A Political Perfect Storm

As I recall, it was Harry Caray who once said while broadcasting a baseball game after one of the best fielders in the game committed an error,  "Nobody's perfect.  Well, there was one, but they crucified Him."

If anything can bring out the reality that nobody is perfect, it's the election season in the United States.  It's especially so in a Presidential election year.  And this point has been illustrated more during this election year of 2016 than during any election year in my lifetime.  This election year has been almost a "perfect storm" of events and circumstances which have combined to bring about a Presidential election where each major party candidate has higher "unfavorable" ratings than "favorable" ratings.  This has become an election where the eventual victor will win, not because more people were in favor of that person, but because more people were against the other major party candidate.

How did we get here?  What are some of the factors that have contributed to this "perfect storm" situation?  There are many, but I'll name and elaborate upon a few.

A 24-hour-A Day News Cycle With an Ever-Increasingly Biased "For-Profit" News Media. 

This has not happened overnight.  It's been a gradual thing.  Basically every news media outlet is biased, and over the years, the bias has crept more and more into the news stories--both in the way the stories are reported and the amount of coverage (if any) the particular stories receive in any given media outlet.  According to the politically conservative Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/), the amount of time given on the nightly news broadcasts of liberal/progressive-leaning ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC to the (sometimes decades-old) allegations of sexual harassment against Donald Trump has been double, triple, and more than the amount of time given to the allegations in the Wikileaks accusations about Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton's possible involvement in those things.  On the other side, conservative-leaning Fox News tends to dwell more on the Wikileaks and less on Donald Trump.

Much of the problem is "sensationalized" news.  The old saying (that still holds true today in this for-profit news industry) is, "If it bleeds, it leads."  The news outlets want to promote their programming by attracting viewers, and experience has shown that the more sensational a story can be made, the more people tend to follow it.

Dissatisfaction With the Way Things Are

Going into the 2016 election season, polls showed that a large majority of Americans thought that the United States was generally headed in the wrong direction.  Some people have have tended to blame this "wrong direction" on those currently in power in the government.  Some have tended to blame this "wrong direction" on other things, such as a lack of justice in general, or on racism, sexism, and other "isms."  The point is, that the majority of Americans say that they want things to change.  The problem is though, that the different people want different types of changes.  The candidacy of Hillary Clinton represents the opportunity for "the first woman President of the United States," and many Americans will vote for her simply because of that fact.  This is not unlike the 2008 election where many people voted for Barack Obama because he would be "the first African-American President of the United States."  There are many people who will cast their vote for President almost solely on the fact that they want to see the gender barrier of the Presidency broken.

At the same time, there were two major insurgency candidacies this year.  Bernie Sanders surprised many, many people with the support he garnered in the Democrat primaries, but he was able to be so competitive because even among Democrats, there was a significant percentage of people who simply did not like the current political culture, and who wanted to see things change away from "establishment" candidates.

On the Republican side, the same type of dissatisfaction with people who were known, more or less, as "party regulars" led to the nomination of Donald Trump--someone who had almost no political experience prior to this year's election.  From that point, the primaries of each party became primarily a numbers game.  The Republican field included no less than 17 primary candidates, and despite the fact that Donald Trump rarely received more than about 25% of the votes in any of the elections where most of those 17 republican candidates were on the primary ballots, he still garnered more votes in most of these primaries than any other single candidate.  Because of the way the delegates are allotted for the Republican convention, Trump went into the convention with an insurmountable lead, even though he didn't receive the votes of a majority of Republican primary voters.


With the Democrats, there were never more than five primary candidates, and that number got whittled down to three and then two fairly quickly.  Bernie Sanders won a number of primaries over Hillary Clinton, but went into the convention with no chance to become the nominee, in large part due to the ways the delegates were allotted through the primaries (some delegates were chosen by coin flips--which almost all somehow went in Clinton's favor) and through "super delegates" who were already pledged to Clinton, regardless of the primary results.    

In the end, both major party nominees won their respective nominations despite large numbers of people from their own parties having been against them (or at least for someone else) in the primaries.

Indoctrination vs. Education

This factor might not be as obvious as the others, but it is nonetheless important.  Over the past several decades, the education system in the United States has been becoming more and more liberal/progressive.  According to the book, The Still Divided Academy (as referenced in this video: https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/how-liberal-university-hurts-liberal-student), only 12% of college and university professors consider themselves to be Republicans.  But (as the video points out), more than half of those college and university professors who consider themselves to be Republican support positions that are generally held by Democrats when it comes to issues such as abortion and increased environmental regulations.

While college professors tending to hold liberal/progressive views really isn't all that new, the United States culture has continued to stress more and more the importance of attaining a college education with each passing year.  We've come to the place that many jobs/careers that didn't require a college education just a decade or two ago now require one.

This has combined with the changes that have occurred in colleges and universities over the past several decades, to the point where now, freedom of thought and expression is being replaced more and more with things such as "sensitivity training."  Instead of colleges and universities being places where ideas can be openly discussed and debated, the tendency more and more has been to make sure that speech is "politically correct" and isn't offensive to anyone.  The natural outcome of this is that students are influenced not to think for themselves, but rather are taught what to think. 

This plays into the current election because we now have a large percentage of Americans who are applying current "politically correct" and "non-offensive" standards to words and/or behaviors that often happened prior to the current "accepted" standards.  And before I go on, please note that what I am saying is not intended to defend standards that are now outdated.  I'm simply pointing out that many people are judging the actions of people from years or decades ago by today's current standards, when the words or actions were culturally normal for the time when those things occurred. 

Many of the things Donald Trump has been accused of doing (and the operative word here is "accused"--since nothing has yet been proven and this nation still has the standard of innocent until proven guilty) were much more culturally acceptable at the time and in the places they are said to have happened than they would be now.  Again, this does not excuse those behaviors, but they need to be seen in context of the culture of the time when those things allegedly occurred.  But the fact is that many, many people are judging Donald Trump in a number of cases based on accusations from decades ago.  Admittedly, he has not often helped his case by the way he has reacted and responded to the allegations, nor by some of his behaviors and words, even during this election season.  But the point is that there are many people who are against Donald Trump in large part because of these accusations.

At the same time, this "indoctrination vs. education" has affected things for Hillary Clinton as well.  There are many, many Americans who have done well in life despite not having a college education.  There are also many, many Americans who received college educations, but who do not think that those degrees were worth the amounts of time and money spent on attaining them--especially in light of how those degrees actually prepared them for the "real world."  A lot of these people can tend to look at the liberal/progressive philosophies of the vast majority of those who taught (and/or attempted to indoctrinate--at least in their opinion) them in college, and think of many of those professors as having taught them that the more educated a person is, the more superior that person is to others who haven't attained the same level of formal education.  Many people who have experienced this in college have come to believe that instead of having been taught "critical thinking," they were taught to be critical of others who don't view things the same way as the people with higher educations view them.  Another way of putting this is that oftentimes, people with higher educations tend to think that they know what's best for everyone--including (and maybe especially) for those who have less formal education.

This plays into the current election and the way the candidates are viewed because many, many people are tired of being told what to do and of being thought of as (even if this view is merely perceived, and not real) being inferior and condescended to.  These are the people that will tend to be against the government imposing more and more regulations and expectations, and who will therefore be against Hillary Clinton.

Single issue voters

There are many Americans for whom one issue is more important to them than any other issue, and that person will vote for whomever agrees with them on that issue.  Or in this election, these people may vote against the candidate who most disagrees with them on that issue.  The issues will be different for different people; there are the issues of abortion, immigration, taxes, the environment, race, gender, terrorism, and many others.  Simply put, most people whose main issue is (for instance) that there should be no hindrances to anyone who wants to come into the United States, simply will not vote for Donald Trump.  At the same time, most people whose main issue is (for instance) that abortion is the killing of a human being simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court

For many, this may be the "single issue" as mentioned above, but this issue is especially divisive during this 2016 election, and merits its own mention.  It is highly likely that the winner of the 2016 Presidential election will get to nominate 44% of the Supreme Court justices that will be serving by the end of that President's first term.  This is based on the current vacancy due to the sudden death of Justice Scalia, and the advanced ages of three of the current justices.  The fact is that an unforeseen circumstance could occur that would result in a fifth vacancy on the Supreme Court within the first term of the next President, which would mean that this same President would have the unprecedented (at least since George Washington nominated the justices for the very first U.S. Supreme Court) situation of nominating a majority of the Supreme Court justices within a four-year Presidential term.

For voters who believe that the U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that needs to be adapted to current cultures and circumstances, the fact that Donald Trump has already publicized a list of potential candidates he would nominate to the Supreme Court--and that he has said that he would nominate people in the same model of the politically conservative Justice Scalia--will keep people from voting for Donald Trump as President.  On the other hand, people who are "strict constructionalists" when it comes to the Constitution--who believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of how the Founders of the United States intended things to be, and that the Supreme Court should not "legislate from the Bench"--simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton. 

The Internet, Social Media, and Alternative News Sources

The 2016 election will be influenced more by these things than any other U.S. election up to this time.  The internet is pretty much uncensored, and many people can (and do) spread stories about one candidate or the other.  While some of the stories are complimentary about the candidate the people support, the vast majority of the stories during this election have tended to be negative and against the candidate that the person does not support.  Not only do the stories spread, but they are the vast majority of the time accompanied by name-calling--both of the candidate that is being spoken of and (all too often) of the candidate's supporters.  People from both the "tolerant" political left and the "decent" political right are pretty much equally guilty of this, but as much as we may not like it, it appears to be effective; many people will not vote for one or the other of the candidates primarily because of what they have seen and/or heard about them on the internet, social media, and alternative news sources.

A Cultural Divide

This is perhaps the greatest influence on why people are against one candidate or the other.  With each passing year, the divide between liberals/progressives and conservatives widens.  I believe that this nation is almost as divided now as it was just prior to the Presidential election of 1860.  Thankfully, there are at least a couple of things that are different now that will keep the United States from actually fighting another Civil War.  One is that there is not one, single overriding issue dividing the nation today as there was when the atrocity of slavery was at the forefront of pretty much every issue in 1860.  A second difference is that there is not the geographical divide that existed in 1860.  While there was some geographical overlap at that time, today there is not one main geographical delineation that would unite one part of the country against the other (and for this, we should thank God).  But even though there almost certainly (again, thankfully) will not be an armed conflict over this election, the cultural views of what this country is and/or should be are becoming more divided with each passing year.  Accordingly, there are some people who simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she represents too much of what they are against.  It is the same situation for many who simply will not vote for Donald Trump, because he represents too much of what they are against.

These seven things--and likely others--have combined to create this political "perfect storm" where regardless of who wins, many, many people are going to be unhappy--very unhappy--with the election results.

 

 

Considering The Consequences of Price Gouging

I'm hearing about interesting situations regarding "price gouging" in the areas affected by the Hurricane Matthew. Apparently, there are state laws in place to keep people from overcharging, and that seems only right. But let's look at things from the other side--especially when it comes to situations where there is limited product (i.e., things could run out because of unusually high demand).

Let's consider a family of 5 people that has to evacuate the area--perhaps a married couple with two children under age 12, as well as the widowed mother of one of the parents. They all live in one house, but they have to evacuate to someplace about 300 miles away--someplace to where many, many people from their area are also heading. There will be a MUCH higher than normal demand for things such as gasoline, food, water, and housing. Let's keep the math simple, and make everything a 3:1 ratio.

Say gasoline is normally $2 per gallon, a gallon of water is $1, a fast food meal is $5, and a motel room is $100. The family owns 3 vehicles (one per each adult) and decides to take all three vehicles out of harm's way. That puts 3 vehicles on the evacuation road,all of which need gasoline.  When the family stops for food, they stock up on food and water, getting extra "to go."  When they get to where they feel they can safely lodge in a motel for several days or more, they decide that they can afford to get 3 rooms--one for mom and a child, one for dad and a child, and one for grandma.  Total bill for the evacuation until getting back home for lodging, food, water, and gasoline comes to between $1500 and $2000.

But say that the price of gasoline suddenly goes to $6, a gallon of water to $3, a fast food meal to $15, and a motel room to $300.  The first thought is often that the $1500-$2000 expense leaps to an expense of $4500-$6000.

Or does it?

What if the high cost of gasoline causes the family to just evacuate in ONE vehicle instead of three?  Suddenly the amount of gasoline used by this family is just one-third of what it would have been.  Additionally, there is more gasoline supply for other people, and fewer vehicles congesting the evacuation road.

What if the high cost of a motel room caused all five of the people in the family to share one room instead of spreading out into three rooms?  That makes more rooms available for other people before the motel runs out of vacancy.

What if the higher cost of food causes the family to eat smaller portions and forego extras, such as ordering food "to go" to have for snacks later?  This will leave more food before the eating establishments run out, so that they are able to provide food to more people.

Multiply this situation by tens of thousands of families, and from a perspective of being able to have enough supplies and accommodations for as many people as possible, perhaps the high prices actually are beneficial.

I'm not saying that price gouging is good.  I'm not saying that there are not greedy people who will do basically anything they can to make as much money as they possibly can.  I strongly encourage people to be generous.  But as with many things in life, there is more than one facet to consider.

The bottom line is that I hope that people stay safe, that they get the gasoline, food, water, and housing that they need, and that those who have are generous towards those who need.

Thoughts of a Cub Fan on the Eve of the Cubs' First 2016 Playoff Game

To me, it's kind of like Pavolv's Dogs. It's a conditioned response. For as long as I can remember in my lifetime, SOMETHING happens to keep the Cubs from winning the World Series--or even GETTING to the World Series. It has at times affected my outlook on life in general, because I'm almost always ready for the other shoe to drop.

1969 was the year that I was sure (although I was still a child), that the Cubs HAD to win it all when they still had a significant lead in the standings in late August, but the other shoe soon dropped and they didn't make the playoffs.

1984 was the year that it was supposed to be a rematch of the 1945 World Series between the Cubs and Tigers, with the Cubs needing only to win one out of three games to get to the World Series, but the other shoe dropped, and they didn't get there,

2003 was the year they were "five outs away" from getting into the World Series--and were favored to do so--but the other shoe dropped and the Marlins scored 8 runs before they made those five outs, and the Cubs lost the next game to not get to the World Series again.

There have been other Cub playoff years in besides those in my lifetime, but in honesty, the Cubs were not FAVORED to get to the World Series in those other years, while they WERE favored by many people in 1969, 1984, and 2003. They made a great run at it in 2015, but they were not the favorites--and they did not make it to the World Series.

In 2016, many people expect the Cubs to make it to the World Series--and maybe win it all. These people include many baseball people who are not necessarily Cub fans.

I truly WANT to be excited. I truly WANT to think they'll win it all. But I can't make myself do it. Maybe a better analogy than Pavlov's Dogs is that I feel like Charlie Brown trying to decide if he will be able to finally kick the football or if Lucy will pull it away once again...