All for one?

penny

E pluribus unum. Even if you never studied Latin, that fairly simple phrase is probably very familiar. You may have only a passing interest in American history, but those words surely stand out. As one of the traditional mottos of the United States, it says so much about our nation. Directly translated, it means “Out of many, one.” It represents the union that formed when the original thirteen colonies became a cohesive single nation. 

What e pluribus unum says to me is: we are all Americans. We can have different philosophies and opinions, but at the end of the day we can look around and say that each one of us is a building block that, when brought together, form a unique and successful nation. We are individuals, sure. But we are also the flesh and blood of what we proudly declare to be the greatest country on the planet.

And yet, many among us seem to take great pleasure in pushing us apart.

Opinions are like…well, you know

In most presidential elections, we are handed a mixed bag of candidates. Some stand out as possessing leadership skills while others appear to be in the race just to become famous. With a combination of creative speechmaking, expensive advertising, and the good fortune to make fewer mistakes than the opponents, one candidate eventually outlasts the pack and is nominated by the Party to lead the ticket going into the Big Show. Since the USA’s political structure is not that much different than our love of competitive sports, the choice comes down to a head-to-head matchup of one Democrat and one Republican. And then, the real fight begins. 

But it’s not limited to the two main opponents. The primary system may in theory be a means of separating the best from the rest, but hard feelings can and do get in the way. By pledging support to an individual candidate early on, some voters just can’t bring themselves to maintain that excitement when their choice doesn’t survive the process. And that lack of enthusiasm can create just the opening that gives the troublemakers the opportunity to make a little political mischief.

We saw that in the 2016 campaign, coming at us from across the nation and from nefarious global interests. We can expect much more in the next election. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool. More likely, both.

 I’m sick and tired of…

The nastiness comes at you from all directions. From the president on down, our elected officials can capture your attention with a personal appearance, a featured interview, or a handful of (often misspelled) words in a tweet. The politicians do a mighty fine job of confusing the masses.

Complicating the mess are the millions of pundits, professional and amateur, who find a way to get their message to you. Nationally-distributed TV and radio shows, websites, social media, newspaper columns… all are fertile territory for political discussions. Full disclosure: yours truly is one of that multitude, with this column (and blog site) mostly devoted to providing my two cents on the subject. 

I like to think that I provide a fact-supported viewpoint, though I’m not so naive to think that everyone will agree. But I would hope that my readers can see that I present an opinion without resorting to the childishness that is so easily found on pages just like this one.

Our current political climate seems to depend heavily on misinformation and name-calling. Distorting (or simply ignoring) the facts is a given, as are verbal attacks of an increasingly dangerous level. For many, it’s not enough to just disagree when faced with a contrasting opinion. The very notion that someone has a totally different way of thinking is all it takes to cause otherwise rational adults to toss aside any sense of civility. 

Our nation’s editorial pages are flooded with letters and opinion pieces that serve no purpose except to question the intelligence and patriotism of others. The writers take great pleasure in finding new ways to say the same hateful things. But what they seem to miss is this obvious fact: When you have nothing to say in defense of your candidate or position except to attack the other side, you really have nothing to say.

…being sick and tired

Is there a solution? Can we mend the wounds that all this divisiveness has inflicted upon our fellow Americans? Sadly, the answer may be “no”. Or, at least, “not yet”. The brokenness that we live in can’t be repaired with one hand. As long as it is more satisfying to draw attention to the things that separate us than to embrace the ideals that bring us together, we cannot expect to heal.

Clearly, some among us have no use for unity. They thrive on bitterness and will do and say whatever is necessary to keep us at each others’ throats. It is up to mature, thinking Americans to reject the bullies and blowhards. Are we up to the challenge?

 

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald November 7, 2019.)

The time has come

steampunk-wall-clock

Benjamin Franklin was quite a character. He was a statesman, a writer, a ladies’ man, an inventor, and a word thief. You may remember old Ben’s famous quote, “..in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” That was part of a letter in 1789 in which Franklin was summing up his thoughts about our nation’s then-new Constitution, but in doing so he borrowed that now-famous quote from the author of “Robinson Crusoe”. Daniel Defoe penned the phrase, “Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believ’d,” in 1726, but even he was not afraid of stealing a good line when he saw one. A few years before Defoe included that thought in “The Political History of the Devil,” it was Christopher Bullock who wrote, “’Tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes,”

We can argue about original thoughts – and 18th Century plagiarism – but this much is clear: Bullock, Defoe and Franklin were each very sure that some things are inevitable.

And now, so is the other “I” word.

 

Im-Peachy Keen

I’m not alone in thinking the Democrats in Congress would never get to this stage. When it comes to using the powers granted to them in the Constitution, the current majority party has been dragging its feet like it was a child unwilling to leave the house on the first day of school. Obviously, their hands were somewhat tied for two years as the Republicans controlled the House as well as the Senate. But in the wake of the 2018 midterms, the Democrats found themselves back in the driver’s seat and once more had the ability to convene hearings and issue subpoenas. (More on that later.)

 

And so here we are. Most Democrats in Congress have now decided that impeachment of President Trump is the logical, necessary next step. While impeachment is indeed a political act, it is also the formal process established by our nation’s founders to investigate possible wrongdoing of the president and, if the evidence is convincing, to remove him from office. While I don’t see it going that far (not with Republicans firmly in control in the Senate), I also had doubts that Democrats would summon the courage to do more than hold the occasional hearing and generate soundbites for the evening news.

 

Reading is fundamental

There are many people who are telling us that the entire idea of impeaching Donald Trump is a waste of time and money. They point to the Mueller report and make ludicrous claims of “total exoneration” and “no collusion”, but these feeble arguments have no foundation. Anyone who has actually read the report knows that Robert Mueller and his team drew no conclusions about collusion since that is not a legal term and by itself carries no true significance. What Mueller did find was conclusive evidence that the president and others within the administration were involved in a multi-layered scheme of obstructing justice. Don’t just take my word for it. It’s all right there in black and white if you’re willing to read it

Yet the Democrats should have known that the investigation would never lead to an early end of the Trump presidency. Mueller’s hands were tied by a Department of Justice policy that prevents the indictment of a sitting president no matter how serious is the crime. Yes, the president really could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and not be arrested. (At least, not while in office.) Besides, how could anyone expect much from an investigation in which the Attorney General, who was hand-picked by the president, has final say?

But while Mueller’s findings may not provide the meat and potatoes that many Americans hoped for, the new whistleblower revelations just might. It’s too early to determine what might unfold, but I’ll say this: if the accusations that have already been revealed are not true (which is the argument by the president and his supporters), then why is Mr. Trump sending the Attorney General and others around the globe seeking the influence of other countries in our own system of government and our elections? That kind of panicked response is not what you would expect from an innocent man.

 

Don’t look for a Battle Royale

So the Democrats will convene impeachment hearings and issue subpoenas. At the time this column was coming together, President Trump’s personal attorney Rudi Giuliani was named in three subpoenas from House committees. But don’t expect much to come from that. Although he is always happy to appear on camera and spout utter nonsense, Giuliani is likely to simply ignore those Congressional edicts. He won’t provide documents and probably won’t show up to testify. It’s up to the Democrats to decide if they’re willing to use their Constitutional enforcement powers or if the administration will be allowed to continue to thumb its nose at the process. 

Here’s what we know: we are living in disturbing times. Too many people have decided that they’d rather ignore the obvious than give any credence to any facts that run counter to their own deeply-held convictions. In the end, there will always be those who refuse to be convinced. Admitting that they were wrong, that they were so easily deceived by a career con man, is more than they can accept.

 

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 3, 2019.)

And the winner loses all

loser

Imagine you’re watching the Super Bowl. It’s the New England Patriots taking on the Dallas Cowboys. Although it’s an exciting game, it’s a bit one-sided. Dallas scores one touchdown in each of the first three quarters while limiting the Patriots to a single field goal in each stanza. At the end of three quarters, the Cowboys hold a 21-9 lead. The fourth quarter, however, is a different story. While the Cowboys’ offense seems to have run out of gas, Tom Brady is suddenly able to pick apart the Cowboys secondary, leading his Patriots down the field again and again. Final score: New England 37, Dallas 21. The Patriots are the champs of the NFL.

Well, not exactly.

You see, the league decided that the actual score isn’t the best way to decide the winner. Instead, the team that outscores the opponent in each quarter is awarded one gold star, and whoever racks up the most stars is declared the winner.  So, since the Cowboys managed to score more points in each of the first three quarters, Dallas has three gold stars and the Patriots, who dominated the fourth quarter, have just one. Despite the final score, under the established rules the Cowboys are declared the winning team.

That, my friends, is how we elect the President of the United States.

As I was preparing to submit this column to the editor, Sec. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote (the actual votes cast) was a bit more than 2.3 million. That’s roughly equivalent to the population – every man, woman, and child – living in the city of Houston, Texas. In other words, if we simply counted how many people voted for which candidate and used that method for selecting our nation’s chief executive, we would not have a President-elect Donald Trump. But Hillary Clinton’s votes were concentrated in a few states, while Trump was able to claim victory in more, though less-populated, states. And, by nature of the point system that is the Electoral College, Trump earned the win even though he was out-scored.

Of course, this isn’t the first time the top vote-getter failed to grab the brass ring. It was just 16 years ago that George W Bush received less votes than Al Gore. Bush’s advantage in the Electoral College, however, was the determining factor of his success. Three other presidential races also ended with the keys to the White House handed to the candidate who fell short in the vote tally: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

And now, barring a monumental recount that would flip the results in a handful of states — not likely — Donald Trump will take the oath of office next month.

As we prepare for our country’s first Reality Television President, we need to take a serious look at what to expect. Or rather, what not to expect.

First, there will be no wall on our southern border. Sure, Trump promised he’d build one. He bragged that it would be very tall and very beautiful… and that Mexico would pay for it. But in the first few days after the election, Trump was already backpedalling. Interviewed on “60 Minutes”, Trump admitted that the ‘wall’ will probably be more of a fence. Not exactly the impenetrable masterpiece his fans expected, is it?

Candidate Trump also pledged to “repeal and replace” Obamacare. President-elect Trump, on the other hand, told the Wall Street Journal that he likes several provisions of the Affordable Care Act, and is interested in leaving large parts of it in place.

When running his campaign, Trump led chants of “Drain the Swamp”, saying that he wanted to get the special interests out of government. But when you look at the people he’s likely to add to his administration, that’s just another broken promise. A Goldman Sachs banker with deep ties to Wall Street as Treasury Secretary? An Education Secretary who not only promotes for-profit corporate schools but also sits on the board of an organization — headed by Jeb Bush — that supports Common Core?

And while we’re on the subject of the Trump Cabinet, let’s not forget that he has considered naming Gen. David Petraeus to head the State Department. This is the guy who, while serving as CIA Director, shared classified information with his mistress.

But considering that Trump has spent more time on Twitter than he has on learning how to be president — avoiding important things like security briefings — it is clear that he lacks the desire to put in the hard work necessary for the job. I think that he also lacks the ability to learn, preferring instead to shove the hard stuff into somebody else’s hands.

Trump the candidate talked big. Trump the president has to live up to that talk. I don’t think he will, because I don’t think he can.

In a few weeks, he’ll have the chance to prove me wrong.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald December 1, 2016.)

Lately it occurs to me…

kaleidoscope

…what a long strange trip it’s been.

One year, eight months, 3 days. That’s how long this presidential campaign has been. From the first candidate to officially announce his run for the office on March 5, 2015 — Republican Mark Everson, for what it’s worth, and you’re forgiven for not knowing his name — until Election Day on November 8, 2016… 614 days of what is undeniably the strangest trip to the White House this nation has ever witnessed.

I’ve written here before about the flaws of the two major party candidates and, I admit, I’ve spent a great deal of that time pointing out the wide range of negatives swirling around the Donald Trump campaign. Let’s be honest, Mr. Trump is deeply flawed on so many levels, most notably on matters tied to his personality. The fact that the media spotlight on Trump’s campaign has focused so much more on his antics — past and present — than on a more serious discussion of policy is a good explanation for the success of his campaign. Trump entered this race as an entertainer and treated every speech and debate as an episode of an unscripted reality TV show. We, the audience, watched and listened with amusement and disgust… and we never truly believed that he would take it this far.

Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, a statistical genius with a highly successful track record in the realm of political predictions, admits now that he didn’t take Trump seriously from the beginning. Failure to do so caused Silver to ignore the very polls that he otherwise swears by and, as a result, now is hesitant to be as bold a predictor as he was in previous elections. But who can blame him? Never in our lifetimes — perhaps, never in American history? — has a presidential election boiled down to two candidates who are so incredibly disliked by such large shares of the population.

Hillary Clinton has run a much lower profile campaign, a strategy involving fewer public events than her opponent, but that hasn’t made her immune from trouble. In fact, choosing to spend less time in public view may have caused Sec. Clinton more woes, since it meant she gave herself less chances to counter bad publicity. Considering that she has been a non-stop target of an aggressive media since her husband’s first national campaign in 1992, you would think she would have developed a better plan. Time will tell if she has any regrets.

But this much is certain: no matter the results, this year’s Election Day will not signal an end to the hostilities. And I’m not talking about the harsh barbs traded back and forth between candidates.

Two weeks after all votes are cast and counted, Americans will sit down to Thanksgiving dinner tables that could turn into battlefields, with family members at odds over their political preferences. Wouldn’t it be nice if arguments at the holiday feast were limited to who gets to battle over the wishbone… or which giant balloon was the parade favorite? But not so likely this year, thanks to an election so polarizing that relatives have stopped talking to each other… that has turned Facebook into a war zone… that has even caused regular churchgoers to skip services in order to avoid people with opposing views.

I have used this space to bemoan the lack of civility in our society, brought on primarily by our political partialities. It doesn’t have to be like this.

In the Eighties, President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill had vastly different views on policy. But both men were smart enough to realize that they needed to find a pathway to agreement on enough issues to make our federal government work for all of its citizens. The two men would have regular, private lunches… and more than a few social drinks… and talk in a manner that was respectful and mature. They didn’t have to end up completely on the same page, but they knew that the country was better off with leaders who could work together.

Some will point to the lack of such private engagements between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. Yes, Obama isn’t prone to the same degree of socialization as Reagan and others who preceded him in office. That could be because, unlike many recent presidents, he had two young children living with him and chose to spend more free time with them. It could also be due to those Republicans not wishing to be on friendly terms as that would be frowned upon by their constituents and donors.     

Once thing I think is certain: this election is destined to result in even more disharmony, unless we the people choose to rise above our differences and act like adults once again.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald November 3, 2016.)

Looking ahead

telescope

I’m sure many of my readers — actually, probably all of them — will wonder why I’m about to peer into the future of Republican presidential politics. I mean, what qualifications do I have? Some have said that I lean farther to one side than the other, although I will gladly argue that I’m much more of a centrist than some give me credit.

I’m not a partisan; I swear no allegiance to any political party or ideology. I have voted for Democrats and Republicans, each time casting my ballot for the person I thought was right for the job. A few times I’ve picked the winner. Others, my vote was in the minority.

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter to me which party a candidate clings to… as long as he or she is a person of strong convictions, has a solid work ethic, and is willing to do what’s right for the sake of the public.

So, yes, I would gladly cast a vote for a Republican for President of the United States. But not this year.

Let’s be clear: there is no way that Donald Trump will enjoy my vote. Despite his successes in the business world — and there’s plenty to argue regarding the level of his success — Mr. Trump has not demonstrated the basics of leadership capabilities. Face it, the man can’t maintain any sense of maturity for as little as 48 hours. He has neither the temperament nor the stability to lead this nation, and I simply cannot bring myself to check the ballot beside his name.

Secretary Clinton, for all of her flaws (and there are too many to list here) at least shows a sense of the importance of the office. She may not be right on certain policy items, but I think the majority of world leaders are going to take her seriously, while Mr. Trump is more likely to be merely tolerated on the world stage.

So, no, I won’t be casting a vote for a Republican for President of the United States this year. And unless nearly every poll is wrong and nearly every campaign expert is wrong and nearly every betting oddsmaker is wrong, most Americans won’t be voting for a Republican either.

But where does that lead us?

Well, if the recent past is any indicator, the world of political chatter will be filled with suggestions that the Republican party lost because it didn’t nominate a real conservative. That was the message after Sen. John McCain lost in 2008. It was repeated after Gov. Mitt Romney lost in 2012. That means we can expect to hear plenty of I-told-you-sos from Fox News and talk radio about how the election could easily have been won if only the party had gotten behind a candidate with a strong conservative background.

In the 2016 race, there was no one who fit that description better than Sen. Ted Cruz and his bid fell far short. Clearly, primary voters weren’t interested in naming a conservative as the nominee this year either. Now, many will argue that the losses in 2008, 2012, and… (dare we speculate?) 2016 may have been offset with a different choice. But I ask you: if a more moderate candidate who attracts at least some support from independents and a few crossover vote and still can’t win, what makes you think that someone with even narrower appeal stands a better chance? That’s like watching a prime thoroughbred lose the Kentucky Derby and then trying to convince me that a three-legged horse would have probably won.

No, the GOP doesn’t need to distance itself further from the middle. It needs to open itself up to a broader audience, to be welcoming of people from different backgrounds, different faiths, different nationalities… in other words, the Republican Party needs to start looking like the rest of America.

Ah, you say, but that would make the GOP look and act like Democrats. No, not exactly. There’s nothing wrong with the Republican ideals of a less complex federal bureaucracy, a strong defense, and boosting free enterprise. But when those issues are overshadowed by things like vote suppression, absolute nationalism, and acceptance of violent behavior — all of which are prominent in the 2016 campaign — the chances of encouraging more people to vote your way shrink considerably.

The Republican Party could be looking at a successful future, if it can rid itself of the more extreme elements within. Stop turning a blind eye to those who seek to control the party with calls for hatred of others.

Then maybe, just maybe, you’ll convince me to vote for your candidate. But not this year.

Of course, all this would be meaningless if Donald Trump somehow gets elected. If that happens, we’ll all have much bigger problems.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald October 6, 2016.)

The end is near

arguing beagles

It just so happens that I like happy endings. I like stories where good triumphs over evil, when the down-on-his-luck guy finally catches a break, and when star-crossed lovers beat the odds and live happily ever after. Okay, maybe that last one is too much of a stretch, ‘cause the one place you won’t find this guy is plopped down on the couch all wrapped up in some romantic comedy. But I do like to see when conflicts can be resolved and everyone is pleased by how everything turned out. In books and movies, that can happen. In the real world, it’s not that easy.

If there’s one thing I know about myself, it’s this: I’m not an optimist. That doesn’t mean that I’m always looking for something bad to happen. But after you’ve spent a few years dealing with all the highs and lows that life can send your way, you tend to get a feeling for how the story is going to end. And this year, my friends, we’re caught up in a real page-turner.

This presidential election was destined to be like none before it. There was no doubt who was going to be the main contender among the Democrats. From the moment that Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in 2008, it’s safe to say we all knew she was going to run again. And it was also clear that she would not have to face many competitors. This is due in part to the view from within the party that Clinton’s previous run gave her the advantage of already having built a national campaign, and that experience coupled with a solid network of endorsers and operatives meant that she would hit the ground running while any rivals would be starting from scratch. And so, despite a rather impressive challenge from Bernie Sanders, Sec. Clinton succeeded in becoming the first female presidential nominee of a major US political party.

For the Republicans, their nominee took a much different path. Sure, Donald Trump had plenty of name recognition, but he never bothered to form any real organization. Instead, Trump relied on a loosely concocted strategy of winning a popularity contest rather than gaining votes based on the usual method of establishing a meaningful stance on policy issues. True, Mr. Trump entered the race as one of a large crowd, but it’s not like most of his competition was all that formidable. Some were poorly funded. Others never seemed to be putting in much effort. (I’m looking at you, Jeb.)

And so, here we are. The next president, the person who will hold the most important elected office in the world, will either be a woman with a very large unfavorability ranking… or a man with, coincidentally, a very large unfavorability ranking. No matter who wins, our nation’s next leader will be greatly disliked from day one. That’s unfortunate, but it could also be a great opportunity. Imagine if our next president takes the oath of office and immediately sets out to gain the trust of all Americans, even (and, for that matter, especially) those who voted for the other candidate. We could be in for a new era of healing and cooperation. But I just don’t see that happening, not for a good while. Like I said earlier, I’m not an optimist.

Never before in my lifetime has there been so much bitterness connected to a national election. We’ve allowed anger to overtake common sense. Family members can’t talk to each other without name-calling. Friends are distancing themselves from each other, all because of whose name they plan to select on the ballot.

Is this what we’ve become? A society that’s willing to throw out all the conventions of kindness and civility? And if it’s this bad now, how much worse will it be after the election?

We need to turn off talk radio and cable TV, and learn how to sit down and discuss our differences like reasonable adults. No name calling, no finger pointing, no threats. I’m not going to tell you that we all need to hold hands and say only nice things to each other. That’s not reality. But we need to get out of this rut we’re in.

The great cartoonist Walt Kelly once worked for Disney, helping to create such masterpieces as “Dumbo”, “Pinocchio”, and “Fantasia”… but he’s best known for his comic strip, “Pogo”. Kelly often used his drawings to comment on social issues, particularly politics, and in doing so condemned extremism on both sides. The most famous quote from his strip, “We have met the enemy and he is us,” can honestly be used to describe our current political climate.

I won’t say we’ve hit rock bottom, because that would suggest that things can’t get worse. Based on what I’ve seen over the past year, it probably will.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald September 1, 2016.)

An unconventional summer

empty chair

Two weeks. Two conventions. Two political infomercials that had millions of Americans reaching for the remote in hopes of finding an Andy Griffith Show marathon.

Yes, they’re long, they’re boring, they’re filled with people wearing silly hats. But these conventions were for the most part Must See TV, if for no other reason than to get a solid feeling for the drastic contrasts between the two presidential hopefuls.

The Republican convention was notable for one thing: a general lack of good feelings. The message from the gathering in Cleveland was dark and dreary. Everything is bad, very bad. We used to be great, but we’re not anymore. Speaker after speaker drilled that message into our brains — much as the party’s nominee has done since Day One of his campaign — until we felt miserable. Once convinced that America had ceased to be good and powerful, we were told that only one man could fix it. That somehow only he knew all the answers to our woes, and that, through nothing more than his sheer presence, everything would magically be great again.

Side note: can somebody please tell me, when did we stop being great?

On the other hand, the Democratic Party pushed all the right buttons at its convention. The speakers each night stuck to a theme that was saturated with patriotism, pride, and unity. Sure, they may have skipped a few things — it would have been nice, for example, to bring forward a group of heroic police officers and tell their stories of hard work and community service to balance the somewhat controversial appearance by mothers whose children died in violence, some during encounters with police — but these conventions are all about putting a positive spin on the parties’ candidates and ideas.

Naturally, Hollywood made its presence known at both events. The Democrats brought out Meryl Streep. The Republicans offered Scott Baio. Both gave incredibly forgettable speeches, which is a good thing. The Democrats did have the advantage when it came to star power, offering two Obamas, three Clintons, Biden, Bloomberg, and a powerful message from the father of an American Muslim soldier killed in Iraq. The Republicans mostly relied on Mr. Trump, Mrs. Trump, and four Trump offspring. At least this year they didn’t give us a confused-looking old guy scolding an empty chair.

But it’s not just what they had to say, it’s how they said it. Well after the words themselves faded from your memory — and if you’ve got an attention span like mine, that doesn’t take very long — it’s the style and delivery that lingers in your mind. People who study the effectiveness of public speakers know that the audience is more likely to look back favorably at a speech if the person at the podium found a way to appeal to the listeners’ emotions. If what they say makes us laugh or cry, our brains make a connection.

Say you watch a comedian on stage, one who makes you laugh all the way through the show. You may remember one or two jokes, but you won’t be able to repeat most of his routine. But you will look back at that performance months, even years later. You’ll recall where you were, who you were with, maybe even how the guy in the next row snorted when he laughed. Those things stick with you because that guy doing stand-up zeroed in on your emotions, creating a lasting impression, one that made you feel really good. And that’s what political conventions try to do.

Most of them.

Donald Trump has never stopped telling us that there’s nothing worth celebrating in America anymore. He constantly criticizes our police and firemen, our teachers, even our military… calling them “weak” and “failures”. Then, once the crowd starts buying into his words, he tells them that he is their answer, as if he has superpowers and the entire world will bow down to him just because he exists.

It’s laughable to read the occasional pundit try to compare Trump to Ronald Reagan. For the Republicans, this campaign offers no “City on a Hill” and no “Morning in America”. The Trump campaign has made no effort to highlight anything positive about this nation or its future. Everything is gloom and doom… fear and hate.

And I don’t recall Reagan ever kicking a baby out of a rally.

I’m not saying that Hillary Clinton is the best choice, not by a long shot. Her flaws are numerous and her personality is far from warm. But her party for the most part managed to gloss over all that and deliver a more uplifting message.

I’m not convinced that Donald Trump really wants to be the next president. I think he only entered the race to feed his insatiable ego. Now, he has no way out except to lose, something Trump may not be able to handle.

(Originally published in the Morrisons Cove Herald August 4, 2016.)