Honesty - A Simple but also Necessary Term

I had a discussion a few nights ago. again on Facebook, that did leave me with a range of thoughts. Almost too many. It had started with a discussion of Madonna. This was after her appearance at the Washington DC protest on Saturday, January 21st.

The poster was critical of her, claiming that regardless of her stated intentions, she is primarily focused on selling her brand, her music and anything else she can sell. Ultimately it was said, she is in this game for herself, she is truly not interested in anyone else. I do not know if this is true. I do not really care. Madonna probably does not know. 

In response to that, however, myself and one other asserted that this is true of most politicians. It is true of the President himself I claimed. And this, the original poster challenged. He came back, stating,"No Way, He was always upfront about his purpose. Never hid behind a cause and monetized peoples feelings and ideology! He was in it for the Money!"

To which I stated that he was honest. Specifically, I said,"OK so what you are saying is that he does not take positions contrary to what he actually believes. He is an honest man." I do not actually believe this, but it was an amusing position. And if not honesty, there is at the least a consistency there. 

Interestingly, the original poster would not concede that the President was honest, just that he was not manipulative, as was Madonna. And we went back and forth on this. He was unwilling to say that the President was honest, based on the points made above. He went on to say that to be or even say that the President is honest was complicated. To which I responded, how so? Perhaps it is at hard to be honest, but it is not complicated. 

So the other poster, who could not bring himself to say that the President was honest, and who claimed only that honesty is complicated, had to leave, and I went to bed. The conversation ended there. I got up, however, the next morning, and on the train into New York, I sat there thinking of the value of honesty, of the necessity of honesty.  

When I say honesty, I am bringing with that term several others, no doubt. Truth, of course, needs to be included along with honesty. Trust goes hand in hand with these. Lastly, perhaps, as I pointed out above consistency. Philosophers have a range of theories on truth and with that honesty, but at the end of the day the value of it and these virtues in general are undisputed.

I sat there at the end of my train ride frantically sending a series of one-line emails to myself. Soon enough I would be in the tunnel and did not want to lose my gems. Each represented a case where honesty and truth were essential in some fashion.

Below is the list I thought of and emailed to myself that early morning on my train:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary for a civil society
2. Honesty and the principle of charity
3. honesty and sophistry
4. Capitalism itself is based on trust though it is a tenuous relationship!
5. Economic nationalism - can it stand considering the need for honesty and truth.
6. And lastly the tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

So I will try to go through these and make some sense of the ramblings.:

1. Honesty and trust are necessary to have a civil society 

This is almost a bromide. It is simply the case that if all were dishonest and untruthful, than there would it would be impossible to trust. What would you trust? Perhaps you would come to expect to be lied to. Political institutions would be untenable. If two people could not agree on what belongs to who, or what is shared, than how could a group of people arrive at any type of agreement and proceed in any shared task.

2. Honesty and the Principle of Charity 

This topic has and continues to be a pet project of mine for awhile!

I believe Augustine was the original author of the idea, certainly in the Christian tradition. For him charity was to see God in others. In this way, one recognizes the other, someone or something that otherwise would be foreign and unknown. It allows you to embrace someone that is foreign or non-Christian, as opposed to challenge or confront them. With Augustine you see others with love, versus fear or contempt. The other becomes, like yourself, one of God's children.

Jump ahead to the mid to late 20th century where you have philosophers looking not to god but to language to understand our world. In this case, Donald Davidson. Davidson was an American philosopher who falls in what is commonly described as analytic philosophy. Again this group is very focused on the nature of language and the belief that to understand language and how it works is to arrive at some philosophical gold.

Davidson and others were intrigued with what was known as Radical Interpretation. Basically the question of how exactly does an anthropologist make sense of a totally foreign culture. He made sense of this exercise through the Principle of charity. Now unlike Augustine who turned to God to interpret and make sense of unknowns, Davidson looks to Truth. For him, language, meaning and belief are intimate. The language people use, the meanings conveyed in that language, and the beliefs the speakers hold are almost if not identical. the anthropologist then interprets the person from the other culture through his own set of beliefs, which he largely holds to be true.

In short, we arrive at language and belief entailing a large set of true statements. When we engage in any type of communication it is in relation to that set of statements (beliefs, facts, etc.) that we determine whether the speaker makes sense and likewise if he speaks the truth. Again truth and meaning here are almost identical.
Going back to the discussion of honesty, the principle of charity allows for us to engage and assess a speaker and determine his honesty and truthfulness.

3. Honesty and Sophistry

this is Philosophy 101 - Socrates versus those nasty sophists! Recall the sophists were typically orators and teachers of oratory. They believed in the powers of rhetoric. Sadly, truth has little or no relation to oratory then or now. And by oratory I do mean political oratory. The sophists would claim that they could make the untrue more appealing than what is true. There is nothing to really dispute here. It has and is done routinely. Certainly in today's world it is done. Sadly to point to Socrates and his pleas for the truth and the good are often seen as absurd and amusing in today's world.

To go back to Davidson, it could be argued that there is so much uncertainty over what is true in today's world that meaning and belief are in jeopardy. Skepticism, and uncertainly, which in proper doses can be good, can now overwhelm. Gong back to sophistry and Socrates challenge to it, the willful mixing of truth and falsehood by a speaker, ultimately serves no one.

4. Honesty and Capitalism

This is kind of a return to our first point. Accept instead of looking to build a civil society, you are now a self-interested individual. This position is a commonly appealed to in economics, and assumes a certain amount of rationality and shared assumptions between these rational individuals or actors. Both want to negotiate the best deal for themselves. If, however, you find the other party is not rational, or untrustworthy, you will not in ideal circumstances negotiate with him. Often, however, we are not in ideal circumstances and we have to work with such individuals. the point here is that not only in politics but in economics and finance honesty is again required or certainly desired.  I type this and find it mildly amusing. It is simply obvious.

5. Economic Nationalism

My 5th and 6th point are much more speculative, and not purely based upon the importance of honesty.
That said, they were arrived at in the fever of that moment on the train as I approached the tunnel and Grand Central, so I include them here.

Economic Nationalism is something that has been discussed recently n relation to the President's Advisor, Steve Bannon. He made reference to an "economic nationalist" agenda. In short his view of it has been expressed in one paragraph in one interview, that I am aware of.

He absolutely — mockingly — rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," he tells me. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver" — by "we" he means the Trump White House — "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about."
In a nascent administration that seems, at best, random in its beliefs, Bannon can seem to be not just a focused voice, but almost a messianic one:
"Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." (Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect's Strategist Plots "An Entirely New Political Movement" (Exclusive), The Hollywood Reporter, 10:00 AM PST 11/18/2016 by Michael Wolff)

A better term or perhaps a comparable term is neo-mercantilism. Both are informative, though the first alludes to fascism and points one to Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Neo-mercantilism points one to Nineteenth century United Kingdom, and the United States.  Both point to the "imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital"*Wikipedia.

For me this is a challenge to our values and perhaps that is where we can tie this back to honesty. (I know I am stretching here!). That said, we have come to a crossroads where we need to decide if we are citizens of a nation state, or are we individuals that pursue our dreams regardless of where those dreams lead us. Are we citizens or individuals? Likewise is our loyalty to the nation state or the international or multi-national corporation?

These are in honesty the questions we are pondering today.

In short, do national borders matter? Up until now they largely did not. A large part of the world held that borders should be open and that trade should be free, and yes I speak generously here. There will always be constraints in these domains, the question is regarding degree and the type of constraints.

Once we answer those questions, or as we answer those questions, we will be required to redefine the roles played by all of the above players. And this process will entail a questioning of our beliefs, what we hold to be true, and what are the facts. In short, we are applying what Davidson and others such as Willard Quine called Radical Interpretation. What some of us might simply paraphrase as us asking,"What the f is going on?"

Many I am sure will dispute and challenge the above. I am sure those in philosophy will point out the numerous misreading and simply poor readings of the philosophers I have referenced here. All I can say is that I welcome your feedback and suggestions.

6. The tension between the President and Madonna clings to honesty. (The fact that they are not seen as the same is perhaps why they protested. The very core of the issue.

This points to perceptions and thoughts on gender. I am going to save this for another day and another essay. Sorry.

The Various Faces of Facebook

I have taken to Facebook recently. Since the summer I have jumped into it arguing various positions. Of course it was the election, the politics that pushed me there and continue to hold me there. My post range from the simply absurd, to amusing, to quite serious and sincere. At times serious discussions have evolved with different opinions and positions being offered. It offers both hope and frustration.

Surprisingly, I do find that Facebook is a tool to sharpen one's writing skills. It is a place to practice and experiment with thoughts and ideas with often instant feedback Of course you are limited in what you write contingent upon the audience you have. With some creativity, however, you can at times broaden that spectrum, but in the end it is not a journal. 

In one sense it reminds me of the movie "The Matrix". If you recall they could quickly load into their mind how to do Kung Fu or fly a helicopter. It is similar here. Things that I would normally be timid to state as I am unsure of the facts, can with Wikipedia, and other sources be quickly confirmed and applied. There are of course limits upon that. 

In other cases, where the discussion for whatever reason has taken a turn for the worst, you can easily just offer up an appropriate YouTube clip, absurd or apropos. I am often reaching for the Monty Python clips. In the end though, like the Matrix, it is limited, and leaves you desiring real dialogue and people.

So it has it limits, but again I do think it is a place to experiment and explore ideas. That said, I do think there is a flaw. Yes I am a very slow learner. The flaw, however, in Facebook is the simple fact that you can just delete those you disagree with. 

I was for several weeks going back and forth with a woman who holds positions quite different from my own. And here I was working on a response to something she had posted. I was for several minutes trying to respond. Trying to hit enter and post my response. And she just disappeared. I mean her history of interactions with me were gone. Her page, at least to me, was gone. All were now gone. I thought perhaps the Facebook police removed her? I doubt that happened. After awhile I came to doubt that happened. She was not doing anything obscene or threatening. 

I did not ponder that perhaps she had defriended me. I kept reading the Facebook statement saying that they could not find or that I did not have access to the person whose wall I was trying to post on. And then it dawned on me.  

I have to assume she could not deal with my tedious and annoying posts and removed me from her friends. A simple note or response, an Instant message saying, "hey you are getting annoying" would have sufficed. It was a shame, as I was actually wanting to discuss substantially her views on philanthropy, and education. She had suggested in a previous post that foundations and charitable organizations were not to be greeted with open arms. These were thoughts very different from mine and intriguing, But all gone, like a fart in the wind as they said in Shawshank.

So I am disappointed in her for not sharing her annoyance, if that was fact the way it went down. And if this in fact what happened, it is not good. It is not a model we either can or want to mimic in the real world. We cannot afford to just ignore and / or defriend each other.

On being Christian. . .

Bishop Myriel from Les Miserables
depicted by Gustave Brion

It is Christmas and typically my thoughts and heart focus on the home at this time. It is largely the same this year no doubt. And honestly it is the home, those in it, and the gingerbread too..  That said, this year I do wonder if we have lost something. Yes I raise the question of Christ. Have we neglected Christ, despite celebrating his birthday?

The story of him being born in a stable is presented to us at every Christmas Mass or Service. The question being asked of us each time, I think, is will we let him in? Would we have made room for him? It is customary in some families and traditions to set a plate for him at the Christmas meal.

And let me qualify, Christmas Eve Mass is one of perhaps the two or three times I make it to church each year, and honestly I go largely for the two or three carols I get to sing. So I do not see myself as any great Christian. Honestly, the question of any faith really has not been answered for myself. Regardless of all those speculations, I wonder if many who do profess a faith, have lost their way.

I say this in regard to our responses to the ongoing refugee crisis in Syria and to a lesser degree Libya, and all of the related challenges in Europe, This includes Aleppo, the huge camps in Jordan, Turkey, and elsewhere, the swelling populations of refugees across Europe, and the terrorism that seems to have followed in the past year in Europe. All of it unfortunate. And America's response to all of it seems to be that we will have none of it.*

I talk not of actual refugees that entered our country. We brought roughly 80,000 refugees into the United States in 2016. Roughly 40,000 of those were Muslim. Those numbers are for the fiscal year 2016.**

No, I respond not to these numbers, but more to the attitudes of the President elect and others who cry that we cannot allow such things to happen or continue. We cannot allow such refugees to come into the US due to the terrorist threat. And I know he has not defined a specific policy regarding this. I am aiming not at policy here, but rather what drives our policy. I point to our attitudes, our thoughts and beliefs, our concerns It seems that we will no longer care that such groups exists. Rather, we ask first are we safe? We ask can we trust? We distrust.

This Christmas, we leave Christ at the stable. We have not seated him at our table. I am afraid that Myriel looks down disappointingly.

*https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/
**http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

Rachel Maddow and an Amazing Hour of TV!

If one wanders Facebook at all you find people can be cruel and just plain nasty. Nothing new there. It is Facebook.  Especially regarding today's political leaders or members of the press who one does not agree with. Just part and parcel of what it is.

Regardless, it is disappointing and annoying to see folks, folks I often engage with, comment on and basically attack Rachel Maddow with nothing but crude language. The comments simply offer nothing. Again, you could simply point to the site. It is, as I said, Facebook.

Tonight, however, I had to just challenge that. Tonight, Rachel just offered a show, which I just found incredible. Tonight, she had on Kellyanne Conway for the hour basically and it was just amazing. You may not find Rachel attractive. You may have an issue with her sexual preferences (though I am not sure how or why that should matter!), You may disagree with her positions, but the woman is informative, challenging, and just offers provocative TV.

Here are some of the points that came out, or were at least touched upon during the course of her interview with Kellyanne:

• Regarding the President elect's Nuclear Tweet this afternoon, after several attempts to pin down what it actually meant, neither Kellyanne nor Rachel really knew what he meant or intended. And Rachel's point that people take seriously what the President Elect says and tweets may or may not have registered with Kellyanne.
• Regarding the selection of  Gen. Michael Flynn for the position of National Security Advisor, what followed was a discussion of what should and what should not be considered in such a selection process. Basically, Rachel was asking do wild assertions made on Twitter or spoken to the press mean anything? The answer seems to be no. Regardless of how outrageous they are.
• This led interestingly to Kellyanne to touch on Aleppo. She was suggesting that the current administration has also suffered from bouts of poor judgment. Point taken, but allow me to continue that thought here. . . Grant that it was a poor judgment, and grant Kellyanne's earlier assertion that Obama also entered the office of President with little experience. So you are saying that the President Elect who again has no experience and who has just brought on a National Security Advisor that has some issues regarding judgment, will do better. OK. 
• The next issue that grabbed me was pay to play, and just the mixing of business and politics. Rachel brought it up in various ways, and each time Kellyanne denied a pay for play relationship would or could exist. Somehow, foreign entities and others doing business with, and facilitating Trump businesses is not or would not lead to Pay to Play scenarios. That the two, the President elect, and the Trump business entity are two distinct things, despite the fact that he basically owns that business.  
• Rachel started the above discussion by pointing to a Wall Street Journal article that came out today regarding the President elect's pick for Health Secretary, Rep Tom Price, trading medical and pharma stocks while in the US House. Keep in mind he is a leading Republican in the House regarding issues of healthcare. Kellyanne was not familiar with the details but again, it seems that she would like to argue that this sounds like nothing. In short, he did nothing unethical trading such stocks while engaged in policy and legislative debates about such. His profits are unintended consequences of his actions, which are obviously benign and with the public good at heart. This seems to the argument for both Rep. Price and the President Elect, There is nothing illegal or unethical here, further, there is nothing unseemly about such business transactions and relationships. This needs to be qualified. 
• Lastly, Rachel brought up the President Elect's relationship with the press. She started with the fact that he has described on several occasions Martha Raddatz of ABC News being in tears on TV upon hearing that he had won the election. In fact that was not the case. Kellyanne did not deny this, so the President Elect either lied or misspoke, but has yet to apologize. Kellyanne basically said that was forthcoming, but this topic just led to the next topic:
• Two questions - 1. Is it appropriate to destroy a news organization because they misrepresented or distorted or even slandered you in their pages? 2. Is it appropriate for a President or a First Lady to pursue such a strategy, or even to simply sue a member of the press for such? Considering the fact that every President throughout history has accused the press of such. Should Harry Truman gone and found a solid trial attorney to pursue such a strategy and destroyed the Washington Post and its Music Critic, Paul Hume, back in 1950? Kellyanne responded that she was unsure if that is a good strategy and that the First Lady was not in fact pursuing such a strategy. She did defend that she does have the right to sue, which she does, but the question was whether it was in fact a good policy or practice.

I have quickly just listed all the things I took in from tonight's Rachel Maddow Show. I wish I saw more of such TV. She is often good, but. . . This is the kind of political debate I want to see. And anyone that ignores these points, regardless of your politics will miss some of the key debates going on right now and those debates have and will continue. 

When I started this around 11 PM, the show, which aired on Thursday, December 22nd was not available on her site (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ) as of yet. It is in fact now available. I do urge all to check it out!

And thank you Kellyanne Conway for going on the show and thank you for the lively debate of ideas!

And lastly, what is up with Blogger? I go to embed a video clip from the Maddow site, and it will not allow it?

Of Two. . .Perhaps Three maybe Four Minds

The recent Trump victory has left me spinning. I am not not the only one no doubt. I had my concerns about the election but I had rationalized that Hillary, despite all her shortcomings, would pull it out. That was the general consensus. We were simply wrong. Though she won the popular vote, she just did not have enough support across the varied geographies and constituencies that make up this country.

So now what? There are several options here, at least for myself. I list several 'playful options here:

1. To refuse to accept the election. Like those who have taken to the street, just refuse to accept Trump as President. This is not really a realistic plan. and I hope I am am largely miss-representing those in the street. I hope that they are more protesting to let it be known that though their candidate lost, they still have a voice. That is a position I can accept and endorse. In fact, this post is perhaps of a similar sentiment.
2. A second option is to wait and see. We today have President Elect Trump. It has been four days since the election. It is just too early to say anything. We can express our disappointment and frustration with the election but really we cannot protest or challenge a President Trump. So we go about our business - there is really nothing here to see. Though I might wish I could embrace that, here I am dwelling on the topic. 
3. Earlier this week, immediately after the election, I had suggested on Facebook that I would not mention the President by name. Something I still find kind of amusing considering his narcissism. To only refer to him as the President but to neglect and negate Trump. And to refuse him that is to acknowledge the resentment and the frustration I have with the man and the campaign he led. In the end, however, though mildly interesting and amusing, probably not. Amusing, yes, but it is kind of silly.
4. Another reading of that idea, however, would be to NOT focus on him and his actions. Focus on my things, on what I can and need to do in my life, and not let national politics intrude. This is not what I described above in the second attempt option, what I call a wait and see attitude - a honeymoon. This is different from that in that here there is a dash of resentment. I am purposely digging into the things I do have control over here-focusing on those items, and ignoring him. Here, I will not and cannot embrace him as President and further I will recommit myself to things I can embrace and do. As you can see I have not really embraced that strategy either. Though it is useful to remind myself that life does go on and that we should not allow these events consume us. 

So where does that lead me. I do for the most part try to get on with things, I will try to give him the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt, however, is quite hard to do considering the campaign he led. He threatened numerous times to lock up his challenger. Numerous times he made the claim that the system is rigged. Interestingly, he ended up winning the election, despite losing the popular vote. He insulted numerous people, threatened, and bullied numerous others. And now after the election we are suppose to simply forget all of that? Simply turn the page? Such behavior has never in the history of American politics been seen or heard before. How does one trust such a man?

Interestingly, he says in a recent post-election interview, that he has no qualms over what he said during the campaign. He won. His winning the election justifies all the things he said. His campaign manager said as much regarding the false accusations thrown at Hillary in the last week. False or not, they stuck was the basic thought. The end justifies the mean. Perhaps it does, but that is why I voted against him and am sitting here typing this today. That is why thousands have been protesting over the past few days.

So the idea of a honeymoon, though appealing in some respects, is hard for me to do. And this is especially the case when you see how he has proceeded since his victory. Yes, his speech late Tuesday was promising. His visit to the White House was again done well. His comments, however, about Obamacare since the election lead to more questions. How does one go from claiming at every rally he had that Obamacare was a disaster and that he will quickly repeal it, to now asserting that there are good things in it, and that he will even save parts of it. What?

Further, his talk of Special Prosecutors for Hillary are all but forgotten. Yet today he asserts that he has other priorities. All very good, but these are the things he stressed and focused on for the last three or even six months at every rally, at the debates in front of millions of Americans. How does one make such assertions daily and then make such an about face. I should not be surprised.

Lastly, at the end of the day we cannot afford a honeymoon. He might not appoint special prosecutors. (In fact that has to be done by the Attorney General, but regardless.) He may very well salvage parts of Obamacare, but there are bigger issues. Appointments such as Myron Ebell, who he has chosen to lead the transition at the E.P.A. This man has no appreciation for that government agency or the laws it is to enforce. He has aggressively denied climate change. He has it seems challenged endangered species laws using the right to property as his argument. I know little of his arguments, but what does his Masters in Economics grant him regarding climate science? If he is an indication of the people and things to come, we must be weary and watchful.

No there cannot be any honeymoon, and I probably will try to limit my use of the word "Trump". I will try to focus on my things and what I can do. As his running mate, however, commented, where there is smoke there typically is fire. It is best in this situation if all of us who have felt the frustration and loss of this election to remain attentive to what is going one, be conscious of what is happening and further, let it be known that we do not approve. We become the forest rangers who will keep a weary eye out for smoke and fire. If you see something, say something. And yes on those rare occasions where there is common ground and agreement, if such occurs, try to trust and work with the man.

Try to trust are the key words above. "Trust and Verify" is another phrase that comes to mind.

This is where I have arrived at regarding this matter.

Some Thoughts on Monday's Debate

I do ponder the debates. I do believe that they could determine the election. And I do believe that Clinton should be our next President. I like the New York Times see that Trump as one of the worst if not the worst Presidential candidate.

So with all the hype, all the discussion of how the candidates should prepare, and what needs to happen at them, I figure I will offer my two cents. Basically I want to touch on several themes that I hope will differentiate the candidates:

• Immigration: It is amazing the range of :facts out there regarding immigration. Stories of refugees getting all kinds of government benefits, and those out of status - "illegal aliens" getting various tax credits. That said, I would love to see a hearty defense of immigration. Why we do welcome immigrants and refugees, perhaps not with special benefits and tax credits, but still true to the words on the Statue found in New York harbor. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

• Global Warming: Something we can not see and many of us do not believe exist. It is something that the Department of Defense perceives as a threat. It is something that those working for the State of Florida cannot reference, but regardless are dealing with today. Here I would want to see science appealed to and defended. It is science that allows us to grasp the concept of global warming, and to ignore it is to deny or dispute science. 

• Foreign Policy: We have ISIS and terror, we have trade agreements, we have China, we have North Korea, and Iran. We have NATO and our allies. Are there common themes or strategies here? Is each of these unique? What is an appropriate strategy to determine trade policies and who is an ally, and who is an enemy, and all of this is based on what? 

• Lastly our heritage - who are we: All of us want America to be great. Trump wants to make America great again. Clinton has responded that America is and has always been great. Which is it? What is our history, our heritage? What has been and what are our challenges? I do believe that those issues that haunt us today, have been with us since Philadelphia in 1776, and 1787. They have challenged us is in 1861, and 1890, in 1929 and 1945, and beyond. The jobs, the immigrants, the races, education and science, and more. They all bring us back to our heritage and what in that heritage is to be appealed to.

So we shall see. These are themes I am curious about. I am more than curious about them. These are the themes I want fleshed out. I really do not know what we will get.

Trump, Sanders, and the Political Parties

I listen to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump lament the state of both political parties. Both have claimed at various times that the parties have it rigged and that the system favors those favored by the party.

No doubt it is a mess with some states having primaries and others having caucuses. and then who can participate in those. In some states you have open primaries, meaning any registered voter can vote in the primary. Others you have to be affiliated with the party - meaning you would have to have checked that you are either a Democrat or Republican when you registered to vote in the primary. In the case of new York, where the primary was in March - You had till October 2015 to update your political affiliation. And God knows how you would do that. Probably not online.

Those are the things that factor into being able to vote and how and who can do that. Then once those primaries happen you have the delegates. In both parties you have the super delegates and the assigned delegates. Each having certain privileges and together determining who is in fact that party's candidate.

So it is no doubt confusing and perhaps it simply is NOT democratic. Regarding the confusion it probably would be a good thing if there was some uniformity regarding primaries. Perhaps eliminate the caucuses embraced by various states. Perhaps, decide across the country identical practices as to who can vote in the primaries. Perhaps. Regarding such changes, however, it goes to a key question: who would determine such changes. Who would impose such changes? The National parties are simply not able to tell the various state and local parties that make them up what to do locally.

That desire for local autonomy can be seen not only in this debate on parties but also in our national debate on education. Typically education is handled and funded locally. The federal government plays little role in education, and by education I am referring to K though 12. This is the cry regarding a national curriculum or any other attempt by the federal government or even at times the state governments to intrude upon local control of education.

It is not just education. Insurance is regulated largely at the state level. That is why we needed fifty separate websites for Obamacare. Insurance is controlled and regulated slightly different in each of our states. If the federal government ever decided to start a battle royale with the state governments, attempting to supervene or overrule state insurance policy could be it. That is why I found it a little disingenuous of the Republicans to suggest that the solution was not Obamacare but to allow insurers to work across state lines. So much for the party that holds the Constitution in esteem, and with it Federalism and the concept of states' rights. They were certainly willing to strip away the states's right to regulate insurance and commerce on that occasion.

I digress. The discussion is parties, specifically the Republican and Democratic parties. The charges are that they are confusing, perhaps chaotic and further that they are non-democratic. Regarding the charge of confusing, it is true. They are confusing. That said, they are run locally at the state, city and county level. To challenge that is to challenge a core piece of who we are. At least in the US, all politics are local. If you want to change and simplify the process you either do it locally or you convince the local parties to give up power so as to allow things to be simplified. Good luck on that.

The more interesting charge, which is also true, is that the parties are rigged and non-democratic. That is the nature of parties. It goes to this idea that the US is not a democracy. We are a representative government. The party system facilitates that government. Now it could be argued that a representative government is no longer appropriate or needed for the US. That considering that most people today have at least a high school education, are literate, and simply have a better grasp of the world than the population of the US in 1787 - we no longer need representatives who will in fact decide for us. Such arguments routinely come up regarding the electoral college, but it is the same with political parties.

For the moment, let's agree to shelf that idea of a representative government no longer being needed. That is simply a broader topic which could lead us to the conclusion that we abandon the US Constitution. I simply have neither the time nor the energy for such a debate. The Federalist did - Hamilton, Jay, and Madison. Tonight, however, I want to simply defend political parties.

Specifically, I want to look at one key piece of the process. The one thing I want to explore after all this is the ideal of allowing all to vote in political primaries. It is suggested by both Trump and Sanders that we allow all to vote in primaries, regardless of party affiliation. In short, today you largely have to be a member of a political party to participate in its primary. Again that is largely true. It is contingent upon what state you are in but for the most part it is true. Both Trump and Sanders feel that such requirements limit participation in elections.

The fact that you need to be a member of a political party, however, is significant. It requires that you have some understanding of what the party is about, and likewise that you have some affiliation with that party and its members. It is something you do over time and in some cases over generations. Your affiliation with that party probably gives us insights about who you are, where you live, what you do, and what you believe. It provides meaning. You belong. You have a place. To be a member of a party is simply not to just hold certain ideas and beliefs, which often change like the weather.

I overstate the position but politics, affiliations, and the parties we build are developed over time and are built on shared experience and history. To allow for any and all to vote in party primaries, regardless of the improvement of turnout. is to neglect and ignore that shared history-the value of political parties. You can argue that parties are just rigged machines but you also challenge that which has driven American politics since the beginning - local self-governing organizations and institutions, with a history of local public and private affiliations. In place of parties you offer up rational individuals, who no longer need party apparatus and who will vote for candidates as they see fit.

I beg to differ, claiming that political parties, which offer up a political history or heritage to us and that are indeed not democratic, perhaps at times can save us from ourselves. They help remind us who we are and what we value and guide us regarding how we should proceed, based upon that history.