Survival of the Worst

Survival of the Least-Fitted———————-

A commentary 

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

                Be honest. Do you really understand the nomination process for either political party? If you do, you are rare, indeed. If you don’t, how can you expect your children to even try to understand it? It’s even more complicated than the process for determining who qualifies for the NFL playoffs and far too complicated to be taught in high school civics classes, if, in fact, they even teach civics any more.

 

For starters, the process differs among the states and territories. Some delegates are pledged to a candidate only for the first round of balloting at the party’s national convention, some are bound for multiple rounds and some, like super delegates, aren’t bound at all, regardless of the outcome of their state’s primary or caucus. Some states award delegates on a statewide, winner-take-all basis, some on a county or congressional district winner-take-all basis. Some award delegates on a proportional basis and others use a combination of methods. Moreover, the process may differ between the parties in a given state.

 

Some states hold primary elections and others use the caucus method. Still others may use the convention method. In a given state, one party may hold a primary election and the other may caucus. And the ground rules for determining how delegates are awarded in either method differ among the states and the parties. The Democrats have a large number of super delegates, usually state party officials and elected office holders, who can vote any way they wish at the party’s national convention. The Republicans do not. The caucuses are not characterized by secret balloting. That can be intimidating to some participants. In one state, ties are resolved by a coin toss, in another by drawing a card (Nevada, of course). As Dave Barry might say, I’m not making this up. Only politicians could come up with this stuff. To add to the fun, some states hold open primaries where independents or even members of another party can participate and perhaps vote for the candidate they think would be easiest for their own favorite candidate to beat. What sense does this make? But don’t look for logic in a process this bizarre.

 

Most voters seem to be under the impression that they elect the nominee for their party. They don’t. The delegates do. Similarly, most people seem to believe that they elect the president in the general election. How naïve of them. The members of the electoral college do. It’s not the nation-wide popular vote that matters. It’s the number of electors each candidate gets. So why not just have a popular vote to determine the winner? But that would favor the heavily-populated states. The smaller, rural states, jealous of their equal representation in the senate, would object and would probably never have joined the union in the first place if elections were to be decided in the big cities where most of the votes come from. Like it or not, that’s sort of how our federal system works under the constitution.

 

If a candidate arrives at his or her party’s national convention with a majority, i.e., more than half of the pledged delegates, he or she will probably win on the first ballot. If not, the delegates will probably attempt to coalesce behind a candidate that they feel best represents the party’s principles and can win the general election. If a candidate failed to gain more than 50% of the delegates during the lengthy primary season, there is valid reason to doubt that candidate’s ability to win the general election.

 

In any event, it is up to the delegates at that point, not the voters and the outcome is unpredictable. The voters had their say. In this campaign season they labored mightily and came up with, arguably the worse four survivors out of a once-crowded field which contained some aspirants who were actually seemed qualified to hold the highest office in the land. We are left now with (1) an often-vulgar TV character and real estate mogul with little class and no experience in government; (2) a freshman senator with a far-right agenda who refuses to compromise and can’t seem to get along with moderates in either party; (3) a former first lady whose husband was impeached and had a sexual encounter with a White House intern in the Oval Office and who herself is the subject of an FBI investigation over security issues and (4) a socialist senator from Vermont whose base of support consists mostly of the young and naïve and whose social programs would send our $20 trillion debt skyrocketing to the stratosphere.

 

Are these four really the best that this process can come up with? There must be better choices.

April 23, 2016

Getting a Liberal Education

Learning to be Liberals————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Ever wonder why most college students support liberal causes? Do you wonder why most of them identify themselves as liberals by the time they graduate, at least until they get a job and learn what the real world is all about? Do you wonder why university campuses are such hotbeds of liberal activism, political correctness and intolerance for conservative views? Do you ponder why students and speakers who are brave enough to express conservative views are accused of hate speech and harassed? For the answer, look no further than the data on the political preferences of faculty members and administrators.

 

In 2014, 60% of American university professors identified themselves as liberal or far left in their political views. And that number has been increasing over the years according to data from UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute which surveys faculty members nationwide every three years. As recently as 2007-2008, the percentage that identified themselves as liberal or far left was only 55% and in 1998-1999, the number was less than half (47.5%). On some campuses, less than 5% admitted to being conservatives. 17.6% of faculty in the social sciences actually consider themselves Marxists according to Professor Jonathon Marks of Ursinus College, citing a 2006 Politics of the American Professorate survey which also found that only 3.6% of them consider themselves conservatives. Conservatives have become an endangered species on campus.

 

A very conservative (pardon the adjective) estimate based on the surveys is that liberals outnumber conservatives on faculties by more than 6 to 1. Given the emphasis placed upon diversity on college campuses, don’t you find that remarkable? Apparently, diversity programs do not extend to hiring faculty. Herewith are some examples which, unfortunately, are not isolated cases.

 

Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Richard J. Toner, who served as president of the Air Force Institute of Technology, tells, in a letter published in The Wall St. Journal, of applying for a position at an Ivy League school. He was invited to a three-day interview which included sessions with the president and deans. On the evening of the third day, he was congratulated on his selection. A few days later, he received a phone call from a dean and told his appointment was vetoed by the faculty senate because “there was no place on a liberal university faculty for a former senior military officer”.

 

At Marquette University, a student objected to a Ph.D. candidate teaching assistant’s suggestion in class that opposition to same-sex marriage was not open to debate in class and that such opposition was homophobic and could be offensive to homosexuals. When the student replied that he had a right to free speech in presenting his views in favor of traditional marriage, he was advised that he could drop the class if he objected to the policy. The student, who recorded the conversation, consulted a tenured Marquette professor who later blogged about the incident which provoked a number of critical responses targeting the teaching assistant who subsequently left the university. For his efforts in promoting free speech, the tenured professor was suspended and barred from the campus.

 

What’s going on here? Marquette is a Catholic university, founded by the Jesuits. Is it no longer permitted to speak in support of traditional marriage on a Catholic university campus? The Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage and bans homosexual behavior. Or does it? Given the remark by Pope Francis asking “Who am I to Judge?” and other mixed messages contained in nearly indecipherable papal messages, some people are wondering what the church’s real position is or is going to be.

 

What is beyond question, though, is that conservative views are scarcely tolerated on many college campuses, apparently including some Catholic campuses. The faculties are overwhelmingly liberal which accounts for the warm receptions given to Bernie Sanders and his fellow travelers by college students and the hostile reaction to conservative speakers who are often shouted down and heckled if not barred from campus altogether. University officials proclaim regularly that they are committed to diversity and free speech. The facts suggest otherwise. If you have college students whose tuition you are paying or if you pay taxes in support of state universities or if you are contributing to your alma mater, this is very likely some of what you are getting for your hard-earned money. American universities are still the envy of the world but that reputation will be endangered unless they begin to practice what they preach about diversity and free speech.

April 8, 2016

 

Dump Trump

Time to Dump Trump————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee for president, the party should change its cherished elephant symbol to a mammoth because, like the latter, it will become extinct. Almost every poll shows him losing badly to Hillary Clinton and the reasons are obvious. His negatives are overwhelming. As bad as Clinton’s are, his are worse. He lacks support among women, Latinos and African-Americans. In a two-person contest, it’s hard to win if over half of the voters would vote for your opponent.

 

It’s time, then, for Trump supporters to face reality. The ultimate goal is to win the presidency, not just the nomination and there are just too many of us who would not vote for Trump under any circumstances. If the Republicans waste this opportunity to re-capture the White House against a flawed and scandal-tainted Clinton, who is struggling against an aging socialist from a tiny rural state who was virtually unknown a year ago, they are done as a political force at the national level, especially if they lose the senate which they probably will if Trump heads the ticket.

 

In the sixteen presidential campaigns I have lived through since college days, I have not witnessed a more vulgar, crude, insulting, bombastic, unprepared and egotistical candidate for the most powerful office in the world. I could fill another half page with unflattering adjectives that apply but you catch my drift. He insults women, other candidates, journalists and just about anyone who disagrees with him. He is woefully unprepared to discuss the issues in depth and endlessly repeats generalizations about what he will change without providing much detail as to how.

 

What was it, besides his TV celebrity status and the wealth he flaunts, that attracted supporters, especially the young? Well, the same things that attracts young liberals to Bernie Sanders. They are angry at establishment politicians for failing to provide them with more free stuff and failing to create a utopia where wealth is shared according to need. Many of them are too young to know any better. After all, the only president they have known is Barack Obama.

 

Trump’s supporters like him because, they say, he tells it like it is. But far too often, he tells it like it’s not, as for example, in Wisconsin recently where he told an audience that the state’s unemployment rate was 20% (It’s 4.6%). They like the fact that he is politically incorrect. But too often he is also factually incorrect. He is a loose cannon with his mouth and we cannot have a man with so little impulse control at the head of the most powerful nation in the world. He suggests that he will become more presidential, but he’s already had plenty of chances to demonstrate such traits and I truly doubt that it’s in him. We can’t take that chance. In today’s risk adverse business climate, employers scrutinize prospective employees very carefully because they fear hiring a problem employee that will be difficult to terminate. We can’t risk electing someone who may be a problem president whom we will be stuck with for four years unless earlier impeached.

 

You cannot change the Washington culture of big, intrusive government without understanding how it works. Mr. Trump says that he does understand how it works because he was part of it. Not really. He merely used politicians to get what he wanted as a businessman. Big government isn’t going away. It can be reformed, of course, but it will still take a sizeable government to run a huge, complex enterprise like the U.S.A. He can’t just go in there and fire everybody, no matter how many of his own people he brings in. He still must work with powerful, entrenched interests and bureaucrats who are expert at surviving elected politicians who come and go. Governing the United States is far more complex and challenging than running a business and Mr. Trump has zero experience in government, politics or diplomacy which he demonstrates almost daily with outrageous, offensive statements that offend and alienate people.

 

 

So it’s time to dump Trump. It’s not too late. As of this writing, he’s poised to lose in Wisconsin. This could be a turning point and if neither he nor Sen. Ted Cruz can win a majority of delegates before the GOP convention in Cleveland, delegates need to nominate someone who can actually beat Ms. Clinton like the experienced, capable, moderate and mature governor of Ohio, John Kaisich.  If they unite instead behind Cruz, then the first term Texas senator will have to demonstrate, in campaigning against Clinton, that he is more than just a conservative firebrand who refuses to compromise and can’t seem to get along with anyone but conservatives. As he so often says, he promised Texas voters that he would never compromise his arch-conservative principles. But he needs to understand that he is running for president of the United States, not president of Texas and compromise is how things get done in Washington, like it or not.

April 3, 2016