Not Being Trumped

The President is coming to town tomorrow. I'm leaving for the day.

What a mess the downtown will be all day. Streets closed starting at 8:00 am. Rolling closures later after his plane lands and he travels into town. More tickets handed out than there are available seats in a relatively small venue.

Someone suggested I should go see him to actually hear him in person. I must admit I did think of that for a moment after it was announced he was coming. My news-based, political science-major curiosity would have been interested.

But I didn't think I could remain civil- or that my blood pressure could take it. He is a mean, uncaring, self-centered narcissist. His language at the rally the other day about "evil" democrats as the "enemy" is bordering on a very dangerous approach to American politics.

What have we become? My God, what have we become?

So I'm leaving town for the day. Too close for comfort.

Literal or Serious (3)- What is Success?

I had originally just planned on this being two posts from last Friday and Saturday. Wednesday I realized that these are answering the questions raised by a friend a few weeks ago that I have not been able to put into words. I was challenged to be as specific as I can about what Trump policies I disagree with. Because so much of what we have seen is wrapped in his language, tweets, and rhetoric, I really had to start with the first two that set out some of the ideas.

One thing I have seen asked of liberals like myself is

Do you want Trump to fail?

The inference being that any good, patriotic American wouldn't want the President to fail at what he wants to do. To wish for him to fail would be to wish ill to the country.

I don't agree with that argument.

It assumes that I agree with the direction he appears to be taking the country. It assumes I agree with his ideas, politics, and plans. It assumes that if the President fails, then the country has failed.

Over the eight years of the Obama administration there were many Republicans and others who wanted Obama's policies to be stopped. They took some of them to court and won. Others never happened because Congress didn't agree. In other words, they wanted his agenda, and therefore his plans and directions, to fail.

That is where I am today.

Let me start then by saying if Trump's policies do result in a even stronger economy than we have had growing these past three to five years, then I am with him. I want him to succeed. If his policies provide safe and fair immigration and security, then I am with him. I want him to succeed. If his health care policies provide good, positive access to the health system for Americans, then I am with him. I want him to succeed.

But if he does succeed at those,

• I don't want it to be at the cost of who we are as Americans. 
• I don't want it to undermine the system of social support that has been around since at least the mid-1930s. 
• I don't want it to result in hatred and racism becoming more prevalent, further dividing us as a nation. 
• I don't want it to be because he was unwilling to stand up to American values against white supremacists and Russian hacking. 
• I don't want it to be at the expense of the first use of nuclear weapons in nearly 75 years.

If his policies result in those things, then yes, I want him to fail, and fail miserably. We will be a better nation if he does. That does not mean I am against our country. Much the opposite.

• I want him to fail at those so that we may remain a strong and vibrant nation, offering hope, and opportunity, even to those who were brought here as children and have made America a better place because of their contributions. 
• I want to see children feeling safe at schools, not because we have turned their buildings into locked and armed institutions, but because we have become willing to stand up to the false god of guns as a national symbol.
• I want to see the middle class be given the opportunities to benefit from the advances we as a nation make and not simply receive some crumbs thrown out to them while fanning their fear and dislike of immigrants or others.
• I want to see him challenge his friends in that upper 1% to give of themselves like many in the middle and lower classes do on a regular basis. Yes, many do, but they are being given some incredible advantages in the new tax law that should bring with it greater responsibilities. And not just to shareholders or in one-time bonuses in place of real salary increases.
• I really do want him to face Russia and say in no uncertain terms that meddling in our elections is NOT the way we want. The hell with collusion. This was, and continues to be, an act of aggression against the basics of who we are.

We do not blindly follow any President. The GOP didn't blindly agree and follow Obama or Clinton. Democrats did not blindly follow either Bush or Reagan. We don't have to! We can debate and disagree. And yes, when it comes to specific policies that we feel are detrimental to the health and welfare of our country, we can hope he fails.

This is called democracy!

(I think there will be one more of these in the next week.)

Enough Shit- A Not Completely Serious Post (R-rated)

I have been having fun watching all the TV news people and pundits having fun with Donald Trump's latest pronouncement denied by some, insisted upon as truth by others. They have been having a field day, regardless of their ideology or political leaning with the word itself.

Warning, here it comes.

Shithole.

My fun is in how it takes me back 50 years to when I was a college station DJ and newscaster. That was around 1966-70 to be exact. George Carlin hadn't gotten WBAI into trouble with his words you can never say on TV which came out in 1972. In case you don't remember, the first word on the list was, yep, shit.

Anyway, back in those days such words and milder were not allowed on TV or radio under any circumstance.Then, in the late summer of 1968, probably around the time of that infamous Democratic Convention in Chicago, the pop group Spanky and Our Gang came out with a song titled "Give a Damn." It's chorus went:

And it might begin to teach you
How to give a damn about your fellow man
And it might begin to teach you
How to give a damn about your fellow man

Here's how Wikipedia tells what happened:

In spite of not receiving airplay in several markets because of the curse word in its title, as well as its use of the sound of an African American man from the ghetto saying something that was not understood, ending in his laughter before the song's fade – and because it was a comment on racial equality that became the theme song for the New York Urban Coalition – the song became a regional hit where released and overall made No. 43. The band also performed the song live on an episode of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, resulting in CBS' Standards and Practices division receiving numerous complaints about the song's title being used during "family viewing hours". One such complaint reportedly came from President Richard Nixon. "Give a Damn" would become John Lindsay's campaign song during his successful run for mayor of New York.

But we sure had fun playing it and, mostly saying the word damn on radio.

The following spring The Beatles released a song that got a similar treatment. "The Ballad of John and Yoko" had the following chorus:

Christ you know it ain't easy
You know how hard it can be
The way things are going
They're going to crucify me

Needless to say, when we were allowed to play it, we loved the rebelliousness of the song. WLS in Chicago and WABC in New York, two of the BIG radio stations never played it. I know I wasn't supposed to play it on the station back home I worked at that summer.

Those days are long gone, of course. Lots of words a great deal worse than those are now found on regular TV from time to time, especially later at night, although lots of bleeping is still heard on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.

Which is why this (get ready for it) shitstorm over shithole is so much fun to watch. (Yes, I'm having fun writing this. There's still a little of that young rebel in here somewhere.) I haven't sat and paid close attention to the networks and news channels to know who is doing what with the word, who's bleeping, or censoring and who has actually used the word. I am sure there was a lot of backroom and production office discussion about how to handle it. But I am also fairly certain that apart from the political leanings of the newscaster or pundit, they are enjoying just being able to talk about shit like this, even if they can't or don't explicitly use the word.

Some of you have probably seen the cable TV interview program, Inside the Actors Studio. One of the ten regular questions that host James Lipton asks every guest is "What is your favorite curse word?" You might have guessed with this post what mine is. When shit happens, I usually say "Shit!"

But let me take a twist in this post. As much fun as I have had with watching all this shit on TV about a word used by the President, I am sick of this shit.

It is not about the word!
It is not that it is fun and perhaps even titillating to viewers.
It is not that the President of the United States knows how to swear. (Remember Richard Nixon's [expletive deleted] from the Oval Office transcripts? And LBJ I am sure had a bigger potty mouth than Trump ever will!)

It is about the attitude and the seeming racism that underlies it. It is about civility and compassion for people who are not as fortunate as we are. It is about the way the amazing and caring policies of the United States are being slowly eaten away. I have been challenged by a friend to name these policies that I have come to dislike and which raises a great deal of fear in me and many like me. Not that the President has a potty mouth. I don't give a shit that he does. I do care that he is doing things which many believe will undermine the future of this great country. I will be working on that post over the next days and hopefully posting it by next week.

Until then- to the news media and all the rest of us- let's stop this shit over a word. Let's stop using it as a sign of something it isn't and get to the real issues the incident has raised- one new one among many. Yes, I am guilty of using it to get my shit out on the table. But it is far deeper and far more dangerous than a simple word we can't ever say on TV.

I'll be back with more thoughts by next week.

Defeating Demagogues

A few weeks ago I wrote about demagogues and their history. I noted that demagogues are found only in democracies since they need to get public support for their discriminatory, prejudicial, anger-filled positions. While they can sometimes appear to be progressives, in reality they are simply opportunists seeking their own self-promotion. We have had our share of demagogues in American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy's Red-baiting witch hunt of the 1950s being the most famous and far-reaching.

Until now.

Michael Singer, mayor of Charlottesville, VA, an attorney and lecturer at the University of Virginia, has been since the last election cycle about the rise and danger of Donald Trump, our latest national demagogue. He is the author of Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies (2009) and has applied his general insight on demagogues to Trump. In a February 29 article in the Washington Post Singer listed four ways demagogues damage their country when they take power.

• First, a demagogue imperils his country in the international arena.
• The second danger is that the demagogue will surround himself with incompetent and dangerous advisers.
• The third danger is that the demagogue, who ascends to power by manipulating the passions of his followers, will fall prey to passions of his own.(Most often a demagogues narcissism will turn to other passions, issues, and plain old belief that they are above the law.)
• Fourth, demagogues like Trump threaten dissenters in an effort to silence them. (Singer)

We have seen the manifestations of all of these over the past year with statements and actions from Trump and his supporters. Many have reacted to him with uncertainty and even fear. But many have also been afraid to challenge him or call him on his dangerous world-view for fear of attacks from him. The GOP, which should have tried to do something before now, has been handicapped by their desire to stop anything related to Obama or Clinton. They were blind to the problem they themselves created.

After yesterday's Wisconsin primary, though, there may be an inkling of hope. Admittedly Ted Cruz has enough uncertain stands and fear-inducing statements. But he did show that with a concerted effort, Trump can be stopped. He lost by a very significant 13 points. (It may be interesting to note that Wisconsin was the home of Joseph McCarthy. Maybe there is a sense of not wanting to repeat history?)

But even that hope has its dangers. In its attempt to stop Trump at this late stage, they may very easily destroy themselves for this election year. Their only hope is that in the end Trump will self-destruct, his paranoia and prejudice, his hate and fear-mongering causing him to implode.

That is what happens to most demagogues in a democratic country that has a rich history like ours. They go too far, their narcissism gets the best of them, they believe their own rhetoric and then use their rabid but minority supporters as proof.

But we as a people can also do our part. Back in 2010 Singer wrote an article for The Daily Beast titled "How to Beat the Demagogues". (Link) He outlined how America has defeated what he called "militant manias" in the past.

1. Ad hominem attacks can backfire.
Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies that attack the individual rather than the position they are maintaining. When the demagogue's opponents resort to these kind of arguments, they end up hurting their own cause. Even though the demagogue often resorts to this since they usually have poorly defined actual positions, to respond in kind often brings a reactionary response that only perpetuates the negative discourse.

2. Help educate people about our constitutional traditions.
Many times demagogues clearly care little about our American democratic and constitutional traditions. Even as they hide behind them, they are often ready to change them to suit their own ideology. The GOP's difficulty in maintaining a clear, positive constitutional stance has only assisted people like Trump. Their recent and ongoing refusal to have hearings on a Supreme Court nominee is a clear example.

3. Extreme opportunists usually self-destruct.
The ultimate hope for everyone challenged by demagogues is this one that I have already addressed above. Trump's response to his loss yesterday may very well start this process. How he attempts to spin the loss into something in his favor through blaming others could sow the seeds of his own defeat. Of course his defeat will never be his own fault.

4. Side with the people and show them results.
A demagogues opponents need to stay positive and give a clear alternative world-view to the one being espoused by the demagogue. While someone like Trump will attempt to be the person of the people's views, a consistent, concise, and positive approach to the same issues can go a long way. Again, the GOP's extremely anti-Obama stance over the past 8 years has set a negative precedent that has fueled Trump's rhetoric. Even in Wisconsin, the whole approach seems to have been "Stop Trump!" and not a more clearly laid out plan. It was an ad hominem approach which still could backfire. They must do something differently than they have before.

The Democrats need to be doing the same thing. Their biggest hope would be to be a clear alternative to the negativity of Trump and the toxic atmosphere that has fed his rise. Unfortunately, as the "under dog" Sanders has gained momentum, the establishment begins to react out of fear. Both sides there have moved toward personal attacks after what had been a somewhat civil discourse. Unless they can show they have a positive alternative, the election will continue to be difficult to watch.

Overall, perhaps, the greatest caution we should pay attention to comes from Singer in his 2010 article about how to beat the demagogues.

Demagogues have always been a mirror for the people. When democracies turn to lawlessness, it’s because the people abandon constitutionalism for the lowest common denominator. Conversely, when audiences choose the law over vandalism, it’s because the people have decided to protect their country.

Wisconsin yesterday gave me some hope that we might be at a turning point. I know it is still too early to tell, but as I have said before, ultimately I continue to believe in the American people. We will often rise to heights of honor and dedication to our country and our democratic way of life. This is one of those times that we will need to.

Demagogues: Built on Fear; Inciting Fear

Another election year Tuesday is soon upon us. In the last couple weeks as Donald Trump has been moving closer to a possible nomination. As that has been going on there continues to be the discussion of Trump as a “demagogue.” Adding to that thought were videos of protestors being punched at Trump rallies, then the protests and clashes in Chicago that moved Trump to cancel a rally there on Friday.

So, I asked, what really is a demagogue? Here is some information from Discovery.com:

Webster’s defines a demagogue as “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.” The word comes from the ancient Greek demos, or people, referring to common or working poor.

Over time, it has been applied to political figures who have used fear, paranoia and scapegoating to win support. [Senator Joseph McCarthy, the “communist-hunting” senator in the 1950s, is often cited as the single best example in American politics.]

The term has also been used to describe GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, who called Mexican immigrants "drug traffickers and rapists" and … proposed closing the United States to all Muslims.

So far, so good. Popular prejudices, false claims and promises. In some ways it sounds like many politicians. What makes demagogues different? It seems it is the aspect of playing on prejudices and clearly false claims. McCarthy would make unsupportable statements as fact. Then, because he said them, they were reported as facts. No one was able to check on them- or if they did they were censured and attacked by McCarthy and his supporters.

But the article goes on.

“There’s a fine line between populism and demagoguery,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for American Politics. “Both words describe rabble-rousers. Populism can be used for good, to invoke the little guy versus big business or big government. Demagoguery is a kind of extreme populism that preys on peoples worst fears and often hidden emotions.”

Something else became clear when reading that paragraph. In some ways it explains the rise of a “rabble-rouser” on both sides of the political scene this year. The GOP has Trump, although no one would call him a populist. He is the one building on anger as well as fear. He stirs hatred in much of what he says. He is channeling the anger and hatred of others, consolidating it in himself, and then giving it a type of legitimacy.

Sanders, on the other side, has an edge to him as well. He does not inflame anger as much as offer promises to overcome the fears of those who think the “1%” is too powerful. But, like Trump, he is tapping into energy and underlying concerns of groups of people.

It is interesting to note that, while both build from people’s fears and concerns, it appears that by definition, the demagogue goes beyond what is good into incitement of greater fears and potential difficulties. Was this past weekend’s clash in Chicago (ironic!) indicative of potential difficulties coming?

But why here? Back to the article:

Alan Levine, political science professor at American University, says that demagogues only exist in a democracy.

Their rise occurs before a dictatorship is successful, and so in his opinion dictators like Hitler do not fit the bill as demagogues.

“A demagogue exists in a democratic contest and maintains a technical legitimacy through winning votes. A dictator doesn’t need that kind of legitimacy. Dictators are worse than demagogues, who still operate in a democratic system,” Levine said. “To the extent that which our politicians ignore the Constitution, and don’t feel bound by the Constitution, that lays the stages for the coming of a demagogue.”

Quite a bunch of interesting information in all that. The take-away is that demagogues arise in democracies. Which would allow for Hitler to have started as a demagogue since he was first elected and then gathered the power to himself, taking over as a dictator while building on the fear and anger of the German people post-World War 1. What seems to make demagogues different is what I have to call a "negative" passion that is more "against" than it is "for." Demagogues build on hatred and fear, but give no solutions other than building walls, inflaming prejudice, and reinforcing stereotypes. Demagogues place loose and easy with truth, yet lay out their opinions as true.

We have had some classic demagogues in American history. From Discovery.com again.

Pitchfork Ben Tillman:
He was a Democratic governor and U.S. senator from South Carolina. He led a paramilitary group during the state’s violent 1876 election. As governor, he helped passed bill to remove the right to vote for black men.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate, where he served until his death in 1925, he ridiculed blacks and boasted of helping kill them during that election. His aggressive language gave him the nickname “Pitchfork.”

Sometimes a populist can easily be seen as and act like a demagogue.

Huey 'Catfish' Long:
This outspoken Louisiana governor was also the inspiration for the main character in Robert Penn Warren’s novel “All the King’s Men,” about the rise of a southern politician and his downfall at the hands of an assassin.

Long was a true populist, who started a “Share the Wealth” program to redistribute tax revenues from corporations to the poor in his state. He also built charity hospitals, schools, roads and bridges as well as a substantial political operation throughout the state. Elected U.S. Senator in 1932, he continued to pass legislation through proxies in the Louisiana legislature.

Long was assassinated on the steps of the statehouse in 1935, a month after declaring his candidacy for the presidency, which was stoked by his nationwide "Share the Wealth" clubs. His enemies also called him a demagogue.He often did use National Guard troops to intimidate opponents.. or worse.

One from the past 50 years:

George Wallace:
Upon his election as governor of Alabama in 1962, Wallace vowed “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” The following year, he stood at the doors of the University of Alabama defying federal troops who were sent to enforce a Supreme Court order to allow blacks to attend the school.

The lifelong Democrat ran for president in 1968 as a third-party candidate with the American Independent Party, winning 46 electoral votes and 10 million popular votes. He returned as governor of Alabama, but was shot and paralyzed during an attempted assassination attempt during his 1972 presidential campaign. In his later years, Wallace apologized to black leaders and rejected his racist and segregationist views.

And the ultimate American demagogue up to this point is probably Senator Joe McCarthy. His hunt for communists in government and the entertainment business is legendary.

I will be writing more about this in the next week or so. Tomorrow is another election day, though. At this point, let's just watch and wait- and be very observant of what is happening. It is not a pretty year for American politics.

An End to the Carnival? Maybe?

Well, tomorrow is the first primary of this election cycle. Finally! I was amused by the fact that the New Hampshire voting is taking place on Fat Tuesday, the traditional ending to the Mardi Gras or Carnival season. After that comes the rigor and intensity of Lent. It will be time for sacrifice and discipline and introspection within the Christian community for 40 days, excluding Sundays, of course.

What if we could hope that Mardi Gras New Hampshire (how's that for an oxymoron!) is the end to the carnival we have been witnessing for the past year or more? What if the carnival ends tomorrow? What if, after this, we get down to issues, debate reality, stop posturing, deflate the rhetoric and think about the country instead of ideology? Yeah, I know...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
-John Lennon

What are the odds? Pretty slim I would say. Up until recently the Democratic candidates have been doing okay with all that.  Until the Establishment discovered that Bernie Sanders really does have support. Out comes the name-calling, innuendo, and craziness.

The GOP on the other hand has been at it like that for a long time. If there is an extreme right-wing answer to a question, one of the leaders will give it. Marco Rubio spins into the moderate of the leading candidates. Donald Trump is looking for a way to get out on his own terms. Ted Cruz is still looking for someone who knows him to say they like him. The Establishment-type candidates are sinking lower and lower.

Yes, some of this is the media. But the GOP candidates are as much to blame. When they make statements that are often proven to be false and then continue to reaffirm them, they are not being up-front with anyone. When one refuses to be in a debate because the moderator may ask unfair or tough questions, we can guess it is about image and not the issues.

What's New Hampshire's track record? Fairly good, actually. The GOP winner in NH has gone on to the nomination 12 out of 15 times; the Democrat- 9 out of 15. If Hillary and Cruz win tomorrow, their chances will drastically increase since they also won in Iowa. (Winning both is a big deal historically.)

But this election, so far, has been setting its own standards of "history." One commentary I read online even sees this election as one where we may be seeing the first major realignment of American political parties in a long time. The anti-establishment element on both sides is, he says, quite significant. (I didn't save the location. Sorry. Will continue to look for it.)

Not to say the sideshow elements of this carnival will end after tomorrow. Unless there are two clear, decisive victories, some of that will continue. Any shift in "who's leading" after tomorrow may continue more aspects of the carnival. But, I have the hunch that in all reality the fun and games are over. Mardi Gras comes to an end and the hard work will happen. Super Tuesday is a few weeks away and that will mean lots of intensity.

My guesses? Very slim win by Cruz; larger win for Sanders.

The repercussions? Back to work guys. Stop strutting down Bourbon St. and let us see who you are.

Enough of a Horse Race

I have been watching the horse race and carnival sideshow we are generously calling the Presidential Election Campaign. All anyone seems to be interested in is:

• Who's ahead? 
• What are the polls saying? 
• Can anyone beat Trump? 
• Is Cruz that awful a person? 
• Is Hillary going to tank again? 
• Can Sanders be a socialist and still win?

That last question is as close to the issues as anyone in the press will go. And that's nothing but pulling a word out that will raise concerns and issues with voters. I am saddened, afraid, and downright upset about the whole process so far.

I know I have mentioned here before that I have been interested in politics since 1956 when, at age 8, my family's support for Adlai Stevenson was in  the minority in our north central Pennsylvania town. Politics hooked me as something interesting and important. The campaign of John F. Kennedy in 1960 settled my political addiction once and for all. I ended up a political science (government) major in college. I am a believer in voting rights being as important constitutionally important as gun rights or freedom of speech and the press.

In my study of history I also know that our campaigns have often been rabble-rousing affairs. The infamous John Adams-Thomas Jefferson election being among the slimiest, at least as far as name-calling and general truth-stretching.  In some ways, then, this particular election cycle has "fine pedigree" in our early history.

But I am not aware of any election cycle that could be considered as amateurish, mean, and so far off center as this one is. At least not at the presidential election level. There have been incompetent candidates at times. Some of them even got elected. But this one seems to be truly unique- one of a kind.

• When issues are discussed, they result in sound bites that call for carpet-bombing of women and children or having Mexico pay for a wall to keep their citizens in. 
• A reporter tells the story of how in most Trump rallies he points at the enclosure in the back where the media and reporters are kept and the crowd boos. Yet, it is that very media who is reporting and keeping him on top. 
• A conservative magazine comes out with an issue of essay about why Trump isn't right for America.  
• On the fringes someone has come up with the great view that Hitler was a left-wing liberal since he was a "socialist."  Therefore Bernie Sanders is like Hitler.

The party establishment of both parties is uncertain. Party hacks, both Democrat and Republican are afraid that if the non-establishment candidates get nominated they will lose. The political process has been hijacked by several different factors.

• Anger
From the end of the 2008 election cycle, anger has been at the bottom of almost everything from the GOP. Hints of it have shown up before, but this is beyond anything we have seen in a long time. The extremely virulent opposition to Obama's presidency has been so deeply rooted in those against him they have wanted him to fail so they could take over. If he had succeeded- unthinkable to them!

• Social media
What plays on social media? What gets attention? The mainstream media has been as much at fault in this as has been the biased media of Fox or MSNBC. Add the easily available presence of all kinds of opinions on Facebook and the Internet and you have an opening for any and all opinions to be expressed. Of course, most are preaching to their own kind, but their presence- and coverage in the press- only goes to flame the anger. No- I am not saying that we should limit any of these. Perhaps we need to discover that these views are the extremes- unwilling to compromise at any time with anybody. And that is not how democracy works.

• Money
The Koch brothers are only the visible sign of the invisible evil of an oligarchy at work. Since Citizens United, corporate money has dominated. Here, from Wikipedia, is a way of looking at it:

Plutocracy is a form of oligarchy and defines a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1652. Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy.

Actually we seem to have developed two sides of this- the liberal plutocracy and the conservative plutocracy. These are the ones who fund and support the established orders. They were deprived of some of their historic power starting with Teddy Roosevelt's progressive reforms in the GOP in the early 20th Century and Franklin Roosevelt's with the Democrats in the 1930s and 40s. They have been working hard to gain it back- and are succeeding. They have convinced the greater population that "trickle-down" economics works and that "job-creators" deserve breaks in order to create jobs. Again, this is happening on both sides of the political spectrum. Part of the appeal of a Trump or a Sanders is that they present themselves as outside this system of support.

• And did I mention anger and hate?
Add hate to the anger and you have a dangerous mixture. I would even go so far as to say racism is the final straw that has broken the political process.No one will ever convince me that the opposition to Obama's presidency was not fanned by racism. That does NOT mean that all of us whites are racists. Many who opposed Obama were not- and are not- racist. But there is an undercurrent of racism- systemic racism- that has been at work which then pulls in the interest of those who may truly be racist. I believe it took the election of a "liberal" African-American to bring it out. I also believe that some of the "birther" crap about Cruz stems from the same underlying Euro-centrism. Rubio as another Hispanic and Sanders as Jewish will face it if nominated.

So, in the next couple weeks we will see Iowa and then New Hampshire play a role far beyond their place in the American political scene. Anything can happen, of course, in either state. But it will not be based on substantive issues. Not at this point. Everything is too raw. We need some perspective, which has been sadly missing so far. I don't see it as getting any better.

Nor do I have any idea who will end up as the nominee of either party. Sanders, at this moment, has as good a chance as Hillary, who is on a potentially razor-thin edge. Trump and Cruz are certainly the most likely front runners, at this moment. I hope and pray that the tenor of this campaign will change, though history keeps me quite hopeless about that outcome.  But I also remember that Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee have both won the Iowa caucuses in the past.

I have hunch it is going to be quite a ride.