The Ferries Wheel

I have never claimed that my scribblings are “fair and balanced.” I give a pronounced progressive spin to national politics. I might criticize, but I try, I really do try, to avoid being vicious. After all, I have friends with opposing political views whom I respect, and whom I hope to count as friends for whatever future time I have left to me.

But at the moment, I’m ticked off. I ask for forgiveness in advance should forgiveness be required, because this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Now that the Trump campaign appears to be going down by the bow, and the band on the fantail is playing “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” the Grand Old Party is scampering to the lifeboats trying to save whatever it can from this self-inflicted debacle.

The latest appeal to voters, while never admitting that The Donald is about to go down with the ship (and take the GOP with him), encourages the electorate   to vote for Republican Senate candidates so that the Senate majority does not pass to the evil Democrats. This is necessary, we are told, to provide a “check and balance” to a Clinton Administration.

Give me a break!

If you’ve compared Senate candidates and have a preference, by all means, vote your conscience, but don’t vote just to maintain a so-called “check and balance” because on several levels that reason is so much bull hockey.

For starters, Congress is made up of two chambers, the Senate – and the House. For any legislation to advance to the executive branch, both chambers have to be in total agreement as to the content of the bill, or bills.

Most House districts are gerrymandered to favor one party or the other. Since a majority of state legislatures are firmly in Republican control (as in Indiana), and since legislatures draw congressional district lines, a significant majority of House seats are all but guaranteed to be held by Republicans. If George Washington himself came back from the dead to do public service announcements urging the election of Democrats, his appeal would probably make no difference in those Republican bastions.

Bottom line, in the absence of a Texas-sized miracle, the House will remain in Republican control after November 8, and will, of itself alone, act as a “check and balance” to any alleged shenanigans emanating from the executive mansion.

But hold on, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee might bleat, there is more at stake than legislation. There is the “Advice and Consent” function of the Senate when it comes to presidential appointments, including appointments to the federal courts – from the Supreme Court on down.

No (expletive deleted), Sherlock. Now we come to the heart of the matter.

Control of the Senate means control over judicial nominations.

If the GOP leadership could be trusted to subordinate their ideological agenda to their constitutional duty, it would be one thing, but such has not been the case. There has been a Supreme Court nomination languishing since last March. The Senate has a constitutional duty to give its advice and consent on this nomination and the Republican leadership has refused to even give the nomination a hearing, much less a vote. Although he is currently trying to walk it back, Senator John McCain has said he should be re-elected so he can help block Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments.

If Democrats pulled the same tactic, Republican howls would be heard from as far away as Trump Tower.

As Republicans are wont to say when successful, “elections have consequences.” Should Hillary Clinton become our 45^th president, that election will have consequences as well. It is not the purpose of the “Advice and Consent” function to deny the executive his (or her!) choice merely because of ideological differences. It was designed to prevent the appointment of incompetents. One is not rendered incompetent by virtue of having a judicial philosophy that differs from that of the majority party in the Senate.

Clinton appointees are likely to be more liberal than those offered by prior Republican administrations. In many cases, today’s conservative justices replaced more liberal predecessors. There is nothing that says the Supreme Court is the exclusive reserve of either liberals or conservatives. There should be no conservative law, nor liberal law. There should be the law. Whatever ideological filters are used (and everyone has them), the outcome should be reflective of the “letter and spirit” of the Constitution – at least that’s what Chief Justice John Marshal, the fourth chief justice of the United States and principal founder of the U.S. system of constitutional law, wrote almost 200 years ago. Both liberals and conservatives are capable of making that determination. If they work together collegially rather than adversarially, they might even be able to avoid patently political decisions that serve to undermine confidence in the courts, and in the legal system generally.

If elections have consequences, so do nominations. Donald Trump is a reflection of current thought within the Republican party – perhaps not that of a majority, but at least enough of a minority to have successfully seized the nomination. Most of the Republican political class jumped on board.

Unfortunately, they have discovered that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. If The Donald were being more successful, however, does anyone seriously think the folks who call for a continued GOP Senate majority to maintain a “check and balance” on the executive would argue Democrats should likewise be allowed a Senate majority to provide that same “check and balance” on a President Trump?

Somehow I seriously doubt it.

I was walking down memory lane the other night. To my surprise, I found out that I have been doing these columns since September – of 2015! Talk about time flying when you’re having fun!

The opening paragraphs of that first effort, posted on September 17, 2015, read as follows:

               “Donald Trump? Really? Is this the best we can do? Is our national political  process so bankrupt that bombast can pass as rational political discourse, and a huckster can pass as a serious contender for the presidential chair previously occupied by the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or even Ronald Reagan?

                  Make no mistake, this wheeler-dealer real estate tycoon cum reality show personality, this builder or thousand thousand-mile fences, deporter of multi-millions, and amender of the Constitution, stands a fair to middling chance to become the next nominee of his party, and perhaps elected leader of this republic.

                                         How has this descent into lunacy come to pass?”

`           At the time, I had an inkling that, as a pit bull in a pack of Chihuahuas, Donald Trump had a shot at becoming the Republican nominee. This feeling was strengthened when I saw him in action at a rally in South Carolina. A column posted on February 16, 2016, reads in part as follows: “This guy is good on the stump. Very good. … For 50 minutes, he held that crowd in the palm of his hand. … All in all, an interesting evening with a man whose draw with the Republican faithful – and even further afield – should not be underestimated.”

Let’s just say I wasn’t totally blindsided when The Donald emerged as the presidential nominee of his party.

But never, and I mean never, could I have foreseen just how far into lunacy this campaign would descend.

The course of the most powerful nation on the face of the earth for the next four years will be determined in roughly three weeks.

Candidates should be talking about their proposals for the economy, foreign affairs, domestic issues, anything of substance, to give voters some tea leaves upon which to base their individual decisions. Instead, we are parsing the finer points of what constitutes locker room conversation, and trying to verify who assaulted, or did not assault, whom, where, and when. Whoever thought we would have to shuffle the kiddies out of the room in order to discuss the latest charges and counter charges?

Unbelievable.

Unforgivable.

Nevertheless, an argument can be made that this exercise in tawdry could determine the outcome of this race – and that outcome would have nothing to do with who is telling the truth, or who is prevaricating.

Nothing is going to change the minds of Trump voters. Whatever charges are leveled at The Donald – especially if those charges are leveled by members of the evil “mainstream media” – will be dismissed out of hand. Or, to use the Mike Pence gambit, The Donald has been saved, and his former sins forgiven. (Similar forgiveness is not available for anyone named Clinton.) Or, they simply don’t care.

Likewise, Hillary’s legions are equally committed, albeit not quite as loud about it as their Trump counterparts.

In the middle, there are around five to 10 percent of likely voters who truly haven’t made up their minds, or if leaning, could be persuaded otherwise.

Trump has shown little inclination (or ability) to expand his base, opting to solidify his current support. However, the Trump base is not sufficient to win a November election by itself.

If you can’t raise your own numbers, the alternate strategy is to lower the numbers of the opposition.

Which brings us back to locker room conversations and tawdry in general.

If the campaign can be kept to the level of a hog wallow so odiferous that any self-respecting pig would avoid it, a percentage of that undecided vote might say “the heck with it; I refuse to participate in this mudslinging contest” and simply stay home. If some Hillary voters can peeled off as well, so much the better.

If your numbers can be held, and enough opposition votes suppressed, it could be time to start measuring the drapes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Of course, a voter boycott could have negative effects further down the ballot, but it would appear that the fate of the Republican Party is not one of The Donald’s top priorities.

Would it not be the final irony if the outcome of this miserable contest were decided not by who participated in the election, but by those who did not?

And how tragic.

Hold your nose if you must.

But vote.

That third choice may seem the best choice to some voters, but it isn’t the best choice for our country.

There are a significant number of voters out there who feel they have no place to go. Republicans who value country over party look at the Republican nominee and recoil. On the other hand, they cannot bring themselves to vote for the Democrat nominee who has been the object of GOP venom for over a generation.

There are Democrat Bernie supporters out there who cannot come to grips with Bernie’s defeat at the hands of a candidate who lacks the charisma, and the inspirational – perhaps even transformational – message of that old guy from Vermont who spoke directly to their hearts and aspirations. They are not about to vote for The Donald, but they can’t bring themselves to vote for the woman whose campaign of attrition ultimately ground down and doomed Bernie’s crusade.

I suppose there are some out there who simply cannot countenance the thought of a woman in pant suits supplanting some guy in pants when it comes to calling the shots from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For these folks, if they can’t bring themselves to vote for the major party candidates, the third choice is obvious: Don’t vote for either one. The options are clear: Vote for a third party candidate – or don’t vote at all.

The latter option should be a non-starter. So much blood and treasure have been expended over the last 240 years to preserve the right of Americans to vote in free elections; failure to exercise that right is a betrayal of the basic duty of a citizen in a representative democracy, i.e. to participate in their own self-governance.

So that leaves the other option: Vote for someone other than the two major party candidates.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein come to mind, but they are not alone. While not on the ballot in every state, or in any state, there are roughly 26 candidates running for president this year, according to the International Business Times.

If the orphan voter, the undecided, the persuadable, find some other option that speaks to them, by all means, cast a vote based on an informed choice.

On the other hand, if the vote for a third-party candidate is merely a fig leaf to avoid voting for either major party candidate, yet still have voted, serious reconsideration is in order.

Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next president of these United States. Period. There may be reason to be unhappy about the hand that has been dealt, but America’s voters dealt that hand to themselves.

Now it is time to live with it.

Our country needs a definitive decision. Some razor-thin margin doesn’t cut it. The legitimacy of our current president has been under attack for the last eight years. To be fair, the legitimacy of his predecessor’s victory in 2000 has also been called into question. Already, according to televised reports, half of all Trump voters have little or no confidence that the vote count will be accurate, a narrative

the candidate has been nurturing. It is time to clear the air. One of these two major party candidates needs a clear mandate to govern; otherwise, the Washington gridlock is likely to continue as congressional obstructionists feel they have continued license to obstruct.

For all the sound and fury, for all of the oratorical gymnastics of the surrogates, for all the millions and millions of dollars that could have been spent more constructively elsewhere, it all comes down to this: To whom should that mandate to given? Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?

It’s as simple – and as inescapable – as that.

To be clear, however the orphan voter, or undecided, or persuadable, tries to spin it in their own minds, a vote for any candidate other than Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.

If the voter can live with this, or thinks they can, will there be remorse on Nov. 9, and if not then, perhaps as they watch The Donald redecorate the White House in garish gold gilt Louis XIV furnishings and crystal decadence?

Choose wisely.

But choose.

There were about a half dozen or so of us aboard our hole-in-the-water-into-which-we-pour-money last Sunday when news of the bombings in New York and New Jersey began coming in.

Our immediate reaction was one of relief that there had been no fatalities or life-threatening injuries. It goes without saying that bombings – and injuries and loss of life – are frightening and tragic.

However …

There wasn’t even a whiff of a breeze, which means we were having more of a float than a sail. In order to avoid dehydration, we reluctantly resorted to quaffing some adult beverages that happened to be on board, and which, by pure happenstance, were nicely chilled.

(Note to younger readers: Never operate anything under the influence of anything. It can be argued, however, that floating aimlessly in the middle of a lake does not rise to the level of “operating.”)

Well, one thing led to another, when someone came up with the idea of starting a conspiracy theory.

Specifically, that the bomber was really a Radical Trump Terrorist.

If you think about it, such a conspiracy theory is at least as plausible as many of the theories that have been floating around this election season, and, in fact, was more plausible than some.

After all, The Donald has been twittering doomsday prognostications about our nation’s security for over a year. Be it murdering, thieving rapists crossing our southern border, or swarthy Syrian refugees and their devil-spawn children, or the odd moose wandering across the border from Canada, whatever, we got problems.

What better way to validate the fear-mongering predictions than to have a gen-u-wine terrorist bombing during the latter stages of the campaign? Since you can’t trust the real terrorists to act at the most opportune time, why not have it staged by one of your more enthusiastic fans?

If you knew beforehand when the dirty deed was to be done, you could have your twitter pronouncement all ready to go out contemporaneously with the actual event: “Boy, did I call that one, and you know what I mean. Seriously. It’s huge!”

Of course, there isn’t one scintilla of fact to back up such an allegation, but that’s the beauty of a conspiracy theory. There doesn’t have to be. It is the repetition of the charge that lends credence to the charge itself.

You know the drill. First the plausible deniability, then the possibility of truth: “I don’t know if it’s true, but some people are saying …”

Well, heck, there were six or so of us aboard that hole-in-the-water-into-which-we-pour-money; certainly that’s enough to constitute “some people.”

And if we repeated our conspiracy theory to our friends – “I don’t know if it’s true, but some people are saying …” – and they repeated the conspiracy theory to their friends, and their friends to their friends, why, as Arlo Guthrie suggests in “Alice’s Restaurant,” we could have a movement!

Some enterprising journalist could pick up on the story. In the rush to get the scandal into print or on the air, fact checking would consist solely of determining that the conspiracy theory was being repeated. If people are talking, go with it. That’s the story, lack of supporting facts notwithstanding.

Before you know it, legions of reporters and on-air talent could be camped outside of Trump Tower, screaming over each other, demanding to know if Mr. Trump has stopped staging terrorist bombings – yes or no.

The Donald would have a choice: (a) He could say nothing at all, on the theory that all publicity is good publicity, and only serves to strengthen his position with the faithful, or (b) Blame Hillary Clinton. Hey, it didn’t work with the birther issue, but folks believe Hillary is capable of anything, so it might be worth going back to that well one more time.

As the years pass, scholars might write learned tomes about how this incident greased The Donald’s skids into the White House, or doomed his campaign to defeat.

And none of their theories would involve six or so slightly buzzed individuals floating in the middle of a lake in the middle of Indiana.

At some date in the future, maybe the group could reassemble and call a press conference at the marina to set the record straight.

“Yes, we made it all up.”

A friend said to me today, “I haven’t seen anything from you in the paper for a while. Have you given up?

My friend is right. I haven’t done a column in a while, but it’s not because I’ve given up so much as it is whether or not there’s anything new to say. This presidential campaign seems to be careening inexorably to a conclusion that, one way or the other, is probably already determined.

When I say “already determined,” I’m talking about things like demographics and voting bases on both sides whose choices are already firmly made. When I say that, I’m not buying into the narrative that the whole thing is rigged. To me, such claims are intended to provide a soft place to land should things go badly. “I didn’t lose, the election was stolen!” Chuckle all you want about Al Gore founding the Internet, but he had much greater cause to make such a claim when he pulled a half million more votes than George W. Bush, but lost the presidential race. Give Al credit. When the Supreme Court intervened and pulled the plug, he reacted with grace. He did not go ballistic, questioning the legitimacy of the outcome and, by inference, the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. The good of the country – and the continuation of George Washington’s grand dream of peaceful transfer of power – was more important than his personal loss.

I rather doubt that the current candidate making the most noise about “rigged” elections would react with similar restraint. I think it more likely he would yelp like a scalded cat about how he was robbed, regardless of the damage that might be done to the legitimacy of the winning candidate, or the country itself. I have the impression that, to this candidate, personal success is paramount, with the good of the country being a secondary consideration.

I have tried to get my head around the Trump phenomenon, but have been unable to do so.

Where his supporters extol his straight talk, I see a loose cannon. Where his unpredictability is proclaimed a virtue, I foresee a significant destabilizing effect on the world stage. I hear people touting the fact he is a businessman, and I think of the people who got stiffed when he escorted his businesses through multiple bankruptcies – as he, by his own account, made significant money while doing so. I look at the folks supporting him. To paraphrase Mr. Trump, most are good folks with only a relatively few crazies mixed in. I think to myself, “What am I missing? Is it me who’s got it wrong?” Then I watch him mugging for the cameras or, with a straight face, making statements that are so patently false as to be laughable. Nope, I had it right in the first place. But to his supporters, it makes no difference. I think it should, and I am mystified when it doesn’t.

I don’t understand the differing standards applied to the two candidates. If Trump can read a speech off a teleprompter without some egregious gaff, the speech is counted a success. If he does say something outrageous, well, that’s just Donald being Donald. Isn’t he just precious? His opponent, on the other hand, has her pronouncements put under a microscope because, by reason of her experience, she is not given the benefit of the doubt. It seems there is a penalty for knowing whereof you speak.

Hey, given the stakes, between precocious amateur and a battle-scarred professional, I’ll take the pro every time.

Why is it that a Breitbart, a Judicial Watch – or any of the other outfits on the record as being dedicated to eviscerating Trump’s opponent – can leak negative allegations and have a good chunk of the national media rush off hot on the scent of potential scandal? We’re not talking innocent until proven guilty; we’re talking guilty until proven otherwise. Even when proven otherwise, there remains an implication that something is rotten in Denmark and if not this, then something else. Watch this space.

Meanwhile, Trump’s foundation can make an (illegal) $25,000 donation to the Florida attorney general who, four days later, announces she will not be investigating charges of fraud against an allegedly fraudulent Trump University – and the news causes hardly a ripple? This after a similar donation had been made to the Texas attorney general, who likewise declined to open an investigation into the same Trump University? This after The Donald has accused his opponent of practicing “pay for play” while having spent a significant part of the primary season bragging about how easily he could manipulate politicians by using precisely the same tactics.

So I am perplexed.

Again, maybe it is me who’s got it all wrong – as I’m sure someone will point out on this page in the next few days. Having said it all before, how to say it again without being repetitive?

There is a danger is crying “Wolf!” too often. But just because you hold your peace for a while doesn’t mean the wolf isn’t still at the door.

The 32^nd anniversary of an event that has relevance to the current political circus deserves a little more attention.

          On Aug. 11, 1984, President Ronald Reagan was doing a microphone sound check prior to giving a radio broadcast. Instead of the typical “Testing 1-2-3, testing 1-2-3,” President Reagan, who had a well-developed sense of humor (remember when there was a place for a little humor in politics?), solemnly intoned: “My fellow Americans. I’m pleased to tell you that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

          The president’s words never went out over the air, but word of the comment got out, of course, and hit the international news. Once that happened, it (as we would say today) went “viral” – at least in the USSR.

          Neither the Soviets then, nor the Russian Federation now, are known for having a sense of humor, nor were they amused in this instance. On Aug. 15, TASS, the official news agency of the Soviet Union, shared the government’s response, in part, as follows: “The USSR condemns this unprecedented and hostile attack by the United States president. … This kind of behavior is incompatible with the great responsibilities borne by heads of nuclear states for the destinies of their own people and mankind.” 

          As distasteful as it is to quote a Soviet-era propaganda machine to make a point, the point still needs to be made.

          Words do have consequences, and those consequences can be dangerous. The most dangerous words are typically not those contained in written or prepared remarks. Those words have been reviewed and, hopefully, carefully vetted to ensure that there are no unintended ramifications. Much more dangerous are the throwaway one-liners that are delivered “in the moment” without much, if any, prior thought.

          Almost immediately (although it wasn’t reported by the media and confirmed by the Pentagon for two months), there was a potentially much more serious response that same day.

          On Oct. 18, NBC reported that on Aug. 15, a communication went out from the headquarters of the Soviet Far East Command, based in Vladivostok, to military units on land, as well as Soviet naval elements on patrol in the North Pacific. The message: “We now embark on military action against the United States forces.”

          The Soviets had gone on a heightened state of alert.

          American and Japanese intelligence agencies intercepted and decoded the Vladivostok signal and both American and Japanese military forces went on a heightened state of alert as well.

          American intelligence monitored Soviet military chatter, looking for evidence of Soviet mobilization in the Far East Theater.

          Luckily, dubious Soviet naval commanders began to contact their command authorities asking for confirmation of the Vladivostok transmission. Did a state of war exist, or did it not?

          It quickly became apparent the message was a hoax. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief, and stood down.

          All of this happened within half an hour. For the mathematically challenged, that is as long as one installment of “Two and a Half Men.”

          At the time, it was suggested that a “wayward operator,” who may have been drunk, was responsible for the Russian transmission. But even today, the possibility exists it was the Soviet leadership giving President Reagan a heavy-handed dose of his own medicine.

          An off-the-cuff quip with potentially tragic consequences. It happened to President Reagan. It happened last week to Donald Trump.

          I am confident in my own mind that President Reagan never intended his flash of humor (and it was, to us, funny at the time) to result in an international incident. I am willing to give The Donald the benefit of the doubt that he was not calling on Second Amendment zealots to assassinate Hillary Clinton.

          But here’s the thing: It isn’t so much what is said, as it is how it is received. All it takes is for one looney to take Mr. Trump’s comment as license to take direct action beyond merely “locking her up.”

          I have lived through the assassinations of John Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy. I don’t want to do it again – and I don’t want my country to suffer another such national trauma whose aftermath will hang over us for weeks, months, years, and maybe forever, thereafter.

          It’s only August. There is plenty of time for a candidate to exercise more self-control in the language they use, and the messages they send. If they do, fair enough.

          But if they don’t, they have no place in the Oval Office, no matter whatever other virtues they are perceived to have.

          Words have consequences, and those consequences can be far more unpredictable than what was originally intended – assuming there was conscious intent in the first place.

I’ve been fighting a severe case of “writer’s block.” I realize there are folks out there who have been hoping for the last several months that my writing could be blocked, but there is a difference between disagreeing with that which has been written, and not being able to write anything in the first place.

          I think it has to do with the presidential election. If I’m wearing my “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, it’s obviously all Hillary’s fault, because Hillary can, and should, be blamed for every ill affecting mankind. If I am wearing my Hillary button, well, I guess you know where this is going …

          As a writer, you don’t want everything you write to be a warmed-over version of what you wrote before, but it’s hard to ignore the all-consuming cage match that is being played out before our eyes and ears 24/7.

          The irony is that all the sound and fury, all the negative advertising, all the pundits, all the twitters, all of the surrogates, all of the charges and countercharges will have little to do with the final outcome.

          Most of us already have made up our minds. If we are presented with evidence that conflicts with the version of the facts we accept as being true, we are not inclined to test the validity of the evidence presented. We are much more likely to double down on our original position.

          Bottom line, the partisans on each side can rant at each other until the cows come home and all they will have done is contribute to global warming – assuming you think it exists. (Feel free to double down on this one to your heart’s content.)

          However, there are 5 to 10 percent of next November’s voters who are truly still undecided. You know who you are.

          I am going to ask a favor.

          Please make the informed decision that most of us are too partisan to make for ourselves. In a closely divided electorate, it is you who will spell the difference between the winner and the loser.

          Pay attention to both major candidates with an open mind. Sure, there are minor candidates on both the right and the left who are out there scavenging for the support of the disaffected, but at most, they are spoilers, not players. Have the intestinal fortitude to make the hard choice, even if neither choice is without its flaws.

          Evaluate what you hear.

          For example, if one candidate says both the hair and the hair color are real, and the other says the hair is real, but the color comes out of a bottle, and both candidates are the age of your grandmother, which one do you suppose is more likely to be telling you the truth? (Grandmothers of the world: I personally believe the color of all of your tresses are natural – except maybe the blue ones).

          As in the television commercial, look for someone who is more than just a “monitor” pointing out what is wrong. Look for someone who makes an effort to suggest a way to fix whatever it is that needs fixing.

          Look at the “fix” itself. Does it make sense? How realistic is it? As a practical matter, can it be done? Does it square with American values and norms?

          Think about the United States’ place in the larger world. Whoever is elected becomes the personification of our country in the world community. Who is more likely to engender confidence in America as a partner who can be relied upon, and who is more likely to engender a degree of uncertainty about our reliability as a partner in the larger world?

          In an unsettled and dangerous world, it is understandable that we sometimes have the jitters on a national scale. Which candidate is more likely to soothe them, and which is more likely to add to them?

          I realize that all of this puts undue pressure on you, undecided voter. I truly wish the partisans on both sides of the political divide could be of more help to you in arriving at a final choice, but unfortunately they are too wrapped up in their respective camp to be of much assistance.

          Do the best you can.

          That’s all that can be asked.

          Thanks.

I am recovering from our family vacation.

          Once again, the missus and I hitched the hole-in-the-water-into-which-we-pour-money to the van and made the annual trek to the Traverse City area in northern Michigan.

          As usual, I ignored the gentle (and oft-repeated) suggestions that I use some sunscreen, with the predictable result that after one day on the water my face was burned to a crisp. The “raccoon” effect of where the sunglasses had been was stunning.

          Then I began to molt.

          I grew used to the smug “I told you so” looks from the missus, but that wasn’t all. As each layer of skin peeled off, I had the distinct impression that she was hoping, against hope, that from that charbroiled epidermis a handsome new face would emerge phoenix-like, maybe a George Clooney, or some other age-appropriate hunk.

          Yet again, I was a source of great disappointment to her.

          To pass the time, I tuned in to the Republican National Convention.

          Which was a source of great disappointment to me.

          How had I missed Ronnie Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” morphing into a dark and dystopian Gotham City patrolled by The Donald’s Batman, and his boy wonder Robin, played by our own dearly departed governor, Mike Pence?

          Could this dark vision of our country be accurate?

          Well, consider the definition of the word “dystopia:” “An imaginary place where everything is as bad as it possibly can be.”

          The key word is “imaginary.”

          Our country has its share of challenges, but it also has its fair share of challenges met, and challenges overcome. For each dark moment, there is one that is aspirational. For each injustice, there is an instance of justice being served.

          We may not always be the “shining city on a hill” of the perpetually optimistic Gipper, but neither are we perpetually as wretched a place as that portrayed in Cleveland.

          There are advantages, however, in having folks believe we are living in the end times, politically speaking.

          If I can be convinced that we are all going to hell in a handbasket, I am also susceptible to signing on to whatever craziness  comes along that can  pass itself off as an alternative plan of action – whether that plan is consistent with the basic values of our country or not.

          We are the heirs of more than a generation of talk radio and reactionary pundits who have fed us a steady diet of “reasons” and conspiracy flights-of-fancy inferring that our democratic institutions are no longer capable of fulfilling their function, or more insidiously, convincing us that these institutions – the justice system, the Congress, the executive branch, with the connivance of the “liberal media” – are actively working against our interests as citizens.

          Along the way, these purveyors of fear and paranoia have made a nice living for themselves, but they have done so at the cost of undermining faith that the government created by the Constitution is sufficient to meet our needs.

          They have given birth to a legion of the fearful and paranoid.

          The “strong man” option becomes more attractive.

          If the competing factions and complexities of modern society become too much, if the need to solve problems that defy simple solutions becomes too mind numbing, there is a temptation to give the guy who claims to have all the answers a shot. Leaving the decisions to someone else allows the luxury of not having to go through the often messy and time-consuming exercise of making collective decisions by way of the processes set out in our Constitution.

          The problem is, no one person has all the answers.

          Gotham City is a fantasy, and the need to make America great again is a fantasy as well. As frustrating as a republic can be, we are great already on our own, and without the need for assistance from a larger-than-life, but nevertheless, imaginary Batman.

          As for the missus, she is encouraging me relax in the sun. I’m thinking that she’s hoping that if only I could slough off a couple of more layers of skin …    

Underneath grey clouds. In the middle of an ugly national presidential campaign. In the middle of one of the reddest states in the union. In the middle of a county seat town pretty much like 91 others of its kind in that red state.

          For a few hours, politics was fun again.

          The occasion was Kokomo’s Haynes-Apperson Festival parade. My son-in-law’s sister, Kelley Land, is running for a spot on the Howard County Council. Kelley’s a bright young lady who has a lot to offer. As a Democrat running in a Republican county, she has a hill to climb. In early July, however, optimism is the order of the day, November will take care of itself.

          The missus and I were recruited, along with as many others as volunteered, or Kelley’s friends could bribe, bamboozle, or otherwise hoodwink into accompanying her in walking the parade route. This meant we were involved in the pre-parade shuffle as all of the various candidate contingents were maneuvered into proper order. It was not unlike a sheepdog trial, with the parade volunteers in their golf carts in constant motion on the periphery jockeying their respective flocks into their pre-ordained pens.

          The summer political calendar, especially in a presidential year, is a T-shirt salesman’s dream.  Despite the overcast sky, the pre-parade mingling was a riot of color, from dark blues and reds, to whites, to very yellow yellows, and a wide variety of hues in between.

          Of necessity, there was much jostling as folks made their way to where (they hoped) they were supposed to be. The jostling crossed party lines as Republicans sought out their kind, and Democrats did the same.

          What hit me was the fact that the party affiliation came a far second to personal acquaintance. As folks rubbed shoulders with folks they knew, they would exchange a friendly “hello” and shuffle along on their way, even if they were supporting opposing candidates. Noticeably absent was the vitriol that has come to poison our political discourse. This wasn’t Republican Bill or Democrat Ken. This was Bill and Ken who remained on friendly terms despite political differences strongly held. 

          Age hath its privileges, and so I was able to cadge a ride in the all-terrain, faux military type vehicle that served as the mothership (and candy motherlode) of the Land delegation. This gave me the chance to observe the parade watchers as much as they observed me and wondered, “Who the blazes is he?”

          Let’s face it, by the time you get to the politicians, you know the next thing coming down the parade route is the street sweeper.      

          Nevertheless, the crowd hung in there. And the little kids! Standing, or sitting on the curb, eyes as big as saucers, many with plastic bags, as the cornucopia of suckers, candy, chewing gum, cheap trinkets, flying discs, colors, and sights and sounds passed by. To jaded adults, the light in the children’s eyes was something to smile at, and of which to be more than a bit jealous.

          It’s called innocence, and we could all do with more than we have.

          This is not a nostalgia piece. American politics is, and always has been, a contact sport. It is not for the overly sensitive, or for the faint of heart. But even in contact sports, be it football, ice hockey, or whatever, there are rules. Some extreme conduct is beyond acceptability, even when committed by one’s own teammates.

          Most importantly, no matter how rough the play, it is still possible to respect the other guy, even as you try to overcome them.

          This is what I believe is being driven out of our political system, the ability to respect those on the other side who are trying with all of their might to defeat that who or which you are trying, with all of your might, to see elected or become public policy.

          Without such respect, we dehumanize, and demonize, the other side. We forget that not only are they human beings as are we, but they are every bit as “American” as we believe ourselves to be – even as we try to beat the stuffing out of them, politically speaking.

          Soon enough I will resume attempts to bash the other side. Undoubtedly, if someone thinks it’s worth their time and effort, they will bash me in return.

          But, in the now, let me bask in the afterglow. For a few hours, politics was fun again.

Can a leopard change its spots?

          Can a tiger change its stripes?

          Can Donald J. Trump be someone other than Donald J. Trump?

          He has tried to portray himself as a man of the people over the last 12 plus months. Lord knows, he has tried. And to a significant degree, he has succeeded, at least to the extent that he is perceived by his faithful as being one of them. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to square the perception with the reality.

          One of several examples is his fiery rhetoric about bringing the jobs back to America.  If I were a middle-aged guy (or woman) whose decent-paying factory job got shipped overseas, not by the government, nor by the Chinese, but by corporations looking to chase cheaper labor costs, or escape some of those government “overreaching” regulations, such as clean air or clean water, heck, I’d probably be waving my Trump placard around as well.

          But famously, or infamously, bringing the jobs back doesn’t apply to The Donald. His Trump-branded ties and suits are imported from the Far East. His Trump-branded glassware comes from Eastern Europe. When challenged on the apparent inconsistency, the response is that, unfortunately, it would cost too much to produce these items domestically. This is true. It is hard to compete with a seamstress in Vietnam making pennies on the hour – especially when the dress, or whatever, ends up on a rack at the local Walmart much cheaper than anything produced domestically. Chances are the guy or gal wearing the Make America Great Again chapeau, thinking about his or her own budget, will probably buy the cheaper item. Which is why while candidate Trump talks a good game, businessman Trump has no intention of putting his wallet where his mouth is.

          A few days ago, The Donald was in Pennsylvania bemoaning the sad state of the American steel industry. Once again, it was the darn Chinese. While there is evidence to support charges of foreign steel being dumped into the U.S. market, that is not the only reason for the industry’s current problems.

          When Trump was building his iconic Trump Tower 20 some years ago, the decision was made to use reinforced concrete as the primary building material rather than structural steel. The decision was based on the fact concrete was cheaper. In the end, the bill for the concrete was $22 million. The bill for steel used in the project was only $300 thousand, mostly for steel reinforcing rods to add strength to the concrete. Decisions such as this, justifiable on a build-it-as-cheaply- as-possible rationale, didn’t help the American steel industry, and contributed to its present state of malaise.

          Then there is Scotland. The Donald waxed eloquent about his newly reopened Turnberry golf resort and issued a general “y’all come” invitation made even more doable due to the precipitous drop in the value of the British pound.

          If you are a Trump fan thinking about taking The Donald up on his invitation, be aware that, assuming $1.32 to the British pound, an overnight room starts at $436.38. If you chase the little white ball, the aforementioned price doesn’t get you on any of the golf courses. Additional green fees start at $277.90 for guests, and $363.92 for non-guests.

          And that suite in the lighthouse? If you have to ask, you probably can’t afford it, but according to one review of the resort, it goes for $3,307.75 a night. (The suite rate doesn’t seem to be available on the Trump Turnberry site.)

          The point is, while he markets himself to the electorate as a populist “man of the people,” he has as much in common with the common man as leopards and tigers have with chameleons.

          The feelings of discontent into which The Donald and Bernie Sanders have tapped are real. The denizens within the Beltway are guilty of malfeasance for not addressing those feelings years ago, but is The Donald the answer, or is he simply using the discontent to further his own narcissist ends?

          Can a leopard change its spots?      

          Can a tiger change its stripes?

          Can Donald J. Trump be someone other than Donald J. Trump?