Category Archives: Elections

It’s been a good election – for liberals

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

After four days of the Republican National Convention and two days of the Democrats, one thing is clear: Regardless of who wins in November, it’s been a lot better year for liberals than it’s been for conservatives.

For traditional conservatives, in fact, this election season has been tough, and a bit of an awakening.

The Republican Party has long been thought to be dominated by two factions – pro-business/less government types, and social conservatives. To maintain power, the party has had to appeal to Wall Streeters in New York and pro-lifers in Arkansas.

But it turns out that Donald Trump understood something that the data-driven party establishment didn’t: who really votes for Republicans, and why.

In recent years, the Republican Party has attracted more and more support from two very important groups who don’t fit neatly into the pro-business or social conservative wings: white working people without a college degree, and senior citizens.

At the same time, Republican Party policies have not always aligned with those voters. The party has supported trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, teaming with President Clinton and President Obama to overcome the opposition of Democrats in Congress. Who’s been hurt the most by free trade? Working people without a college degree. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have supported significant changes to Social Security and Medicare that their senior citizen voters generally don’t support.

Then came Donald Trump.

During the campaign, he’s pledged repeatedly not to touch Social Security and Medicare, saying his policies will make the country so rich that no changes are needed. And during his speech to the Republican National Convention, Trump railed against a system rigged in favor of those rich Wall Streeters and blasted those free trade deals. He also repeated his plan to stop illegal immigration, which also has cost working people without a college degree the most.

Trump’s ascendancy is forcing the Republican Party to come to grips with the disconnect between some of its conservative policies and its voters. That’s difficult. Last week, some conservatives stayed home from the Republican National Convention, while others whooped and hollered or at least held their nose and golf-clapped for a candidate who, at times, sounded a lot like a Democrat.

For liberals, Hillary Clinton may have won the nomination, but Sen. Bernie Sanders won the battle of ideas. Thanks to him, the party has taken a giant step to the left, including promising a tuition-free college education to students with a family income of up to $125,000. During his speech to the rowdy convention Monday, Sanders railed against income inequality caused in part by … the same trade deals Donald Trump criticized.

As for social issues, Democrats at the national level no longer are even pretending to straddle the middle. During Sanders’ speech, the person sitting next to President Clinton was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

Every election is described as “the most important election of our lifetime.” This one actually does rank up there. We are watching the realignment of both parties. The Republicans, for three decades the party of Reagan conservatism, are becoming the party of Donald Trump. To some degree, they must in order to appeal to their own voters. The Democrats are becoming more liberal – so liberal that President Obama is now one of the party’s moderates, and the Bill Clinton of the 1990s wouldn’t even fit in the party today.

So for liberals, the Democrats, and in some ways the Republicans, have moved in their direction if not past them.

Conservatives, meanwhile, will have some tough questions to ask about their own philosophy. Maybe the best they can hope for is to be both the party of Reagan and the party of Trump.

As for the Wall Streeters who both nominees say they’re mad at? I’m pretty sure they’ll do OK, regardless of who wins or loses.

Related: Trump played checkers and they played chess – in a checkers year.

Don’t be a reptile this election

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You’re not a reptile, so don’t let yourself be treated like one this election cycle.

In legal circles, the “Reptile Theory” is the basis for many plaintiff’s attorneys’ cases. According to a report by Dr. Ann Greeley that’s posted on the American Bar Association’s website, lawyers across the country have stopped trying to focus on building sympathy for their clients and instead are focusing on rousing anger toward the defendant.

The practice got its name from a 1960s theory of evolutionary biology by neuroscientist Paul MacLean, who said the brain at its most primitive core is “reptilian” and focused on survival.

Regardless of whether or not plaintiff’s lawyers believe that theory makes any sense biologically, they want jurors focused on safety – theirs and others. Lawyers aren’t just building a case against the defendant; they’re identifying a source of danger facing the entire community, including the jurors. A tire blowing out and causing an accident could happen to anyone, so the lawyer wants to give jurors a chance to punish the danger itself and hopefully eliminate it by punishing the defendant.

If a plaintiff’s lawyer focuses on the plaintiff’s suffering, on the other hand, then juries might find fault with that person’s actions. Maybe the driver bears some responsibility for the tire blowing out because he drove over a broken glass bottle. Besides, why should that guy get rich just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Plaintiff’s lawyers are not the only ones relying on the Reptile Theory. Political campaigns do it, too, especially this year. The unfavorable ratings for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are so historically high that the Reptile Theory is either’s best path to victory.

That’s a big reason why this year’s Republican National Convention was so much an exercise in Hillary fear-raising rather than Trump praising. Like a plaintiff’s lawyer, the party tried to make voters focus on their fears and punish the defendant – this week, Clinton. It’s why the first night’s theme was “Make America Safe Again.”

Of course, the Reptile Theory is only part of the reason for the party’s focus on Clinton. There are legitimate concerns about her candidacy. At the same time, some Republicans can’t bring themselves to say much positive about their own nominee, even if they should. In a seven-minute speech, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton mentioned Trump’s name one time, and then only his last name. Sen. Ted Cruz, whose wife Trump had insulted and whose father Trump had suggested was involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination, didn’t even endorse the candidate, instead encouraging his audience to “vote your conscience.”

I have no doubt that the Reptile Theory will be alive and well at the Democratic National Convention, when Trump will become the defendant.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with criticizing an opponent. A majority of Americans have serious concerns about both Trump and Clinton, so of course the opposing campaigns will try to use those concerns to their advantage.

The problem is that fear alone, unless you’re in imminent danger, is a terrible basis for making decisions. As those plaintiff’s lawyers know, frightened people are more easily manipulated. When we’e afraid, we’re more likely to surrender our freedom, we stop thinking logically and creatively, and we start looking for people to blame. And then really bad things can happen.

Moreover, the two major parties use these fears to maintain their shared control. Republicans and Democrats make us believe we must vote for one or the other – the one we fear the least – rather than give a third party or independent a chance.

Reptiles have been around a long time. They are good at individual survival – eating and avoiding being eaten. But they don’t advance, they don’t make the world a better place for their young, and they don’t do anything great.

So, yes, this election, vote your fears. But also vote your hopes and dreams, and your logic and reason.

Most importantly, as Cruz said, vote your conscience. It’s something that reptiles don’t have but humans do, which helps us invent things like democracies and elections.

One of us for president?

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

What would happen if the president were an average person, not a member of the country’s political and wealthy elite? Matthew O’Connor would like to give Americans a chance to find out.

The Ohioan is trying to mount an independent presidential campaign and wrote me recently looking for someone in Arkansas to collect signatures. Prospective presidential candidates in this state must collect only 1,000, which is pretty doable, but the deadline is August 1.

What led a father of three with no real political experience, no support and no name recognition to run for president? His big issues are corruption, the national debt, and the failure of the country to produce the right kind of candidate. His website is www.darkhorse2016.com.

“I just felt like no one was doing it for the right reason,” he told me. “I felt that a lot of people felt like … either they deserved it, or it was their turn, or they could buy it, and I thought it was about time that somebody did it because they wanted to serve the country and serve the people.”

A lot of Americans are looking for the same thing right now, considering the two major party nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have historically high unfavorable ratings. It seems the current system is not producing humble, service-oriented candidates like the famed Cincinnatus, who in 458 B.C. left his small farm to lead Rome through a crisis and then returned to the farm.

O’Connor won’t get very far in 2016. While the bar for making the ballot in Arkansas and some other states is low, in many states it is impossibly high for all but the best-connected candidates.

Maybe it should be. Every walk of life includes a system for winnowing out the wannabes. In business, you move up the corporate ladder. In sports, you prove yourself in college and in the minor leagues. And in politics, candidates are elected to something less than president, make a name for themselves, and then run for the nation’s highest office. On rare occasions, someone with success in another walk of life – Trump, President Dwight Eisenhower, President Ulysses S. Grant – has gotten a shot at the title. There’s no “American Idol” for presidents, and thank goodness.

O’Connor is not a billionaire business mogul or a famous general. He says he’s been able to balance life’s important areas – as an information technology professional, a father of three and a happily married husband who the day after our interview was planning to celebrate his 20th wedding anniversary.

“I know that sounds like a strange thing to say, but there’s a lot of success in that,” he said. “A lot of people don’t manage those things.”

Could someone like that be president? Could America benefit from leadership by competent, moral persons plucked temporarily from Main Street? Would those people be better at balancing budgets and serving the people than the political and cultural elite? Or would Main Street Americans be like decent high school baseball players suddenly facing Major League pitching? A lot of us probably could read a speech off a teleprompter. Could we sit across the table from Vladimir Putin?

If you’re thinking you’d like to write in O’Connor as a protest vote on Election Day, you can’t. There is no provision in Arkansas law for write-in presidential candidates. He must collect 1,000 signatures, which is a steep hill to climb for someone without Arkansas roots or campaign donations.

If he doesn’t, there’s still enough time for Arkansans to qualify a favorite son or daughter for the ballot. They wouldn’t win, of course, but at least they would offer another choice.

Some suggestions?

– Sam Sicard, president of the First National Bank of Fort Smith. In an age of self-promoters, he cares about ideas and doing the right thing.
– Kevin Kelley, head coach of the Pulaski Academy Bruins, the high school football team that doesn’t punt. He’s a creative, data-driven thinker.
– Mark DeYmaz, pastor of Little Rock’s Mosaic Church, where people of all races and income classes worship under one roof. He brings people together.
– Mary Carol Pederson, founder of The CALL in Arkansas, which recruits families to foster and adopt children. She focuses on kids and the future.

Want to vote for one of those people, or Matthew O’Connor, rather than Clinton, Trump, or one of the third party candidates? The deadline for collecting signatures is August 1.

Related: It’s OK to vote for someone else.

It’s OK to vote for someone else

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Voters complain each presidential election about their choices, but that’s especially true this year. According to Real Clear Politics’ compilation of polls, Hillary Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 55.5 percent of voters and favorably by only 39.7 percent, while Donald Trump’s numbers are worse: 61.1 percent to 33.4 percent unfavorable to favorable.

These are historic numbers, and they could get worse. When candidates’ negatives are so hopelessly high, they respond by trying to drive up their opponents’ unfavorables and, if necessary, win by becoming the lesser of two evils. Both campaigns will unleash a torrent of negative ads. Both have plenty to work with.

If you’re like many Arkansas voters, you may have said you’ll just write in somebody else’s name. Unfortunately, there is no provision in the law for you to do that in the presidential race.

However, there will be other candidates on the ballot: the Libertarians’ Gary Johnson, the Greens’ Jill Stein, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, and possibly others. The bar for running for president in Arkansas as an independent is remarkably low: Just collect the signatures of 1,000 voters, which is much less than the 10,000 required to run for statewide offices. Candidates have until August 1 to submit those signatures.

This is the part where somebody always says, “Don’t waste your vote. If you don’t vote for one of the two major party candidates, you’re helping the other one” – the one they don’t want to win.

I respectfully disagree with that kind of thinking. An election is not just a process for picking winners and losers. It’s an opportunity for voters to express their beliefs about the country’s direction. Many voters strongly oppose both Clinton and Trump and do not want to affirm either candidacy on Election Day.

If your beliefs more closely align with one of those third parties, then vote your conscience and encourage others to do the same. That’s how the Republican Party came into existence. On March 20, 1854, a small group of idealists met in a Wisconsin schoolhouse to form a new party that would be based on their anti-slavery convictions, not raw political calculations about who might win the next election. Instead of holding their nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, they took the long view and stayed true to their beliefs. Six years later, Abraham Lincoln was elected president.

No matter how you vote, you won’t change the results in Arkansas. The United States does not have national elections where everybody’s vote goes into a big pot. It has individual, winner-take-all state elections that feed into the Electoral College. Arkansas has six votes, and we already know who will win them. In a recent Talk Business & Politics poll, Trump leads Clinton, 47-36 percent, and nothing will turn those numbers around. Clinton’s 36 percent is consistent with recent election results: President Obama won 37 percent in 2012; while in 2014, Sen. Mark Pryor won 39 percent in the U.S. Senate race while Mike Ross won 41 percent in the governor’s race. Somewhere in those numbers is the Democrats’ ceiling.

Regardless of what you as a voter do, Arkansas will be part of a large red splotch in the middle of the country on your television screen on Election Night. The state will be called for Trump immediately after the polls close, and then the attention will turn to the states that are actually up for grabs: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

In other words, because Arkansas is blood red, your vote essentially has become meaningless as an election-deciding tool. However, as with those idealistic Republican reformers in 1854, it has great meaning as a form of political expression. This is when your voice really counts.

The best vote I ever cast was in 1992 for independent candidate Ross Perot. I believed he was not temperamentally suited to be president, but he campaigned on political reform and on balancing the budget and ran 30-minute infomercials explaining the national debt. On Election Day, he won 19 percent of the vote. Not coincidentally, President Clinton and the Republican Congress began working on balancing the budget. They couldn’t ignore Perot’s voters.

So do you really want to avoid wasting your vote? Vote your conscience.

Related: Independents, Greens better choice than death

If Trump or Clinton succeed? More debt

Uncle Sam hangs on for webBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Presidential candidates can’t possibly fulfill all their campaign proposals, and few would even want to try. But what would happen if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump actually did what they said they want to do? Clinton would grow government and do nothing to reduce the growth of the national debt. Trump would explode the debt.

Those are the findings of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for deficit reduction. It scored the two candidates’ campaign proposals to find out how much they would increase the debt, determined maximum and minimum amounts based on various factors, and then came up with midrange amounts.

The CRFB found that Clinton’s proposals would increase spending by $1.4 trillion over 10 years, but she has proposed $1.2 trillion in tax increases over that time period. That’s $200 billion in new debt, plus another $50 billion in additional interest costs her policies would cause.

So Clinton’s not doing too badly, right? Not exactly. She has no plans for the $19 trillion in debt that already exists, nor does she propose anything that would reduce the additional annual deficits that already are baked into the system and are projected to add $10 trillion over 10 years if nothing is done.

Clinton gets a few points for this: While proposing to grow government, she also at least proposes to pay for most of that growth. Because of that, the CRFB says the national debt would not increase much as a share of gross domestic product if Clinton does what she says she wants to do. Without Clinton’s policies, the debt held by the public – the national debt minus what the government has borrowed from itself – will increase from its current 75 percent to 86 percent of GDP in 2026. With her policies, it would increase to 87 percent.

But I’m not reassured. Elected officials in Washington tend to keep their happy promises but not their take-your-medicine ones. If history is a guide, she along with Congress will more likely increase spending while letting her less popular tax increases slide.

Trump, meanwhile, proposes spending cuts of $650 billion, which is not much when you consider it covers an entire decade. Meanwhile, he’s proposing an estimated $10.5 trillion in tax cuts. Counting higher interest payments, Trump’s policies would increase the national debt by a midrange estimate of $11.5 trillion, the CRFB says. While tax cuts do have a stimulative effect, the economy would have to grow more than 10 percent a year for a decade for the budget to balance – more than twice the best it’s previously done over that time period. Moreover, like Clinton, he does little to address the current $19 trillion debt or the $10 trillion in new debt that’s already projected to occur. If Trump keeps his promises, then in a decade the debt held by the public could equal 127 percent of the gross domestic product – numbers not seen since World War II.

At this point, a lot of people might ask, so what? Since presidential candidates often don’t even try to enact their campaign proposals, then maybe we should just ignore them and vote with our guts.

The problem with that thinking is that it removes accountability. If voters don’t care what candidates tell us during the campaign, then they are free to say anything to get elected and do anything afterwards.

Moreover, a presidential campaign isn’t just a time to pick winners and losers. It’s also a time for voters to educate themselves about the issues. In 1992, third party presidential candidate Ross Perot broadcast 30-minute infomercials in which he explained the national debt. Because of him, it became a front-and-center issue, and after he won 19 percent of the vote, President Clinton and Congress moved to balance the budget. If the national debt is mostly ignored in this campaign, it probably will be mostly ignored after the election.

The CRFB says it will continue to track the candidates’ proposals as the campaign moves forward. Unfortunately, it has not scored any of the third party candidates, but hopefully that will change. Every candidate should be held to high standards – particularly Trump and Clinton. One of those two will succeed at becoming president. Let’s hope the winner doesn’t succeed at increasing the debt.

Related: Fiddling around, ignoring problems