"Malaise" was what Carter called it, but this is somehow different

President Jimmy Carter referred to a pervasive sense of unease among the electorate during his campaign for the Oval Office. There had been difficult economic times and significant challenges to the standing of the US in the world. There are somewhat similar challenges faced in this nation today, but the general uneasiness I sense at this point, just prior to the 2016 general election is different in some ways.

In general objective terms, the economy is recovering at a steady, if not rapid enough for some, pace following the Great Recession bequeathed to us by former President George W. Bush. Yet the rhetorical theme that the economy is in bad shape seems to have gained remarkable traction. The US is now engaged in far more bilateral and multilateral relationships abroad than during the "with us or against us" vituperation of the Bush Administration. The current Administration has deported more persons than any of his recent predecessors, and yet the racist and xenophobic rhetoric against immigrants is loud and vitriolic. Claims of lost jobs, including blaming immigrants, are mainstays of political stump speeches. Despite the discursive atmospherics, the jobless rate has declined steadily and just recently fell below 5%, indicating substantial recovery. Of course, many good paying manufacturing jobs have departed to foreign countries and are unlikely to ever return; but that is in no way the fault of immigrants. Nonpartisan research indicates that immigrants are not taking jobs current citizens are eager to fill, and undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to local, state and federal economies. So the sense and the expressions, often fueled by demagoguery, is not based upon evidence. It is played out in fear and psychological triggers.

When Carter was running for office, the tone and content of the rhetoric was of a different quality. People were fearful of what would happen in the future, but they were not fearful in their hearts about the future of democracy. That is perhaps what makes the current disquiet so different and potentially alarming. When Carter was elected, people had a preference for candidates. However, the unease was not based upon a concern that the nation would be in substantial peril if EITHER candidate won. Today, we have a candidate who has openly declared that he may not respect the decision of the electorate, claiming it is "rigged." He has stoked anti-government sentiment and suggested [second amendment] armed violence in the event he should lose the popular vote. The opposing candidate has substantial experience in the halls of power, including roles as First Lady and as Secretary of State. Yet she has also shown a resistance to transparency and a lack of wise judgment in the use of a personal email server [although many others have also used this convenience]. This candidate, however, has demonstrated a solid understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law in our nation, as well as a respect for dissent.

This brings us to the current "unease." The fears expressed are deeper and more emotional that in the 1976 election cycle. The campaigns have revealed a deep divide in the electorate in which one campaign eschews the concept of a "common good" for a more self-centered inclination to blame "others" for the claimed troubles and anxiousness. As noted, much of the fear is factually ungrounded, but is stoked through emotional appeals. The other campaign appeals to a sense of "unity" in the auspices of a traditional neoliberal establishment that has not been particularly responsive to the needs and concerns of progressive liberals or the endangered middle class. The hallmark distinction, perhaps, is the absence of hope. If the "doomsayer" candidate wins, there is no hope of unifying an electorate that has been purposefully divided among factions within, as well as set against foreign threats. If the establishment candidate wins, there is little hope that the common plight currently faced will be markedly improved.

It is thus no great wonder that we are seeing a broad sense of disquiet, and even fear among the populace. The election may seem more like a question of avoiding disaster than a step toward a better future. We are, unfortunately at the mercy of a political system that has been corrupted in large measure by the license given in the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. The level of influence that unregulated corporate and super PAC funding exerts over the electoral process cannot be overstated. That influence has permeated the structure of governance and embedded practices that will make removal of its tentacles extremely difficult and time consuming. The designation of voting districts and measures that suppress voting are widely and deeply embedded. Politicians owe their incumbency [and loyalty]to such funding and not to their electorates. The emotionally expressed concern may actually be an organic and systemic reaction to an infirmity in the very foundation of our democratic experiment. The path to recovery of health lies not just in the selection of any immediate candidate, but far deeper and invasive interventions to fix the systemic toxins that have yielded such symptoms.

"Tea Party" Redux

The "conservative" faction, or whatever they would now call their dysfunctional alliance, once thought that their main stressor was the "Tea Party" movement that sowed insurrectionist annoyance in the House of Representatives. The self proclaimed adherents to that movement shut down the government and forced the removal of House Speaker John Boehner. But little did the GOP realize that it would wind up facing self destructive chaos from a quite different kind of Tea Party. In this case, the current head of the GOP ticket going into the US Presidential election resembles nothing so much as the Mad Hatter's gathering in "Through the Looking Glass." In that fictional escapade, all the rules of decorum were stood on end and the proceeding was led by a buffoon with a pretense of power who arbitrarily spouted nonsense and dictated the course of events without seeming grasp of reality or respect for the attendees, with especial rudeness to the female attendee, Alice. Those around him seemed caught between trying to comply with his erratic behavior and at the same time trying to figure out what in the heck he was doing and would do next. That appears to be strikingly similar to the current GOP "Tea Party."

In just the past week, the GOP Nominee [no longer "presumptive" and now just "presumptuous"] has danced with treason by suggesting that foreign powers should spy upon and meddle in US electoral politics, attacked a Gold Star family publicly, demeaned the value of Purple Hearts awarded to military honorees wounded in service, suggested that he has known "sacrifice" through his dealings that involved defrauding and failing to pay contractors and suppliers on his real estate projects and declaring bankruptcy so that he could be come wealthy at their expense, publicly snubbed the current Speaker of the House, suggested that everyone in the GOP may be idiots by blaming all criticism against his actions on his opponent -Hillary Clinton, when even the most simple minded can see that the trouble emanates from the GOP candidates own mouthy and actions. And that is just this WEEK!

Newt Gingrich, the GOP master of rhetorical legerdemain and dissembling apologia, acknowledged that the GOP Nominee had no chance of winning the general election pursuing the course he is on. No matter how "unacceptable" the GOP may try to paint Clinton, their candidate would seem to the public a worse option.

Balanced non-partisan observers have questioned the GOP Nominee's fitness and temperament for the Office of President, citing his remarkably thin skin and his seeming inability to withhold a knee jerk response when criticized or attacked.  That behavior is reminiscent of Marty McFly in the movie "Back to the Future" when he was challenged as "yellow" or potentially a coward. The response was invariably ill advised and led to far more trouble than if the slight had simply been ignored.

This might all be very entertaining, but for the very real consequences of seriously engaging in consideration of placing a mad person in the Oval Office. Just as the Hatter seemed to have no concept of civility, time or the workings of things -such as his watch- the GOP Nominee seems eerily similar in many respects. Then there is the veritable March Hare, in the guise of Paul Manafort who tries ineffectually to rationalize the madness. And rather than bother to clean up any mess the Hatter makes, the response is just to keep moving to the next place, where the rudeness, incivility and chaos continues to create additional messiness.

Of Wizardry and Wisdom

The Wizard of Oz proclaimed himself "great and powerful!" In fact, he was but a charlatan cloaked behind a curtain using bombast and pyrotechnics to wow the easily duped and intimidate the opposition. He created the impression that if people cleaved to his aura, they would share in his power or at least the largess. Just believe, or at least pretend to believe, in the Wizard's power and you can live a better life in the Emerald city.

The description applies in many respects to the presumptive GOP nominee for President, another pretender to great power. His nonsensical and overblown rhetoric used to confound and seduce the weak minded, and to pander to the cynical and racially and religiously biased. To those not easily duped, his rhetoric turns to ad hominem attacks, thinly veiled threats and demagoguery. His use of innuendo is both craven and masterful. Instead of making a direct accusation and having the courage to stand behind his claim, this "wizard" makes unsubstantiated assertions that he says "he heard" someone say. He says he simply cannot understand why anyone would disagree with his isolationist and combative trade policy plan, which nonpartisan economic experts project would throw the US into a major recession by 2019 if implemented as described. In a latest rant, he argues that leaders of his own party who fail to fall in line and endorse him should be "prohibited from ever running for public office" in the future. Like the "Great and Powerful Oz," this pretender brooks no dissent and seeks to humiliate any who may disagree, regardless of the logic or merit of hos positions.

In another late revelation, multiple instances of email solicitation of campaign contributions were made by Drumpf to foreign officials. Solicitation of contributions via email is now a common practice. However, accepting or even making solicitations for campaign funding to foreign officials is not only illegal, by may be criminal. In fairness, criminal prosecution is highly unlikely unless his own party goes after him. That is not the point here. What is more telling is that even at this stage of the campaign, after sewing up the GOP nomination after a long primary season, Drumpf still demonstrates an amazing lack of control over his campaign and subordinates and an astounding lack of understanding of the basic rules and practices of public office and governance.

The revelation is not that Drumpf may or should be exposed and prosecuted for violating campaign funding laws. The key point is that this very basic and fairly obvious restriction was not grasped by someone seeking the authority and power to control and decide the most significant and nuanced issues and crises that the nation will face. Moreover, and assuming that Drumpf may be as surprised as many of us are that he has succeeded in his candidacy, there has been a failure to take time and make effort to LEARN the rudiments of public service and governance. Like the Wizard of Oz, who believed that his prior success as a carnival showman qualified him to rule a kingdom, Drumpf believes that his experience as a CEO and reality show huckster qualifies him for the highest office in one of the most powerful nations in the world. Like the Wizard of Oz, he lacks the competence to develop reasoned policies, to deliver on promises he makes, and lacks the wisdom to know when not to promise what he cannot possibly deliver. That ignorance is beyond dangerous, it could very well become catastrophic if Presidential power were to devolve into his hands.

Trump fails to comply with campaign fundingn law

Browsing and Reflection on BREXIT

The most prolific topic in the current news cycle is the vote by the UK to leave the European Union (EU), also referred to as "Brexit." There is considerable confusion and consternation around the result, particularly when even those predicting a "close" vote thought that the UK would choose to remain. The idea was that the vote would be a strong symbolic statement about need for reform of the EU management and relations with member nations. The problem with setting formal processes in motion is that they result in REAL consequences. Now, there is loud dissatisfaction with the outcome, including a petition for another vote, a "redo" if you will, that has garnered well over 2.1 million signatures in less than two days. Scotland, which voted heavily to remain in the EU, has announced that it will seek renewal of the 2014 vote on whether to remain a part of the UK, in light of the change in material circumstances. Scotland was induced to remain part of the UK in that vote because of the benefits of being part of the EU membership. The result has caused David Cameron to step down as Prime Minister, and there is huge pressure on the leader of the Labour Party (who backed the "Leave" vote) to step down as well. Meanwhile, the UK stock market has tumbled and the Pound Stirling is at the lowest level in over 30 years following the vote to leave the EU.

Some have speculated that there are similarities between the voices and sentiment that fueled the UK vote to leave the EU and the current "outsider" disaffection in the USA. It is argued that much of the appeal of Donald Drumpf, the GOP presumptive nominee for President, is based upon that anger and resentment against a perceived political "establishment. While there are a great many distinctions to be made in the two situations, there are a few similarities. These similarities do not necessarily reflect well upon the "angry mob" or the Leave supporters. One example, whether based upon ignorance or naivete, is the comment from the Cornwall Council following the Brexit vote and the realization that departure from the EU would also mean the loss of significant investment in that area:

"The leader of Cornwall council said he was seeking 'urgent steps' to ensure the impoverished county in southwest England would be protected. 'We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60 million ($82 million, 73 million) per year over the last 10 years,' said John Pollard.

Simply put, the angry demand for the separation from perceived "oppression" from an "unresponsive" central governing body ignored the actual benefits from that source that the constituents, including the protesters, depend upon for survival. In the USA, there are similar uncritical (ignorant or naive) complaints against the Administration in Washington, DC. They are loud and strident until a disaster strikes and the region is in dire need of supportive response from the very Administration they say they want to reduce and remove from their lives. (Sadly, West Virginia is a most recent example.) But a crisis mode is not necessary to illustrate the misdirected hostility. Kentucky, whose leadership has vowed to obstruct the Obama Administration at every possible turn, has many counties in which more than 95% the populace are entirely dependent upon federal social welfare and other economic benefits.

But perhaps the blame needs to be shared by the leaders of the angry mob, who use fear and hatred to motivate the uninformed and gullible followers. An example of this is the announcement immediately after the Brexit vote by the leader of the "leave" movement, Nigel Farage, that the promise of funding to the national health service was an outright lie. This promise was used to induce voters to support the Leave campaign because their social benefits would be protected. It is an old ploy: blind them with hate and they will believe anything.

One more reflection points to irony. The supporters of the Leave campaign targeted their scorn on London and the Financial Markets - the "Fat Cats"- and the Westminster government who they said were unfairly profiting from the EU relationship while the less prosperous areas of the North were lagging. George Soros, the billionaire who profited over $1 Billion in 1992 betting upon the poor judgment of the British, has done it again. He made bearish investments based upon the hunch (actually an educated prediction) that the Pound would plummet if the UK voted to leave. No doubt we will find other investors in the London based financial groups who made similar hedge bets.  So the irony is that the vote against the "Fat Cats" in the form of the Leave campaign and the Brexit vote has actually resulted in MORE profit and wealth going to the rich at the expense and pain of the less prosperous folks in the UK. To add insult to injury, Soros publicly warned the Brits that if they voted to leave the EU, that which has occurred would happen.

No one can say what will happen in the next months and years as a result of the vote, except that there will be continued uncertainty and pain. It is likely, however, that the EU will offer the UK a better deal or more concessions than Cameron was able to obtain in the last round. This would not be specifically to "punish" the UK for the "divorce." The stance would be to send a message to remaining EU members and citizens of member nations that the choice to exit will have serious and painful consequences. There is already fear that nationalist and xenophobic right wing factions in some EU member nations are gearing up for their own votes whether to leave or remain in the EU. We can collectively hope that the pain of the UK will serve as a sobering event, and that those other angry mobs will recognize that, as one former British minister observed, they would be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces."

Just Another Day - Another Massacre

Once again the facts concerning the Orlando massacre at a nightclub frequented by gays leaving at least 50 dead and another 53 injured dribble out and tend to get suppressed or distorted. The father gives information about a specific incident when his son reacted angrily to seeing a same sex kiss in public that logically [albeit a bit irrationally) ties his son's behavior to the massacre - hate against the LGBT community. This gets downplayed in favor of "official" speculation that (because his name sounds "Muslim" despite being born and raised in the US) that his motivation MUST have been Islamic terrorism - i.e., the Islamophobic notion that anyone of Afghan descent has to be a terrorist, or they know another person of Afghan or Middle Eastern descent who may or may not be a terrorist, etc. etc.. Consider that there is no connection or logic that the killing would make any statement or advance the cause of ISIS, but there is a direct connection to his demonstrated hatred of gays and the massacre. As his father said, religion had nothing to do with it. Those seeking to hijack the deaths and maiming of those at the Orlando night club to support an anti-Muslim agenda are only displaying their religious and ethnic bigotry. The ONLY benefit ISIL could gain from the incident would be public bigoted reaction ascribing the cause to ISIL when the entity in fact knew nothing about it and was never actually involved. We need to mourn the senseless deaths and honor the loss of human life, not allow the tragedy to be hijacked as a xenophobic ploy. This incident is described as the worst massacre in recent history in the US. We need to pause and reflect upon the magnitude of the tragedy.

But all this speculation as to terrorism again deflects from a central issue. How might a recurrence be prevented? Do we just shake our heads and say the event was "regrettable, " but do nothing? Again, and all too often, the question of whether some reasonable regulation of lethal weapons might have made a difference. And once again hysteria will deflect rational debate, because "guns" is not a unitary concept. There is a difference between a starter pistol, a shotgun for duck hunting and an AR-15 automatic rifle with a maximum capacity magazine. Only the latter could have possibly caused the destruction seen in Orlando. Why do we still allow the threat to public safety these weapons pose?   

Mateen was a "law abiding gun owner," up to the very moment that he pulled the trigger and began the mass killing. As such, he had open and legal access to automatic weapons only designed and used for mass killing of humans. We now also learn that he had a history of violent mental instability and domestic abuse, in addition to homophobia. None of these factors was at all useful in denying him access to lethal weapons of mass destruction. We must at least consider, if not accept, that these conditions are OUR fault as well as the responsibility of the shooter. We condone profligate gun ownership and use, and a culture that says that the answer to gun violence is more guns!

We presume that an individual is entitled to lethal instruments (such as automatic assault weapons) until AFTER they have misused them and the carnage has occurred. Imagine if we gave car keys to every child and only took away their "right to drive" the dangerous instrumentalities only AFTER they had killed or maimed someone while operating the vehicle. Instead, we apply reasoned regulation. We allow children to use certain vehicles [bikes] and later allow them use of cars and trucks (with certain limitations as to class of vehicle) after they have had training and passed a test to show that they know how to operate the vehicle safely. Accidents still, happen, of course. But the result of reasoned restrictions is a lot safer than if the norm were that all of our streets looked like the sets of the "Fast and Furious" movies full of mayhem and destruction.

Until we can have an honest and rational discussion about reasoned limitations on gun sales and usage, and a willingness to hold those in the business of producing and selling weapons accountable, we must accept the fact that we are not only condoning, but are indeed complicit in, these mass shooting incidents.