fiduciary duty and my self-respect (if not outright pride) in reaching my decision? The criteria broadly put are the following (with a discussion of particulars to follow):

1.    Proposed policies and attitudes on matters foreign, domestic—and given the reality and demands created by climate change and environmental degradation—global.

2.    Character as composed of sound judgment, experience, and ethos (ethics broadly speaking).

3.    Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Now to the Particulars: Policies and Attitudes

In the spirit of Mr. Hamilton, let me be frank. None of the Republican candidates offer policies or attitudes (on the whole) that I can endorse. Indeed, I have a hard time making sense of what most of them say most of the time (and it’s not just a matter of the tangled syntax and logical nonsequiturs that lead me to this conclusion). I say this having been a Republican at one point in my life, and as someone who appreciates concerns about the size and scope of government, the level of the tax burden, the reasonableness of regulations, the usefulness of markets and decentralized decision-making, and the need for a strong national defense. But the Republican brand has become unhinged from reality such that this party can no longer speak to these core issues. With the obvious choice now between former Secretary of State Clinton and Senator Sanders, let me note the issues that should most concern us:

1.    Campaign Finance Reform and Ending Legalized Corruption. Our system is broken—corrupted—by the influence of big money in politics. We—led by our Supreme Court—have legalized corruption by equating money with speech. In a sense, of course, money talks, but such talk is not political speech, it's blunt bribery for the most part. The bigger the donation, the greater the expectation. Senator Sanders deserves strong commendation for speaking out on this topic (and before him, Lawrence Lessig). And Sanders has less “connections” that Secretary Clinton upon which to draw currently for money. But Secretary Clinton has said the right things. I don’t blame her for playing the system the way that it’s set up now, but I think that she’ll push for the appropriate change as well (just as I think Sanders would about reasonable gun limitations).

2.    Addressing Climate Change. The Republicans (except perhaps Kasich) are still in denial and have forfeited all credibility in the light of the accepted science. The question isn't (and hasn’t been for some time) whether we’re experiencing climate change, but how will we address that within a global context. Limited by a no-nothing, do-nothing Congress, Obama has taken some initial steps, but we need so much more.

3.    Economic Inequality. Going back far before the Obama years, the American Dream has become too remote for far too many. Many Americans are getting left behind. This is a long-term, multi-faceted problem that will not be cured overnight. We will need to work on some levels to keep opportunity available to all. We need to concentrate on good jobs, education, and fair trade. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially in judging issues like trade agreements, but we don’t want to continue the slide toward greater inequality, which will only foster greater social disharmony and political demagoguery.

4.    Reasonable Limitations on Guns. Our greatest threats are from within, not from terrorists without. (Remember Oklahoma City?). Not that there aren’t terrorists motivated by radical ideologies (often Muslim-based), but the greatest number of deaths come from Americans shooting other Americans. It’s crazy, insane. We need to stop our gun idolatry. Presidential leadership is necessary, and President Obama deserves great credit for trying. We should all be weeping at our folly and the deaths of innocents.

5.    Foreign Relations. We can’t blast our way into a world more to our liking. We are the strongest nation in the world, and not just because of our unquestionable military dominance, nor even because of our economic dominance. We have to use our cultural dominance, our ability to realize a global order that can last. This means mixing day-to-day judgment with a long-term strategy for assuring American security in a changing world. Force is always an option and may be needed, but as a matter of both morality and intense practicality (and are they so different?), force should remain a last resort.

6.    Immigration. We need secure borders, and we need to recognize that millions of person who’ve long lived and worked in America must receive a fair deal. We have a problem: we’re still a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Let’s use that fact for our benefit, and not as a basis for xenophobia.

7.    Race Relations. Race relations have improved immensely in my lifetime, and they need to improve immensely. Democrats as a whole recognize this. There are no quick and easy answers, but our next president needs to be sensitive to these problems and continue to work towards a plural, diverse nation that recognizes the dignity of all of its citizens.

8.    Court Appointments. We need judges who know that the Constitution isn’t a sacred fossil, but a road map that we need to reference and expand as times change. We need men and women who will avoid partisanship and will honor the rule of law. We don’t need a more “conservative” (pro-business) court.

9.    A Sound Economic Policy. We need economic policies and policy-makers who recognize that we’re in a poorly charted area. But we know that some things will not work, such as austerity. We need a plan to upgrade America’s sagging infrastructure, and we need to focus on creating and maintaining good, quality jobs. This means allowing enterprise to flourish within a system that protects workers and the environment. It happened in the post-WWII era, and we should attempt to replicate that success and balance.

The Republican candidates fail these tests as a whole. They ignore the corruption of big money; they ignore climate change; they offer the same medicine for inequality that they’ve prescribed for the last 40 years, only to see inequality increase. They honor the high-priest of the gun-god, the NRA and refuse to act to end the on-going sacrifice to this malicious god. They mostly offer military intervention and tough-guy talk for a foreign policy. They insult immigrants and ignore the reality of those already here who are contributing to our nation. They largely ignore the problems of race (Marco Rubio, though, made some nod toward the problem, for which he should—perhaps unwillingly—receive some credit. But then, after criticism from the right, he ran away from real, equitable immigration reform.) The Republicans want to appoint “originalists” to the federal courts when such an attitude—the late Justice Scalia notwithstanding—has no legs and only serves to reinforce existing power structures. And Republican economics worships at the altar of free markets and laisse faire while current realities call for changes in our system to take it away from crony capitalism, rent-seeking, and fortune-hunting and toward practices that are more equitable and sustainable. And that isn’t the gold standard, austerity, or tax-cuts for the wealthy.

Between the Democrats, there’s not lots of difference in policies, although Sanders on health care changes and taxation goes off far beyond where Secretary Clinton (and most of the American public) would venture. But the real distinction doesn’t come from policy differences, so let’s turn to character.

Character: Experience, Judgment, & Ethos

Judgment comes from knowledge gained through experience and study. As to experience, I can’t think of anyone better qualified to become president than Secretary Clinton. She’s been First Lady, a U.S. Senator (from New York, no less), and she’s served as Secretary of State. When we look back at Presidents Clinton (Bill), Bush (W.), and Obama, we see what a challenge the presidency was to each of them initially. With most new presidents, the costs of the learning curve are high as measured by the quality of our governance. (We also saw this with Secretary Clinton as well in her healthcare project during Bill’s term.) I contrast this will Sanders service as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, and his many years in the House and later in the Senate. He was an independent until 2015, although he caucused with the Democrats. Sanders has been around a lot longer than Barack Obama, for instance, but nevertheless the quality of his resume pales in comparison with that of Clinton.

The quality of person’s judgment is hard to forecast, especially in a new position. In this, Sanders is mostly a blank slate, as his experience at the federal level has remained in the legislative branch. This has allowed him to act and campaign as a true believer, someone unsullied by having to make tough, compromising choices (which are inevitable, wishes to the contrary notwithstanding). As for Clinton, she’s not always had the best judgment: her handling of the Clinton health care plan, the Iraq War vote, and the use of a private email server. But in each of these instances, she didn’t cross any lines that I find immoral or unethical. Like all politicians, she sometimes walks the line, but I haven’t found her crossing over it. I hope that she’s learned from her mistakes and that the intense and mostly irrational scrutiny that she’s undergone hasn’t ruined her sense of forthrightness and risk-taking, but I suspect it’s all had a toll. The business of Benghazi and the email server, both of which I’ve looked into, I find on the whole trifling and not at all disqualifying.

And all of this leads to ethos. Clinton has the ethos of a battle-hardened veteran of some very nasty political fighting. She has a distinctly pragmatic attitude. She expects and is willing to work for incremental change. She’s an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Sanders, on the other hand, draws his energy and his voters from the purity of his motives and views. He is a believer, a socialist from way back (no big deal in my book, although certainly retro). This means that he carries a deep and abiding commitment to equity and fairness, admirable qualities indeed. But having labored for so long in the vineyard of the pure vision, how will he deal with the reality of political wheeling and dealing, not to mention attacks, that he would face as president? Clinton has taken all manner of punches and remains standing. Against Sanders, the Republicans have not yet begun to fight. And is Clinton “ambitious”? Yes. But then so is every man who’s running, and every man [sic] who’s been elected president. Of course, too much ambition and too much purity can prove frightening (i.e., Ted Cruz). Character does matter. Look at the flawed characters of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon on the extremes. And when you think about it, flaws in every president become apparent with the unremitting glare of the public limelight and the number of decisions to be made and interests to resolve. You need leaders who can make mistakes and still get back in the saddle, who can trim the sails and make adjustments as circumstances dictate.

By the way, in one sense I agree with many of the young women who discount the importance of gender in making a decision about whom to select as president. Secretary Clinton qualifies on her merits, as it should be, and as did Obama. The issue should no longer be whether we chose a woman to serve as president, but rather why it took so long to do so.

Political Realism, Incrementalism, & Conservatism; or, Dealing with the American People

Garry Wills

I fancy myself a political realist, an incrementalist, and a conservative (in the Garry Wills sense of the term). I don’t believe any political leader will prove flawless. I hold that if we have a leader who doesn’t do “stupid stuff,” we’re ahead of the game. Politics is a matter of compromise; legislating is the equivalent of making sausage: it’s not pretty, a lot of junk goes in, but in the end, it’s edible. Change in too great a measure will likely result in a backlash or to spiral out of control. Sometimes you swing for the fences, but you must know when to swing, when to hold, and how far you can hit. It’s easy to strike out.

Max Weber

Reinhold Niebuhr

I understand the appeal of Sanders (and even Trump—although I find them in no measure equivalent in fitness for office). They appeal to primal fears (Trump) and hopes (Sanders), but in the end, if elected, those hopes and fears will prove ephemeral and constraining. Following Garry Wills, I avoid purity in politics. We need saints and prophets, but we need politicians, too. Officials who compromise and make deals, who bring home a half-a-loaf because it’s better than none. They don’t often inspire us, but they serve us. Politics is the art of the possible. It requires the ethics of responsibility (Max Weber). Democracy is a form of protection for the majority, not a guaranty of good results (Reinhold Niebuhr; Churchill). Government is the business end of politics, attempting to turning ideas (good or bad; communal or selfish) into reality. It requires smart, dedicated leadership and judgment.

It’s for all of these reasons that I support Hillary Clinton for president. 

Does she look happy? Of course, after my endorsement!