The Ferries Wheel

There are moments in a campaign that are defining. Typically unplanned and unscripted, they reveal a candidate’s true personality and priorities in a moment of clarity that the best political operative cannot spin or explain away.

Such a moment occurred in Donald Trump’s campaign recently in Turnberry, Scotland.

Candidate Trump began the week on a high note. On the prior Wednesday, he had read a speech from a teleprompter that was a scathing attack on his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Giving credit where credit is due, he did a workmanlike job mouthing, with appropriate outrage, a script obviously assembled by a professional. It trotted out about every canard ever aimed at the presumptive Democrat nominee in the last 25 years, and wove them all together in a narrative of conspiracy theory upon conspiracy theory so titillating that Hillary, had she listened to the speech, probably wouldn’t vote for Hillary either.

Of course, just because the charge is made does not make the charge true, no matter how often it is repeated. According to Politifacts, a Pulitizer Prize-winning fact-checking service, 77 percent of what came out of The Donald’s mouth ranged from “mostly false” to “pants on fire” fabrication. If, as Mr. Trump claims, Hillary Clinton if the greatest liar in the world, it is only because he is too self-deprecating to claim the title for himself.

On June 23, the Kingdom formerly described as “United” voted to withdraw from the European Union, the so-called “Brexit.” This doesn’t mean much to Americans since we are exceptional, and somehow insulated from the nasty globalized world around us, but it was a really, really big deal to the rest of the unexceptional world.

The next morning, The Donald convened a meeting of the world’s political press to show off his newly reopened (and gorgeous) Trump Turnberry, a Luxury Collection Resort, on the southwest coast of Scotland (beautiful country, friendly people, don’t go for the weather).

By the end of the day, because of the Brexit vote, the New York Stock Exchange would fall over 600 points. Two trillion dollars of paper value would be wiped out worldwide, and the average 401K plan in the United States, assuming you were lucky enough to have one, would lose something over $3,100 in value.   The British pound sterling would close at its lowest level since the glory years of Maggie Thatcher back in 1985 (or the gory years depending on your political persuasion).

To be fair, the full extent of the carnage was unknown as The Donald extolled the virtues of Turnberry’ new in-ground sprinkler system to the world’s press, but it was obvious early that Brexit was causing a world-wide financial upheaval that the original boys from Ghostbusters would describe as being of biblical proportions.

Finally, after extolling the magnificence of the luxury suites in the former lighthouse keeper’s quarters, Donald Trump, presumptive nominee of the Republican Party for the Office of President of the United States and de facto leader of the free world, was cornered into offering a few words on the rapidly developing financial crisis.

First of all, he congratulated the Kingdom formerly described as “United” on the outcome of the vote, noting that they had taken their country back much as Americans will when he is elected president.

As to the crumbling value of the local currency, The Donald opined that the less valuable the pound sterling became, the more folks would be flocking to Trump Turnberry, a Luxury Collection Resort.

There are moments in a campaign that are defining. Typically unplanned and unscripted, they reveal a candidate’s true personality and priorities in a moment of clarity that the best political operative cannot spin or explain away.

When faced with a global financial crisis, Donald Trump’s first thought was how it would affect him, and his personal bottom line. The fact a pound sterling rapidly losing value would significantly reduce buying power and make it even harder for Britons to make ends meet didn’t appear to register. It was all about him.

To make matters worse, Mr. Trump’s comments were made in Scotland, one of the sovereign kingdoms within the Kingdom formerly described as “United,” whose citizens voted 62-38 percent to stay inside the European Union. They didn’t want to take their country anywhere.

He was very lucky a disgruntled grounds keeper didn’t sic an angry wee wild haggis on him.

I doubt if any of this means much to Trump loyalists. But it should.

He might not be so much for you as he is for himself.

In its wake, many in the Republican leadership, including Speaker Paul Ryan, are dismissing the Democrat-led “sit in” in the House chamber last Wednesday and Thursday as merely being a “publicity stunt.”

          Of course it was.

          In 1930, the Father of modern India, Mahatma Ghandi, led a 240-mile-long march to the seashore to make salt. Had he been willing to pay a British tax on salt, he could have bought it anywhere. It was a publicity stunt.

          In 1960, four black students sat at a whites’ only Woolworth’s lunch counter and refused to leave. Woolworth lunch counters were not known for four-star cuisine. They could have eaten elsewhere.  It was a publicity stunt.

          For that matter, in 1773, American colonists dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. Had there been a Starbucks, they could have drunk coffee. Had there been enough Samuel Adams lager available, they could have happily thrown themselves into the harbor instead of the tea. It was a publicity stunt.

          A publicity stunt is defined as a planned event designed to attract the public’s attention to the event’s organizers or to their cause. The event itself is not determinative of the final outcome. The importance of the event lies in the chain of events it initiates, which eventually can lead to a determinative outcome.

          In 1947, India achieved its independence, becoming the world’s largest democracy.

          The Woolworth’s sit in is recognized as a major milestone in the modern civil rights era.

          The Boston Tea Party helped give birth to an idea that would become the United States of America.

          In this case, the purpose of the publicity stunt was to draw attention to a need for a meaningful conversation in the House of Representatives about gun violence, and proposed legislation that has the support of 90 percent of the American people, including a majority of Republican citizens, and, reportedly, a majority of American gun owners.

          The Democrat maneuver involving a good old fashioned sit in, let by civil rights icon John Lewis, caught the Republican House leadership flat-footed.

          Not having the time to consult with their superiors at the NRA (which stands for National Rifle Association or National Republican Administrators, I forget which), the leadership floundered around for a few hours like fishes out of water.

          When the leadership ordered the cameras and microphones in the chamber to be shut off, those wily Democrats started providing their own live feeds using the camera function on their cell phones and something called Periscope. Who knew?

          Eventually, the Republican brain trust came up with the idea of trying to get business back on track by holding a late night vote on a motion to override a presidential veto. The veto had to do with a regulation requiring financial advisers to put the interests of their clients before their own personal interests. In effect, the Republican position was that financial advisers had no fiduciary duty to put their clients first. Revealing, what?

          Since it takes a two-thirds vote in the House to override a presidential veto, and since the GOP contingent does not have that many votes, the whole thing was a farce from the beginning.

          And then the Democrats began to sing the civil rights anthem “We shall overcome” with modified lyrics (“We shall pass a bill, some day”). Their performance was not of The Voice quality, but it was apparently enough to cause Speaker Paul Ryan to hurriedly gavel the chamber not only into recess, but into adjournment. Whereupon, Mr. Ryan and the Republicans were free to scurry out of town until July 5.

          All of this was to avoid forcing Republican legislators go on record as being in support of, or in opposition to, legislation that would prevent individuals on no-fly or terrorist watch lists from legally purchasing guns – including semi-automatic guns of mass destruction.

          The GOP’s masters over at the NRA do not want that conversation to begin, for fear of where it might lead. Look at India. Look at the demise of Jim Crow. Look at the rise of America.

          Mr. Ryan is a smart man, and he recovered quickly. By Thursday, he was making pious statements about the Second and Fourth Amendments. He was complaining that the Democrats failed to follow House rules and put the legislation through the committee structure, where, given the fact the Republican majority controls every committee, the proposals would never see the light of day.

          He complained about the damage done to the institution of the House of Representatives, and he is correct. Damage was done, and nothing will ever be the same again. But the damage is of his own making, and is the direct result of his intransigence in bringing to the floor legislation the American people want to see discussed and debated – regardless of the outcome. They can draw their own conclusions.

          The ball is in your court, Speaker Ryan. Come July 5, and in the days and weeks thereafter, to whose will will you bend? The American people, or the sugar daddies over at the NRA.

          To be continued …

What the heck just happened?

          Again.

          In the wake of the Orlando massacre June 12, there were multiple polls taken with fairly consistent results.

          A CNN/ORC International poll taken June 16-19, with a margin of error of ± 3 percent, came up with the following numbers:

          55 percent of the poll respondents favored stricter gun control laws, versus 42 percent opposed, and 3 percent undecided.

          92 percent, versus 8 percent, were in favor of a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine if the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony.

          87 percent, versus 12 percent, said they were in favor of “preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems from owning guns.” 1 percent responded that they were unsure.

          85 percent of respondents approved of the following proposal: “Preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watch List or no-fly list from owning guns.” 14 percent of the respondents disagreed with the proposal, with another 1 percent undecided.

          Two other proposals resulted in closer, but nevertheless definitive, results:

          54 percent favored a “ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic guns, such as the AK-47.” 44 percent opposed the proposal, with 2 percent unsure.

          54 percent favored “a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, with allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded. 45 percent of respondents opposed the proposal, with 1 percent unsure.

          A Monmouth University poll, with a margin of error of ± 3.5 percent, came in with 52 percent of respondents supporting banning the sale of assault weapons “like the kind used in the Orlando shooting.” 43 percent opposed the ban, 3 percent said it “depends”, and 3 percent were unsure.

          A CBS News Poll taken June 13-14, with a margin of error of ± 4 percent, had 57 percent in favor of stricter gun control regulation, as opposed to 11 percent in favor of less regulation, 29 percent who preferred the status quo and 4 percent unsure or no answer.

          In the same poll, 89 percent, including 92 percent of Republicans polled, favored a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers.

          In a closer result, 57 percent were in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, with 38 percent opposed, and 6 percent unsure or no answer.

          While these numbers are undoubtedly affected by what happened in Orlando, surprisingly perhaps, not by much. Especially with respect to background checks and restrictions on suspected terrorists, convicted felons, and those on the no-fly list, the numbers have been consistent over a significant period of time, and across a wide number of polls.

          So what the heck just happened? Again.

          After a 15-hour Democrat-led filibuster, Senate leadership condescended to bring four proposals to a vote:

·        A Democrat proposal that would authorize the attorney general to deny firearms and explosives to any suspected terrorists. The measure was defeated 53-47.

·        A Republican proposal that would allow authorities to deny a gun sale for three days or longer if a judge ruled during that time that there was probable cause to deny the firearm outright. The measure was defeated 57-43.

·        A Democrat proposal that would expand background checks for anyone trying to purchase a firearm—including at gun shows or online. The proposal lost 56-44.

·        A Republican proposal to increase funding for background checks without expanding them. The measure lost 53-47.

          Who are these representatives representing?

           It isn’t the 92 percent of Americans in favor of expanded background checks, or the 87 percent in favor of restricting sales to convicted felons or individuals with mental health issues, or the 85 percent in favor of banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list or no-fly list.

          Each of these proposals has its flaws, but not one of them called for banning a specific type of weapon or ammunition. They were bare minimums, but they were a beginning.

          Which, of course, is a problem as far as the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby are concerned.  Any beginning could lead to an outbreak of common sense.

          There is a reason why the CEO and executive vice president of the NRA gets paid an estimated $972,000 a year and the head of the NRA political action effort gets an estimated $764,000.

          They are very good at what they do, which is to assure that the people’s representatives are more attentive to them than they are to the people who elected the representatives in the first place.

          They depend on the public’s short memory. They tell their supporters: In the wake of an Orlando, hunker down and ride it out. Public attention will soon turn to the next bright shiny thing that comes down the pike.

          Until the next time – and there will be a next time – when the sad spectacle of congressional inaction will play out again.

          Unless there are wholesale changes in congressional membership made come November.

          But don’t hold your breath.

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, the country is still trying to figure out precisely what happened. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association, in an op-ed piece printed in USA Today, has provided the definitive answer, for which we are all eternally grateful.

According to the NRA analysis, as I understand it, at approximately 2:00 a.m., local time, on June 12, 2016, the killer stood up in the Pulse nightclub, and screamed “radical Islam” at least 102 separate times, which resulted in 49 dead, and 53 wounded. Plus the screamer.

Absurd? Of course.

The victims in Orlando were not killed by “radical Islam.” They were killed by a demented individual who came into possession of one of “the most popular firearms sold in America for sport-shooting, hunting and self-defense.”

As Orlando, Newtown, and San Bernardino attest, semi-automatic weapons are also very effective at killing and maiming lots of men, women – and children – in an appallingly short period of time.

It is time for the NRA to retire the mantra of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and admit to the obvious: people with guns kill people.

So how to at least slow down the carnage?

The answer is not banning the weapons. There are already several million in circulation. To assume gun owners will docilely turn in their assault-type weapons, or any firearm for that matter, is ludicrous – nor can, nor should, they be required to do so. First of all, there are Second Amendment protections as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and secondly, as the NRA correctly points out, the vast majority of responsible gun owners should not be penalized for the acts of a twisted few.

That some of the weapons already in circulation will be used in future atrocities is both likely and unavoidable, a price to be paid for past inaction.

But can we act to reduce the frequency of future attacks? The answer is yes, we can.

It is noticeable that in many instances, Newtown being the exception, the assault-type weapons used in these massacres are not family heirlooms passed lovingly from generation to generation. The more typical scenario involves an individual with inner demons who goes down to the local gun shop – or show, or web site – loads up on guns and ammo, and trots off to claim his, or her, place among the legions of the damned.

The NRA op-ed makes much of the fact that the Orlando killer had been investigated multiple times by the FBI, had a government-approved security guard license, and had co-workers who reported to law enforcement agencies violent and racist comments made by the killer. Despite all this, the killer came legally into possession of the guns he used at the Pulse. The NRA statement uses these facts to throw up its hands and whine that any attempt at monitoring the buying and selling of guns is a worthless exercise in futility.

Instead, what they have done is define and describe the problem, and once a problem is defined and described, work can begin to find a solution. Some suggestions:

One, there should be better coordination and information-sharing between law enforcement agencies. If you have been investigated by the FBI or other law enforcement agency, that fact, if not the details of the investigation, should be ascertainable by those selling guns. It would at least be a red flag calling for further investigation. In the case of the Orlando killer, the gun store owner – a retired New York City police officer – said flatly that if he had known about the prior FBI investigations he would not have sold the weapons used in the slaughter. And, while not a consideration in the Orlando case, there should be no question whether someone on a terrorist “no fly” watch list should be allowed to buy a weapon.

Civil libertarians can craft due process safeguards to allow for appeal of inclusion in the national database and provide procedures to allow for removal.

Two, there should be provision for a waiting period long enough to allow for a meaningful background check. In Florida, oddly enough, there is a state requirement for a three-day waiting period for a handgun, but there is no waiting period to purchase an assault rifle. Go figure. If the assault weapon truly is being purchased for “sport-shooting, hunting, and self-defense,” a few days for a background check is not an onerous burden.

And, three, Congress should close off the gun show and online purchase loopholes.

Some will circumvent these measures, but others will not, and because of that, people will live who otherwise would be dead.

The NRA, and its congressional enablers, will undoubtedly fight any attempt to monitor and track the sale of firearms. They will dress it up with Second Amendment rhetoric, but the more likely reason for their resistance has to do with their bottom line. As so ably pointed out a few days ago in this space by local columnist Rob Burgess, the NRA stands to lose major revenue in any environment other than the one currently existing – which also means less money for political contributions.

As Mr. Burgess suggests, follow the money.

The NRA statement says it’s time to “admit that radical Islam is a hate crime waiting to happen.” That is, however, no excuse to provide, without restriction, the firepower that allows the hate crime “waiting to happen” to become a flesh-and-blood reality whose time has come.

A few weeks ago, I floated the idea that once Candidate Trump went from outsider insurgent to Republican nominee, once the rough edges were ground down and fine-tuned by the GOP establishment, the final product might be a Donald Trump very different from Candidate Trump – and a Donald Trump far removed from the loose cannon apparently beloved by a majority of the Republican faithful throughout this nomination process.

          There is, of course, an alternate scenario. The rough edges are not ground down, but actually become sharper. The attempt at fine-tuning and moderating the candidate’s persona fails, and The Donald “Doing it my way” Trump we have seen is the one we get through November and beyond.

          I’m not as curious about the effect of a continuation of Donald Trump on Donald Trump, as I am curious about the effect on the Republican brand.

          Predictably, many Republican public figures, elected and unelected, are tripping over each other in the rush to go on record as supporting the nominee of their party. The “Ragman’s Roll” (Google that and see what you get!) begins with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, and works its way down through Indiana Senator Dan Coats, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, state legislators, and local office holders.

          What is interesting about most of these endorsements is that while lip service is paid to the will of the Republican electorate, there is a noticeable lack of enthusiasm.

          This makes sense. Only a few weeks ago, many of these same people were lambasting The Donald for any number of things, from the size of his mouth (overly large) to the size of his hands (surprisingly small), and all points in between. Characterizations of The Donald were sprinkled with words such as “fraud,” “con-man,” “dangerous,” “arrogant,” “blowhard,” and “idiot.”

          Donald Trump has not changed. He is the same Donald Trump now as he was then.

          This leads to an unsettling conclusion. Either these luminaries were lying to us then about The Donald’s imperfections, or they are lying to us now about his fitness to be president of the United States.

          They can’t be telling us the truth in both instances.

          Or maybe there is a third option.

          Perhaps what they are saying is that as a result of the nomination process, Mr. Trump is “fit” to be the head of the Republican Party going into this election, and is, therefore, entitled to their political loyalty.

          Such devotion to party over all other considerations, including country, makes political, if not ethical, sense.

          As to his fitness to be president of the United States, why, leave that up to the voters – and avoid having to take a position on that ultimate question, at least in public.

          Should The Donald win, the ultimate judgment of history as to his fitness for the office will be delayed. There will be plenty of time to create distance from a failing presidency, or seek closer association with a popular one. Should he lose, it is enough to say we were on board, and did the best we could for the party despite the candidate’s flaws.

          Either way, a political calculation is being made – not what is best for the country, but what is best for the political animal.

          Perhaps today’s Republican elite should take a lesson from Scottish history.

          Those who swore loyalty to the English king by attaching their names and seals to the rolls (documents) of A.D. 1291, 1292, and 1296, which included most of the Scottish nobility, made a practical accommodation with the political reality of the time. However, they have gone down in Scottish history as men who were willing to sell out their country in order to preserve their own political power, influence, and privilege.

          The memory of endorsements made long outlive the making of them.

          Short-term political advantage. Long-term historical ignominy.

          Choose wisely.

My 90-year-old father-in-law is a veteran of World War II. He doesn’t talk much about his service, unless he’s had a cocktail or two beyond what is advisable. According to the official records, however, he was a teenaged Navy signalman attached to the 1^st Marine Division. He was on Peleliu and Okinawa, and spent time in China in the war’s immediate aftermath.

If you live long enough, you start getting asked to stuff. This spring he was asked to ride in the 500 Festival Parade, which is why the missus and I, along with mother-in-law, were among the 300,000 last Saturday who watched him and a dozen of his fellow WWII vets ride past in vintage Jeeps done up in authentic WWII olive drab.

My father-in-law is bemused be all the attention. Ask him and he will tell you flat out that he did nothing special – which, I guess, is what makes him and others of his generation extremely special.

On race day, I watched on TV as 33 drivers and 350,000 slowly roasting fans collaborated to put together one of the most colorful and exciting races in recent memory. Sunday afternoon, 12 of us went on board the family money pit and got in some sailing.

I finished up the holiday at Kokomo Municipal Stadium with 1,200 other paid admissions watching the Jackrabbits bounce the Chillicothe Paints 10-2. (Note: Next time you see State Sen. James Buck, be sure to mention how beautiful the venue he tried to block turned out to be. Politicians love to hear from their constituents.)

Bottom line, it was a picture-perfect holiday weekend.

And then, as things were winding down, I saw another number in Monday’s USA Today: 623,890.

623,890 Americans lost to war from WWI through May 17, 2016.

Numbers can be cold and clinical. They fail to fully express the flesh-and-blood human beings whose lives are summed up within the grand total.

To put this particular number into context, assume you could take the 300,000 who were at the parade, add roughly 322,000 of the 350,000 who were at the race, and then throw in the 33 racecar drivers, 12 WWII vets in Jeeps and another dozen “sailors,” and 1,200 paid admissions at the ballgame, put them all in the same place at the same time, and you would begin to have a rough visualization of the number of U.S. war dead since 1917.

This is a number that will inevitably increase with time. We are a nation with global interests, and global obligations. It would be irresponsibly naïve to suppose our global commitments can be met without the necessity of putting American men and women in harm’s way from time to time.

Most will come home. Some will come home in a flag draped coffin. Some will not come home at all.

Which brings us to the presidential election.

When Election Day comes around in November, Memorial Day, and the solemnity and revelry that surround it, will be five months in our collective rearview mirror. There will be many considerations affecting the nation’s ultimate choice, but one of the uppermost should be how the next president will perform as commander-in-chief of our military.

It’s not my purpose to shill for any specific candidate, only to argue that we should be looking for a president who can avoid extremes.

A leader who lives solely in a world of numbers might see our military as mathematical abstractions to be moved around the board of international relations without regard to the underlying human factor, readily available to be expended at the drop of a hat on questionable adventures.

A leader who dwells solely on the fact the military is made up of human beings, each with their own hopes and dreams, might hesitate to commit when commitment really is in our national interests.

We require a commander-in-chief who values our military men and women too highly to throw them on the scales of history needlessly, but who will not shy away from doing so when it becomes necessary.

There are 623,890 men and women, each with a life story cut short, who would expect us to make a wise choice, a choice we have only because of them.

The number will continue to rise.

Give it some serious thought.

1968. The year the Democrat party committed suicide. Is it about to do it all over again?

That year, a senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, captured the enthusiasm, imagination, and passion of young folks across the country. Today’s grandmothers swooned. Today’s grandfathers got “Clean for Gene” by moderating their chemical intake, getting their hair cut, and maybe even taking a bath. The “children’s crusade” then hit the road, organizing, registering, and doing all it could to put Clean Gene in the White House.

On March 12, McCarthy confounded the pundits by almost beating the sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, in the New Hampshire primary. On March 16, Bobby Kennedy entered the race. On March 31, Johnson announced that he would not seek re-election. On April 27, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the “Happy Warrior,” tossed his hat in the ring, perceived by many to be a surrogate for President Johnson.

On June 5, after winning the California primary, Kennedy was shot in a hotel kitchen; he died the next day. The increasingly bitter race between McCarthy and Humphrey continued up to the Chicago Convention, which opened on August 26.

Chicago was home to one of the last big city political machines, headed up by Richard J. Daley.

Mayor Daley and the Democrat establishment controlled the convention floor. The streets outside were controlled by anti-war activists and McCarthy supporters. Riots broke out between the protesters and the mayor’s Chicago Police Department. The violence was broadcast to the nation in bloody detail by the major television networks.

On August 28, the delegates nominated Hubert Humphrey on the first ballot, despite the fact Humphrey hadn’t won a single primary. The party was irreparably split between the traditional Democrat establishment and the anti-war, McCarthy, and Kennedy forces, many of whom of whom refused to support Humphrey, or vote for him in November.

On November 5, Humphrey lost to Richard M. Nixon by just under 500,000 votes – out of the 63,055,622 cast for the two candidates combined. The party’s act of suicide was complete, at least for that election.

So much for history. Why might a suicide watch be in order for 2016?

This time around, the establishment candidate is Hillary Clinton from New York. The insurgency is led by another senator from the northland, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

As was the case with McCarthy, Sanders has captured the enthusiasm, imagination, and passion of millions of first-time participants in the nomination process. They have several chips on their collective shoulders. They believe that throughout the race, the national Democrat party apparatus has subtly favored Clinton whenever it had the chance. They believe more than 500 “super delegates” prematurely committed to Clinton without giving Sanders a fair shot to gain their support. They believe too much emphasis was given to the results in early closed primary states that prevented independents from voting for Sanders, or took place in states the Democrats have no chance of carrying in November. Perhaps most importantly, they point to polls that show their candidate consistently beating the presumptive Republican nominee by larger margins than Clinton.

The Hillary forces have their own complaints. Bernie has not done well with critical Democrat constituencies, notably African American and Hispanic, whereas they lie at the heart of Hillary’s coalition. Bernie fails to recognize that however well he has done with the voters, nearly three million more voters have voted for Hillary than for him. Bernie’s continued sniping at Hillary is raising her un-favorability numbers for the general election. Most important to the Clinton forces, by failing the recognize the mathematical realities that overwhelmingly point to a Clinton nomination, Bernie’s refusal to lighten up a bit is requiring Clinton to expend resources that could be better used against the Republican nominee in the fall campaign.

It seems that it will all come to a head on June 7, when the forces face off against each other in the California primary, but that’s not the end of it.

Roughly six weeks later, on July 25, before passions have had a chance to totally cool, the DNC convention in Philadelphia will be gaveled to order. Both sides will have literally hundreds and hundreds of fired-up delegates spoiling to have a go at each other.

Significant percentages of Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters nationwide say they could not vote for the winner if the winner is someone other than their candidate.

Which brings us back to 1968.

Will the candidates, party leadership, and delegates in the current establishment and insurgent wings of the Democrat party prove to be more adept at patching over areas of disagreement and, generally, making nice with each other? Or will 1968 play itself out all over again, with a splintered party unwilling and/or unable to come to terms with itself?

This doesn’t mean legions of disaffected Democrats will vote for the opposition; it would be enough if, in their self-righteous indignation with opposing factions in their own party, they choose to issue their protest by not voting at all.

Will Hillary and Bernie, as well as their partisans, go down in history as the unintentional enablers of the elevation of the first reality show host to the presidency of the United States of America?

And unlike a reality show, that really would be reality.

News item dated May 13, 2016: “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Fox News Friday that all of his policies were just ‘suggestions’ that were subject to change once he actually became president.” Trump’s comment came in response to a question from a Fox reporter about an apparent backtracking on his proposed ban on Muslim immigration. “It was a suggestion,” Trump said in reply. “Look, anything I say right now – I’m not the president. Everything is a suggestion, no matter what you say, it’s a suggestion.”

If I were a Trump voter, or potential voter, I would be concerned – very concerned.

A lot of Trump enthusiasts, probably the majority, were drawn to the stump Trump they saw on TV, or heard in person in raucous rallies across the country. He was bombastic, he was politically incorrect and he was proud of it. He told it straight and to blazes if some found him objectionable. Sure, there might be a few covert racists, closet nativists, or underground isolationists in the crowd, but most were energized by someone who, finally, in their minds, spoke to their sense of patriotism and their fears and aspirations. Someone unsullied by the cesspool they believed Washington had become.

They wanted that “in your face” Donald Trump to become president, and turned out in their millions to make it so.

The question is whether or not they can be satisfied with “Trump Lite,” because the signs are that’s what’s coming down the pike.

The opening moves in the great pivot from primaries and caucuses to the general election have begun. Of all the moving pieces, the most important is the incorporation of the Trump forces into the Republican Party, or vice versa.

There may be some holdouts in the GOP for whom Trump is anathema, but the likelihood is the marriage, shotgun or otherwise, will take place sooner rather than later for the simple reason that Trump and party desperately need each other.

Trump needs the legitimacy and respectability of the Republican brand. As importantly, he needs to shore up what was a weakness in the spring campaign, the absence of a nationwide ground game. The Republican national organization can provide that.

The party desperately wants to hold on to control of the House and Senate. For that to happen, they need to have a competitive race at the top of the ticket, with a reasonably close outcome. A landslide would be a disaster, so you can expect the party to go all out. Should Trump happen to win, so much the better. A calculation has been made that the party of Lincoln will survive Donald Trump, and the country probably will as well.

There will be a price to be paid by the candidate, however, and the reckoning has already begun. Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, as well as other GOP luminaries, have dangled promises of eventual support if only The Donald would tone things down a bit, and reassure them that he is on board with more mainstream Republican positions on the issues.

Publicly floating the idea that everything he has said to date is only a “suggestion” and subject to change once elected is toning things down on a grand scale.

Sad to say, this isn’t the Donald Trump with whom the Trump folks fell in love. Anyone who attended any of the those rallies knows that building the wall, deporting the illegals, keeping out the Muslims – making America great again – were not “suggestions.” They were promises – a binding pact between the candidate and the faithful, not points subject to negotiation.

Moreover, how long can The Donald preserve his outsider status if he has to enter into a partnership with the very insiders he so excoriated during the primaries as the crowds cheered?

Bottom line, the President Trump you get will not be the Candidate Trump you love.

Can Trump supporters handle this, or are they going to feel like they have been had? Perhaps they should follow the advice given by The Who many years ago: “Get down on (your) knees and pray … we don’t get fooled again” because there is a fair to middling chance the closing lyric could also be apropos: “Meet the new Boss. Same as the old Boss.”

Might be worth giving it some thought now, or run the risk of buyer’s remorse later.

One of my best friends is big, gruff, retired farmer. He doesn’t say much, but when he does, not much effort is made to sugarcoat whatever it is he has to say. Over the years, I have found it to be in my own best interest to listen to him.

The other night, he was ripping me over a prior column with which he disagreed. That’s fair. The icing on the slice of crow he served me was the fact that I had laughed about Donald Trump’s presidential chances when he first announced. Point taken. I shared in that error with just about every other political expert and pundit in the Western Hemisphere, so who was I to take offense?

I trotted out all the progressive talking points as to why The Donald might leave something to be desired as a commander-in-chief and guardian of the nuclear football.

He was not moved. The look he gave me spoke volumes. He obviously thought I was the village idiot, except that would give village idiots a bad name.

Could I not see the obvious, and arrive at the obvious conclusion? “The politicians haven’t done a darn (not exactly the word used) thing,” and maybe it was time to give someone else a chance at the helm of the ship of state, even if that someone were Donald Trump.

That got me to thinking – not in time to come up with a killer response, mind you; game, set, and match to my friend – but in the fullness of time, it hit me.

For all their differences, the candidates still standing have something in common. They all have big plans. The Donald is going to build that wall, deport millions, maybe raise taxes on the rich, and repeal all those nasty trade deals. Bernie is going to bring universal health care. He’s going to clean up Wall Street. He’s going to address income inequality, and that probably means raising taxes on the top 1 percent. Hillary’s plans likely are not as grandiose, but we are assured she has them.

The thing is, none of these candidates can do any of these things, or at least do them by themselves.

What’s been missing in the discussion is any consideration of the degree of support the ultimate victor can expect from the other half of the legislative equation – the Congress.

If membership in Congress remains relatively unchanged, is it really a foregone conclusion that if The Donald wins, Congress will automatically follow his lead? Heck, the speaker of the house isn’t willing to go that far – yet. If membership in Congress remains relatively unchanged, should Hillary or Bernie win, is it reasonable to assume that Congress will bend to the will of the people this time and voluntarily break the logjam that has choked the executive branch since at least 2010?

Before you answer those questions, which branch of government benefits the most from a continuation of the status quo? Guess.

In the House of Representatives, incumbents from gerrymandered districts are the darlings of generous donors, and are overwhelmingly re-elected for as long as they choose to stay in the game. By one account, only one incumbent has been denied re-nomination so far this spring, and he was facing a 29 count criminal indictment.

In the Senate, incumbency confers similar advantages.

Sure, there are exceptions, but by and large, Congress is an institution where, once in, you can stay indefinitely.

And Congress is risk averse. Why rock the boat? Why risk losing the big donor, or pass legislation that might discomfit influential constituencies, solely to advance the agenda of the temporary occupant of the White House, whoever that might be?

Oh sure, loudly support change in public, but cripple it quietly in private.

I’m not proposing term limits. It is hard to imagine members of the club passing legislation imposing legal limits on themselves in the first place – assuming term limits could be imposed by legislation rather than requiring a constitutional amendment. Nor are term limits necessary. Every election is a term-limiting event should voters choose to make it so.

What I’m suggesting is that regardless of which presidential pony your hopes are riding on, transformative change is unlikely unless major changes are made down ballot.

If the status quo is your cup of tea, all will be to your liking. If the status quo is unacceptable, you not only need a new president – you need new senators and representatives as well.

The old ones have had their chance, and have been found wanting.

Dear Hillary:

Odds are you will be Democrat nominee for president, even if you stubbed your toe here in Indiana. If successful, you will be facing off against Donald Trump, the most unconventional candidate of a major political party in the history of the republic.

You need to recognize that there are a lot of folks in this country – including, but not limited to, the ones wearing Trump t-shirts – who are fed up with their government and its seeming inaction. Their wages are stagnant, and have been for years. They wonder about their own futures, but more importantly, about the futures of their kids. They see the income inequality. They are certain the game is rigged – and not in their favor. They see their jobs exported overseas, and they associate that loss with trade deals that may have benefited American business but sure as heck haven’t benefited American workers.

They are patriotic, and their brand of patriotism includes tallying up what they see as wins and losses. They see the wins as being few and far between. As a former Secretary of State, I am sure you have a much more sophisticated understanding of the situation – but they’re not buying it, and they, not the international community, will determine your fate.

They are sick and tired of the status quo, and a Washington establishment they see as being out of touch. Their complaints are real and have merit. Don’t try to convince them otherwise.

If you run a professional and conventional campaign in the face of what is likely to be an unpredictable circus with The Donald as ringmaster, it is very possible you could lose.

So let me make some suggestions.

Be very nice to Bernie. Yes, I know, he can be a bit crotchety. However, he is your link to the energy, enthusiasm, and numbers that your campaign will need to counter the Trump followers. He has tapped into the same vein of discontent as The Donald, and can give you credibility with the disaffected left that can serve to offset The Donald’s advantage with the disaffected right.

Don’t wait to counterpunch. The Donald will come at you with all sorts of wild swings hoping to land a punch. Each crazy thing he says becomes the subject of the day’s insatiable and repetitive news loop. No matter how effectively you respond, the response is secondary to the initial charge. Lord knows you have enough material; go at him first. Put him off balance for a change. He doesn’t react well to being on the receiving end of the same kind of garbage he so gleefully dishes out.

He has conceded the “woman card” to you. Beat him over the head with it. Women will cast more than half the votes this November, and the vast majority of them think The Donald is a shmuck. Don’t let him walk back from the misogynous things he has said. Keep on the attack.

Have your staff get you the telephone number for every morning news and entertainment show on TV. Call in. It doesn’t have to be a formal sit down. Chat a little. Laugh a little. Show the human side. There is a pretty good chance that what you say on Morning Joe, or wherever, will be repeated throughout the day for free. It certainly worked for The Donald as he climbed through the nomination seasons.

Find someone’s 13-year-old granddaughter to explain social media, and the uses thereof, to your staff, and then turn them loose to saturate the digital world – your staff, not the 13-year-old. Well, maybe the 13-year-old.

The Donald is mercurial. Have you ever tried to pin down a drop of mercury? It can’t be done. Don’t waste time trying to engineer an “oh wow!” moment where his shortcomings become apparent to all. It won’t happen. Exploit the character trait, however. Come at him from so many different directions that he doesn’t know which end is up, down, or sideways. Make him scoot around like that fascinating drop of mercury on a glass plate. If he is reacting, he can’t be attacking.

None of this is calculated to promote an adult debate about the issues facing the republic, but this election is unlikely to be about debate, adult or otherwise. It will be about charge and countercharge. Negative ad versus negative ad. I wish it were otherwise (obviously, what we need is some adult debate aimed at reaching real solutions to our very real problems), but you have to be ready to play the hand being dealt to you.

And adapt as necessary to play it effectively.

Yours, Ken