Apologia

I am about to drop off of social media for a while.  The political conversation on these platforms has reached the point where I could spend all my time and vital energies “swatting flies”, one by one.  And my annoyance with the repetitive shallowness of today’s political dialogue has been causing me to un-follow too many people I like – in calmer times – and to block more than a few.

So here, in this space, I will post my reasons for voting third-party in this election – probably not for the last time, but in terms of my recent response to a well-intentioned fellow Bernie supporter who has decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Here, with some editorial changes, is what I wrote:

“You, sir – with many others – have made this argument.  Rather unendingly, if I may say so.  First, I heard it from ardent Hillary backers, lecturing Bernie’s supporters (as early as February) that the nomination contest was ‘over’ and that it was time to ‘come together’. 

“Now we have reached the season when you and other erstwhile Bernie supporters – those who are Democrats or who can, at least, stomach the continuation of the present two-party system – will read the same lecture to their former comrades-in-arms.

“You may succeed with some, even most.  You will never succeed with me because – as a lifelong student and long-time teacher of history – I tend to take a longer perspective.  I don’t worry about every election as though everything turned upon it.  Rather, I look at the long arc of our national conversation.

“Since my first presidential vote, in 1972, Democrats have been successfully frightening voters with the boogey-man of the latest Republican candidate:  Nixon; Reagan; G. W. Bush; McCain (or really, Palin).  I even recall, as an adolescent, the remarkable fear campaign waged against the “war-monger” Barry Goldwater – by LBJ, of all people.

“And of course, Republicans have been using fear tactics to turn voters away from Democratic candidates for just as long.

“Here’s my problem:  The logic of voting for the “lesser of two evils” has – for my entire adult lifetime – assured that the present two-party system survives intact, without serious challengers.  Indeed, it has made the duopoly so secure that both parties have felt able to nominate increasingly less-qualified, less-prepared candidates – to the point where we are now confronting the prospect of an utterly inexperienced Republican nominee succeeding an almost equally inexperienced Democratic incumbent.

“At any rate, as I see it, America’s political system seems to me clearly to be broken.  To vote for either major party is to vote for the continuation of that broken system.  That, I am unwilling to do.

“My deepest concern is not for myself.  My single vote will make little difference, and I am entering – if not the twilight, at least the tea-time – of my life.

“My great fear is that thousands of bright, motivated young people – having rallied to Bernie Sanders’ remarkable insurgency – will now be sucked into the Democratic Party by the same boogey-man tactics which, in the past, sucked in bright, motivated young people who worked for Bobby Kennedy, Gene McCarthy, Gary Hart, or Howard Dean.  

“Those young people, in their time, swallowed hard and went to work for the likes of Hubert Humphrey (after he sold his soul to LBJ), Walter Mondale, and John Kerry.   They were assured they could eventually change the Democratic Party from within.

“But large institutions are incredibly hard to change.  Instead of your changing them from within, they change you – until you become the sort of person who believes that Bill and Hillary Clinton can actually be agents of reform, despite their ties to the very institutions which have the most to lose by reform.

“You insist, sir, that stopping Donald Trump is a matter of morality.  I make this election more a question of perspective.  Most Americans, knowing little history – and none beyond the reach of personal memory – cannot see an election as part of a longer narrative.  Given our national propensity for instant gratification, it’s not surprising that they focus on an immediate choice rather than the long-term process of building something better.

“Thus, unsurprisingly, many argue that this election is the “most important” in a long time – perhaps in our nation’s history – while I see it as merely another step in the decay of a system which must, eventually, fall or be overthrown.

“How will this system end?  As the Greeks discovered, and our Founding Fathers understood, corrupt systems inevitably fall – either to democratic, aristocratic, oligarchic or tyrannical forces.

“For myself, I hope for a revolution led by a combination of democratic and aristocratic forces – like the Revolution that founded this country, or the Progressive Era which overthrew the last corporate oligarchy to dominate our nation.

“What I fear is the continuation and strengthening of the oligarchy. 

“Unlike many of my friends, I don’t really fear a dictatorship.  America has never had much patience with tin-pot, would-be dictators, and I doubt they would start with so obvious a phony as Donald Trump.

“At any rate, that’s where I stand.  So please, vote your conscience – and leave me in peace to vote mine.  Barring the unforeseen, I am through with voting for Democrats and Republicans, unless perhaps, for the occasional individual candidate who is personally well-known to me.

“The problem, as I see it, is the two-party system.  Voting for the candidate of either party endorses a system I no longer see as valid.  And you just can’t frighten me into doing that.”

Faites vos Jeux!

With the Democrats’ nomination of Hillary Clinton, it’s official.  In November, the American people will confront one of the least appetizing choices in our history.

In Donald Trump, the nation’s most ignorant, bigoted, and antediluvian elements have, at last, their tribune.  The enthusiastic Trump voter, if justifiably angry, is also – at heart – a troglodyte.  The Tea Party element, having destroyed two thoroughly decent and eminently qualified candidates – Senator McCain and Governor Romney – by forcing them into their procrustean mold, have finally gotten their man.

Needless to say, many millions of intelligent, thoughtful Americans will flip a lever or punch a chad for Donald Trump – without having their hearts in it.  But those who vote enthusiastically for the Republican nominee, by their very existence, call into question the idea of universal suffrage as a fit way to of govern a great republic.

Then there is Hillary Clinton, a woman of formidable abilities who was certainly, in her youth, a genuine patriot devoted to worthy causes.  It is an interesting exercise to imagine that earlier Hillary, formed by different experiences, as a sort of ideal leader in a system not so dependent upon personality and the ability to educate and mobilize the citizenry – a parliamentary system, perhaps.

But the idealistic young Hillary Rodham lived a long time ago, and observant citizens can hardly be blamed for concluding that, as Mrs. Clinton, she has long since gone over to the Dark Side.  Over the decades, she has made one Faustian bargain after another – almost certainly beginning with her decision to marry a thoroughly charming, utterly amoral, and infinitely ambitious young man from Arkansas. 

She showed her true colors in 1998, when she “stood by her man” and did not – in the family conversations which determined whether Bill Clinton would attempt to outlast the Lewinsky scandal – insist that her husband resign.  Most Americans have yet to grasp the full significance of that decision.  

To be sure, President Clinton could – and should – have overcome a mere episode of extramarital fellatio.  These things happen.

But his subsequent efforts at evasion and cover-up - climaxed by a finger-wagging, direct denial to the American people - were the moral equivalent of Watergate.  At that moment, Clinton lost our trust, and should have resigned.  Instead, he lumbered on, the lamest of lame ducks.  As a result, he gave the Republican Party the moral high ground in the Election of 2000 – and denied Al Gore the opportunity to spend two years as President, consolidating his position for that supremely important contest.

American liberals are wont to blame Ralph Nader for George W. Bush’s unfortunate election in 2000.  They should consider the role played by Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose decision to hold on to office – almost certainly part of the master plan now playing out – put family ahead of party, principle and country.

For this, many – including this writer – will never forgive them.

Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign for the Democratic nomination has demonstrated – if further proof were needed – the determination of the Clintons to wield power.  The ruthlessness with which they crushed the popular – and genuinely progressive – Sanders movement provides further evidence, if any is needed, that in their minds, the Clintons come first – before party, principle, and country.

Between Trump and Clinton, Americans have a choice of two personalities – one who looks very much like the Devil of our imaginations – the other whose husband looks a great deal more like the Devil (if he exists) would choose to look, and who herself bears all the signs of a Faustus.

But this is merely the personal choice – and choosing a president involves much more than personalities.  Presidents do not govern alone, and – for all the hyperventilation on the Left about potential dictators – they cannot do whatever they choose.

We have a Constitution, and the legal restraints imposed by that document’s checks and balances are bolstered by two centuries’ worth of precedents and a massive, unofficial power structure which is, for the present, controlled by the wealth of large corporations and super-rich individuals.

The real choice, this year, is not whether Clinton or Trump will “run the country” – but whether a corrupt establishment will continue to do so under the cover of a Democratic or Republican administration.  In many ways, that is no choice at all, since both parties are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the international corporate class.

In other words, there is no real choice at all.  Whether Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton wins, real power will remain where it has long rested – in the hands of a corporate kleptocracy.

There is, however, the real possibility that this election will call into being a genuine political revolution of some kind.  Two significant third-party candidates, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, offer mainstream Republicans and angry Sanders supporters a valid option for expressing their discontent.

But they do more.  By actively campaigning for these two candidates, unhappy citizens – especially those blessed with youth, energy and idealism – have the chance to come together, work together, and begin to organize for the future.

Though it is all but impossible that 2016 could see the election of a third-party candidate, should either or both of the Johnson and Stein campaigns attract significant grassroots support, this could be the year that a genuine political uprising begins the work of over-turning the entrenched establishment.

This, to me, seems to be the ultimate question of 2016.  In a sense, the winning candidate will almost certainly represent continuity – continued Democratic and Republican obeisance to the power of corporate capital, no matter who wins, and continued Republican migration toward the incoherence of right-wing populism, should be winner be Mr. Trump.

But the possibility of that meaningful alternatives could arise – supported by significant numbers of motivated people – marks a potential departure from the dead hand which has gripped the Republic for the past thirty-six years.

Those are the stakes.  Faites vos jeux!

Because He Could Win

The Republicans have made such a thorough hash of things thus far in 2016, it’s almost certainly too late for them to save themselves from the disaster of having Donald Trump as their standard-bearer. 

Or from the long-term damage he will do to their party if he loses.

But it isn’t too late for the once-Grand Old Party to save itself, and the country, from the worst that could happen should Mr. Trump win.

It only requires that the Republican leadership remember two things:

First, nowhere is it written that a Presidential nominee has a right to designate his vice-presidential running-mate.  It’s a tradition, yes.  But only that.

Second, the Vice-President of the United States is a constitutional officer, elected to office for a term of four years.  He can be impeached, but he can’t be fired.  The President can give him orders, but the Vice-President is free to ignore them.  The idea that the Vice-President works for the President is also a tradition, but only that.

If I were among the grandees of the Republican Party, I would gather my fellow grandees and give them a little history lesson – probably starting with Aaron Burr, Thomas Jefferson’s independent-minded Vice-President.

Then I’d invite them to help me devise a plan whereby the Republican National Convention nominated a genuinely solid, responsible, presidential individual to be Mr. Trump’s running-mate.

Not to help him win.  He’s on his own for that.  But to offer the Party – and the American people – a sort of guarantee.  If the unimaginable happens, and Mr. Trump becomes President, his constitutional successor would be someone in whom the country – and the party – could have complete confidence.

In other words, in November, the Party’s leaders would be able to sit down with a President-Elect Trump and let him know, in so many words, that he’d better conduct himself reasonably, legally, and constitutionally.

Give us one legitimate reason to impeach you, they could say, and we’ll do it.

In a New York minute.

If Mr. Trump is a reasonable man, he would probably take this warning seriously.  Indeed, he might decide to use his solid, responsible, presidential Vice-President to help him learn the ropes and govern effectively. 

If, on the other hand, Mr. Trump is what many Americans – including many Republicans – fear he might be, we’d have a way to get rid of him.  And he’d know that.

Now, imagine the Republican grandees arrive at this decision, move quickly and quietly, and put it into effect next week. 

They’d have to find a true patriot to take on the thankless job of being Mr. Trump’s potential Vice-President.  But there are such people.

Colin Powell.  Alan Simpson.  Mitt Romney.   You’ll think of others.

The nature of the assignment would be entirely non-traditional.  There wouldn’t be much of the usual “running-mate” stuff.  The grandees’ choice likely wouldn’t care to get too close to Mr. Trump during the campaign. 

But that’s not the important thing.  The important thing would only happen should Mr. Trump win.  In that case, he and his Vice-President-elect would have to carefully negotiate the nature of their relationship. 

Would the Vice-President be a trusted adviser?  A sort of nanny? 

Or the living embodiment of the Sword of Damocles?

At any rate, he or she would serve as a sort of national insurance policy. 

Having saddled us with Candidate Trump, that’s the least the Republicans can do for the country.

After all, he could win.