by David R. Wells and Lawrence H. Wells
02
Nov 2018
Ordinarily we only comment on presidential elections. These are not ordinary times. We cannot offer detailed analysis on the elections for all 435 Congressional and 33 Senate seats, so we will only speak generally.
From “So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish” by Douglas Adams (1952-2001): A flying saucer has landed, the alien pops out, and says “Take me to your lizard”. As Ford Prefect explains to Arthur Dent,
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…”
“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.
All too frequently Choosing between the major party candidates seems like choosing between lizards from another planet.
We've often complained about the quality of major party candidates. While there are some exceptions most rant, bluster, and pander to their favorite special interest groups. Many tell lies, and they no longer even care whether we believe them or not. During the election they may pretend to favor our issues, but once in office they usually ignore our issues and do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. They seem to have no interest in actually solving problems; it often seems that they actively try to not solve problems so they can preserve the issue for the next election.
In the past we've generally agreed with the small government, internationalist, pro-defense, free trade and pro-business policies that were long advocated by the Republican Party. But in the Trump era those ideas have largely been forgotten. Today at worst they pander shamelessly to the worst side of human nature: Fear, hatred, and bigotry. At best they tolerate those who do the pandering. This is neither the party of Reagan, nor the party of Lincoln.
To those in the Republican Party who tolerate the demagogues in their midst because they won the 2016 election: You have made a Faustian bargain. It is unlikely to end well.
We are already seeing some of the bad effects of Trump's bad policies. The “family separation” policy for illegal immigrants certainly hurt the Republicans' chances in 2018.
On the topic of “birthright citizenship”, Trump's reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is much more radical than anything the liberals have done lately. Is this the “strict construction” that you previously advocated? If you now suddenly believe that a president can amend the Constitution with an executive order, where does it end?
We've long been critical of the Democratic Party. Their solution to nearly every problem seems to be a government program that provides "free" benefits, without mentioning that the benefits inevitably will be paid with our tax dollars. This is the epitome of bribing the voters with their own money.
Too many Democrats are unwilling to defend the policies they advocate in an open debate. Instead they attempt to silence debate by labeling their opponents as unacceptable. One example: They label anyone who speaks against illegal immigration as "anti immigrant" or even "racist", completely ignoring any distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
Even when they do not attempt to silence their opponents, they often approach policy debates dishonestly. The current push to legalize marijuana use is a good example. One could make valid arguments to support legalization on libertarian grounds, or on the grounds that the current prohibition is ineffective and possibly counterproductive. The Democrats typically do not take this approach. Instead they usually first advocate legalization of "medical" marijuana. Those who oppose "medical" marijuana are then said to be denying people necessary medical treatment, despite the fact that there is no hard scientific evidence demonstrating that marijuana is a safe and effective treatment for any medical condition. The anecdotal evidence that they do offer is to be accepted without examination. Once they have the "medical" marijuana camel's nose under the tent, they push to legalize marijuana generally... just because, that's why! No further debate is accepted.
The Democratic Party ignores a critical fact: The issues that Donald Trump exploits are real. They are issues that are important to many middle and working class voters. The Democratic Party has ignored these issues for decades. To make matters worse since many who raise these issues are white, many Democrats try to silence them by calling them racist no matter what the issue actually is.
Note to Democrats: Want to lose the 2020 Presidential election? Nominate Andrew Cuomo!
We really don't want the 2020 election to be a contest between an ethically dubious, mendacious New Yorker who tolerates no opposition on the one hand, or Donald Trump on the other. Or look at it this way: You nominated an ethically dubious, mendacious politician from New York in 2016. How did that work for you? Why would you think it will work any better in 2020?
Those of you who live outside New York State might not realize that Cuomo's administration has been mired in corruption scandals. Back in March his former campaign manager and executive deputy secretary Joseph Percoco was convicted of bribery and fraud involving companies doing business with the state government. His hand-picked economic development czar and SUNY Polytechnic Institute president Alain Kaloyeros was recently convicted on Federal corruption charges involving bribery, bid rigging, and kickbacks. While Cuomo said that he was shocked, shocked to discover that there was corruption in his economic development programs, we must note that one of his first official acts as Governor in 2011 was to remove economic development projects funded through SUNY and CUNY from the oversight of the state's Comptroller - a fellow Democrat. Despite the scandals Cuomo has successfully resisted all efforts to re-institute independent oversight of these economic development projects, or to allow any independent ethics oversight of the Governor's office. This should tell you everything you need to know about Andrew Cuomo.
Oh, and in case you were wondering - despite Cuomo's claims that these scandal-plagued economic development projects (notably the Buffalo Billion) have helped the economy of upstate New York, a 2017 report by the Federal Reserve of New York found that economic growth there was well below the national average.
If the Democrats want to win in 2020, they should nominate someone other than Andrew Cuomo.
Our media have become as much a part of the problem as the politicians. They are similarly polarized and polarizing. Much of the mainstream media is aligned with the Democratic party, while the Rupert Murdoch and Sinclair Broadcasting properties are aligned with the Republicans.
To make matters worse partisans listen only to their own preferred media sources, which are usually those that tend to confirm their existing biases. This is what many now call the “information bubble”. Even social media, a major news source for many people these days, tends to reinforce the bubbles instead of bursting them.
When the Internet was first opened to the general public in the 1990s it was supposed to make information available to all, so that people could make rational decisions. We are sorely disappointed that it has become a means to reinforce biases and isolate people from opposing viewpoints.
In addition to bias, most the media's election coverage focuses on personality and process while ignoring policy. Much is said about campaign strategies and which candidate is ahead in the polls; little is said about what the candidates propose to do if elected, or the merits of their policy proposals. We need the opposite.
Finally, too much of the news reporting we see these days is simply sloppy. The reporting on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi provides a good example. The mainstream media uncritically accepted leaked claims that the Turkish government had audio and video recordings of the murder even though no one has produced any evidence that these recordings even exist.
Giving the Devil his Due
Even a broken clock is right twice per day. If Trump hadn't raised some important issues that other politicians ignored, he never would have been elected. But raising an issue is not the same as solving the problem.
Bad Trade Deals: The United States has negotiated a number of bad trade deals over the last several decades. The clear evidence of this is the gigantic and persistent trade deficit that the United States runs overall, and individually with key trading partners. Trump usually cites the NAFTA agreement, but others, such as permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for China and the South Korean free trade agreement are far more troublesome. For example, the South Korean agreement allows them to tariff our goods at 11%, while we tariff theirs at 4%. This is especially bad because South Korea tends to be a much lower cost producer. This is not free trade.
That said, we do not believe that the approach taken by Trump and his Republican supporters in Congress will solve the problem. While Trump's confrontational approach appears to be leading to some modest (but useful) improvements to NAFTA, his approach with our other trading partners may actually make things worse. As we see it, the main problem is China. Imposing tariffs on our other trading partners makes them less likely to support our efforts to address China's flagrantly unfair trade practices. This will make fighting the entirely predictable trade war with China that we now face even more difficult. Our past tolerance of China's unfair trade policies resulted in the export of entire industries, and it will be difficult and time-consuming to reconstruct them on our own shores. In the meantime, we are economically vulnerable.
Immigration Reform: Our current de facto “nearly open” border policy, combined with virtual amnesty for illegal immigrants is clearly a bad idea. We must have a meaningful border, or the nation becomes meaningless.
While Trump may have identified a legitimate problem, his entire approach to the problem is wrong. It is certainly wrong to characterize entire nationalities as murders or rapists. There is also good evidence that Trump's vaunted border wall will not work. The fact that smugglers routinely dig tunnels under our existing border fences suggests that any “big beautiful wall” will simply lead to bigger, more beautiful tunnels. Even worse, Trump and his supporters in Congress are also curtailing legal immigration. If this were not bad enough, the Trump administration has also dramatically expanded efforts to revoke the citizenship of US citizens - in some cases even native born citizens.
We believe that immigration reform is necessary and desirable, but not the varieties of "reform" advocated by Trump and his supporters in Congress. The existing system makes it difficult to immigrate legally, and comparatively easy to immigrate illegally. We need the reverse. We are even willing to consider some specialized temporary work visas if the obvious problems with the present system can be corrected. Whether we like it or not our agricultural system is dependent on seasonal immigrant labor. Any reformed system will have to accommodate this reality.
First of all, make sure that you do vote. Not voting is effectively a vote for the status quo. The eventual winner will regard it as an endorsement. Not voting is the worst possible thing you can do. It's what the worst of the politicians want you to do. By not voting, you make it easier for them to get elected.
Second, vote your conscience. That's what democracy is all about. Even if you disagree with us, you must vote your conscience.
Third, do not fall for any candidate whose entire campaign boils down to "I may be bad, but the other candidate is worse." Sadly this is exactly the argument made by many candidates, particularly incumbents. It is not good enough. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Any candidate who is unworthy of office is unworthy of your vote.
We encourage you to examine all incumbents very skeptically. Ask yourself if they are really representing your interests well. If they cannot demonstrate that they are, we encourage you to vote for a challenger. Do not be dissuaded by the "The incumbent may be bad, but the other candidate is worse" argument. This is no different than saying "The wrong lizard might get in." If you keep re-electing the same representatives, you cannot expect them to behave any differently than they do today. The challenger at least gives the possibility of change. And if the challenger fails to deliver, simply do not vote for them again in the next election.
If both of the major parties candidates are unacceptable, what should you do? The answer is simple: Vote for someone else. If there is a minor party candidate that you can support, vote for them. Libertarians are often the “loudest” protest vote, as they usually get more votes than other minor parties. If you can't support a minor party candidate, write someone in. You can write in anybody you happen to believe is suitable for office, or anyone who you think will make a good protest vote. Write in Jeff Flake. Write in Bernie Sanders. Write in your best friend. Write in your neighbor. Write in Gracie Allen of the Surprise Party, even though she's long dead. Write in Larry's cats, Gizmo and Gadget. Write in Mickey Mouse. You could hardly do any worse than the typical major party candidates.
Do not be dissuaded by those who say you are "throwing your vote away" if you vote for a minor party. You are not throwing your vote away. You are only throwing your vote away if you vote for someone you don't believe in. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
The major parties have consistently shown that they will not change until we stop voting for them, and start voting for someone else. We cannot expect immediate results. This will take time and consistent effort. We face an uphill battle against gerrymandered districts and a a partisan media. But if enough people start voting against the two major parties, eventually the media will not be able to ignore us.
Besides, if you vote for for the major party candidates, it will only encourage them. You'll just get major party candidates that are as bad (or worse) next time. This is exactly what's happened in recent Presidential elections.
We note with some sadness the passing of Sen. John McCain. (R-AZ) He was anything but perfect, but more often than not, he was a force for civil discussion, even with his opponents. We deeply respected his opposition to torture.
If you didn't read it already, Sen.
McCain's final statement is well worth reading. Most of the news
media only read excerpts.
If we are to honor his memory, then
perhaps the best we can do is talk to each other, especially those we
disagree with, in a civil fashion. Listen to them too. Most of your
"opponents" are reasonable people, not 3-headed monsters.
Don't let the forces of polarization win. Polarization will be our
undoing.
We will close with the immortal words of Harry
Tuttle, the outlaw plumber from the movie "Brazil": "We're
all in this together, kid."
US government links
The 9/11 Commission site. The full text of The 9/11 Commission Report is available here. Do not rely on the news media, read it for yourself.
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) An American non-profit television network.
PBS Links:
The NewsHour While perhaps not what it once was, this is still the best television news program in the USA. Their great strength is their in-depth interviews with important people. This is not soundbite journalism with the celebrity of the moment. Our main complaint is that they now devote less time to interviewing policy makers or those with firsthand knowledge of the days' issues, and more time interviewing other reporters. But they're still far superior to the alternatives.
One recent NewsHour segment that's worth watching (or reading, if you prefer) is the interview with Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska. Sasse gives his views on how our politics got into its current divisive state, and how we might get out of this mess.
Frontline: PBS' documentary series. Their quadrennial program “The Choice” is always well work watching.
Over the years we've noticed that whenever Frontline covered a subject that we know well, they've gotten it right. This gives us some confidence in the quality of their reporting. They are also willing to advocate an unpopular position if they believe it is supported by the facts.
National Public Radio A non-profit US news source. They're a bunch of flaming liberals, but they provide in-depth coverage that commercial radio news can't match.
BBC World Service Despite the richly earned criticism of the Hutton Report, the BBC is still among the best news organizations in the world.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp, and Radio Canada International are also good non-US news sources.
United States Naval Institute General information about naval affairs. Some news about the war in Iraq, and also some technical information. Their monthly magazine Proceedings provides excellent coverage of the US Navy and Marine Corps, along with history and opinion. The latest in US Navy news is available at http://news.usni.org .
And finally, an opinion we think is worth reading.