In recent days, the commentariat has made much out of the fact that news about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server has drowned out the policy proposals she has unveiled. These proposals indeed deserve public attention. However, they also reveal one of her campaign's great weaknesses: its tendency to treat the public as if it were a conglomerate of special interest groups. To be fair, Americans have interests and tend to favor elected officials who promise to address their particular concerns. However, we do not live by bread alone. We are also citizens of a country that most of us sense is increasingly headed in the wrong direction. We seek a leader who will share with us a vision of an America of which we can be proud, a narrative of what went wrong, and how we can make America whole again. Democrats need their own version of Reagan: someone with simple, straightforward, and compelling vision.
We are told by the deal's supporters that the only alternative to this deal is war. We respectfully disagree. We do not support war against Iran, nor have we ever advocated for the use of force, though we have always believed in a credible military option as a way of convincing Iran of our seriousness of purpose.
If I were writing the Great American Novel, I would be white. If I were writing the Great American Novel, I would be 10-20 years older. If I were writing the Great American Novel, I would not look at the Wikipedia page for the Great American Novel daily, as if it held some sort of great and terrible secret that would tell me exactly what to write and how to write it.
In Part One, I suggested the relationship we have with our democracy mirrors our other romances -- with people. This, (amid the wild throes of the 2016 presidential courting season and an army of lurid candidates vying to seduce at every turn,) begs the eternal lovers' query: What are we to each other, anyway?