“Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you;
if you don’t bet, you can’t win.”
Robert A. Heinlein, The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

 
Imagine an election where a nation chose its leader from a group of highly qualified candidates. Imagine campaigns and debates where candidates would share their ideas about policy positions, and the voters would cast their support based on how well the candidates’ ideas reflected those whose values and principles they were being elected to represent. Imagine an intelligent discourse sparked by the candidates and continued throughout the electorate, culminating in an informed public ultimately making its decision by casting one vote by each person, independent of spin masters, organizers, and manipulators. When you come out of your reverie let us return to our own reality, where elections are dictated by money and pull, where discussion of issues take a back seat to finger pointing and personal attacks. Here in our dark country, policy decisions are only the spoil of war, and campaigns are war campaigns. Little concern is given to the presentation of ideas (“You can visit our website to see all that…”); instead, we are condemned to evaluate our leaders by the collected manure of their lives, and which smells least offensive to our pristine holier than thou nostrils.

Oh, I’m not saying that occasionally some Watergate type scandal might not rightly sink a candidate, these are after all political warriors, and the temptation to not play by the rules might sometimes lead to a fall; but not every single election, and not always in October. We shouldn’t need to go back to high school days, or drag seventy year old candidates back to the things they did in their twenties, and expect that this would have a significant effect on the election… but we do… and it does.

Mr Trump has been widely castigated for blaspheming against the dogma of false patriotism by insinuating that our election process is not entirely on the up and up. In his usual style, preferring pithiness to precision, Trump has declared the election to be rigged. That leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and his critics have not been shy about taking full advantage of that room. Condemning him for suggesting that we have a crooked system, they accuse him of destroying the public’s confidence in our elections, and laying the groundwork for violent rebellion. The over the top attacks only serve to prove the point of the proclamation. As Heinlein wrote, “Certainly the game is rigged.” Who could honestly say it is not? When it comes to press coverage, who I guess are the referees in this game, who could question that the response to the same sentiment expressed by Bernie Sanders or Al Gore was not nearly as apoplectic? Having the President on your side, using his bully pulpit to sling mud from, has to help rig the game for your side, just as having the majority in the House and statehouses helps rig those elections for the Republicans. Who can deny that dead people are continuing to vote, non-citizens are voting, people are being registered in multiple locations, and some are voting more than once. Who can deny that ballots disappear, that voting machines get tampered with, that voters are intimidated, that organizers influence and manipulate uninformed voters? When journalists demonstrate their political leanings by contributing to the Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign at a rate of 25 to 1, who can help but question their ability to be neutral? Imagine if news was only delivered by white male middle aged plumbers… would the left be comfortable with that press pool? The question is not whether the game is rigged, of course it is, the question is just how rigged is it? I share Mr. Trump’s optimism that it is not so rigged as to be not worth playing, but it’s an uphill fight for sure.

IMHO: I like to believe that game rigging is not a major influence in our elections, but how often do we actually get anyone but the party’s choice for candidates? Outsiders Trump and Cruz this year for the GOP show a continuing weakening of that party’s stranglehold, but the Dems have a tougher nut to crack. It may be that winning elections is more important to them than fixing the system. Skeptics will say that the rigging is minimal, and probably evens out across the parties. Maybe, but that hasn’t been my observation. Alternative news sources are the ultimate answer to a biased media, but unfortunately that will also lead to polarization and even less journalistic integrity. As with so many problems, education is the answer. When the game is rigged the way forward is to play the game better. That is not to say that you don’t continue to take a stand against corruption in the system; ignore it, and it will only grow. Expect the vilification from the left for shining a light on the rigging; the team that’s winning always supports the system. Always remember that engineered discouragment is part of the rigging, and polls oddly seem to tighten just before the election. There may be victories and defeats in elections, but the battle is more than that, whoever wins. Our elections show us our worst now, and I pity the President who gains victory by the dark arts of insult, spin, personal destruction, dishonesty and outright lying. To our future President: (insert name here), congratulations, you have proven yourself less horrible than your opponent… or possibly more horrible in your power. Four years will come soon enough; we must do better than this.

Having agonized with the rest of you over the endless barrage of hacked emails and and the equally endless parade of Trump accusers who found their voice here in October (surprise!), I am compelled to put aside my political persuasions and stand up for the only viable candidate whose morality and character is not outrageous and reprehensible. One small problem, it looks like there isn’t one.

Not all people are as informed on popular culture as others are, some people have jobs and families, or even hobbies which divert their attention from the cesspools of television, Hollywood, and Washington. Despite my own busy life, I still can’t as easily ignore what I see and hear, so, for better or worse, Donald Trump’s crude hot mic moment came as no more of a surprise to me than the revelations that Hillary had a “secret” dream of open borders, or that her campaign disdained traditional religion. The allegations of the women against Trump were more of a surprise, but the timing arguably casts a shadow over whether they are victims or operatives. Unfortunately, the election will be over before their stories can be checked out. That is not to Trump’s advantage, as people tend to lean guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusations of sexual impropriety, especially when you have numbers of accusers, and Trump and Billy Bush provided the template for the accusations. Trump has tried to fight back, citing Bill Clinton’s sordid sexual escapades and Hillary’s codependent participation in silencing or destroying the women who accused him; far worse than most of what Trump is accused of. Sexual innuendo has a shelf life though, and accusations of impropriety are a dish best served hot. Though the atrocities committed on women by the Clintons are generally acknowledged by all but the most naive partisans, it’s yesteryear’s news, and we like our salaciousness fresh and juicy.

But if we stipulate that Mr. Trump is as corrupt a human being as Hillary Clinton, what then shall we do? It’s as though we live in a neighborhood with two grocery stores; one grocer beats his wife, and the other beats his kid… at which store do we buy our groceries? Oh, there’s a couple down the road that wants to start a grocery store, they can take your money if you want to make a statement, but they can’t give you any food. If you don’t make a choice, your neighbors will make the choice for you, so your kids don’t starve, and send you the bill later. Oh, by the way, one store is selling some food that you love, and the other is selling only food you hate. Let’s not have dizzying arguments about whose sin is more mortal, let’s not try to defend the reprehensible in either candidate, let us admit that these characters would not be our first choices for godparents for our children– but where will we buy our groceries?

Progressives are better at this than we are. Conservatives are more black and white about right and wrong. Republicans are the party who forced their own President to leave office over a cover-up, and no one even died! Progressives tend to see sin as more relative; relative to party, relative to how it impacts their goals, relative to whether it helps or hurts their political adversaries. When our guys do or say something unseemly, it generally spells their doom. Democrats who do the same are tapped for their own TV shows, regularly reelected, sometimes even after a stint in prison, or steadfastly supported while the loyal make excuses for their missteps. Let’s not go there. Let’s not lose our moral compass in justifying wickedness, but neither let us lose our hope in the Clintonian supposition that a person or a situation is beyond redemption. In the end, when we are left with only bad choices, including the bad choice of not choosing, we are consigned to the pragmatism of a choice based on something other than virtue, our future.

President Obama recently echoed the sentiments of Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” comment, in referring to Rush Limbaugh listeners and Fox News viewers as being “in the swamp of crazy…there’s sort of a spectrum, right– it’s a whole kind of ecosystem…”. Likewise the hacked emails from John Podesta revealed the disdain the campaign has for conservative Catholics, and worse still, Evangelicals. Bill Clinton then referenced conservative voters as rednecks, reminiscent of Obama’s infamous “Cinging to guns and religion” comment. The catchy Democratic slogan, “Stronger together”, apparently has some narrowly drawn parameters. All these show a party unwelcoming of dissent, intolerant of debate, and disparaging of those who disagree. In an election where our choices are between Donald and Hillary, it is hard to disagree that we are “in the swamp of crazy”, but we have followed the trail you blazed to get us here, Mr. President, these are both the candidates your party wanted.

IMHO: In a run-off between complicated deviancy and common baseness, revulsion of the latter is more gut level and doesn’t require the tedium of thinking things through as does the former. As ridiculously convoluted and unbelievable the Clinton excuses may be, without video of the transgressions, outlandish tales can be spun for the gullible. For that reason, pundits can be excused for again writing obituaries for the Trump campaign. In any other election year, with any other set of candidates, this would be well over. Yet the latest polls show Trump continuing to be competitive, despite the dip immediately after the release of the hot mic tape. One recalls the words of Hillary Clinton, “Why am I not fifty points ahead?!”. We are in this election beyond values; if values are to be the criteria then both candidates are disqualified. Hope is not lost though. Unlike the imagery of a basket of “unredeemable deplorables” floating lost forever through a “swamp of crazy”, this is where conservatives are less black and white than progressives. Few people are monsters, nowhere near half, and even fewer are beyond redemption. Though these candidates are indeed flawed, their flaws may not define them; the story of many great men and women is about redemption. Our choice may come down to which candidate we sense is more likely to find that road, and failing that, which candidate is more likely to secure our future despite their flaws.
Some regard their vote as an extension of their soul, not to be sullied by being connected to a sub-par candidate. I can’t blame them for that, each must follow their conscience, but these make themselves of no consequence to this election, and less consequence to future elections than they might believe. What they may however do is miss an opportunity to mitigate the damages. If you want to change the future of our political process it will require a little more effort than voting for some obscure third party candidate or write-in so you can absolve yourself with a bumper sticker after the election. You can answer how you please, but the only question left to us this time around is “Trump or Hillary?”. If you can’t find a way to answer that question, someone else will answer it for you.
“Our lives are fashioned by our choices.
First we make our choices.
Then our choices make us.”

Anne Frank

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute
conversation with the average voter.”

Winston Churchill

Much of what we do as mankind are responses to needs that have been addressed for thousands of years. Besides the minor tweaks that knowledge and technology afford us, there is, as Ecclesiastes tells us, little new under the sun when it comes to basic societal needs or the exercise of political power. Plato wrote in The Republic that democracy was a flawed system of government inasmuch as leaders ill qualified to lead were nevertheless adept at convincing their fellows to vote for them, that the skills and attributes that win elections, are not at all the same skills that make a great leader. In his argument, he formulated the allegory of the “Ship of Fools”, where a ship’s crew mutiny the captain and then by collusion, flattery, violence, persuasion, and impugning the characters of their enemies, new navigators are elected, though they have no skills in navigation. The result being a ship adrift, the steering left to those least able to guide it. Plato is said to have preferred the idea of philosopher kings, an oligarchy of the most qualified thinkers, himself possibly being a reasonable candidate.

Of course, any system of government dependent on human beings to guide it will be flawed, whether it is led by a slick politician, a benevolent monarch, or a philosopher king. For this reason, the forefathers sought to mitigate the manifest corruption of humanity by creating us as a constitutional republic, a nation guided primarily by laws, and not by people… a type of auto pilot for the Ship of fools. As we move away from the primacy of that Constitution, we more closely resemble the ship of Plato’s allegory, where fools elect fools on the basis of party loyalty, sound-bites, and intentional disregard of reality.

So today’s news is the leaked tape of Donald Trump making lewd comments about women, saying outrageous things about women’s anatomy, bragging about his sexual prowess, and acting like, well, Donald Trump. And so the collapse of Obamacare goes to the back page. The exposition that Hillary Clinton admits to a public persona that doesn’t actually jive with her private persona that supports open borders and believes Wall Street should be in charge of fixing their own problems, yes, back page stuff. Sex always leads. Bad news for Trump always leads. And so, this completely unsurprising audio of Trump being Trump is front page news.

Politicians know the political response, and it is the same response that men have learned from their earliest interactions with the fairer sex; mock outrage. “Oh how disgusting!”, “How misogynistic!”, “How objectifying of women!”, “How unlike anything I would ever say!” If we as men don’t fulfill our part of this kabuki theater, mock outrage, then women might not fulfill their part, intentional naivety. Truth is, and those of us no longer mired in adolescent innocence know it in our hearts, that men think about sex, and they think about it a lot. Once in awhile ugly thoughts come out in ugly words, sometimes in the locker room, sometimes in the bedroom with their own women. I’ve read the transcript, and frankly I don’t see any news here. After Stern, the Playboy interviews, and the adulteries, did we think Trump would talk any differently in private? Do we suppose that most men talk together about women by quoting poetry?   Do we really believe Bill Clinton revered women in all of his private conversations? We as a society have already decided that such things are not a disqualifier. I daresay we have survived several Presidents who have said such things and worse in private conversations, but that doesn’t matter because we have audio on this, and audio demands a response, and that response must include outrage, shock, and piety. I haven’t the knowledge the Christ had as he traced in the sand the words and deeds of the men seeking to stone the adulteress, but you all know your own darkness, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Not to excuse the transgression, or the transgressor, this is why Trump was last on my list for GOP candidates, but the hypocrisy and hysteria over boorish behavior to the exclusion of concern over Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior, and worse, her destructive ideas, is appalling.

IMHO: Mr. Trump is likely to learn that billionaires expressing sexual perversion might entice women as they flock to theaters to see Fifty Shades of Grey, but it won’t fly as they flock to polling places. Plenty of men (and politicians) will probably need to drop their support for Trump if only to prove that they are not like him… even if they are. On this ship of fools we are always choosing between two flawed navigators; this time around they are even more flawed than usual. My highest concern is less with what one of the candidates said eleven years ago, but more with what one of them has said and done recently, and even more so what each of them promises for the future. I resent it, but we have a choice only between two courses; I don’t like where one has been, but I cannot abide where the other is going.