What the hell is going on? And where the fuck are we going?
I have to admit, I'm not sure how to make sense of this year's collective presidential campaign. I am sure the Republican Party back in D.C. is getting really nervous that Trump is getting so much support. And the Democratic Party might be slightly uneasy, but they're probably more just in a paralyzing state of "I don't know", about what to think, what to do, how to look to the future.
I also have to admit, I truly feel sorry for Jeb Bush right now; he's an experienced politician, and not a bad one, pretty chill, down to earth, and he should have gained a lot of people's support. (And I say that as someone who still would not have voted for him.) But he's suffering the strange circumstances, like a totally normal guy in the middle of an attack by a circus parade. As a very laid back and no drama kind of guy, he's no match for the clowns.
In a lot of ways, there's not really that much difference in views between Clinton and Sanders, but for utterly irrelevant reasons, a lot of people just feel negatively about Clinton, especially the younger crowd. So because people don't feel personally excited about Clinton, they flock to Sanders.
I'll be completely open about my opinions here:
I think that's irrational.
And I think one of the biggest problems is that people are thinking with their hearts - to use the metaphor in the air - and are not thinking with their brains! The question people need to be asking themselves is, What is the wise thing to do?
However you might personally feel about Clinton, she has a resume of a lifetime of experience and accomplishments in politics that should hands down make her clearly an awesome choice for president. And it's really important that a lot of that experience is in D.C., because it means she knows and has already worked with a lot of people in D.C. whom she'd have to interact and work with were she president. Furthermore, it's also important that she has a ton of experience in international politics, which means she's extremely knowledgeable about the international stage, and it means she already knows and has interacted and worked with a lot of people outside the U.S. whom she might have to interact and work with were she president.
Look, think about it: what is a president in our country?
I think people have this wild misunderstanding of what it means to be president, and they seem to think a president in our country, under our Constitution, has the kind of political power of a monarch. What people need to understand and take very seriously is that our Constitution was written in such a way so as to prevent a dictator. Look around the world and you will find "elected" presidents who are dictators in their countries. (The present Syrian war is a direct result of one! Bashar al-Assad.) What's the difference? It's in our Constitution: no one, whether an individual or group of people, is capable of getting enough power to call all the shots without challenge. No one gets to have supreme authority.
But think about what that means!
The real world consequences of what it means is that, the people who make up our government will always have to work together in order to get anything done.
People complain about Obama not having accomplished enough. Well, fuck, learn about how your government operates! Because the reason Obama hasn't been able to accomplish nearly enough that he genuinely wanted and tried to is because Congress currently has more Republicans than Democrats, and too many Republicans decided that they were going to block his ability to get anything done, even when they were actually supportive of some of his ideas. And by the way, a lot of people don't realize that they did the same thing to Bill Clinton. But they've done it worse to Obama. Why? In order to smear him and the Democrats. And they apparently did a good job, didn't they?
The Republican Party used to behave more reasonably; but I won't get into potential reasons why they've changed over the years, because that's a whole other lengthy discussion. But it's safe to say that the Republican Party has been infected by too many politicians who are willing to be motivated by malicious and selfish intentions, and thus willing to make us common citizens suffer while they make the federal government ineffective by causing disturbance and aggravation and division and dogmatic opposition unwilling to compromise and unwilling to be cooperative.
And remember, the government cannot operate without cooperation.
What happens to most people when you're trying to work with someone who won't be cooperative just because they want to cause trouble? It's unsurprising that a lot of Democrats have responded to that in pretty much the way you'd expect someone who's extremely frustrated to respond. It's unsurprising because they're human just like you and me, but it's unfortunate - but, welcome to the human condition, because it's not as if there's a whole lot they can do. But in their limited power, there's plenty of them that could have made better choices.
So what does this all mean?
Well, I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: exactly what so many of us want it to mean.
Why are Sanders and Trump getting so much support? In the very least, because they're preaching radical change. And for so many of us, radical change sounds exactly like the sort of thing this country obviously needs.
I would suggest that here is the decisive moment that defines what distinguishes a good leader from everyone else. What makes a good leader - any kind of leader of anything - is that they get things done. How do you get things done when we're all just mere mortals with no super powers?
Wisdom.
A good leader gets things done because they choose wisely.
A good choice is not always a wise choice. But a wise choice is always a good choice.
A wise leader always has a good view of the playing field and understands it, knows the rules, knows the regulations, knows the potentials, and knows the limitations.
And, a wise leader never forgets what the overarching goal is.
So here's a question that has to do with what's wise here: knowing all of what's relevant when it comes to these presidential campaigns and the final election, what is realistic?
Because it's all well and good to shout about the need for radical change, but the very structure of our entire federal government as dictated by our Constitution makes radical change so unrealistic as to be impossible. Because radical change would require the kind of power that our Constitution intentionally aims to prevent. Or, it would require the overwhelming majority of people who make up our federal government to be in a whole lot of agreement and on board with everything. Yeah, and how likely you think that is, eh? Hence, the need for wisdom.
Trump is clearly far too radical for the government, and no one would want to work for or with him. (It's also worth pointing out that Trump is quite literally only about winning. It's that moment of winning, that's it. Once he's won the thing, he loses interest and moves on. That's the kind of character he's always been.)
Even though there's not that much difference between the views of Sanders and Clinton, relative to the people and the atmosphere in D.C., Sanders is far too radical. But Clinton? Even if she has an idea that's not that much less radical, her experience in D.C. and internationally and over her lifetime will mean that far more people will trust her, and trust her judgment.
That's huge.
Because someone who knows the ropes is going to be far more effective at getting anything done, not just because they're familiar with those ropes, but also because the other people involved trust them enough.
I mean, just think about what it would be like on a ship where the captain isn't really trusted, even if it's just because the crew doesn't trust that he knows enough, that he's familiar enough, to know what he's doing and to know how to do it.
And it's a good analogy, because the lives of the entire crew are in the hands of the captain, and governing a country is a lot like that. Only, it's millions of lives, and some of them haven't even been born yet.
So it seems to me that, regardless which Party, the last thing we need is someone who is only going to cause more divisions and oppositions throughout the government, and fail to motivate cooperation and to find ways to get people to compromise.
I also have to admit, I truly feel sorry for Jeb Bush right now; he's an experienced politician, and not a bad one, pretty chill, down to earth, and he should have gained a lot of people's support. (And I say that as someone who still would not have voted for him.) But he's suffering the strange circumstances, like a totally normal guy in the middle of an attack by a circus parade. As a very laid back and no drama kind of guy, he's no match for the clowns.
In a lot of ways, there's not really that much difference in views between Clinton and Sanders, but for utterly irrelevant reasons, a lot of people just feel negatively about Clinton, especially the younger crowd. So because people don't feel personally excited about Clinton, they flock to Sanders.
I'll be completely open about my opinions here:
I think that's irrational.
And I think one of the biggest problems is that people are thinking with their hearts - to use the metaphor in the air - and are not thinking with their brains! The question people need to be asking themselves is, What is the wise thing to do?
However you might personally feel about Clinton, she has a resume of a lifetime of experience and accomplishments in politics that should hands down make her clearly an awesome choice for president. And it's really important that a lot of that experience is in D.C., because it means she knows and has already worked with a lot of people in D.C. whom she'd have to interact and work with were she president. Furthermore, it's also important that she has a ton of experience in international politics, which means she's extremely knowledgeable about the international stage, and it means she already knows and has interacted and worked with a lot of people outside the U.S. whom she might have to interact and work with were she president.
Look, think about it: what is a president in our country?
I think people have this wild misunderstanding of what it means to be president, and they seem to think a president in our country, under our Constitution, has the kind of political power of a monarch. What people need to understand and take very seriously is that our Constitution was written in such a way so as to prevent a dictator. Look around the world and you will find "elected" presidents who are dictators in their countries. (The present Syrian war is a direct result of one! Bashar al-Assad.) What's the difference? It's in our Constitution: no one, whether an individual or group of people, is capable of getting enough power to call all the shots without challenge. No one gets to have supreme authority.
But think about what that means!
The real world consequences of what it means is that, the people who make up our government will always have to work together in order to get anything done.
People complain about Obama not having accomplished enough. Well, fuck, learn about how your government operates! Because the reason Obama hasn't been able to accomplish nearly enough that he genuinely wanted and tried to is because Congress currently has more Republicans than Democrats, and too many Republicans decided that they were going to block his ability to get anything done, even when they were actually supportive of some of his ideas. And by the way, a lot of people don't realize that they did the same thing to Bill Clinton. But they've done it worse to Obama. Why? In order to smear him and the Democrats. And they apparently did a good job, didn't they?
The Republican Party used to behave more reasonably; but I won't get into potential reasons why they've changed over the years, because that's a whole other lengthy discussion. But it's safe to say that the Republican Party has been infected by too many politicians who are willing to be motivated by malicious and selfish intentions, and thus willing to make us common citizens suffer while they make the federal government ineffective by causing disturbance and aggravation and division and dogmatic opposition unwilling to compromise and unwilling to be cooperative.
And remember, the government cannot operate without cooperation.
What happens to most people when you're trying to work with someone who won't be cooperative just because they want to cause trouble? It's unsurprising that a lot of Democrats have responded to that in pretty much the way you'd expect someone who's extremely frustrated to respond. It's unsurprising because they're human just like you and me, but it's unfortunate - but, welcome to the human condition, because it's not as if there's a whole lot they can do. But in their limited power, there's plenty of them that could have made better choices.
So what does this all mean?
Well, I'll tell you what it doesn't mean: exactly what so many of us want it to mean.
Why are Sanders and Trump getting so much support? In the very least, because they're preaching radical change. And for so many of us, radical change sounds exactly like the sort of thing this country obviously needs.
I would suggest that here is the decisive moment that defines what distinguishes a good leader from everyone else. What makes a good leader - any kind of leader of anything - is that they get things done. How do you get things done when we're all just mere mortals with no super powers?
Wisdom.
A good leader gets things done because they choose wisely.
A good choice is not always a wise choice. But a wise choice is always a good choice.
A wise leader always has a good view of the playing field and understands it, knows the rules, knows the regulations, knows the potentials, and knows the limitations.
And, a wise leader never forgets what the overarching goal is.
So here's a question that has to do with what's wise here: knowing all of what's relevant when it comes to these presidential campaigns and the final election, what is realistic?
Because it's all well and good to shout about the need for radical change, but the very structure of our entire federal government as dictated by our Constitution makes radical change so unrealistic as to be impossible. Because radical change would require the kind of power that our Constitution intentionally aims to prevent. Or, it would require the overwhelming majority of people who make up our federal government to be in a whole lot of agreement and on board with everything. Yeah, and how likely you think that is, eh? Hence, the need for wisdom.
Trump is clearly far too radical for the government, and no one would want to work for or with him. (It's also worth pointing out that Trump is quite literally only about winning. It's that moment of winning, that's it. Once he's won the thing, he loses interest and moves on. That's the kind of character he's always been.)
Even though there's not that much difference between the views of Sanders and Clinton, relative to the people and the atmosphere in D.C., Sanders is far too radical. But Clinton? Even if she has an idea that's not that much less radical, her experience in D.C. and internationally and over her lifetime will mean that far more people will trust her, and trust her judgment.
That's huge.
Because someone who knows the ropes is going to be far more effective at getting anything done, not just because they're familiar with those ropes, but also because the other people involved trust them enough.
I mean, just think about what it would be like on a ship where the captain isn't really trusted, even if it's just because the crew doesn't trust that he knows enough, that he's familiar enough, to know what he's doing and to know how to do it.
And it's a good analogy, because the lives of the entire crew are in the hands of the captain, and governing a country is a lot like that. Only, it's millions of lives, and some of them haven't even been born yet.
So it seems to me that, regardless which Party, the last thing we need is someone who is only going to cause more divisions and oppositions throughout the government, and fail to motivate cooperation and to find ways to get people to compromise.