Bernie or Hillary? What About Trump?

The screencap is from the comments of the previous post. Barb Padgett asked, "what happens if Bernie loses the nomination and asks you to vote for Hillary Clinton?" The answer was ... instructive.

So, I'll ask the same question

1. Proposition A. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and Bernie Sanders then endorses her and asks his supporters to support her, will you? If not, why not?

2. Proposition B. Likewise, if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, and Hillary Clinton asks her supporters to throw in with Bernie, will you? If not, why not?

3. Corollary: No matter who wins the White House, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, will you as an American give them an honest chance to prove themselves first? If yes, why yes. If no, why no. - Jim Wright Stonekettle Station on Facebook


I answered questions one and two at some length in a blog article I titled Hillary for President? The thing that amazes me about people who react to the title to that piece is that they never seem to notice the question mark. Nearly all of them dismiss me as a schill, as if there isn't a question in the title as well as a question in the underlying article. I will be voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination, and I'm giving it a 98% chance to be Hillary Clinton, as I said almost a year ago.

The answer to question three is more complicated. I don't believe Trump will even get the nomination, and without it he has little chance of winning. On the off chance that the population of the US sleeps in that Tuesday and Trump supporters are all that show up at the polls, because even without the nomination he can't be kept off the ballot, this would give him the win by default; no I wouldn't give him a chance. He's already declared his intentions to destroy the US in the name of making it "great again". I'm not going to help him with that.

To get the nomination he has to control the convention and be nominated. That is not nearly as easy as it sounds. You have to have a quorum to convene the convention. You have to control the chair. There are myriad ways of handling the problem of denying him the official nomination that would look pretty condemning for him, just ask a parliamentarian well versed on the subject of convention rules.

Even with the delegates he needs, he still has to have the convention, and it has to endorse him as the candidate. I remain unconvinced that the Orange Hate-Monkey has enough support in the leadership of the GOP to pull that maneuver off. That the GOP wants to go down in history as the American version of the NSDAP. We'll just have to wait and see.

Facebook status backdated to the blog.

Journalism? General Education, That is the Problem

A comment on Robert Reich's status went a bit long;
Trump is a manifestation of poor education in the US exacting its price on the US and the world.  The chickens have come home to roost. The wide-spread, wrong-headed notion that a strong leader is the way to get the change you want in a complex system, has manifested in the personages of Trump and Sanders, the demagogic "outsiders" who are believed by the uninformed to be capable of effecting change on a system by themselves.

While Sanders elected alone would fail just as Obama failed to live up to the dreams of the people who voted for him in 2008, Trump is quite capable of wrecking the system all by himself if he is elected. 

It is much easier to destroy than it is to create. 

At this point in this one election all that is left is to hope for is that the Democrats can pull out a win.  It would be nice to think that they could gain a sweeping victory that would bring in enough progressives to alter the system in a positive way.  Hand the Republicans such a crushing defeat that they are forced to re-invent themselves into a opposition party that doesn't deny science and embrace religion as its starting point.  The Bernie or busters are going to make that possibility as remote as they can, unfortunately.

The Bernie or busters are not interested in reforming the system any more than the Tea Party Trump supporters are.  They want to re-invent it, which is just one step more than simply destroying it.  They tell themselves they'll be happy with a Trump presidency because at least the status quo will end.  Both the Trump supporters and the Bernie or busters don't really understand the kind of misery bringing down the US system will create.  I'm becoming afraid we might just find out how deep that well of misery is.

The fix for this is so much more than just reporting.  Just being able to predict what the population will go for in an election. That is not even scratching the surface of the problem. First you have to educate the voting public on just how blind this faith in a strong leader is.  The journalists who inform us on politics cannot be held responsible for the failure of the education system in the US to actually educate the population to the dangers of dictatorship.  As college educated people they of course discarded the idea that the average American would fall prey to a demagogue like Trump.  It's obvious he's lying and has no clue what he's talking about.  Why would anyone take this orange hate-monkey seriously?

...Unless of course you believe that a strong leader is what we need, in spite of the obvious fact that a system as complex as the US government cannot possibly be run by one person. Then all bets are off and the people who want a guy who pretends to have all the answers have control of the mechanisms of statecraft through the selection of the next head of state.

We've been so busy propping up dictators in other countries that we've forgotten we might be subject to one ourselves.  That fate is now just the flip of a coin away. 

Why Are You So Angry?

This is the most common question I've been asked for as long as I can remember.  From high school through to the last argument I had "Why are you so angry?" pops up again and again.  Everyone I talk to on almost any given subject is convinced that there is some one thing in my life that is bugging me, and that if they can just fix that one thing I'll be happy.

I'm not angry, I'm intense. This would be my explanation. I'm focused on whatever it is that I'm talking about, writing about, thinking about.  It comes across in nearly every conversation, in nearly any documentation, in almost any interaction.  I'm pretty sure it freaks most people out and I have no idea how to turn it off.

The quickest way to get me to feel actual anger is to ask me why are you so angry? when I'm simply responding with emphasis.  This tendency to fly off the handle has gotten me sent to many headshrinkers over the years. Thoughtful types who purse their lips and want to dig through all the detritus in my head to find out what makes me tick. They would press me to get past the anger masking the real emotion so that they could help me.

Let's say I'm angry, just to admit a point for debate.  Why would I be angry?

I have always been a smartass. My father made sure that I knew this at a very young age, informing me "you really are a smartass, aren't you?" throughout most of my youth. The internet age has given me a synonym for smartass. Troll. I apparently trolled my parents and teachers pretty frequently.  I was sent on mysterious errands in Sunday school for asking things like "who made god?" or "where did the extra loaves and fishes come from?" I had no idea I was being a smartass.  The questions occurred, and questions need answers. There were always more questions than there ever were answers, and I'd bet one of my limbs that the first time I was labeled a smartass was when I observed this fact to an adult. Why couldn't they answer my questions?  I thought adults knew everything.

Standing apart and observing others with a clinical eye when most people are too busy, too caught up in the rough and tumble to notice the larger picture.  Disturbing the peace with my questions, my unwelcome observations. Daring to call down the wrath of adults and spending more hours sitting in a corner than I probably ever did on the playground, just to gain an insight into behaviors that puzzled me, patterns and habits that baffled me.

Stuck in the middle of Kansas surrounded by people that I could just barely relate to, forced to participate in rituals that I had no interest in.  Church? Football? Rodeo? That last one is the kicker I will never understand.  What purpose is served by rodeo? In the medieval guilds you would call what rodeo does a demonstration of skill. A demonstration that a journeyman attempts in order to be hired on somewhere as a master. I guess if I was in the need of horse riders or cattlemen, I'd go to a rodeo to find them. Luckily for me, I don't need any of those so don't need to go to the rodeo. The inscrutability of rodeo is tangential, though. It is a speed bump in the middle of nowhere that makes you ask, why?  The speed bump is irrelevant, the question is important.

Why am I so angry? Well, there is a start right there.  If I'm angry at all.  Am I really angry?

I was first clued in on the synonym for smartass while in a Compuserve chat group way back at the dawn of the internet. They called me a troll. In hindsight this label was indeed accurate. I was trolling then. Internet trolls do seem angry about something, although what they are angry about is open to question. The wife insists I'm not a troll because in her eye trolls are evil creatures. Trolls are not evil, trolls are misanthropes; and all of us are misanthropes outside of our comfort zone.  I was called a troll because I didn't understand and wanted to know. Wanted to know about being other kinds of people than I appeared to be. I appeared to be, still appear to be, a white guy who appreciates his guns, cars and the company of women. I understand that.  That is life for the average male in the midwest.  It's not enough for me, but it appears to be enough for most men.

I wanted to know, so I went outside my comfort zone which is the only way to learn anything and started asking questions, making observations.  As I have always done.  As I will probably always do. I asked, I read, I listened and I learned.  Because I learned I became sensitive to the misuse of various words, which I have even wrote about in the hopes of educating others.

If you don't listen to the answers to your questions, if you don't learn anything from asking questions, you are worse than a troll; you are wasting everyone's time asking questions that you have no intention of internalizing the answers for.  You are tormenting others just to hear yourself talk. You are engaging in casual conversation, conversation without feeling. Conversation without meaning. I loathe casual conversation.

If I am angry, a point which I do not concede, then the demand to engage in meaningless banter on a near constant basis is probably the biggest reason why.  I do not speak to hear myself talk.  I'm not quick on the uptake and most wit goes right over my head on first pass.  It is only later that I will piece together the joke and then facepalm over the stupidity of not getting the point while the conversation is occurring, when it would have done me some good.

It takes mental energy to engage in small talk effectively.  To be witty in a casual fashion. Far more energy than I care to devote to a brief conversation with a stranger whom I will probably never meet again. I have always had goals that were far more important to me than witty banter.  Goals which consumed most of my mental energy.  When the adults around me failed to produce answers to my questions, I turned to the only source available in 1970's Kansas.  I went to the local library.  For most of my life I have wandered around with my nose stuck in books.  Books were the only place where answers could be found, where stories that interested me were being told.

What was real? Where are we going? Where did we come from? Every question answered produced at least two new questions that needed answers.  A never-ending task of education which now extends out beyond my mortal existence. Another good excuse to be angry.  Frustrated by the limitations of life itself.  I will die still needing answers to questions that will never be answered.  If that doesn't piss you off, you aren't thinking about the problem.

Thinking. Thinking about thinking.  Thinking about thinking about thinking.  The philosopher's dilemma. Is this me thinking or is this an outside influence causing me to come to a particular conclusion?  Am I angry or does my thinking make you angry which you then reflect on me? I'm thinking the latter.  Of course I would think that.  You would think that in my place.

I'm thinking that most people hate thinking so much they'll pay to undergo pain in order to stop themselves from thinking. I'm thinking I'm not angry but that you wish I'd stop troubling you with my thinking, my desire to make you think. You are angry because I'm thinking and thinking makes you angry. I apologize for not having electric probes for you to blank those thoughts with. Is it sadism to make people think knowing that they would rather endure pain than think? Food for thought.

"Casual conversations, how they bore me. Yeah, they go on and on endlessly. No matter what I say you'll ignore me anyway.   I might as well talk in my sleep, I could weep." 
"Why go on, just hoping that we'll get along. 
-Supertramp

US Politics Fix; Starting the Process

From Robert Reich's Facebook Feed
This will probably turn into a page of its own at some point, a book-length outline of the problems and processes that have to be reformed, and the obstacles in the way of average Americans retaking control of their government from the political bosses, corporate sponsors, and wealthy contributors who currently control it.

We have to start somewhere, so let's start at the beginning.

A bright, fresh-faced teenager sees the problems in the world, the calcified systems in the US that seem incapable of dealing with these problems and asks himself/herself
"how do I get involved in this? How do I change this?" 
The answer to that question is related to current events, and the image at right.

In the midst of a sideshow barker taking over the Republican primary process on the one hand, and a proud Socialist trying to pull the Democratic primary onto liberal ground it hasn't seen since the 1970's, I find myself without a group I feel can align with once again.

I left the Libertarian Party due to their inability to separate their ideological dedication to anarchism from the goal of actually winning the democratic election process.

Now I'm wondering just what the rest of the American populace is smoking, not just the libertarians, because it must be some good shit for everyone to be so clueless all of a sudden.

I really can't make heads or tails of the purpose of all of this noise. I'm once again reminded of the Babylon 5 episode with Drazi killing Drazi over what color sashes they randomly select.  What I can say for certain is that Americans in general are dissatisfied with the political process as we've come to know it.  I can say that because the only reason that two outsiders could dominate the early potential candidate fields in polling is because Americans don't like either of the two parties.

So what about third parties? is the question now being asked.  That would be backtracking for me.  I'm a veteran of the failed political process that is third party attempts at wresting control from the two major factions. For more than a decade I worked in the trenches, canvassing, promoting, representing the Libertarian Party in Texas in the best light that I could generate for it. I was never very important to the party (as I'm sure local activists will be quick to point out) but it was important to me, until it wasn't anymore.

It wasn't anymore because it became clear to me that;
  1.  The majority of the U.S. population was never going to embrace anarchism and/or smaller government than currently exists and 
  2. Majority is what determines the leaders in a democratic process.  Finally 
  3. I was no longer personally convinced that the U.S. actually suffers from too much government. 
What the U.S. suffers from is ineffective and inefficient governance. Looking at the circus acts currently playing, one might well wonder if that wasn't the purpose from the beginning.  Harry Browne said government doesn't work long before Ronald Reagan said it.  Both of them are incorrect, because government works in other nations. It is just that the US government seems doomed to drown in a puddle of its own inefficiencies unless something fundamental to the process is changed.

There have always been third parties. There are several third parties right now. The system is rigged to only allow two parties to have any real power. Has been rigged since the Republicans rose to national prominence with the dissolution of the Whigs in 1854 over the question of slavery. This is the point that seems to be glossed over. It isn't that I don't care about third party politics. The system itself isn't setup to recognize minority parties in any real way.  It has been codified and calcified over the course of 200 years to the point where, in certain states, it is all but illegal to be a member of any party aside from the Democrats and Republicans.  Third parties, minority parties, minority factions cannot alter the system because it is insulated from their efforts by layers of interference.

And still the question appears "how can anyone vote Democratic or Republican?" The answer is demonstrable; we vote for them because one of the two of them will win. One of the two of them will win because in the vast majority of races throughout history the political system in the US has been controlled by one of two dominant parties in the US.

Whoever the Libertarians nominate (or the Greens nominate) will lose again as they have in every previous election. They will lose because they aren't Republicans or Democrats; which the rules at the national level and at the state level virtually guarantee will win all electoral races especially the president.

Running for President as a third party is a waste of time, worse it is a waste of resources which could be used to fund campaigns to change rules so that candidates who aren't part of a party structure can compete. What we get from that investment of time and money is the exact same argument over and over again. Why are you voting for Democrats and Republicans?

First admit that there is a problem and that problem is the electoral rules themselves. Then fix that problem before doing anything else.

Go read Ballot Access News, edited by the magnificent Richard Winger. Top of the page today is a notification that a majority of seats in a particular state are unopposed. Tomorrow it will be a different state. Unopposed means the incumbent will be re-elected. It means no change. It means that the system will remain unaltered.  Why are the seats being handed to the incumbent?  Because ballot access is gated by a huge hurdle in nearly every state.  If the hurdle (be it signatures or party requirements) is topped, the next legislature will simply raise the bar for the next election.

The never asked question is why do Americans insist that voting by itself constitutes meaningful involvement in government? Voting is actually the very least we should be doing if we hope to ever live up to the promise of self-government. Why is the least we can possibly do that constitutes doing something considered active involvement in the political system?

If you concede that voting is not enough, and you should, then the question becomes how to make effective change in our government without reinventing it? The answer to that question is to co-opt an existing party and make it do what we want it to do.

This really isn't news.  The religious right took over the Libertarian Party with Ron Paul as their nominee in 1980, and then shifted their support to Reagan and their membership to the Republican Party when Reagan invited them to move in and take over the GOP.  The religious right have been the motivating force behind party politics ever since, and were effective at getting their way politically until the election of Barak Obama in 2008.

Even the current President has been forced to cater to the whims of the religious right, modifying many of his programs specifically to accommodate demands made by them.

This lays bare the how of how to change politics for all to see.  Simply have enough agreement among the population who vote to effect change at the city, state, and national level.  But that agreement is the hard part, the part that requires attention long before you go into booth and cast your ballot.

Political veterans will tell you, it takes work. Years of work.  Which is how we got where we are today, people who went into politics with a clear vision of what they wanted to achieve have been co-opted and subverted by the process of hammering out agreement after agreement in decades of struggle with people who think differently.

Eventually you end up voting for a candidate that you really don't agree with on any specific issue, but remains the best choice given the compromises required, hopefully not loosing sight of your overall goal in the process.  Not being able to see the forest because of all the trees.

Hillary Clinton is probably going to be that candidate for me. If you read back over this blog you'll discover that I first abandoned the Libertarian Party to support Barak Obama so that he would be President instead of Hillary.  In 2016 I would vote for Hillary Clinton with almost no reservations.

I will be voting for whoever the Democratic party nominates in this election. I will be voting for the Democrat, because the Republican party has apparently gone over to the magical thinkers, and I don't believe in magic.  The entirety of the Republican Party has been dispatched on a fool's errand by the Tea Party's co-option. Until they can figure out who they are and what they stand for, I don't have the time of day for the party as a whole.  If they were to nominate someone like Governor Kasich I might have to revise my opinion of them, but I don't see much chance of that, of Republicans being willing to compromise enough to embrace a man who supports the ACA.

I vote down ballot based on candidate qualities alone, discarding anyone who pretends at being the better conservative. These candidates generally win in Texas (because conservative=correct in the mind of the average Texas voter) outside of Austin, but you can't fix any stupid aside from your own. In Austin the down ballot offices (state senate and legislature) are held by Democratic incumbents, usually running opposed only by independent candidates. The independents almost always get my vote, because I want to see change and you won't get change from an incumbent.

But I'm still talking about voting, the last thing on the list.

The only way to change the system is to infiltrate the two parties and alter them from the inside, thereby altering the system they control. It has to start with ending gerrymandering and real campaign finance reform.  Opening up ballot access and ending party control of the ballots in every state in the nation. Not doing this will simply kick the can forward again. That is the forest that we must keep in sight, the big picture. Gerrymandering must be ended across the entire nation. Districts must be drawn blindly with no consideration of the political, racial or social strata that the people in the districts represent. Campaign finance must be addressed, or the corruption of our electoral process by the wealthy will continue in spite of any other change we might put in place.

Changing any of these fundamental corruptions of the system will take a long, hard effort. It will
require canvasing of your local precincts to get a feel for who supports or doesn't support these changes. It will take joining the local precinct and becoming involved, and bringing enough people along with you to alter the votes at the precinct level. It will take making sure that county gatherings and state conventions also support these measures.

The harm of Gerrymandering Austin
Faction is why these rules, this corruption, has taken hold.  Madison was correct when he cited faction as one of the biggest threats to the Republic.  The Democrats are a faction. The Republicans are a faction. Third parties are all factions.  Faction leads generally sane people to do insane things like drawing districts to favor your party (gerrymandering) allowing contributions that favor your party over your opponent (campaign finance) never taking into account that the practices you use to force the system to cater to your faction can be used to exclude your faction when power is finally wrested from you.

...and it will be.

Wildly expanded Facebook comment and status post. It hopefully will expand even further.