Tom on Politics and presidential types

 The presidential debates were pretty much as I expected them to be.  Nikki. Haley performed better than I expected her to do, as did Ron DeSantis, although he continues with his 'Mr Grumpy' persona. Mike Pence was more animated than I ever recall seeing him. But 6 of the 8 candidates drank the Trump Kool-Aid, by raisding their hand agreeing to support him, even if he's convicted of a felony. None supported Mr Trump with more gusto than Vivek Ramaswamy, swho demonstrated that he's not ready for prime time. He touts his business skills as a qualification for government, much like Mr. Trump did in 2016.  Business and governance demand completely different skill sets.  A businessman would refuse to use federal funds to rebuild the charred ruins of the old royal town on Maui.  He'd sell the placer to developers from out of state, who'd erect expensive condos and leave those left homeless to fend for themselves, and that's exactly the prospect the worried the dispossessed residents of Lahaina.  A businessman's purpose in life is to make a profit, and you don't make profits by being a mensch.

Politics demands a more compassionate method of operation.  The rich and the educated can do OK in any economy.  Tradesmen and professionals possess the skills necessary to thrive anywhere, and their talents are intrinsic.  Land and buildings can be seized by those so disposed.  Works of art and other tangible items can be looted from their rightful owners.   The only things that you truly own are your skills. And the reality. is that many of our citizens don't have the skills necessary to support themselves, much less a family.  For some, being a member of a despised minority group can put a young man on the Road to Perdition at an early age.  When you hit the age of majority with a lengthy police record, a couple of illegitimate children, and a bad attitude, you don't have a chance in today's society.  Some people have issues with drugs or alcohol that they can't seem to overcome.  Veterans who served honorably find themselves crippled by PTSD, and often homeless to boot.  Some people are just not terribly bri9ght, and they have no skills that anyone is willing to pay a living wage for. Government exists, in part, to help those who need help.  Some rail against 'socialism' and other such derogatory terms applied to those in need of some help from their government.  

Capitalism is the economic engine that has made the West rich and prosperous beyond the imagining of our forebears.  But in its most elemental form, capitalism is a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The Industrial Revolution transformed mankind from a society that made things, instead of growing things.  And in the past half century, we've become a society that imagines things and breathes life into their imaginings, which is how we ended up with our current digital economy.  The visionaries who have imagined new ways of doing things, and marshalled the resources to transform their visualizations into new products and processes are richly rewarded, and deserve to be.  But growing wealthy, either from being in the right place at the right time, or by developing a product or p-rocess that makes everyone's lives just a little bit better, should not be seen as license to be greedy and, increasingly, that's the direction in which the country is heading.  To be fair, some have used their newfound wealth to help others through their philanthropic endeavors.  And wealthy individuals have occasionally distinguished themselves by using their own money to do the right thing.Aaron Feuerstein, who owned a company called Malden Mills that burned in one of the most spectacular  fires that I've ever seen, spent millions of dollars of his own money in order to keep paying the salaries and benefits of his employees.  Mr Feuerstein showed that it was possible to be both wealthy and compassionate.

Businessmen, (and women), control vast enterprises and do so by issuing orders and directives that they expect to be obeyed without hesitation.  Those who fail to fall into line are marginalized or discarded, although an enlightened CEO0 will tolerate dissenting viewpoints as a sort of reality check.  But when you are charged with running a statue or a country, you soon find that things aren't quite that simple.  Other elected officials answer to the voters who elected them, not some imperious 'boss'.  Managing an often recalcitrant congress is like herding cats. Everyone has their own axe to grind, and much that happens is beyond an executive's control.  So when I hear folks extoll the virtues of businessmen, as opposed to professional politicians as suitable contenders for national leadership, I know that I'm dealing with someone who reacts, rather than thinks.

Tom On How We Got Here

  the ultimate reality show is the ongoing carnival that is American politics. The age of the permanent campaign is now upon us. Perpetual conflict is the rule, rather than the exception, and the effect is to paralyze the mechanism of government so that nothing of substance gets done.

Politicians are more interested in building their brands than doing the people's business. They bloviate and pontificate while engaging in combat with their ideological foes who they tend to speak of as if they are evil incarnate. 

Congress was once a collegial institution in which the interests of the citizenry trumped partisan sniping But somewhere along the line, the political became personal, and the country has been the worse for it 

I trace the genesis of the current incivility to the midterm elections of 1994, when the GOP took control of the House under the banner of Newt Gingrich and his famous Contract With America.

Speaker Gingrich was a career backbencher who was a bomb thrower by nature, and he began the transformation of the Republican caucus into rabid culture warriors who were the drivers of the Whitewater investigation that eventually morphed into the Clinton impeachment debacle. 

That was followed by the 2000 election in which the SCOTUS essentially decided the election by stopping the process in it's tracks and essentially awarding the race to the Republican, George W Bush.

The two notable takeaways from that race was first: that the assertions made by the SCOTUS  in Bush v Gore were not to be considered a precedent, which is judge speak for admitting that the court had their thumb on the scales of justice

in this instance and second: Mr Gore's elegant concession to Gov Bush in an acknowledgement that, to continue litigating the matter would not be in the interests of the American people.

After that we saw the emergence of the Tea Party, which begat the Freedom Caucus, a proliferation of Conspiracy theorists, grifters, and insurrectionists that have seized control of the Republican Party.

Free Choice (?)