Election Rigging?

The other day I briefly got into a discussion about the perception that the other person's favorite candidate was being ignored by the media. I thought that this was rather odd, since my perception was that this candidate was receiving plenty of coverage. So I Googled the candidate's name and looked for news stories from the previous week. There were a roughly equal number of stories about all the top polling candidates. This information was shrugged off since "Of course, he just won the New Hampshire primary". So I did another search, going back about two months. Same approximate result. My debating partner was unfazed and moved the goalposts once again.

It seems to me that it's become common for candidates or their supporters, with little evidence, to suggest that the system, or the votes, or the party, have "rigged" things to their detriment. Some candidates have opined that if they lose the election, that's all the evidence of a crooked system that you need. With all of this we're careening headlong toward the day when someone refuses to leave office because of alleged rigging.

Let's stipulate that our election system needs a serious overhaul. The Electoral College often does not reflect the will of a majority of voters; money carries way too much weight; the primary system, actually 50 different systems run by private organizations, the political parties, resembles a reality show and the caucus rules would befuddle an MIT graduate.

Let's also stipulate that the system is not going to change any time soon - at least not in any major way.

If the Iowa caucus rules state that candidates who receive less than 15% of the votes are deemed "non-viable" and their voters have to make a second choice, then it makes no difference if your candidate received the most votes in the first round (I'm looking at you Sanders supporters). If you failed to garner enough electoral votes to win an election it is irrelevant that you received more actual votes by actual voters (now I'm looking at you Clinton people). For that matter, it's irrelevant that Russia interfered. No one is saying that any voting machine hacking took place, only that voters were stupid enough to be swayed by Facebook memes.

The system is what it is and if you want to win an election you play by the rules that are in place and not the way you think it should be or by whining about unfairness.

The other day I briefly got into a discussion about the perception that the other person's favorite candidate was being ignored by the media. I thought that this was rather odd, since my perception was that this candidate was receiving plenty of coverage. So I Googled the candidate's name and looked for news stories from the previous week. There were a roughly equal number of stories about all the top polling candidates. This information was shrugged off since "Of course, he just won the New Hampshire primary". So I did another search, going back about two months. Same approximate result. My debating partner was unfazed and moved the goalposts once again.

It seems to me that it's become common for candidates or their supporters, with little evidence, to suggest that the system, or the votes, or the party, have "rigged" things to their detriment. Some candidates have opined that if they lose the election, that's all the evidence of a crooked system that you need. With all of this we're careening headlong toward the day when someone refuses to leave office because of alleged rigging.

Let's stipulate that our election system needs a serious overhaul. The Electoral College often does not reflect the will of a majority of voters; money carries way too much weight; the primary system, actually 50 different systems run by private organizations, the political parties, resembles a reality show and the caucus rules would befuddle an MIT graduate.

Let's also stipulate that the system is not going to change any time soon - at least not in any major way.

If the Iowa caucus rules state that candidates who receive less than 15% of the votes are deemed "non-viable" and their voters have to make a second choice, then it makes no difference if your candidate received the most votes in the first round (I'm looking at you Sanders supporters). If you failed to garner enough electoral votes to win an election it is irrelevant that you received more actual votes by actual voters (now I'm looking at you Clinton people). For that matter, it's irrelevant that Russia interfered. No one is saying that any voting machine hacking took place, only that voters were stupid enough to be swayed by Facebook memes.

The system is what it is and if you want to win an election you play by the rules that are in place and not the way you think it should be or by whining about unfairness.

Free College

One of the topics that has been discussed lately is student loan forgiveness and free college for everyone. The two main objections that I have heard to this are “how are we going to pay for that?” and “I paid off my loans, why should anyone else get a free ride?” In answer to the first objection, the same way we pay for everything else that we think is a priority. We never ask how we’re going to pay for our wars and when we asked how we were going to pay for the big corporate tax cut in 2017 we never received a coherent answer. So pretending that it’s a matter of being fiscally prudent is a bit disingenuous. The other objection requires a bit more context and nuance.

First we have to ask ourselves whether or not it’s in the national interest for everyone to have the opportunity to become educated or trained to the point where they are able to earn according to their abilities and potential. At this point I am not asking how this would be accomplished, just whether in principle it is a good thing for all Americans to have access to whatever education (and that includes vocational training) to be able to earn a living wage and have the opportunity to reach their potential. I think that the answer is an unequivocal “yes”. Why wouldn’t we want every American to have access to whatever level of education that they need to pursue the career that they desire? I’m going to proceed under the assumption that this is a good thing, that it’s in the national interest and look at the possible ways to achieve this.

Before getting into the various possibilities, I want to look at the objection from those who have paid off their loans already. One way to look at that objection is to ask whether we should ever try to improve a situation just because people didn’t benefit from it in the last. If the child tax credit increases this year, should I be angry that it was lower when I was raising children? Speaking of child care expenses, years ago my insurance company decided to start covering orthodontic expenses after I had paid for braces for six of my children. Should I have been entitled to a refund for all my expenses that would have been covered if the change had taken place earlier? I could have asked, of course, but I wouldn’t have gotten it! Were people who were now able to have their kids’ braces covered hurting me, just because I had to pay in full? Of course not. It’s understandable that someone who had budgeted her money and gone without for years to pay off student loans would be resentful that some people didn’t pay theirs off. It’s easy to believe that everyone should be able to accomplish what they did and that people who would benefit from loan forgiveness are somehow lazy freeloaders.

Why do people default on their student loans? Statistically it’s not due to laziness or an attempt to defraud, but often it’s a result of the earning potential of available jobs falling behind the requirements of loan repayment. Sometimes a medical or family emergency affects the ability to repay. In many cases the loan debt acquired during college will take decades to repay. For every person who “virtuously” worked hard to retire their student loan debt, there are others who will never get it all paid off, despite making payments every month for the rest of their lives. These people often have a work ethic equal to those who do get their loans paid off, but circumstances have affected them differently.

What about free college? Again we hear the same arguments from people who didn’t get free college and see it as a personal affront if others get a free ride. But some people already get a free ride through college. Why should a football or basketball player get tuition fully covered because they can play a game well? There are plenty of academic scholarships, which make slightly more sense, but still, it’s free. So the objection to someone else having no tuition doesn’t really hold water. A university's expenses have to be paid for somehow; logically the lack of revenue from scholarship athletes will be made up with higher tuition from everyone else. The argument, however, is usually extended to point out that they don’t want their tax dollars to pay for someone else’s education. To this I refer to one of my first points about an educated populace being in the national interest. Taxes are collected and disbursed to address the common good. Should we be tallying how much we pay in and compare it to our perceived benefits? How would that work? We don’t get to opt out of percentages of our taxes because we don’t agree with how they are spent.

No one is saying that free college means that there will be no admission standards. Admittedly there would be a lot of details to work out if such a plan ever saw the light of day. If college were free, we certainly wouldn't want it to be a consequence-free four years of partying. There would have to be standards for admission and for remaining; there would have to be provisions taking into account the opportunities that a student had before college. Were they in an elite private school, their education supplemented by tutors? Or were they in a school in a low-income area? Did they have the freedom to devote time and energy to their studies, or were they working 40 hours a week helping to support their family? Nothing is simple.

So let's look at this and try to determine if (1) it's in the national interest and (2) it's doable, and put aside the selfish "I got mine" arguments.

Voting for Third Parties

It may come as a surprise to many, but there are more political parties in the United States than the Democrats and the Republicans. But are those parties viable? By viable, I mean, do they have any chance of achieving high office the way things are now?

The founders did not, when writing the Constitution, anticipate political parties, although they formed fairly quickly and became the dominant method of running for president, as well as for state and local positions. The major parties have changed a few times since George Washington was elected, but it always seemed to settle down to just two. The Whigs were a major party until the Civil War. They split internally over the issue of slavery, with the pro-slavery faction joining the Democratic Party and the anti-slavery group forming the new Republican Party. By the early 1900's the Democratic and Republican Parties gained their position as the two major parties.

There are several reasons why third parties have a difficult time gaining traction. One of the main reasons is money. None of the minor parties have the financial resources that the two majors do. It is difficult to get your message out when the big boys can steamroll you with virtually unlimited funds. Another roadblock is institutional. In most states there are restrictive rules regarding what parties can appear on the ballot. Achieving a certain percentage of the vote in the previous election for governor is a common hurdle for staying on the ballot. Initial ballot placement usually is dependent upon gathering a certain number of signatures. As you can imagine, both of these are difficult to do and forces a third party to spend a lot of time, energy and money just gaining ballot access. The rules are written to guarantee that the Democrats and Republicans continue to appear on the ballot, while the system is designed to prevent others from gaining a ballot slot. Is this system fair? Probably not, but it's the way things are...right now.

So what happens when a third party candidate runs for president? Firstly, there's a good chance that he or she will not be on the ballot in all 50 states. And forget about a write-in candidacy, some states require that a write-in candidate get a number of petition signatures in order for the votes for them to be counted. And you'd better make sure that you spell the candidate's name correctly! Even if a third party manages to get on the ballot in every state, there's still decades of inertia influencing people to vote for one of the major party candidates. For a third party candidate to have any chance at success they would already need to have a considerable following. I could imagine Trump, if he decided to ditch the Republican Party in this year's election, standing a chance of getting re-elected, or close to it. He already has a cult-like following across the country, who have no deep loyalty to the Republican Party. Usually, however, a third party candidate is a fringe figure, often to the far right or far left of the major parties. Let's say Senator Sanders did not gain the Democratic nomination and ran under the banner of an existing third party. He would surely split the Democratic vote as his die-hard supports would vote for him and those who supported other candidates would vote for the Democratic nominee. On the other hand, an old-school conservative Republican who ran independently might peel away some Republicans who disliked Trump and probably ensure a Democratic victory.

In many states, which party gets the electoral votes is seldom in doubt. Voting for a third party in California is not likely to make a difference one way or another. In Nebraska, Republicans routinely win 65% of the vote. However in states where the outcome is in doubt, voting for a third party is, in effect, a vote for the "other side". In a battleground or swing state the number of ballots cast for a third party could make a difference between the two major contenders. It may have been Michigan last year where the number of votes cast for the Green Party exceeded the margin of victory in that state by Trump.

In the current political climate, voting for a third party candidate may make you feel more virtuous, but there is a probability approaching zero of that candidate winning. Like it or not, the perfect candidate doesn't exist, and not voting for the less-than-perfect candidate in your party may very well assure the election of someone that you really don't like.

Are Things As Great As Trump Says They Are?

I covered this in a couple of paragraphs in my post "Why Trump Must Go", but I wanted to revisit the topic.

Why is the fact that Trump lies important? One of the critical reasons for understanding his lying nature is that many of the reasons that people have for supporting him is his "many accomplishments". In many, if not most, cases, his supposed victories are exaggerations, extensions of previous tends, or just plains lies.

Unemployment

This is one of those things that, while technically true, is misleading. Trump frequently touts historically low unemployment numbers to make the case that his presidency has created a booming economy. The lowest unemployment was more than 50 years ago at 3.0%. Under Trump we have gotten down to about 3.2% and have averaged under 4.0% for his whole tenure to date. However, if you look at the unemployment chart, you can see that this is just a continuation of a trend. After rising from 8% to 10% in Obama's first year, it went down steadily until it got down to around 4.7% at the end of his term. So, if you subscribe to the theory that presidential policies influence unemployment rates, Obama lowered the rate from 10% down to 4.7$; Trump has only lowered it from 4.7% to an average of 3.5%. It's also quite hypocritical that Trump, before he was president, attacked the accuracy of unemployment figures, suggesting that the "real" percentage was as high as 40%. It's crazy how the figures are no longer "fake" when they make him look good.

Unemployment is the only category that I'm going to put up a chart for, however, facts and figures backed up by government data are available for everything else that he says.

• He claims that he has "brought manufacturing back", "saved steel" and "ended the war on coal". Occasionally we hear about a company making a decision to stay in the U.S. rather than moving production abroad, but we hear just as often of companies closing or moving out of the country. 
• He claimed that he would build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border and that Mexico would pay for it. Of course Mexico wasn't ever going to pay for it. As of December 2019 the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that 93 miles of new barriers have been built, 90 miles of which replaced existing barriers. The border is almost 2000 miles long and was already covered by 650 miles of barriers of various kinds.  I do not know if the new wall that blew over was deducted from the total. 
• He claimed that he would tear up NAFTA, which he said was a "disaster" and replace it with something better. What he did was negotiate some minor changes and updates, then renamed it USMCA and announced that it was a brand new agreement. 
• He claimed that our military was "decimated" and even went so far as to say that the Army had no ammunition. Military spending has gone up slightly under Trump, but nothing major has changed. 
• He claims to "love our vets" and says that he "got Choice passed" when it had been passed in 2014, having been sponsored in the Senate by Senators Sanders and McCain and signed into law by President Obama. 

I could go on and on, but you're grownups and can research this yourself. And by "research" I don't mean finding a New York Times article or Fox News story that supports your view. Just about every claim that every politician makes can be checked using available data sources.

Do that. 

I covered this in a couple of paragraphs in my post "Why Trump Must Go", but I wanted to revisit the topic.

Why is the fact that Trump lies important? One of the critical reasons for understanding his lying nature is that many of the reasons that people have for supporting him is his "many accomplishments". In many, if not most, cases, his supposed victories are exaggerations, extensions of previous tends, or just plains lies.

Unemployment

This is one of those things that, while technically true, is misleading. Trump frequently touts historically low unemployment numbers to make the case that his presidency has created a booming economy. The lowest unemployment was more than 50 years ago at 3.0%. Under Trump we have gotten down to about 3.2% and have averaged under 4.0% for his whole tenure to date. However, if you look at the unemployment chart, you can see that this is just a continuation of a trend. After rising from 8% to 10% in Obama's first year, it went down steadily until it got down to around 4.7% at the end of his term. So, if you subscribe to the theory that presidential policies influence unemployment rates, Obama lowered the rate from 10% down to 4.7$; Trump has only lowered it from 4.7% to an average of 3.5%. It's also quite hypocritical that Trump, before he was president, attacked the accuracy of unemployment figures, suggesting that the "real" percentage was as high as 40%. It's crazy how the figures are no longer "fake" when they make him look good.

Unemployment is the only category that I'm going to put up a chart for, however, facts and figures backed up by government data are available for everything else that he says.

• He claims that he has "brought manufacturing back", "saved steel" and "ended the war on coal". Occasionally we hear about a company making a decision to stay in the U.S. rather than moving production abroad, but we hear just as often of companies closing or moving out of the country. 
• He claimed that he would build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border and that Mexico would pay for it. Of course Mexico wasn't ever going to pay for it. As of December 2019 the Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection stated that 93 miles of new barriers have been built, 90 miles of which replaced existing barriers. The border is almost 2000 miles long and was already covered by 650 miles of barriers of various kinds.  I do not know if the new wall that blew over was deducted from the total. 
• He claimed that he would tear up NAFTA, which he said was a "disaster" and replace it with something better. What he did was negotiate some minor changes and updates, then renamed it USMCA and announced that it was a brand new agreement. 
• He claimed that our military was "decimated" and even went so far as to say that the Army had no ammunition. Military spending has gone up slightly under Trump, but nothing major has changed. 
• He claims to "love our vets" and says that he "got Choice passed" when it had been passed in 2014, having been sponsored in the Senate by Senators Sanders and McCain and signed into law by President Obama. 

I could go on and on, but you're grownups and can research this yourself. And by "research" I don't mean finding a New York Times article or Fox News story that supports your view. Just about every claim that every politician makes can be checked using available data sources. Do that. 

Religion and Politics

One of the most surreal scenes was at the National Prayer Breakfast this past week. Let's set aside for a moment the propriety of high-ranking government officials participating in a religious as part of their official duties. They all do it, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, it's a bit anti-First Amendment, but okay, let's move on.

This year's prayer breakfast, the theme, in an as-it-turns-out-wildly-inaccurate way was "Love Your Enemies". Following up the keynote speaker who sermonized on the theme, Trump, disagreeing with the guest of honor and Jesus, said he disagreed with the whole loving your enemies shtick. He spent his allotted time attacking and demonizing his enemies. He also criticized Speaker Pelosi, suggesting that she lies when she says that she prays for him, and Senator Romney, who he accused of using his faith as a crutch. He ranted that both of them used their religion to defend doing what they knew was wrong.

Now despite the fact that the Bible does indeed tell Christians to pray for their political leaders, I cringe whenever I hear Pelosi tell us that she prays for Trump. She may very well be sincere, but I don't know what it has to do with the job she was elected to do. Romney is a different case. It is well known that he is an ardent follower of his faith and that his beliefs shape who he is and how he conducts himself. I had a lot of respect for him when, during his 2012 presidential campaign, he resisted the urge to pander to religious people. Maybe it was a political calculation, knowing that many evangelicals don't consider Mormons to be Christians, but nonetheless, he kept his personal beliefs out of his politics.

What is beyond irony is Trump presuming to lecture anyone on using religion as a political crutch. His religious pronouncements are so obviously phony, so evidently someone who knows little or nothing about how people of faith act, attempting to replicate that behavior. His speeches, when he sticks to the teleprompter, are full of high sounding rhetoric, but in unguarded moments, it's unmistakable that he has no idea what faith is. While I may have thought that previous presidents were using religion for political purposes, or that they should keep their beliefs to themselves, I never seriously doubted their sincerity. Trump, on the other hand, makes me nauseous when he rambles on about God. So the hypocrisy of regularly pandering to the anti-abortion segment, the naturally conservative wing of modern evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity, by a man whose faith is so shallow as to have evaporated, who believes that he doesn't ever require forgiveness and whose personal morality is, frankly, depraved, is sickening.

Reprisals and Revenge

Donald Trump, aspiring dictator, never let's any slight (no matter how slight) go unanswered. His idiot supporters see this as a virtue. "He's just fighting back" and "He tells it like it is" are two frequent rationales, although his "fighting back" is often out of all proportion to what he is fighting back against, and the "like it is" is usually a fantasy of how things are.

Anyone who has ever had an unpleasant meeting with their HR department knows that retaliation against those who complained about you will get you fired. But as we have seen, as the Senate has acquitted Trump of the charges contained in the two articles of impeachment, there is no effective constraint upon his mobster mentality of retaliation and revenge. The most obvious and attention getting was the removal from the National Security Council of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Lt. Col. Vindman, an active duty Army officer, was an expert on Ukraine assigned to the staff of the national Security Council (NSC), the body, headed by the National Security Advisor, that is supposed to advise the president on matters of national security. Vindman was one of the people who listened in on, and made notes of, the infamous call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky. Vindman was concerned about the call and went to the White House Counsel to express his concerns. He was subpoenaed to testify during the House of Representatives Impeachment Inquiry, despite being ordered not to by Trump. His tenure at the NSC was slated to end in July 2020. Several days ago he was escorted out of the White House by security. I find it hard to believe that this is the normal way that military assignments are changed.

Lt. Col. Vindman has served in combat and received a Purple Heart. Unlike some of the commentary that I have seen, his service, no matter how brave or honorable, should not shield him from criticism. His valor and patriotism as a military officer, although it speaks to his character, is somewhat irrelevant regarding his qualifications for the position that he held. If he was incompetent in his duties, then he should have been dismissed, but there is no evidence that he was incompetent. He was accused by Trump of insubordination for obeying a legal summons to testify before a Congressional committee. While I don't believe military service immunizes someone from criticism and automatically elevates them to the stature of "patriotic hero", Trump and his Republican enablers evidently do...when they are Trump supporters. We have the recent example of a convicted murderer and an accused war criminal (the latter who engaged in many public acts of insubordination) being pardoned by Trump, and lauded by the right. Veterans aren't worthy of respect in Trumpworld if they don't bow down to Trump.

In addition to Vindman, his brother, an NSC lawyer of 20 years tenure was fired. Trump's own appointees, Sondland (EU Ambassador) and Taylor (Interim Ukraine Ambassador) were just canned. Mitt Romney, who Trump can't fire, has been the subject of continuous attacks since his vote to remove Trump last week. Attorney General Barr, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee, are rumored to be opening investigations into "the origins of the Ukraine collusion hoax". (Hint: the origin was Trump attempting to extort Ukraine). New York State, which passed a law prohibiting the sharing of driver's license data with ICE, has been retaliated against as well. The TSA "Trusted Traveler" and "Global Entry" programs have been cancelled for all New Yorkers.

While it is theoretically possible for Trump to be impeached again, the probability of a Republican Senate ever voting to remove him is statistically zero. With the acquittal last week, any restraints, any possibility of restraint, is gone until election day. When President Clinton was impeached, he expressed remorse and apologized to the nation following his acquittal.  He was well aware that his actions leading to the impeachment caused harm to the nation and to his own reputation, Trump has no similar self awareness. The timing of his "perfect" phone call reflects this: it was shortly after the Mueller Report's conclusions that there was no case for a conspiracy conviction, as well as the report's decision to avoid making a determination on obstruction. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief that he had dodged a bullet (as well as avoiding other deadly cliches) and changing his ways, he doubled down by soliciting the assistance of a foreign head of state in order to influence the next election. His reaction to his Senate acquittal is very similar. He was "warned" by Republican Senators not to fire Ambassador Sondland, since that would look like he was engaging in retaliation. He wanted it to be perceived that way.

There is absolutely nothing preventing Trump from further retaliation and revenge. He has demonstrated that he views presidential powers as unlimited, that he never has to defer to Congress and that his word is law. Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to let him. The only thing that has constrained him in the past is the presence of subordinates who attempted to reason with him, who dragged their feet in carrying out orders, who appealed to logic and expert opinion. All of those people are gone.

It's going to be a scary 2020.

Why Trump Has to Go

Unsurprisingly Trump was not removed from office after being impeached, but let us not be fooled into thinking that he was proved not guilty of what he was accused of. There was never any dispute over the basic facts of the allegations. What was in dispute was what the intent was, and whether the actions should have been grounds for impeachment. There was no way that Trump and his defenders could deny that Trump has asked Zelensky to “do us a favor though”, or that he had asked him to investigate the Democratic challenger who was polling highest at the time, that he had previously shown no interest in corruption in Ukraine, or that his personal lawyer was conducting a shadow foreign policy that was in the best interest of Trump’s personal interests, not the United States’ national interests or that every State Department official connected to Ukraine was aware that this was going on. All they could do was rationalize that Trump, as president, had every right, even a duty to do what he did. One of his lawyers even suggested that since all politicians believe that their re-election is in the national interest, a politician taking action that helps his re-election prospects is therefore acting in the national interest. No, the impeachment process was never going to remove a dangerous autocrat from power, but hopefully it shined a light on how far along the path to dictatorship we have come. But Trump still needs to go; we need to abandon the notion that we should impeach him again and concentrate on the election.

Why does Trump need to go?

Firstly, and most obviously, he is corrupt. His indiscriminate use of the word to describe anyone who dares stand up to him has watered down the meaning of “corrupt”, but Trump is corrupt for the simple reason that he continues to use the office of the presidency for his own personal benefit. The corruption is of two varieties. One is the use of the office to extend his own power. He has stated more than once that the Constitution gives him free rein to do anything. Shortly after Mueller concluded that he could not prove conspiracy or coordination of the Trump campaign with foreign election interference, Trump, presumably emboldened, actively solicited foreign election interference. He has installed an Attorney General who functions more like Trump’s personal lawyer than the head of the nation’s law enforcement agencies, who acts regularly to shield Trump from any further investigations. Trump has ignored the express will of Congress and bypassed them by diverting funds appropriated to the military to build his applause-line wall. He views Congress as a rubber-stamping body that exists only to put his will into legislation. The second type of corruption is financial. Unlike other presidents, he has retained ownership in a complex web of companies that he favors with government money. Foreign governments and domestic supplicants book his hotels; he spends virtually every weekend at one of his properties, with the property charging the government for the stay, including $650 per night room rates for the Secret Service.

Secondly, he is ignorant and incompetent. Not only did he come to the presidency without any relevant experience, but he is famously resistant to learning what he needs to know in order to do his job. Some of his supporters see his outsider status as a virtue. I can understand the appeal of that argument. Americans are often frustrated with our government, and we often elect people we see as outsiders to shake up the status quo. Nonetheless, once installed as the head of the government, any president has to learn how the government works. You have to understand that as president, you don’t make the laws, Congress does that. You have to understand how the economy works, or at least appoint people who do to advise you. You have to understand the limits of your power and authority. You have to understand the consequences of any actions that you might take. Trump understands none of this and is unwilling to learn. This goes beyond unorthodox policies or changing our priorities. This is a matter of unprecedented ignorance. 

Trump is extremely paranoid. Part of this relates to the previous point about his ignorance. No president can know everything. There are so many details, so much information, that it is easy to get overwhelmed. This is why a president has advisors. This is why a president relies on experts in various fields and in the different departments. Trump, however, believes that there is something called the “Deep State”, composed of career government workers who are out to get him. Even though many of these civil servants have worked through many administrations, both Republican and Democratic, Trump has decided that they are all “Obama holdovers” who have one goal: making him look bad. Even his own appointees are ignored and derided. The counterintuitive flip side of this is that he often makes decisions based on the last person who talked to him, or what he saw on “Fox and Friends”. This helps feed his paranoia and causes him to repeat ridiculous and easily debunked conspiracy theories, like the one about the DNC server being in Ukraine which helped fuel his attitude toward Ukraine.

Trump is incredibly thin-skinned. Every president in recent memory has been verbally attacked by those who vehemently disagree with them. None have taken the time to respond in kind as Trump has. But Trump’s verbal attacks include virtually everyone who not only attacks him, but so much as publically disagrees with him. It’s bad enough when he hangs stupid insulting nicknames on political rivals, but the smallest slight by a foreign head of state is enough for him to launch into a tirade against them. If this was an occasional outburst, that would be one thing, but it appears to be the method by which he makes decisions. Sycophantically flatter him and you can probably get him to do what you want, oppose him in any way, even obliquely, and you’re in for a barrage of attacks.

Trump foreign policy is extremely inconsistent. We go from threatening “fire and fury” against North Korea to exchanging “love letters” and ignoring nuclear escalation. Chinese President Xi is on one hand Trump good friend, while China is the target of punitive tariffs. Brutal dictators receive Trump’s effusive praise, while allies are mocked and punished with tariffs. One minute we’re “bringing the troops home” from Syria and Afghanistan, and the next we’re assassinating foreign military officials and increasing our troop presence in Saudi Arabia. For money. Which brings me to the lens through which Trump views foreign policy: money. We have military bases around the world, not only to help protect our allies, but to project American power around the world and to protect our national interests. Yet Trump views it as a financial transaction that we should be paid for. Global trade has always been a give and take. We protect some of our industries and other countries protect some of theirs. On average, the amount of goods subject to tariffs have been in the low single digits. Yet Trump has turned the tariff into a blunt instrument to ensure that we always get the best deals, no matter what the other country wants or needs.

Trump lies. A lot. Some people may say that all politicians lie. And to a certain extent that may be true, but no one lies to the extent that Trump does. A cottage industry of fact-checkers has sprung up to check everything that he says. Not only does he lie about his motivations and policy decisions, he lies about little, inconsequential things. He lies about things that can be easily fact-checked, sometimes by looking at a government website. He says something, then when questioned about it 24 hours later, he lies about it, even though there is a video recording of the initial statement. Some supporters may brush off his lies as unimportant, preferring to focus more on all of his “many and historic accomplishments”. But that’s often what he’s lying about. Much of what he claims he has accomplished in the past three years is either exaggerated, taken out of context, a continuation of trends from before his presidency, or completely made up. He hasn’t completely rebuilt a “decimated” military, he hasn’t revitalized manufacturing, he hasn’t brought in billions in tariffs from China, he hasn’t forced NATO member nations to “pay back what they owed us”, he hasn’t…well, you get the picture. The thing is, other than tough talk and bluster, Trump has not accomplished what he says he has accomplished, let alone what he promised that he would achieve. I mean, really – does anyone really think that we could have gone from the “American Carnage” to “American Greatness”, where our economy was in the pits and now it’s on the mountain top, where we were a laughing stock globally to being globally respected…in three years? Apparently he accomplished all this by way of threatening tweets and imposing tariffs. This new America, which we’re now supposed to “Keep Great” is an illusion.

Finally, Trump has ushered in a period of incivility that few would have thought possible. He has jettisoned any pretense at being a president of all Americans. He has categorized those who disagree with him as “enemies”, “sick”, “deranged”, and “haters of America”. He has attempted to undermine the free press. He has encouraged violence and the proliferation of hate groups. He has made it clear that he is the president only of those who unquestioningly support him. A president should be someone who represents all Americans, even those of the opposition party, even those with deep philosophical differences. Not someone who mocks and insults his fellow Americans.

Trump demonstrates his unfitness for office every single day.

Voting Chaos

Elections in this country are ridiculous. Especially the way we elect the president. Not only do we have the Electoral College, which distorts the choice of the majority, but our primary system which lasts around six months, preceded by about a year of jostling, fund raising and polling. Then we have the idea that someone with no experience should be running the country. Congress, and now the presidency, has become an entry-level job. What to do about it?

Let's look at qualifications first. The Constitution places very few requirements upon aspirants to the highest office in the land. Make it to your 35th birthday and be a citizen from birth. That's it. So we have the spectacle of small town mayors, life coaches and billionaires all running for president. This year the Democrats started with over 20, in 2016 the Republicans started with a similar number. Some had relevant experience, others did not. What is the relevant experience? I would start off with what it is not. It's not running a business. Business expertise is frequently cited as a great background for a state governor or president. But the main goal of running a business is to make money. That's not the goal of a state or the country. Efficiency is often listed as an objective - but in business you can sell of or close down a money-losing division, but you're not going to shut down the Department of Roads, or the Navy. A businessman, especially in a privately-owned company, has no one to answer to. A governor or the president has to work with a legislature. Foreign policy experience might also be a strong qualification. I suggest that the pool of presidential candidates come exclusively from current or former senators and governors who have served at least one term. We still may have a large field, but it would minimize the probability of an incompetent who simply knows how to rile up a crowd getting elected again. A current or former governor would have experience working with a legislature and administering a government apparatus, while a Senator would have the experience of working within that legislature and would likely have familiarity with the issues a president would face. 

Taking a step back, there should also be similar qualifications for Governor and Senator. Require that a Senator have experience as a governor or member of the House of Representatives. Stipulate that a Governor have experience as a Congressman, member of the state legislature or as a mayor. That House members have experience in the state legislature or a city council. Too often we have people elected to public office, with far-reaching responsibilities, who have no idea what they're doing. Setting up qualifications for each level that require experience at a lower level wouldn't guarantee greatness, but would at least ensure a level of experience.

What about elections? We start with a huge field of candidates, and by the first primary, half of them have dropped out either because they're polling poorly or because they haven't raised enough money. This may cause First Amendment concerns, but I suggest prohibiting anyone from publicly announcing candidacy until a predetermined date. Advertising, whether it be broadcast, print or social media, would be leveled to the point where a government subsidy would be awarded to all candidates in an amount equal to what the candidate who spent the most was spending. Candidates would continue to be subsidized so that no one would drop out due to funding. Instead of the long strung-out primary process, where one or two early primaries weed out the majority of candidates, have several rounds of national primaries. After campaign period where the various candidates would make their case to the electorate, the first round would be held in February, where the top eight candidates would move on to round two. In Round two, held in May, the field would be narrowed to four. In Round three, in August, the field would be narrowed to two. Round four would be held on election day. If the number of candidates were ten or less, one round would be skipped. If, in any round, one candidate exceed 50%, further rounds would be cancelled. In this way, all voters would be able to weigh in on all candidates in the first round, unlike in the current system where any primaries held after March offer a limited selection.

The change in qualifications would need an amendment to the Constitution, the change in the primary system likely just changes to election law. There's still the pesky Electoral College. There's currently a movement among several states to award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. Even without changes to the Electoral College, with only two candidates in the final round, the chances of someone losing the popular vote while gaining enough Electoral College votes to win is lessened.

I'm sure that someone could poke holes in some or all of my suggestions, but there's already plenty of Iowa-sized holes in the current system.