This blog is usually a somewhat analytical treatment of current developments in finance, business or public affairs, complete with multiple citations and hyperlinks--occasionally descending into perhaps boring "inside-baseball" speculation and theorizing. Underlying it all, though, is the view that nothing is more valuable than independent thought--or, as one of my bosses used to urge, always looking to see things from a different perspective than the prevailing sentiment, to get a better sense of what's really going on beneath the superficial picture. That usually takes some digging.
This particular piece, however, will be more of an opinion exercise than the usual research-driven blog, but hopefully also with a distinctive viewpoint. A blogger in search of inspiration can be a painful sight. In this case, inspiration came unexpectedly from a serendipitous parking-lot conversation with a friend whose independent thinking I have come to value: when I mentioned the current presidential campaign, my friend asked if there was anyone running for whom I was "all in." I found myself surprised that I had to stop and think before honestly answering, "Not really!" Surprised, because I have been paying a lot of attention to the current race for many months (as readers of this blog know), and also because I have been "all in" for a candidate by this time in the campaign cycle ever since working in Senator Robert Kennedy's presidential campaign in 1968. My friend and I seemed to share for a moment a sense of serious disappointment at the level the current campaigns are being conducted: essentially, that the presidential campaign to date is simply not "presidential." My sense is it's not just us feeling this way.
There are, of course, real differences between the major political parties and the candidates over a host of issues, as there are clear variances in style, personality and character. Looking at the latter matters was fun for a while (I've had some fun with this myself). The media generally has struggled to an unusual degree with how to cover the candidates--first, especially on 24-hour cable TV, giving extraordinary free airtime to the emerging Trump candidacy, probably in the (unstated) hope of being on the scene of some sort of political train wreck that "reality" show viewers would (and did) reward with high ratings. But what they got also were made-for-TV rallies mocking common decency in the name of breaking the rules of political correctness; unprecedented outbreaks of violent behavior with physical dust-ups between campaign staff and literally "penned in" journalists; manufactured feuds with female journalists laced with sexual innuendo; and salacious gossip amounting to parodies of "The Real Housewives of the Candidates," backed with citations to such high authorities as The National Inquirer.
And that's just the Trump campaign! Small wonder he remains ahead of his remaining announced rivals in GOP polls: some Republican voters seem to prefer a candidate who "breaks the rules" (so much for all that Constitution-loving talk about ensuring that the President shall "take care" that the rule of law "shall be faithfully executed"). If so, these voters are indeed getting the campaign they deserve--but not what this country deserves. We are constantly told voters are angry, but anger usually is a cover for fear, and polls find that about 70 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of the presidential campaign's rule-breaker-in-chief. There is fear (and loathing) again at work on the campaign trail (thank you, Hunter Thompson).
Indeed, we have had some really dirty campaigns in the recent past (1972); campaign violence before (1968); and even "know-nothing" campaigns back in the late nineteenth century. But nothing seems to approach the level of sheer dedication to fact-free sloganeering that characterizes the debates between Trump and Cruz. When they let him, John Kasich, a true conservative now typecast by media as a moderate, has attempted to inject reality, to no apparent avail save for one home-state victory. Trump seems oblivious to the fact that "America First" was the slogan of the Lindberg Nazi-sympathizers who campaigned to keep "Roosevelt and the Jews" from leading the US into war with Germany. He seems not to know that the heads of various Middle East states he wants to do personal deals with are themselves Muslims he won't let into this country; that monitoring every money wire that finds it way to Mexico would require a police state worthy of Stalin; and that deporting 11 million consumers would most certainly bring on the very bad recession he says he will prevent. He does not recognize that the US dollar has been falling of late, not rising as a result of currency manipulation by others; and he keeps inventing a US trade deal with China that does not exist: the Trans-Pacific Partnership is designed to limit China's influence, and does not include that nation.
Cruz seems oblivious to the role Muslims play in Homeland Security and our armed forces, let alone in many American neighborhoods which he now seeks to put under armed guard; oblivious to the settled law on abortion, as well as to the fact that denying food, lodging and other routine business services to selected members of the public based on the religious beliefs of the proprietor has been a common-law no-no for centuries, let alone a tortured reading of his revered First Amendment.
As for the Democrats, they often seem to be passing up the chance to be the adults in the Oval Office tryouts, relying instead on rather childish insinuations that their respective opponents are somehow "not qualified' to be President--not on any Constitutional basis as both are over 35, US-born and longtime US residents--but rather on their opinions on various policy issues. And I thought opinions were what politics was about! Each has stretched the truth about the other: Clinton has not received campaign money from oil companies (that's illegal on its face)--just some of their employees; nor has Sanders received campaign funds from gun manufacturers-- just from the generic Democratic Senatorial Congressional Campaign Committee, which Clinton has also accessed. These are just silly debater's points--why try to top Ted Cruz at this game?
Some of Sanders' proposals for the economy are as ridiculous as Trump's: it is the Federal Reserve that (already) has authority to "break up the banks," not the president. He is right that our campaign financing system is corrupt; but to say that the business model of Wall Street is fraud libels tens of thousands of financial firm employees (and senior executives) who put in an honest day's work year in and year out. And Sanders strangely veers into some harsh critiques of Obama when the President is at the peak of his popularity both among Democrats and the country as a whole. Clinton seems to let her husband do her Obama-bashing for her, which is utterly foolish on at least two counts. She can and should make clear she stands on her own; and she is most effective when she employs her very real humor and charm, and even some self-effacement, because in terms of working knowledge of the presidency and the issues the commander-in-chief must face and decide, she has no equal in this campaign. Sanders is not her issue, and Trump may not be either: her need is to show a vision of where she wants to lead the country, and she has yet to rise to that challenge.
The April 14 Brooklyn debate between Sanders and Clinton offered each an opportunity to display a presidential demeanor and sense of confidence in America's future that have generally been missing from both parties' campaigns. Neither did. Clinton won the subsequent New York primary by a 16-point margin, and is polling ahead in the primaries in the "Acela" corridor coming up on April 26--but her overall "unfavorable" poll ratings remain at high levels with the electorate generally.
In America's democracy, for politics to work we must, in the end, trust juries and voters, and also trust in the fairness of the "umpire;" and, in 2016, it is now also trust in the Supreme Court, as umpire of our Constitution, that literally hangs in the artificially-imposed 4:4 balance. Among all the candidates, Ted Cruz seems to understand this issue the best: the Democratic candidates need to get equally serious before Cruz defines the terms of debate. Obama clearly is serious about this. Given what this field of candidates has shown so far, he could win a third term in a walk!
All the current candidates should show they recognize that, while Obama no longer qualifies, there are other options available. "There's still time, brother"--as Joe Biden might say. Paul Ryan might be denying that idea around the Beltway when it comes to himself accepting a nomination in a brokered GOP Convention. But remember: Biden is already first in the line of presidential succession--and Ryan is second.