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

Somewhere there is a perfect spot on the spectrum between being naive and being cynical, and humans should try to find that perfect spot. But humans err, so err on the side of being naive.

I write that in the face of the most cynicism-inducing election of my lifetime. And I’m apparently not alone because a deep cynic would say that voting itself is an act of naivety, and yet Arkansans and people across the country are lining up at the polls to do it anyway.

Keep in mind that, regardless of what you think about this year’s choices, at least we had them: for the nation’s chief executive, for lawmakers and for local officials. For more than a year, two rich and powerful people who want to become even more powerful have been required to traverse the country as part of the world’s most challenging job interview. Arkansas voters this year also have a direct say in the governor’s powers; in how long county officials stay in office; in how much debt the state can incur for economic development; and whether marijuana should be used legally for medicinal purposes. True, my vote did not count for much. But it counted exactly the same as everyone else’s in Arkansas.

Giving an average citizen this kind of say is rare in world history but not so rare in today’s world, in large part because of the example set by the country where God let me be born. That’s pretty cool, which is why, even in the midst of all the cynicism of A.D. 2016, just about every polling machine was occupied at my early voting site in Benton, and why, afterwards, a family stood outside the polling place snapping a photo of their son who must have voted for the first time. They all looked pretty proud, but I guess they were just being naive.

Believing a New World would offer religious and economic freedom? You might call that naive. So was believing that freedom was worth fighting for. That self-government was possible. That former slaves and the children of slaves could participate in a society with former slaveowners and their children. That a railroad could be built across a country and a canal dug between the oceans. That wars could be won on foreign shores, and democracy was possible in far-off lands. That a man could land on the moon – in less than 10 years, no less.

It takes a certain naivety to do these things; it certainly doesn’t happen through cynicism. Cynicism is inherently an attitude of powerlessness and inaction, which is why cynics do not grow many successful businesses, plant churches, begin charities, or start movements that change things for the better. Cynicism is self-centered and fearful, and it assumes the worst of people to the point of gross inaccuracy. It’s incompatible with achievement and service because why try to achieve if seen and unseen forces doom you to failure? And why serve if you are only going to be taken advantage of? True, there are some very rich cynics today. But a lot of them only got that way by appealing to others’ cynicism.

Yes, naivety can lead to disaster, because it’s based on trust, and sometimes trust is misplaced. But better to trust too much than not enough. After disaster, a naive person can still “stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools,” as Rudyard Kipling wrote, because he trusts those tools.

I’ve heard it said and implied many times this year that, if either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins this election, then the country will not survive.

But such deep, pervasive cynicism is far more dangerous than the outcome of one campaign. It leads to the kind of “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us” attitude of the old Soviet Union. In the United States, structures are still in place that will limit the damage either Clinton or Trump will cause. But a cynical people quits trying, which can’t be overcome.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure there’s going to be another election in four years, and we can all give it another shot. Call me naive.

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

This presidential election is producing two major party nominees with extremely high unfavorable ratings. You’re probably either a big fan of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, or you dislike them both a lot. If you’re part of that large latter group, you might think this presidential election is a disaster.

What if it’s not? Is it possible to lament this year’s results and still see the good in this year’s process? Yes.

The American political system in recent decades has grown stale, with both parties offering cliched, uncreative arguments designed more to appeal to special interest groups than to solve problems. Important issues – such as how the global economy is affecting America’s lower middle class – haven’t really fit into the script. No wonder so many voters have dropped out or never dropped in.

Say what you will about Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, but they don’t read off a script. And thanks to them, the campaign is largely about often-ignored issues such as income inequality, crony capitalism, campaign finance reform, and the fact that the global economy produces both winners and losers. Trump has shown that a candidate can speak like an actual person by refusing to bow to political correctness. Sanders has offered big government prescriptions without pretending that he’s not – which means that at least he’s honest about it – and he’s showing that strong convictions, sincerely expressed, can inspire a lot of voters and small donors.

Importantly, Trump and Sanders have shown that elections can be decided by actual voters, not big money or the party establishment, each of which dislikes them both. They’ve done this in part by attracting millions of new voters to the process: Trump, disaffected blue collar workers; and Sanders, young people. While Jeb Bush, the anointed one, and his allies spent $130 million to no effect, Trump won his party’s nomination through his use of the media and social media, both of which cost candidates very little. Sanders is competing well with Clinton through small donations given by average people.

Moreover, the next few months could inspire Americans to seriously consider their political alternatives. It’s possible – though unlikely – that conservatives will rally behind a third party or independent candidate. The small-government Libertarian Party likely again will nominate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, a legitimate candidate. Americans who want 40 choices in the cereal aisle may finally be open to more than two at the ballot box.

Finally, this election – and the past two – have reflected American diversity like none before. After eight years of having our first African-American president, Americans may next give that job to a female – 96 years after women finally attained the right to vote. Two of the four leading Republican vote-getters, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio, are the sons of Latino immigrants. Sanders is Jewish. Dr. Ben Carson advanced farther than any African-American has ever advanced in a Republican primary.

Let’s not discount that this election has produced much divisiveness and two major party nominees many of us don’t support. At times, it’s been extremely discouraging for voters like me. I voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

But let’s also not ignore the rest of the truth. This campaign has upset a status quo that needs to be upset, inspired millions of people who previously didn’t vote, shown that voters aren’t complete hostages to big money and the party establishments, and celebrated America’s diversity by producing diverse candidates.

Same-old, same-old will not solve America’s problems. Maybe in 2020, a plain-speaking, budget-balancing problem-solver can apply lessons learned from Trump and Sanders.

Of course, in my opinion, we had that in Kasich. But he lost. So God bless America. This is the system we have, and the people are speaking – loudly. It’s imperfect but seldom disastrous. In world history, most people would trade theirs for ours.

Feel better?

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