Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

President-Shopping: What Do You Value In A Candidate?

“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” –Karl Marx

“A leader is a dealer in hope.” –Napoleon Bonaparte

Hello friend,

Here is a small sampling of the kinds of thoughts dominating my mind in recent weeks: Do we really see eye-to-eye? Does she share my passions? Do I want someone more experienced, or less? Is she in this for me or for herself? Will she go all the way? Sounds exciting, right? Sadly (or not), no, I am NOT back in the dating game or perusing Match.com for options. Instead, I am in a different kind of market, one that, at this critical juncture in American history, may be even more consequential than my love life. I am searching for a President.

I remember the primary season four years ago, watching the earliest Republican debates. Like the current crop of Democratic candidates, it felt like an enormous cast of characters to pare down. I figured that in our back-and-forth country, it was probably the Republicans’ turn to win the Presidency, so it was especially intriguing. Not that I was going to vote for one of them–I don’t belong to a party but am very liberal and thus typically end up choosing among the Democrats in our antiquated, two-party system–but my keen interest in politics and the future of America keeps me fascinated by the happenings and characters in both parties.

In that Republican debate, I remember taking notice of John Kasich for the first time, thinking he might make the best nominee in the end, one that would try to be a President for everyone in our fractured country, even as the leader of one party. He was personable enough and seemed somewhat open-minded, seemingly a decent guy in spite of his politics. I figured he may even try to work with both parties, something I fancied given both that I was expecting a Republican President and that things in Washington had become stubbornly divided and petty. I also remember noting Marco Rubio in that debate, figuring him to be someone to look out for in the future, maybe the next Vice-President and/or a future President. Jeb Bush seemed like the kind of guy that would be nominated. Others seemed out of their depth. Ted Cruz repulsed me in every way. Donald Trump seemed to be every bit the nightmare that he still seems to me now. Well, we know what the Republican voters decided.

The Democratic primary at the time, though technically open, seemed like a done deal with an eventual Hillary Clinton nomination. Though in a much smaller field, it was clear in the first debate that Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee were going nowhere. The then-new-to-me message of Bernie Sanders, though appealing to these ears, just seemed like it wasn’t going to get a fair or full hearing (and maybe I was too quick to pick a candidate because of that). Clinton had policies that I like, she was exceptionally smart and well-qualified, and electing the first female President appealed to me greatly. I thought she would do a good job despite an obviously hostile opposition stemming from the decades-long, Fox News-led assassination of her character. I voted for her in the primary and again in the general election. And again, we all know how that went.

So, here we are again, four years and several debates later, and, for the moment and for the Democrats, at least, there is still a wide variety of characters to choose from. The policy choices range from the center to the far left, and the range of personality styles and types of experience is even broader.

Looming over all of them, too, is the elusive quality called “electability.” Disgust of Trump is so strong that poll after poll shows that voters in the Democratic primaries prefer someone who will beat Trump over someone who shares their values. I have seen interviews with voters who actually preferred a woman or person of color (when there were some) but put that preference aside and chose a white man for fear that sexism and/or racism would cause their preferred candidate to lose in the general election. The problem I see is that I don’t think anyone really knows what electable is. Look at Trump. Like him or not right now, you would have to agree that four years ago, he did not seem electable. Establishment Republicans were in a state of shock and gripped by the fear that someone with such an arrogant and petty personality, prior support of Democrats, and history of racist and misogynistic actions not only wouldn’t win but that he would cause so many others down-ballot to lose as well. The experts agreed. And they were all wrong.

Right now the same hand-wringing is happening in the Democratic Party over the recent emergence of Bernie Sanders as the frontrunner for the nomination. They fear someone with such liberal (“democratic socialist”) views will alienate not only the party’s moderate voters but also the “swing voters,” independents and disaffected Republicans that the Democrats were planning to win over in this election. But who is to say if these fears are well-founded? Doesn’t winning the contests make you electable? In any case, because I don’t think people know what electable looks like until after the votes are tallied, I wish folks in these primary contests would vote for who they think would actually be the best President rather than looking at it like a horse race, trying to predict the winner rather than select one.

But how does each person select one? What factors weigh heaviest when deciding amongst a cast of characters who all belong on the same half of the political spectrum as you do? Because let’s be clear, this is a totally different challenge than just voting in the general election, when you are probably going to be voting for the nominee from your preferred party whether you like that person or not. [Let’s face it: Donald Trump may have a very high approval rate among Republicans now, but when many of those same folks filled in that little oval by his name in November of 2016, they were biting down hard and hoping for the best rather than gleefully squealing, “This is sure to go great!!!”] But when it is basically a choice amongst characters from your own tribe, you get to (have to?) drill down on the different qualities that each one brings to the table and parse out what really matters most to you.

And that can change from one election to the next and one group of candidates to the next. Some eras call for an emphasis on personal character. Other eras–in your mind, at least–call for revolutionary policy ideas. Another calls for a status quo candidate, like an outgoing Vice President, to keep riding the wave you are on. Some years I am looking more for someone who inspires me. Other times intelligence and steadiness seem more important. Maybe it means something more to you to be a part of electing a woman or someone from another historically underrepresented group, but maybe this time you prioritize whoever feels like the safest bet. Experience in government can be looked at either positively or negatively, depending upon how fed-up you are with the system. The entire question and answer is a most volatile and thorny puzzle.

So, what am I looking for in this moment from these candidates? What will sway me most when I step into that voting booth in a few days?

Before the contest began, I would surely have told you I wanted the most humble, pleasant, intelligent, unflappable, inclusive, positive-messaged, male, and white candidate in the field. Essentially, other than the “safety” of the whiteness and the maleness, I wanted everything that Donald Trump is not. I wanted that contrast to be so glaringly obvious to any open-minded voter. That seemed to be the wisest choice to ensure a Trump defeat.

But then, as is often the case in this complex journey called Life, the real, live humans entered into the equation and mucked up my whole plan. Suddenly my natural inclinations to be inspired and to make bigger change in the world took over my better judgment. I saw safe, and it just didn’t feel like enough for me. I moved past just winning the White House and focused on the more sweeping changes that could make life better and more just for more people in the long run. I slipped away from the cold, calculated path to victory and moved toward the candidates that appealed most to me.

I am big on candidates who are serious about the environment and eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels. That one is pretty common to all of the current Democratic candidates–though some seem more passionate than others–as are things like gun law reform, women’s rights, drug law reform, a reduction of the prison-industrial complex, and putting more federal money into our schools, among many other issues. It is why I could imagine voting for any one of them if they were to win the nomination.

But there are a couple of points of separation that help me to narrow my preferences.

I believe health care should be guaranteed to all people–I have written to you before about this–and that personal finances should not keep any American from getting the care they need. I also think our current health care system is predatory, immoral, and way too expensive for what we get out of the deal. Because of these–but mainly because of the first one–I am a huge proponent of a single-payer health care system, now referred to as “Medicare For All” on the campaign trail. This may be my biggest pet issue, and it narrows my candidate choices down to just a few. Thankfully, those candidates happen to also be genuine champions of the working class, minority communities, and others who have not fared as well as people born into advantage. These candidates have plans to raise the minimum wage, to build more affordable housing, to make it easier for black and brown people to get loans for homes and small businesses, to build infrastructure in these communities, and to ensure that the schools in these areas get the funding for teachers and mental health professionals that they need to achieve some measure of equity. This genuine care for people who need and deserve a boost is very important to me in a candidate. I feel that with a couple of them.

When I am left with two whose policies I can really get behind, it is then that I dig into the personality, intelligence, and “electability” aspects of the candidates. I have watched a couple of town halls with one candidate in particular who definitely impresses me with her depth, both of caring and intelligence. The tone just feels right to me; I get that she has listened, been moved, thought it all through, and come up with very specific plans to help. That stuff ticks the boxes for me. I could see her on a debate stage with Donald Trump and coming across as the only adult in the room. But not just as the only adult–that is easy to pull off when Trump is your comparison–but the only one who has done the work to understand the situations of the people in this country and the complexities of the world we live in, and then who actually cares enough to steward both the ship and all of its passengers toward better. And though her policies are bold and to some far-fetched, she both makes them seem more do-able and also seems willing to compromise to at least move in that direction. And I don’t see her as so easily falling prey to being cartooned by Trump and his Fox News propaganda machine, though no doubt that effort will be forcefully made.

This points up the contrast between her and the other candidate whose policies I like: I just think he will too easily fall prey to the cartooning by the other side, both with his ornery, shouting personality and with the bold positions that will no doubt have the other side screaming “COMMUNIST!!!” at every turn. It’s a problem of approachability, to say nothing of the likability factor once you get that close. There is an unbending quality to him as well, which may be great if he is your personal champion but is difficult if you are anyone else. I wish more people wanted to join his movement, but I understand that its popularity at the moment, as with his personal appeal, is limited. I hate the idea of equating him with Trump, but the one similarity I sense and worry about is having a very loyal but somewhat limited following, with little possibility for growth. I would prefer to not end up with two old, stubborn, shouting, white men on the final debate stage, even if one is shouting things I like to hear. It just feels tougher on the country, leaving less room for middle ground.

That is why I prefer my other candidate. She has the policy positions that are my minimum qualification, but she also has the other things–the intelligence, the empathy, the specifics, the experience–to fill in the rest of the picture and appear as a reasonable option to a broader range of people. And frankly, to be a better President, which, if I remember correctly, is what this whole process is all about. So, even though I abandoned my initial, cold, calculated plan to pick the “safest” bet, in the form of a white, male, middle-aged moderate, and instead went where my principles led me–to an older, more liberal female–I am pleased with where I have landed and what the journey taught me. I am ready to fill in the oval!

How about you? What qualities do you value most in choosing your President? Open up your journal and explore the appeal of the candidates that you have voted for in the past and others that you have passed on. Whether it was in the last primary if you lean toward Republicans or this primary if you tend to prefer the Democrats, which aspects of their candidacies tend to hold the most sway with you? In a setting like a large debate stage, do you tend to feel for personalities and energy first and then, after you have found some that you are drawn to, listen more closely for the policy specifics? Or, do you tend to ignore the personality part and go straight to policy positions? Somewhere in between? How much does gender factor into your equation? Race? Religion? Sexuality? How much does a candidate’s intelligence impress you? How much do you weigh a person’s political experience? Is it better if they have been in Washington for a long time? Is it more appealing to you if they have succeeded in other fields, like the current billionaire candidates? How much does the person’s past matter to you, whether it is a voting record in Congress or something they have said (Trump’s “Grab ‘em by the pussy” comes to mind) or written or been charged with? How do you weigh that against what they say they stand for now? Can you put all of these other personality, history, and demographic questions aside as long as the person shares your policy positions? What is the most important issue that you want your candidate to share your vision on? How much more important is that issue than the others? What are the rest of your pet topics, in order of importance? Have you ever been fully satisfied with a politician’s positions? How much do you tend to factor in “electability” when narrowing your candidates? Do you feel like you have a good sense of what electable is? How would you draw up the “safest” candidate in your party? Is there someone you have in mind as a model? Do you pay close attention to the candidates and issues central to the party that you don’t generally vote for? Considering that one of them might become your next President, what kinds of qualities do you look for in those opposition candidates that make you think, “Well, I suppose I could live with that one for four years,” or “That one does not make me totally sick to my stomach, anyway,” or the like? Is it all about whoever is the most moderate of the bunch, or is it more about which one has a decent personality? How do the qualities you look at for the opponents differ from the ones you prioritize for your own party? Have you ever watched a debate or town hall performance by someone from the opposition party and thought to yourself, “I would actually vote for this person?” On the whole, would you say the qualities you value in a candidate change from election to election depending upon the group and the circumstances, or do you prioritize the same thing every time? What is the best predictor of your vote? Leave me a reply and let me know: What qualities matter most to you in choosing a Presidential candidate?

Think big,

William

P.S. If this letter resonated with you, please pass it on. Let’s all engage this special process!

P.P.S. If this way of questioning yourself to uncover your values and idiosyncrasies is appealing to you, consider buying my book Journal of YOU: Uncovering The Beauty That Is Your Truth at your favorite online retailers. Namaste.

Third Party, Anyone? The Case for a Libertarian President

DSC_0061 2“Sometimes there won’t be a right choice, just the best of several bad options.” –Sarah J. Maas, Queen of Shadows

Hello friend,

I was tooling around on Facebook recently and came across a friend’s post sharing his results from one of those quizzes. You know the ones I mean: Which career are you best suited for? What is your personality type? Which celebrity might be your soul mate? Which TV show is most like your life? There are a million of them. In just a few minutes of multiple-choice questions, you can have the answers to all of life’s deepest questions. Then you can share your results with the Facebook world so that they can take the test, too.

This particular friend’s shared quiz led with his results: “I side 97% with Bernie Sanders.” Being slightly addicted to presidential politics, I couldn’t resist taking the quiz myself. It asked questions on several different issues—the economy, immigration, social, healthcare, crime, education, foreign policy, etc.—and then spat out the percentages with which you agree with each candidate. There were options to make more nuanced responses to each and to rate how important each issue is to you, too, but I basically took the fast track.

I think I was so curious to get my results for two reasons, roughly equal in importance. First, I wanted to see if my responses would suggest I align more with Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Second, seeking a little amusement, I wanted to see how close to zero was my alignment with Donald Trump.

So, when the scores popped up, I was not at all surprised to see how the top and bottom of my list shook out:

  • Hillary Clinton—99%
  • Bernie Sanders—99%
  • Donald Trump—9%

While I was shrugging my shoulders at those numbers, though, I was suddenly captivated by the two names that appeared between them.

  • Jill Stein—97%
  • Gary Johnson—59%

Hmmm…. I love a new wrinkle to consider!

Like many of the rest of you, I have spent the better part of the last two weeks following the dramatics of the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The tone of the two conventions was so starkly contrasting, making it seem that your choice for President (and probably the other public offices) could not be more easy to decide. You were either obviously voting for Trump or obviously voting for Clinton. The difference in message and tone made it seem quite clear that there is no likelihood of waffling between the two. Your choice is clear, right?

Or is it?

Judging from what I see at these conventions and from the multitudes of posts on social media, it seems clear that large numbers of ordinary citizens are having a difficult time with this one.

On the Republican side, the absence of so many party luminaries—H.W. Bush, W. Bush, Romney, etc.—from the convention, as well as the non-endorsement speech from Ted Cruz, made it quite clear that not everyone was on board the Trump bandwagon. Similarly, I have seen more than a few social media posts and comments to the tune of, “As a Christian and a Republican, I am really having a hard time with this election…..” (It is true that the usual conclusion is, “But we can’t let evil Hillary get in!”)

On the Democratic side, as much as Bernie Sanders is trying to get onboard the Clinton bandwagon and rally his army of loyal supporters to do the same, it is clear that many of them are experiencing more than a little hesitancy in jumping on. Will they decide to stay home in November, or will they swallow a bitter pill and check the Clinton box, thinking the same way their opponents are: “Because we can’t let evil Trump get in!”?

Both sides, despite their candidates’ obvious differences in philosophy, experience, and temperament, are not exactly embracing their choice. I sense a lot of “I’ll just take the lesser of two evils.”

But what if that is a false dichotomy? What if there were really more than two real choices?

Guess what? There are!!!

Remember those two other names in the middle of my list: Jill Stein and Gary Johnson? They are real candidates from real parties. Stein is from the Green Party (remember Ralph Nader?). Johnson is from the Libertarian Party. And while Stein is polling only in the low single digits currently and is not likely to make much of a dent this year, Johnson and the Libertarians could actually sneak into this thing.

In order to qualify for the three national debates with Trump and Clinton, you have to average 15% in the leading polls. Johnson has been quietly creeping up and is now in double digits. Translation: He has a real chance to be heard. If you hear him, you just might like what he has to say. You may even decide he could do better than the lesser of two evils. Imagine that!

So, what in the world is a Libertarian? And who is this Gary Johnson guy?

Almost completely ignorant on the topic, I hunted down my one Facebook friend who I know to be a Libertarian. He told me that the motto is “More conservative than a Republican, more liberal than a Democrat.” So, of course, I was totally intrigued. This is what I learned:

While the actual party formed in 1971, the Libertarian movement began more as a philosophy of very limited government and maximal personal freedom, basically a “hands-off” approach. The federal government exists to enforce the Bill of Rights and not much more. To quote from their website LP.org, “Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.” 

This is where that motto begins to make sense. It definitely fits with the Republican idea of smaller federal government. Economically, they favor decreasing taxes, cutting government regulation of business, and no government welfare (preferring charitable welfare instead). They plan to be debt-free, figuring that, when capitalism is left alone, it will balance itself out naturally.

And the personal freedom angle has fascinating liberal ramifications in social issues. With its “live and let live” core principle, the Libertarian party does not seek to legislate what goes on in your bedroom, who you marry, what you put into your body, or how you worship.

“In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.” 

And what about this Gary Johnson guy? After building a multi-million dollar construction company from scratch, Johnson went on to be elected—as a Republican—governor of New Mexico for two terms. As governor, he used his veto power at record rates, reduced the size of the government, and left the state with a budget surplus. He is also a triathlete and has climbed Mt. Everest. (And he gets a free point because he was born in my hometown!)

Sounds like he would be an interesting dinner guest, anyway. And with that many distinct policy positions, I think he would find ways to poke both Trump and Clinton on the debate stage. I am all for stirring that pot!

Listen, I am not writing to you today to say that this guy should absolutely be your next President. Frankly, some of the ramifications of the “hands-off” policies he endorses really don’t sit right with me. For example, I would like the government to lead on environmental issues rather than just letting it sort itself out. I would like the government to help out the people who, whether from centuries of systematic oppression or simply bad luck, regularly get left out of the benefits of the American ideals. I would like our senior citizens and veterans taken care of. I would like the government to enact some sensible gun laws. I would like to ensure some standards in education. So, it is no surprise that my quiz results showed me with only 59% agreement with him, compared to high 90s for Clinton and Stein. I am more comfortable with their positions.

But even with all of those misgivings, I think there are Libertarian principles that both Republicans and Democrats would find very appealing. And as far as I can tell in my brief research, Gary Johnson seems like a pretty solid guy character-wise. If character is your real beef with the other candidates—it seems to be for many—then I truly believe the Libertarians are worth a second look for you.

Honestly, in this election, I would not be at all shocked if something swung the voting wildly. The two primary candidates just aren’t that well-liked. So, perhaps one of them is going to do something to make himself or herself look even worse, or another candidate could step in and totally shake things up. The only viable option for that is Gary Johnson. He is going to be on the ballot in all 50 states, so that groundwork has been laid. Now he just needs to get that 15% in the polls to get on the debate stage so that everyone gets to know him and the Libertarian platform.  He may not get my vote, but I want to see him have a shot at everyone else’s. I think his presence on the big stage would be a good thing for America, both in the short-term (for this election) and the long-term (for a potential break-up of the two-party system that I think is long-overdue). I am all for a chance to hear another voice.

How about you? Are you open to considering a third party candidate? Open up your journal and explore your ties to the two big parties and what might sway you to jump ship. How tied are you to your current party of choice? Does your party’s candidate inspire confidence in you with their leadership style, character, and positions on the issues? If you had to stick with just the two major party candidates this year, do you feel like you are mostly voting for your person or mostly voting against the other? If you feel like you are in the “lesser of two evils” boat, which characteristics are making the one less evil than the other? If you are in that boat, how open are you to a third candidate? Before today, did you know anything about the Libertarian Party or Gary Johnson? What do you think of the Libertarian philosophy? Which side of their platform do you prefer: the fiscally conservative side or the socially liberal side? Is one side of their philosophy so extreme that, even if you love the other side, it is more than you can stomach? How much would it improve the Presidential debates—and the overall conversation around the election–to have a third candidate involved? Even if you weren’t sure you would vote for him just yet, would you be willing to tell a pollster you favored Johnson in order to increase the likelihood that he makes it into the debates? Even if you truly favored him over Trump and Clinton, would you only vote for him in the election if it looked like he had a real chance to win? Does voting for someone who is not likely to win effectively “waste” your vote, or should you vote your conscience regardless of the situation? Will we ever get to the point where we have a handful of legitimate political parties contending, where compromise will be a necessary and normal part of our political interactions? Are you ready for that now? Leave me a reply and let me know: Are you open to another party joining this race?

Be a light unto us all,

William

P.S. If today’s letter taught you something or made you look in a new way, please pass it on. Let’s search for a better way forward together!

A Whole New Politics: What Better Time To Blow It Up & Start Fresh?

DSC_0406“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” –Mark Twain

Hello friend,

On Monday night, I turned on the television to take my little peek at CNN. I wanted to see what the hot election topic of the day was. Of course, it was another Donald Trump night, this time centered on his refusal to disavow the Ku Klux Klan in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper the previous day. It created an absolute firestorm in the political world, most interestingly in the Republican party, which Trump is leading for the nomination to be our next President. With everyone intensely aware of the sensitivity around race relations in this country and not wanting to be dubbed a racist, it seemed that every politician in the party was—if they had not already, that is—blasting Trump and distancing themselves from him as much as possible. The chorus of Republican leaders chanted, “He is not one of us! We don’t support him!”

Watching that night, I had a glimmer of an idea.

The next night was Super Tuesday, when so many Presidential delegates get divvied up by the multiple primaries across our great land. When I returned from voting, I popped on CNN to see how it was all going, with one big question on my mind: Would any of Trump’s comments and the passionate condemnation of him by his Republican leaders have any effect on the actual voting? After all, so far in this campaign, the voters have shown a remarkable unwillingness to listen to the party leaders and pundits. If all had gone according to plan, it would be decided by now that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush were the nominees for our two parties. Obviously, reality lies elsewhere.

The fact that the voters supported Trump by a wide margin on Tuesday only seemed to infuriate the Republican leaders more, forcing them to face the reality of their Doomsday Scenario. I pictured them wringing their hands and wondering: What are our options if HE is now the face of our beloved party? He’s not even a real Republican! And even though Clinton won a majority of states on Tuesday and is holding the lead for the Democrats, I have no doubt that their party brass has, along the way, had a few tense (though certainly not as horrified) moments of wondering: Is Bernie Sanders really the face of our beloved party? He’s not even a real Democrat! 

The manic few days since Tuesday in the Republican party have reinforced what has become clear over the entire course of this campaign cycle: We have two very fractured political parties on our hands. And here is where my glimmer of an idea turned into a most amusing thought experiment!

Imagine, if you will, five politicians who, deep down inside, hold these views:

  • Politician A: Stereotypical ultra-conservative on all fronts. Think Tea Party.
  • Politician B: Stereotypical ultra-liberal on all fronts. Socialism plus.
  • Politician C: Sees herself as literally “pro-Life” in broad terms. Against legalized abortion. Against capital punishment. Favors strong gun control measures. Favors publicly-funded, universal health care. Strong on environmental protection. Against massive military spending. Against major Wall Street reform. Against same-sex marriage. Against campaign finance reform. Tough on immigration/does not favor a path to citizenship for people already here illegally.
  • Politician D: Against strong gun control laws. In favor of legal abortion. In favor or capital punishment. No strong feelings on the environment. Against publicly-funded, universal health care. In favor of massive military spending. Against (or indifferent to) major Wall Street reform. In favor of same-sex marriage. In favor of campaign finance reform. Moderate on immigration and open to the possibility of a path to citizenship.
  • Politician E: Favors strong gun control measures. Against legalized abortion. In favor of capital punishment. In favor of strong environmental measures. In favor of publicly-funded, universal health care. In favor of massive military spending. In favor of major Wall Street reform. In favor of same-sex marriage. In favor of campaign finance reform. Tough on immigration/does not favor a path to citizenship for people here illegally.

In our current, two-party system, in order to rise to some level of real power, each of these five politicians has to choose to be either a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately, the way things are working—or, more accurately, not working—in Washington these days, whichever party the individuals go with, they would have to swallow the blue pill or the red pill and toe the party line. For Politician A and Politician B, choosing the appropriate party might be relatively easy, even if they didn’t believe the party was leaning far enough in their direction.

But what about the other three? Each holds some views that would plant them firmly on the Republican side and other views that are firmly on the Democrat side. In today’s political game, though—you know, the one we are all so disgusted by—these folks would have to choose one side and swallow all of their other beliefs that don’t go along with the party rule. If they don’t, they would be ostracized and told they weren’t a real Republican (or a real Conservative) or a real Democrat (or failed the “Progressive test”) by their party members and shut out of the system.

In our two-party system and with the current toxic climate in Washington–in which politicians are demonized by their own party if they make any sort of compromise with members of the other party—there is no room for a complex set of beliefs. To make it there, and especially to stay there (that is, to get re-elected), you have to act exactly like a Republican or exactly like a Democrat. You reject whatever the other party proposes on principle, whether it has value or not. You support whatever your party proposes on principle, whether it has value or not. The principle being: We are right; they are wrong. No exceptions.

But imagine again, if you will, that there was a separate party for each of the five politicians above, and a party for others with different combinations of positions on the important issues. In my thought experiment, I was picturing four to six parties (at least two that would form out of each of our current parties, and then another one or two with relevant distinctions from them) roughly equal in size. Aspiring politicians could be open and honest about where they stand on the various issues with no worries that they would not find a group of relatively like-minded folks to band together with.

In the ideal world of my mind, this new system would create and encourage a whole new attitude in Washington and thereby a whole new attitude of us citizens toward our leaders. You see, if our Congresspersons knew that the five parties were proportioned almost evenly, they could be certain that in order to get anything accomplished, they would have to work together with members of the other parties and compromise. There would be no more shame in that. No one group could stonewall the others with any effectiveness. And since there would be enough options so that everyone could be honest about their positions, and enough cooperative work to ensure exposure to multiple points-of-view, it wouldn’t be such a scandalous thing to change parties at some point in your lifetime. You could actually be authentic, because becoming a member of one party wouldn’t make you much more powerful than being a member of another party.

Imagine how much more you could trust the folks in Washington if you thought they were being completely honest, were genuinely trying to do what they pledged to you, and were voting on principles that you could support rather than strictly along party lines. With multiple parties, your representatives could actually be complex individuals and good public servants simultaneously. How cool would that be! And even better, it might make the idea of running for public office more appealing to more and better people, giving us a much more attractive pool of candidates than the rag-tag bunch we have up there right now.

Obviously, this is merely a thought experiment, and I understand that blowing up our entrenched, two-party system would be unfathomably difficult and messy. But what if we could? This moment, with both parties as splintered as they seem to be, seems like that one fateful moment in time when there is a window of opportunity for a revolution to occur. Do we dare blast that window open and start anew? I, for one, think it would be pretty cool if my kids grew up having reasons to trust our elected leaders, or, better yet, aspiring to become the leaders of their generation. I would blow it up for their sake.

How about you? What ideas do you have for improving our political system and restoring the public’s faith in Washington? Open up your journal and your imagination. Of course you know that your ideas are highly unlikely to be implemented in the near future, and hopefully that frees you up to consider your most idealistic fantasies. If you could give a letter grade to how you think the current system is working, what would it be? (I am waffling between a “D” and an “F”.) Does it seem like the animosity grows more and more every year and the parties cooperate less and less? What do you think it says about the public’s faith in our government and politicians that the “outsiders” Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have far surpassed everyone’s expectations in this Presidential campaign? What do you think their success says about the health of our two political parties? If we could put this situation in a vacuum and ask the members both parties simultaneously, “Would you agree to split your party in half if they agreed to split their party in half, creating four parties in similar size?” do you think they would go for it? Which party do you think would be more eager to start dividing? In your opinion, what effect would it have on our politicians if we had several different options for them, seemingly all with an equal chance of allowing them to reach their goals? Would they, as I suggested, become more honest with their positions and more willing to work with all of the others? What effect would it have on you as a voter and citizen? Would you have more faith in your elected officials? Finally, what effect would it have on the next generation who would grow up in the new political climate? Would it be worth the pains of transition? Could it be any worse than our current mess of mistrust and obstruction? Would you be open to trying? If you had to join a party with one of the five politicians mentioned above, which one would you choose? Write down where your heart stands on each of the issues I listed—free yourself and listen to your heart, not your current political party—and see if you are the leader of your own political party. What would you call it? Leave me a reply and let me know: Are you ready to hit “RESET” on the political system in America?

Value your voice and your choice,

William

P.S. If this thought experiment made you wonder, share it. We all need to re-imagine our world anew sometimes. Have a blessed week!

Love Your Country, Not Its Leaders: The Worst Election Year EVER!!!

DSC_0640“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” –Groucho Marx

Hello friend,

Last week’s death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ignited yet another political firestorm in this country and gave the average American another reason to be disgusted with our representatives in Washington, DC. Before his body was even cold, the Republican leaders—and most vocally the Presidential candidates—began popping off about how they would filibuster or even flat-out refuse to hold hearings for anyone nominated by President Barack Obama (a Democrat), seeing as he has only about eleven months left in his term. Ted Cruz, currently running a solid second for the Republican nomination, seemed to shout the loudest, demanding that we “let the American people decide,” ignoring the fact that we already decided by electing Obama to his second four-year (note: not three-year) term.

President Obama, for his part, finally shot back and said, in essence, that he would do the job he was elected to do until the end of his term.   Of course, everyone on the Democratic side had been saying that since the moment Justice Scalia’s death was announced.

The lines were drawn exactly as they always are these days—“All Republicans over here! All Democrats over there! Now chant your party’s anthem and close your ears to theirs. Go!”

In this case, I think the Republicans look like the petty ones, and the Democrats look like the ones fighting for the just cause. But make no mistake, if the shoe were on the other foot and we had a Republican President in his final year, I am sure that the Democrats would take their turn and be no less petty. It is as though neither side knows any other way to operate anymore without being labeled as a traitor to their party. No matter what noble intentions they may have entered politics with, at this point, it is very difficult to find one person who is not just playing the party power game. Independent thought—not to mention the notions of cooperation and compromise—have gone completely out the window. These characters just cannot seem to get out of their own despicable way.

Ahh, the perfect time for a long campaign for the Presidency!

[Full disclosure here: As I have mentioned before, I am very liberal. And though I have no interest in joining either major party in this country, I admit to having a nearly-violent physical reaction against the thought of being represented by most of the leading Republican candidates. However, I like to think of myself as a fairly objective consumer of Presidential politics. It completely fascinates me—both sides–and I typically have strong opinions about each candidate and what each party should do to be more successful in the race.]

After watching all of these characters intently for months of debates, town halls, and stump speeches, it is clear that this is a pretty ragged bunch of Presidential hopefuls. Each of them has issues that make for a less-than-ideal candidate. If you combine that with the poisonous political climate in America—and even the sad way us regular folks have become so accustomed to ruthlessly tearing our leaders down—my conclusion is that, no matter who wins the upcoming election, our next President is a one-termer. I just don’t see any of them lasting.

I want to think each party has some knight in shining armor that is going to ride in and save the day as an appealing candidate. Of course, it is too late for that now—we are stuck with this motley crew—but a few months ago, I was really thinking that rescue must be imminent from both sides. I was sure the parties would not allow such a sketchy and unelectable bunch to go through this thing unopposed. But in the end, the best they came up with to invite were an aging Vice President (Biden for the Democrats) and the guy who lost the last election (Romney for the Republicans). And even they declined! It was then that I knew we were in big trouble.

The 2016 election always seemed to me destined to be an easy prize for the Republicans. In my adulthood, the Presidency has moved back and forth between the parties, with only the first Bush not winning a second term. Still, it had gone Republican (H.W. Bush)-Democrat (Clinton)-Republican (W. Bush)-Democrat (Obama). With that pattern, this is the Republicans’ turn. Also, as I noted about the particular brand of viciousness and lack of cooperation that has become the norm in Washington, as well as the convincing story the Republicans have been able to sell to their base during these past seven years—lots of folks really hate President Obama—it has always just seemed destined to me that a Republican would be our next President.

With that, I have been on the lookout in recent years for those few—or even one–golden candidates that would sweep up the hearts and minds of the Republican base the way Obama did for Democrats eight years ago. I have been looking for the next Democrats, too, of course, but more the Republicans, figuring their golden child was my next President. Surely in all this time, someone could be groomed for such a sure-thing role, an obvious nominee to produce an obvious victory. Right?

Apparently not.

I am not going to go through each of the leading candidate’s foibles and why they so plainly should not be our next President. I just think that when the Republicans—in this, their year of golden opportunity—get to nomination day and name their guy, they are then going to look at each other in horror and say, “Oh my gosh, we just crapped the bed!”

Fortunately for them, I think the next thing they will say is “Ha! So did they! Game on!!!” That is because the Democrats–who probably began this process thinking their chances were slim amidst the anti-Obama sentiment, but then got their hopes up when they saw who was doing well in all of the Republican polls—have failed to produce a golden child of their own. Even though in my private political thoughts, I can see ways in which I would be excited to see either of the Democrats elected, in my objective look at how each is generally perceived—fairly or unfairly, depending upon which of the two you are talking about—it is obvious that either one is going to be a tough sell to the American people in November. I am pretty sure the Democrats will have their own “We just crapped the bed!” moment as well.

What the heck have we gotten ourselves into????

If you are anything like me, you have recurring fantasies about blowing the whole system up and starting again with all new parties and definitely all new politicians, only to wake up to the ugly reality of our current situation and the feelings of powerlessness to stop it. But then again, maybe that is what the voters are trying to do right now—blow it all up, I mean—in the only way that they see available to them: by voting for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, one who isn’t a native of the current system and the other who most rails against it. That is the only way any of this circus makes sense to me!

How about you? What is your take on the current state of American politics? Open up your journal and join the fray. This one is fun, because you can go at it completely subjectively and unpack why you support your favorite candidate and party, and then you can try to look at both parties and all candidates objectively and try to understand their appeal and their weaknesses.   It’s a HUGE topic, so you can journal for days and days on the various characters and issues on the stage. The other fun thing for a journal writer on this topic is its ever-changing nature. So, dive in! How loyal are you to one party? What drew you to that party in the first place? Have you switched party allegiances during your lifetime? Are you officially a member of the party, and is that important to you? Are you proud of the way your party handles things (not just which issues they support, but how they actually carry on the business of politics)? On which issues do you have some agreement with the other side? On which issues do you wish your party would compromise more? Of all the candidates from your preferred party in this year’s Presidential race, do you think any of them are excellent, can’t-miss prospects? How many on your side have no business leading this country? Objectively, which one would do best in the November election? Is that the same person you think would be the best President? What about from the other party? Which of their candidates is more palatable to you and why? Which one from the other party do you think would do best in the national election? Does anyone from the other side NOT make you think it would be an awful four years with that person leading the country? What is the worst case scenario for you? Okay, now think about some polling questions for all of the candidates. Who is the most trustworthy? Least trustworthy? Who seems to most represent your values? Least? Who would do best with the economy? Worst? Who is best with foreign policy? Worst? Finally, in order, rank the candidates from most likable to least likable. Do you seem to vote more on likability or more on who actually lines up with you best on the issues, whether they are likable or not? Do you wish we could start over with politics in America, perhaps with new politicians or more parties or only publicly-funded elections? How would you set it up? Have you ever had any desire to throw your hat in the political ring and see what kind of change you could make? If there were more people like you in politics, would it work better? Do you know someone who would make a good President? Is there any way out of this mess???? Leave me a reply and let me know, What does your dream candidate look like, and why are they so hard to find?

Be grateful for Choice,

William

P.S. Even if you disagreed with every word I said, did reading this letter help you clarify your preferences? If so, please share it. Let’s get better together!

My Next President

DSC_0181“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” –Napoléon Bonaparte

Hello friend,

“IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO???” That is what I keep asking myself as I watch the 2016 Presidential candidates begin to emerge and strut their stuff for the voters. One day it is Donald Trump spouting racist comments that cause the PGA tour to cut ties with him. The next day I see Hillary Clinton’s extremely low poll numbers when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness. Then there is the prospect of Scott Walker, and I think of how many people from Wisconsin I have met who are totally mortified that he is their governor. And, oh my goodness, might Joe Biden, the butt of so many jokes, really run for President? Who will the Republicans and Democrats trot out next: Jeffrey Dahmer or your crazy Aunt Cleo? I am again left scratching my head and wondering, “Is this the best that we can do?”

I know, I know, we are not supposed to talk about religion and politics in polite company, and I am certainly going to offend most people with this post today. But we aren’t talking here. We are just here to get you to think about what makes you tick. When you write about this in your journal, you are writing to yourself, for yourself. Of course you can talk about it with others, but you do that at your own risk. When you journal, you risk nothing. You only gain. You gain clarity and perspective, and you get to hash out potentially unpopular ideas without the prospect of losing friends as a result. It is your Truth, not someone else’s. So yes, go ahead and talk politics. I dare you! But first, hear me out. Maybe I can ruffle your feathers enough to stir up a passionate journal entry or two.

These candidates are killing me! They really are. As a guy who almost never follows current events but has an odd fascination with Presidential politics, I have found myself wondering if I could be more unimpressed by this group. But, you know, it is not really the fault of the candidates themselves. After all, they are just folks who are ambitious enough to want to be President of the United States. That is pretty darn admirable of them, actually. I guess it is the political parties and us—yes, you and I—who are to blame. How did we allow it to get to this point where it is so extremely difficult to uncover a couple of wonderful candidates for the highest office in the land? We should have made it clear to most of these folks long ago that they just weren’t what we are looking for when it comes to our global ambassador. We failed, and now here they are, lined up at our door (or at least our TV sets).

I guess there are some basic things I am looking for out of my next President—some minimum qualifications—regardless of political affiliation. These are the things I want the candidates of the major parties to have so that we can have a fair fight. Let’s start with charisma. We are talking about the leader of the free world here, so this person needs to have that certain something that draws people in. Captivate me! I also want to think my President is both intelligent and wise. I want the person to be able to not only understand the daily security briefing but also be able to make good decisions based on it. I want my President to be likable. Easily likable, so I don’t have to scour through the crabby surface or used-car-salesman surface or arrogant surface or patronizing surface to find some semblance of likable. I also want the main candidates to be on the younger end, frankly. Preferably 40s or 50s, not so much 70s. I know that sounds horribly ageist—and it is—but I am actually not saying it for me. I am really talking about what I think the two big parties would ideally put out there to appeal to the greatest number of voters. Personally, I don’t mind if the President is 65, but I think the candidates have more mass appeal when they enter around the age of the most recent Presidents (Clinton, W Bush, and Obama) rather than the Reagan/HW Bush ages. In this age of celebrity and social media, I really believe that we will see more candidacies that emerge as a wildfire-style movement—I think Obama’s first election will, in the long run, be seen as the first version of this—which is why youth, charisma, and even celebrity may play an increasingly large role in Presidential politics going forward (you think George Clooney couldn’t win an election right now?).   I also think you cannot be seen as an extremist (though both sides like to paint each other as extremist, hopefully you and I can see the truth).

These basic standards of appeal seem so simple, obvious, and easy-to-meet, but look at the candidates emerging. Who meets them? You can answer for yourself. Does Hillary Clinton have likability or age on her side? Does Donald Trump have anything but celebrity—and perhaps charisma—on his? Vice President Biden is in his 70s, which is tough. Bernie Sanders seems too extreme to the left to attract enough people, and I think anyone Tea Party-related has the same problem but from the right. Who remains? The Democrats seem to be out of appealing options, unless Elizabeth Warren could be convinced to join the race. As for the Republicans, maybe the likes of Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush fit the basic standards. I suppose even that answer somewhat depends upon your political leanings.

I definitely have my biases, too. I have told you in previous letters that I am very liberal. I have zero inclination to attach myself to any party, but I admit that the Republican candidates—especially the Tea Party folks—frighten me more than the Democratic candidates. I actually think that Clinton would do a fine job as President, but I also think that the likability factor doesn’t make her a good candidate when we go back to our basic list.

Maybe it is just not possible in this age to find a person that seems at least generally appealing to most people (political views aside). After all, I tend to think President Obama is charismatic, likable, and young enough to appeal to a broad audience. If you look at the levels of hate and vitriol sent in his direction, though, he is clearly not a universal favorite. Maybe W Bush was that way, too. By his second term, the very sound of his voice made my skin crawl—I was very against the wars—but maybe even his most level-headed supporters wondered by everyone didn’t think he was the coolest guy ever. It is quite possible that the low level of respect that we grant even our highest officers today—maybe I was shielded from it growing up in a Republican household in the Reagan/Bush years, but it felt like no one dared to disrespect the President in those days—makes it impossible for us to find some consensus on who would be a generally good leader (political views aside). Nothing is sacred in 2015, and no one is safe from the haters.

Still, I hold out hope that the 2016 election will offer us some candidates from both parties who meet the basic standards. I would love to arrive at Election Day and be excited about the final contenders. I have lived through the elections where neither player excited me—see Bush vs. Gore—or when I was petrified at what might happen if the President died while in office (“Hello, President Palin!”). I think I want what each party wants: to deliver a candidate and running mate who are charismatic, likable, smart, wise, and appealing to a wide range of people. And I really want to spend the months leading up to the election without shouting at CNN, “Is this the best we can do???”

How about you? What is your take on the possibilities for your next President? Open up your journal—the only safe place to talk politics—and make a Wish List. What are the minimum standards on your list? Are they similar to mine, or quite different? How well has your preferred party done at producing candidates that meet those minimum standards? How well do you think the other party has done? Are you ever embarrassed for either party? Do you like it when the other party nominates an obvious dud? Given that no matter who each party nominates, the election is bound to be a close one and could go either way: even though I feel like my side gains a slight edge if the other side’s candidate seems awful, it still always freaks me out that the awful candidate might very well win and I will be stuck with this person as my leader (a recurrence of my Sarah Palin nightmares). Do you think that is the case in this election, with Hillary Clinton as the presumptive nominee for the Democrats despite having some serious popularity and trust issues? Should the average Republican voter be loving this or terrified that, despite these issues, she might be the next President? How open-minded are you about which candidate you will ultimately vote for? Have you picked a favorite yet? Are you open to the idea of a female or Latino or Indian-American President? How much does gender, race, or religion play into your candidate preferences? How much difference do you think is really made by choosing a Republican rather than a Democrat for President, or vice versa? Do you always vote by party, or can a personal quality or an issue sway you? Do you know someone personally—maybe even you—who you think would be a good President? What is it about that person that makes you feel this way? Would you want the job? Why or why not? If you answered “NO” to the job, do you think this is why we have such a shortage of good candidates on both sides? What can we do about that? Leave me a reply and let me know, “Is this the best that we can do?” 

Demand the best,

William