The Conceit of Passivity.

The Conceit of Passivity.  I have been amused by several opinion pieces written in the last few days by those in the media who are devastatingly disappointed by the apparent presidential choices we will have this fall.  Most of those that I’ve read are by rightward Republicans who cannot find it within themselves to vote Trump and vow to stay home and vote for no one.  On the left, there are also many who feel that Hillary is far too moderate to consider as qualified to continue Obama’s quest for the ultimate nanny state.  In due time, I feel we will find that the dissatisfied faction on each side of the aisle is more or less equal to the other.  The Republican dissent is more evident at this time simply because the Republican race has reached a more climatic point.  Once the Bernie folks pack it up and head to the house, there will be plenty of Democrats wailing about Clinton’s shortcomings.  However, once we reach the point (that we are rapidly accelerating towards) where Hillary directs her full attention towards the Republican nominee and wastes no further efforts dissing Bernie, I believe we will begin to see that the Democratic left will be far more satisfied with Clinton than will be the Democratic moderates.  A very good clue as to which faction ultimately feels the most disenfranchised will be Hillary’s selection of a running mate…Who will get the big crumb thrown their way?  Trump’s selection of a veep candidate will also be instructive, but his choice will not be nearly as calculated as Clinton’s; that just ain’t the way this cat operates.

Returning to the original point, two key questions in trying to predict this fall’s Presidential contest winner are (1) how many in each party will crossover to vote for the other party and (2) how many in each party will stay home and refuse to participate.  I don’t mean to leave out the Independents here; they will no doubt be influential, but not as impactful as groups (1) and (2).  My prediction, as things stand today, is that Clinton will rule in group (2) regarding turnout and Trump has the best odds to benefit from group (1) regarding crossover voters.  Democrats have proven over the last several Presidential elections that they understand winning in national politics far better than do the Republicans.  They have a far greater tolerance for supporting their imperfect candidate than do the Republicans and this has resulted in a pronounced advantage when considering national politics.  On the other hand, no matter what opinion one might hold regarding Trump, it is undeniable that he has the greatest potential to attract Democratic voters that we have seen from any Republican candidate in recent memory.  There is a lot of campaigning left to play out, but it easy to see today how Trump might put some states and cities in play for the Republicans that heretofore have been essentially written off.  The devil’s advocate might suggest that his candidacy will also weaken some traditional Republican strongholds; and that just might be right.  What is so difficult about trying to assess a Trump v. Clinton contest are the high negatives of each candidate.  It is tempting to fall into the trap of trying to pick the least of two evils; but even if this emotion drove a voter’s decision, they would never admit that and would confound it by diluting their logic with some type of perverse rationale to justify their ultimate choice. 

The select conservative leaders and journalists who are disowning Trump and pledging to take the fifth on this election had better think long and hard about the consequences of their actions and how they might affect this country.  The Presidency has always received too much credit for good times and too much blame for the bad; it is the decision makers the President selects that most impacts the lives of Americans.  On rare occasions, we have had great and gifted leaders in the White House who have used their bully pulpit to galvanize the national consciousness, to lift spirits when times were difficult, to raise social awareness when a crisis arose, or to set a moral tone for our nation when we seemed to lose our way.  In other various periods, the performance of our President has been so dismal and incompetent (like….NOW) that it has sorely tried the resiliency and resolve of our fundamental democratic principles.  But by and large, the President of this nation has been a figurehead whose greatest impact is reflected in the people he trusted and the power he gifted to them.  Hillary’s long track record in the political world gives one a pretty accurate idea of who she would choose to help her run this government.  I feel very comfortable in predicting that if she wins, her administration(s) will pretty much be a continuation of Obama’s (at least domestically).   If the reluctant and dispirited conservatives feel bad enough now to stay home this fall because Trump is their nominee, they will certainly be looking for a very high bridge from which to jump if we have eight more years of Democratic policies under Clinton’s leadership.  For those who feel that Trump is grossly unqualified to serve as President, I would simply point out that the one saving grace for any flawed candidate who gets elected to the highest office in this nation is the fact that they themselves don’t run this government.   The real impact of our next President will be the people they choose to replace Obama’s sorority and fraternity adolescents who occupy positions of authority up and down this government.  Who will have the President’s ear when they consider relationships with Congress and foreign leaders?  Will they surround themselves with those who agree with them unquestionably and enable their egos to expand in biblical proportions, or will they actually engage individuals who have the courage, intelligence, and experience to try and make this government functional once again?  In the next four to eight years, the sitting President will have the greatest opportunity in my lifetime (63 years) to make a real and meaningful difference in American lives through their Supreme Court nominees.  Think on that for a moment.

There is an old saying about choosing the devil we know over the devil we don’t know.  When considering the upcoming Presidential election, it might be fair to say that Clinton is the devil we know while Trump is the devil we don’t know.  Either option looks pretty scary at this point.  The fate of this nation for the foreseeable future will come down to how people choose between these two.  Based on history, we can have a pretty clear idea about who Clinton will put on her leadership and implementation team.  How comfortable, and easily persuaded, will voters be when they consider who Trump might bring along with him?