JULY 31, 2019 – I listened to several patches of yesterday evening’s Democratic Presidential “Debate.” I think each of the innumerable candidates falls into one of three rings:
FIRST RING: “I can beat Trump because I’m for free stuff”;
SECOND RING: “I can beat Trump because I can”;
THIRD RING: “I can beat Trump because I’m smart.”
As to “first ringers,” I think they overlook two critical realities.
First is that absolutely nothing in the world is “free.” Whatever is perceived as “free” to one person is at a direct cost to someone else, and often an indirect cost is imposed on the very person who is the recipient of “free.” Any politician who promises “free stuff” without addressing the cost is either dangerously naïve or dangerously dishonest. To address cost glibly with “we’ll tax the rich,” grossly oversimplifies tax policy—not all “riches” are equal and not all taxes are equal in direct and indirect effects.
The second reality that “first ringers” ignore is the enormous gap between (a) what a presidential candidate espouses in regard to substantive policy; and (b) what policy a president—any president—can effectuate.
Thus I conclude that many Americans skipped out, slept through or simply weren’t provided a basic education about the role and mechanics of each branch of government. Vast swaths of Americans, mainstream media, even the candidates themselves—talk as though the president is a Wand Waver in Chief.
Everyone should review the Constitutional and understand the power—and limitation of power—of each branch of government. Our system of government does not provide much in the way of magic wands. Moreover, few of our problems can be fixed with a magic wand. So when someone tries to wow the crowd with talk of a magic wand, the crowd, at least, should know better.
“Second ringers” are engaged in circular argument: “You should vote for me because I’ll win if you do.” I think what they mean is, “Never underestimate the conservatism of people who have something and fear they’ll lose some of the something.” Therein lies political truth, but I have to admit, the second ringers’ argument is not exactly visionary or inspirational. “I’ll return things to normal,” is hardly enough to jump-start people who historically have a low turnout record.
That leaves the “third ringers”—the “I’m smart” people. Here’s the problem with the “. . . therefore, I can win” part of their argument: in 2016, 63 million people voted for a carnival barker, who intellectually, educationally, and experientially is demonstratively the opposite of “smart.”
Looming over the entire “debate,” as well as over the entire country . . . world . . . are three very dark, potentially game-changing clouds: 1. Accelerating effects of climate change; 2. The ever-present danger of a “big whammy” by “extremists” or a rogue state; and 3. A global financial crisis, long and deep because central banks have driven rates to the floor.
If any of those clouds bursts upon us, we’ll all yearn for the good ol’ three-ring circus days.
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
