The Primaries are winding down ...

The primaries are winding down. It looks most likely that Hilary Clinton will face Donald Trump in November. The summer party conventions will provide a glorious but fleeting occasion to celebrate the party platform and entertain the public with an archaic spectacle.  In autumn, the fireworks will re-start.

So here we have two old timers, Clinton who will be 69 by November and Trump who will be 70, seasoned but flawed veterans. Some 2/3 of Americans do not trust Hilary and are weary of her baggage of scandals, and just about a similar number do not approve of Donald’s bombast, insults, bravado, and ill-fated deals. 

Our choice? The lesser of two evils? I am afraid so.

The fringe on both sides of the spectrum put up a valiant campaign, but in the end, the majority of Americans have chosen centrists. Bernie ran a principled campaign and attracted younger and alienated voters. Cruz fought valiantly on behalf of the conservative cause.

Americans seem to have settled for incremental change on the democratic side over radical changes advocated by progressives. Republicans, on the other end, rejected the establishment and its “plumber” fixing approach to change.

A quick look at the finalists.

Hilary started her political career as a staunch Republican campaigning for Goldwater and Lindsey. Then, in 1968 she changed to the Democrat party as a strong supporter of McGregor. She was against the Vietnam War.

Donald has been all over the place. At different times he has been a Democrat, Independent, Undeclared, and Republican. He has admitted to give money to Democrats and Republicans. I would guess he is an equal opportunity politician.

They both seem to have a checkered past: one in the political arena and the other in business and commerce. One is perceived as a secretive, careful schemer while the other is often portrayed as a talented opportunist and manipulator.

Some think that Hilary faces her biggest challenge with the FBI investigation regarding her email debacle and perceived interaction between her public role and her husband’s private foundation. If she is indicted, her bid will surely be doomed. Many will see a vast conservative conspiracy behind it, for sure.

Others think that Donald is not the right person to represent the Republican Party, and attempts are being made to broker the convention and choose someone else. If this happens, the party will surely be fractured for decades.

Issues Bothering Americans

The average American is under a lot of stress. A recent research study by MarketPlace classified 61% of adults as being under financial stress. The study goes on to point out that 59% of Americans cannot come up with a $ 1,000 to cover an emergency. The gap between the working class wages and the executives’ pay is seen as the culprit. Income inequality is real and must be addressed.

Obamacare needs to be fine-tuned. 29 million Americans continue to be without health insurance, and many have seen their premiums and deductibles balloon.  The notion of scrapping and starting from scratch is not reasonable. Fixing it and improving it are more reasonable options.

The loss of American jobs still hounds many Americans in the manufacturing industry in particular. Many blame the so-called free trade agreements that are neither fair nor smart. We must protect current jobs and bring back some of the manufacturing jobs we have lost during the past 25 years with dumb policies.

Taxation is another major issue. The country will need to increase taxes on the top 1% in order to fund social programs and balance the budget. Taxes on corporations need to be lowered to encourage corporations to bring back the 2 plus trillion dollars they have parked overseas. Lower taxes will make our products more competitive in the global market. The whole system needs review and change. Too many loopholes that benefit the rich and Wall Street!

Equal pay for equal work is an issue that has been swept under the rug for generations. Pressure will mount to level the pay field.  Pay equity is an overdue change. The gap is unfair and cannot be justified!

The way we treat our veterans needs modernization. Too many anecdotes make people shiver at the beaurocratic malaise that dogs the VA. We need to make radical changes in the way we administer veteran benefits. Too many layers of management and poor process management make a mockery of its mission. Incompetent managers need to be dismissed as quickly as possible after a lean but fair due process.

Fair trade agreements must be renegotiated or fine-tuned to make sure that Americans don’t come out on the short end of the stick. Past deals have been neither fair nor smart. The ultimate price for the ineptitude of our negotiators is paid by working class folk. 

Our justice system needs overhauling. Our prisons are full with people guilty of having committed victimless crimes. Minorities comprise a large percentage of the prison population, leading many to suspect an unequal application of our laws.

One Final Note

The plumbing approach to change is not what we need. Plumbers are best at fixing leaks. The whole building needs upgrade. We need transformational change that involves both parties. We need politicians to do what is best for the country, not what is best for their party, their state, their community or themselves.

Americans on both sides of the aisle need to put ideologies aside and work for the common good. Ideologies promise utopia, but we all know that there is no one best way to solve problems.  The better way is what works. It is time to regain the idealism and forward-looking fervor unleashed by President Kennedy.

Imagineering A Different Electoral Process

Political systems are like salami. We see the outside but we do not really know what’s inside. We are told that 2/3 is ground meat, 1/3 ground fat, lots of salt, and spices of choice. Aging the salami melds the flavors and cures it. Different countries have their own recipes and preferences ranging from plain to spicy. 

I would like to use this analogy to explore some of the ingredients and flavors hoping to provide some useful illustrations.

The Ingredients

Most of all, when slicing the salami, you will find an abundance of ideological meat. Tradition resembles the fat. And, in a less transparent way, the spices are made up by the politicians’ personalities, their ethnic background, their religious persuasion or lack thereof, their past peccadillos, and their foibles. The press enjoys delving-in on the spicy side to feed its hunger for ratings.

Impediments to Compromise

Ideology is at the top of the list. By and large, it is difficult to give-in to someone with a different viewpoint. The exaggerated vitriol between opposing ideologies illustrates this point. Ideology from the fringe is the archetype. From the extreme left, anyone who disagrees is an idiot, an ignoramus, and a greedy and heartless sob. From the extreme right, anyone who does not agree is a bleeding heart pinko, someone lacking in patriotism, and a self-indulgent slob. Demonizing the adversary makes constructive dialogue difficult, if not impossible.

Behind ideology is tradition. It has many positives aspects, but it also contains biases, stereotypes, resentments, and nightmares accumulated over time. Distrust, belittling, hard-hitting humor, and ridicule of others’ tradition are used to self-differentiate. It is almost like telling the other: "You do not understand and never will our reason." Thus, they paint the other as inconsiderate or unable to empathize with one’s challenges and accumulated resentments.

Statistics provide many spices, by slicing the electorate's identity and emphasizing race or ethnic origin, gender, age, economic and social status, religion, place of birth, geography, and son on. Slicing and dicing is a tool for pigeonholing people into homogeneous clusters to whom politicians can pander more effectively. If you are not a member of a specific slice, there is no way that one can truly understand the aspirations, grievances, or concerns of someone else’s slice.

Another major spice -- Personality -- is often key to electoral success. In today’s wide media coverage, appearance, oratory skills, interpersonal style, and other personal characteristics distinguish winners from wannabes.

It seems that substance matters less. Voters will often ignore prior experience and preparation if the politicians look good on TV or if they like the messengers' slogans.The enthusiasm politicians generate can be  key to a large turnout.

Adding to the Conundrum

The two party system, in my view, contributes to our confusion. Asking people to choose between just two alternatives is tough. Americans at present identify three-ways: Democrats (30%), Republicans (23%), and Independent (47%). The later is often referred to as the silent majority. It is this group that ultimately decides who gets elected. Often the choice is based on flimsy data or emotional reaction.

Adapting A Modified European Model

It would be much better if we had at least four choices:

(1) Left,

(2) Left-Right,

(3) Right-Left, and

(4) Right.

Progressives could align themselves with Left, Conservatives with Right, and Independents could choose between Left-Right (Democrat) or Right-Left (Republican) based on their philosophical preference.

In my view, this would make it much easier for the voters to distinguish more clearly the political choices.

Forcing the electorate to choose from just two options oversimplifies the importance of certain issues in favor of more predictability. Vocal extremes or fringes on both sides of the political spectrum make it hard to reach needed compromises.

Let’s see! Germany has four major parties, Britain has three, France has four, Spain has four, and Italy, not to be outdone, has six major parties.

Thresholds minimums would limit splinter parties from entering Congress should they not garner 5% or more of the vote. One other benefit would be more political diversity.

Complex issues have no ready-to-use, off-the-shelf prepackaged solutions; they require collective wisdom. If no party has more than 50+% in Congress the leading party would need to form a coalition with one or more of the other three parties. This arrangement would structurally facilitate a greater form of collaboration and compromise.

Presidential elections would work as follows: if any of the four candidates does not garner 50+% of the popular vote, the two with the highest votes would face-off one another in a run-off. No need for the Electoral College, a vestige of little or no utility in the 21^st century.

This proposal might sound utopian, but it is not.

Issues?

Sure.  There will be resistance to change by traditionalists and by smaller states because it is not what the founding fathers envisioned or what the Constitution prescribes. Some will see the risk of more gridlock. Others will point out that the US is not parliamentary. I am sure there are some other issues that I might have overlooked.

But, it is fun to imagine.  Your thoughts?