Random thoughts for the end of April 2016

Reminder: Some of the comments below are links to stories being commented upon. I urge you to read the links for background to my commentary.

Once more I venture into the wilderness of my thoughts, which I share with you who dare read my wanderings. However, I know, that on some fronts I am not alone in the wilderness; that there are others who share my questions and views of the world and in that I take heart.

You may or may not be among them, but I welcome you and challenge you to consider the things herein. If you disagree, give me your intellectual arguments, your non-visceral reasons, why you stake the ground you stand on. You see, I find far too many people aren’t really thinking about their positions, say, in the presidential campaign but are merely reacting emotionally to the various candidates. Far too many people seem to hate the candidates who oppose their favorites rather than merely disagree with their proposed policies and solutions to the various problems facing the nation.

For example, this commentary does a far better job of explaining what is, and what is not, "democratic" in our political process than my earlier feeble efforts.

You see, I see the process working as it is supposed to, as it was designed to. Nothing more and nothing less. To quote Yogi Berra: “It ain’t over until it’s over.” Despite the whining and statements to the contrary, until you win, the game ain’t over and the “losing” side should – no make that needs to - play on until the last second of the game and until the last out is played. It is the old saying that “Quitters never win. Winners never quit.”

I respect Bernie Sanders announcement that he is not going to just drop out of the Democratic race, even though it is pretty apparent that Hillary Clinton will most likely be crowned on the first ballot. It is as it should be.

I respect Ted Cruz for his efforts to plug on until the convention, even though everybody is telling him that it is a losing effort (even if he could win on the second or third ballot should Donald Trump come up short of a first round coronation). This is as it should be.

Or have we raised a nation of quitters? Or complainers because we have to meet certain standards because those are the rules? Nobody has changed the rules. They are the same as when the game started. You may not have not understood the rules because you didn’t know them, but whose fault is that?

Here is a commentary by the redoubtable Thomas Sowell on winners and whiners. Which are we people? 

Now, it should come as no surprise that I am not a big supporter of Donald Trump. That does not mean that I might not vote for him if the choice comes down to him, Hillary Clinton or some third party candidate who doesn’t stand a lick of a chance of throwing the vote to House. I would, because, at the moment, the choice is quite stark … the manipulative, criminal, anti-individualist whore vs. the manipulative sideshow barker. I’ll swallow my principles and vote for the barker as hopefully the lesser of the evils.

I have more to say … but I find I don’t have the emotional energy to put it down.

Pray tell, I urge you to disagree with me and tell me where I have erred.

Random thoughts on things political

Reminder: Some of the comments below are links to stories being commented upon. I urge you to read the links for background to my commentary.

This is sort of a follow-up to the my previous post … a continuation of my thoughts there.

I spent much of the day reading news reports of what passes for political reportage today on the various comments of spokesmen for the sundry political campaign, as well as participating in a feedback discussion over my previous post.

The thrust of most of it is that a) the political process is broken and b) nobody’s vote or voice counts. My response to that is barley corn! Of if you prefer, bovine scatology. What people are angry about is that their view is not prevailing and they think it should. Understandable, but the wrong attitude.

Donald Trump’s campaign manager says that since his candidate has the most votes so far, that he is the nominee presumptive … nominee presumptive, what in the blue blazes it that? You mean just because he has a PLURALITY over the popular vote cast in GOP primaries (a whopping 37 percent) then all the other candidates should give up and go home? What about that democratic principle that it takes a majority vote at the very end to be declared the victor? I guess that doesn’t apply to Mr. Trump, because he is such a wonderful businessman, celebrity and candidate. The guy really must be channeling Joseph Goebbels.

Damn, man it don’t work that way. And when the convention rolls around, and if Trump does have 50 percent plus 1 of the popular vote, then he might have a case, but not now, so stop whining. (But if he achieves that he might have a shot at the delegates)

In this interview, the chairman of the Republic National Committee points out that the party, per se, is not taking sides but does take umbrage at candidates, or their minions, threatening delegates. To me, the threats mean the candidate and/or his staff and supporters realize they have lost the fight and are planning to call in the storm troops.

Secondly, in both the Republican and Democratic parties, the conventions always have been about delegates, not the number of ballots in local primaries. The process of delegate selection always has favored those who get their grassroots supporters to the district, county and state conventions, which is something the Trump campaign has done an absolutely awful job at doing and Cruz’s campaign has been performing miracles. You may not like it. You may think it is unfair. BUT that is where the battle is fought … not in some helicopter battlefield where you drop in for one day and then helicopter out again. (The US did that in Vietnam and it didn’t work out very well) Cruz and his supporters figured this out and have planned their battle accordingly.

It actually says a lot about primary ballots. They really are just straw polls and beauty contests that allow people to salve their consciences by saying “I voted” and think that that was all the process our participatory form of a democratic republic asks of us. Granted, most of the primaries require that the delegates vote a certain way on round one at the convention, and that is an obligation that no one disputes. The problem comes if that round one is not decisive, what are these delegates to do on round two? If none of them can change their vote, then the balloting will just go on and on.

No, the delegates are free to vote their own wills, and that is what has the outsiders upset. Because, if the county, district and state meetings don’t elect delegates that are dye-in-the-wool supporters of the candidate they are pledged to vote for in the first round, then … oopsie … they might vote for another candidate. This is where Cruz is winning the battle, and Trump and his supporters are coming unglued. Trumpians think that they have got the first round ballot of the delegates sewn up because of their plurality lead in the popular vote and that is all it takes. Wrong answer.

If Trump doesn’t win a majority (remember, in a democracy it is majority rules) on the first ballot then his failure to follow up and ensure that those who vote for him are voting for him out of conviction and not just obligation will reach up and bite him big time. Nobody will be cheating. The system will be working as it is designed to work.

This is an interesting commentary that discusses whether it is all rigged or not. It is not, but then if you lose, then it makes a good excuse for saying you lost.

You see, the biggest problem we Americans have is that we are an impatient and lazy lot. Now, that is not really all that bad. It has made us the most productive country in the world because we always are looking for faster and easier ways to do things so we can kick back and enjoy ourselves. But it does ignore that if you really want to do something, it usually takes a lot of effort and investment in money and hard work. That sure doesn’t sound like fun, does it? We have better things to do.

But I would have to say to those who say the two big parties have rigged the system to favor incumbents and the party establishment: You are right … and if you were an incumbent or a party leader you probably would do exactly the same thing because it makes it easier for you to keep your perks. Not saying I like it, but that is how life is … as unfair as it seems.

Now, that means you have a number of choices: 1) you can accept the status quo, 2) quit and join another party (that probably will be just as rigged), or 3) work your butt off in the business of retail politics. That means investing a lot of time, usually a bundle of money and a whole lot of effort going door-to-door selling your platform, getting people excited enough about it to get off their duffs and help spread the word.  Dang, that last option doesn’t sound like a lot of fun. I will let you in a little secret – it ain’t. It is hard work that takes a whole lot of dedication and a willingness to lose a few battles, but the courage to get back up and get back in the fight.

Now, you can start a whole new party (and even greater challenge) or you try to go ahead and battle the establishment, which will be a challenge, but it can be done. You just have to be willing to take your knocks and lumps and keep on hitting the line until you have convinced enough of your fellow followers that you are right and the old guard is wrong. Then have them put you in the old guard’s place. Is it easy? Is simple? Can it be done overnight or even just a few years? Nope … but then how committed are you?

Being involved in your own governance is not some thing you do when the mood strikes you … not in a democratic republic. It takes constant attention and I know with all the distractions we have today, that really is a big bother.

The old cliche that Liberty and Freedom require eternal vigilance has never been more true.

Now, for conservatives, here is a excellent commentary about how we (yes, I consider myself a conservative) should reassess about how we complain and maybe the problem is more with ourselves and our view than the system.

Remember folks, it all starts with us as individuals … and yes, your vote counts … when it has to count and that is when we are electing people to office … all that happens before that means little, especially if you haven’t jumped in with both feet.

Now, if you agree with what I have said, I encourage you … ok …. beg, plead, cajole, inveigle and any other word you can think of … to share these thoughts with as many people as you can. No, you don’t have to use my words, but some similar would be great.

Random thoughts and reflections for April, 2016

Reminder: Some of the comments below are links to stories being commented upon. I urge you to read the links for background to my commentary.

Interesting article on the downfall of the Westphalian view of the nation state in the 21st century. It is well worth the read. (Found way back on March 1, but I have been about moribund in my efforts here since then, for which I apologize to the few, if any, who bother to read my random efforts.)

 

What I am about to say will be unsourced. Why, because a) I am assuming that you have been following the news of the day and b) it is purely my opinion, although much will be predicated on facts and easily researched truth and a lot will be based in the history of the United States. I encourage people to study it and a basic civics primer from 50 years ago, because it seems that the American people are tragically ignorant  of their own history – and those from other countries probably learned the Cliff Notes version. Having said that, let me begin.

FIRST, FOREMOST AND ALWAYS: The United States is NOT a pure democracy. Got that? It is not a democracy. Never has been, never will be, as long as it is governed by its current constitution. Don’t like that fact? Get over it.

The United States is a democratic federal republic, with all the nuances and vagaries that entails. Now, I hope you understand that. Despite what politicians say, your friends say, and maybe even your teachers may have said, the United States is a representative republic, not a democracy, where you and your neighbors are charged with the responsibility to select representatives to meet in councils to decide public policy, from the local town hall and school or water district all the way up to the president of the United States. Those representative are charged with their own responsibility to vote their best judgement and conscience when making their decisions on how to cast their vote at whatever level they are at, and not to have call back to their constituents on every vote for their advice and consent. Note: they are to use their own best judgement.

Now, having said all that, political parties are not part of the government. Regardless what may appear to be the case, political parties are not covered in the U.S. Constitution and are not arms of the various governmental bodies. I hope you understand that.

First, political parties were not envisioned playing any role in the political process by the brilliant gentlemen who drafted the grand compromise we call our Constitution. They anticipated various factions and interests competing for influence, but the idea of political parties was pretty much an anathema to them. In fact, the Republic had been in business for about a dozen years before the first semblances of what now are political parties began to shake out.

So, what are political parties? They are clubs. They are associations. They are groups of people coalescing under a common ideological banner. As such, they are not required be “democratic.” PLEASE, Trump and Sanders supporters, get that through your thick heads. Over the last 200 years, each party has developed its own system for selecting the candidates for public office. There is no requirement that they “elect” these people, or ask the advice of people who are not declared members of the party, regardless of what the pundits, talking heads, on-air personalities, columnists and reporters of various print and web news outlets may lead you to believe.

If the members of the party want to go ennie-menie-miney-mo to pick who runs for office under their banner, that is what they can do. They don’t have to hold caucuses or primaries or conventions. They can just do it.

Or they can ask for v0lunteers and go you … you … and you.

Funny thing, somewhere along the line the American people have been told that they get to pick the candidates, regardless of their party affiliation …  well, at least if they are to be the candidate from the Democratic or Republican Party. Wrong answer. They don’t necessarily get that privilege if the candidate is a Green Party member, Reform Party member, or Libertarian Party member, or a Communist Party member, or one of the any other parties that tend to appear on the presidential ballot in November. Why should they get it from the Republican or Democrat parties?

People, WAKE UP! It is not a democracy. That is not how things work. The parties make their OWN rules on how the process works for picking their candidate and that IS how things work. It behooves candidates to learn those rules backwards, forwards and sideways, and then play better than anyone else according to the rules.

You want to play a key role in how your “party” selects its candidates, then get involved in the process. Go to party meetings, volunteer to be delegates to district, county, state and national conventions, or at least get involved at each one of those meetings to help decide who will be the delegates. Just helicopter voting in a primary doesn’t cut it. It is convenient and it may salve your conscience, but the system and the process demands more of you.

AND if your candidate doesn’t want to play by those rules, and die by those rules if that is the judgement of party leadership, then they had best go form their own party rather than to try to piggyback their candidacy off the back of a party that maybe they don’t agree with all their precepts and complain when the party regulars rally (although they maybe have been divided among other candidates earlier) against him or her and say they aren’t being fair. It is not a matter of fairness, but it is a indication that the candidate doesn’t want to play by the rules, unless the rules benefit them.

TRIGGER WARNING: A candidate who is unwilling to play by the rules, however arcane and weird, is NOT a candidate who demonstrates to me the requisite qualities to hold any office that they are running for in my book and will not (except in cases of dire extremity) get my vote for office.

You see, when you get into public office, whether elected dog catcher or president, you are bound to follow the rule of law. Unfortunately, we have seen far to much of NOT following the rule of law in this county in recent years, much to our detriment.

Unless and until Mr. Trump gets the majority of delegates at the Republican Party’s national convention the nomination is not NOT “His” to be stolen from him. I don’t care how many primary votes he gets or doesn’t get. They don’t matter. Delegates do, according to the rules.

Now, when Mr. Trump and his supporters whine about the GOP not being “fair” to him, or trying to “steal” the nomination from him, I want to take a long 2x4 and start whacking people upside the head to get their attention and give the aforesaid lecture.

Same thing holds for Bernie Sanders supporters who live and breathe the “Bern”

Now, children, for if you do not understand this, then you indeed have some growing up to do. Call me arrogant. Call me what ever you want. But whether it is sports, politics or governance, in a civilized society we play by the rules whether we like them or not. That is what grownups do.

Of course, if your candidate doesn’t win, then you can always go home and sulk, or you could, mind you, look at the alternatives – the other candidates in play and decide which is the lesser of all those evils – or at least the least bad. Because if you don’t, then be willing to accept that some people actually think what you consider is the most evil alternative really is a hot idea … even if the c0nsequences will be horrible … or haven’t we learned that lesson over the past eight years.