First things first: today is November 5th, Guy Fawkes Day in England. Many of you may be saying the first line to the poem creatively named, The Fifth of November. But many still believe the tale as told by Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta. The story he told was of an anarchist plotting to overthrow a dictatorial government by blowing up Parliament but was caught before he could ignite the gun powder barrels stored in the basement. Though parts of his story are correct there are a few things wrong.
First, Guy Fawkes was a provincial Englishman, part of a French-allied Catholic group and the exact opposite of an anarchist. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was an assassination attempt on James I so the Catholics could install a Catholic head of state. The consequential holiday is a result of Britain's victory over the oppression and tyranny of the Catholic church and their foreign entities, namely the Pope and the French.
In England, November 5th is remembered as Guy Fawkes day and bonfires were lit to symbolize the thwarted plot to blow up Parliament. In the colonies shortly before the American Revolution, it was known as Pope's Day and the Pope was hanged and burned in effigy as a celebration of victory over the tyranny of Catholicism.
So Anarchists, I understand your motives and political intentions, just make sure you have the story straight and your celebrating victory over Guy Fawkes, not Guy Fawkes himself.
Anyway…
As we've grown accustomed to since January 20, a lot happened in the news this week with several ongoing controversies and "scandals." This week felt as though we started sprinting a marathon and just never let off, just continually accelerated until Saturday.
Monday, two of the President's campaign managers were indicted for several crimes unrelated yet eerily close to the Trump campaign; Tuesday saw a madman in NYC bowl over people in his truck; Wednesday was met with a new tax reform plan introduced by the Republicans on Capitol Hill along with Chief of Staff John Kelly in hot water--again; Thursday was spent blasting the DNC and Hilary for "rigging" the 2016 Primary election; and Friday Bowe Bergdahl received to no prison time at his sentencing hearing and the military/veteran section of the internet lost their collective minds.
Is anyone else just exhausted?
I feel like I need a vacation to Vietnam or India just to get away from the news for a bit. Alas, the President is in Asia this week so I couldn't avoid the news if I wanted.
The Russia scandal has doubled since Monday with Conservative media outlets demanding the Clinton Campaign be investigated for the Uranium One and the Steele Dossier-- both of which have been litigated on cable news before.
To understand where the President gets the information for his Twitter storms and to understand where Conservative voters are coming from, I watch one Fox News show almost everyday.
Often, I can't watch the entire show. To say FNC has a hypocritical bias is to understate the problem in American "journalism." Lucky for you, I won't get into the biases, real or perceived.
There is an important element of the FNC political coverage that contributes to the overall narrative prevalent across all media outlets and the President's Twitter feed.
For the past three weeks, Hannity has been obsessed with the Uranium One deal, the Steele Dossier, and, of course, football players kneeling during the national anthem. Now he's been obsessed with other things, and I could spend several hours showing how hypocritical his coverage is with other stories, however, these stories have been influential enough to warrant a Congressional investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.
After watching the coverage on Fox, CNN, and in the traditional outlets (e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), I realized something no one is really talking about but, in reality, we all should be talking about: Presidential candidates.
Sure there's been some talk about the DNC and Donna Brazille's Op-Ed, essentially a few contracts that made staffing decisions before Hilary was the true nominee for the party.
That’s not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the lesser-of-two-evils situations we seem to find ourselves in, election after election, candidate after candidate.
I've had many conversations with my dad about how the lesser of two evils is slowly killing the political system in the US. You know what the greatest evil is? I asked him on more than one occasion, the lesser of the two.
He would always reply, well there's only two people with a realistic chance to win, so you have to vote for one.
I hate it when he's right.
This past election cycle is probably the clearest example of why we need better candidates during the primaries. We don't want to end up with the lesser of two evils, we want the best person for the job. Why don't we demand better candidates, why won't we choose the better of two great candidates rather than the not-as-terrible of the mediocre/bad candidates?
During one of the four or five Republican primary debates, the now-President was asked which leg of the nuclear triad he most supported and which one needed the most development. From his answer it was clear he had no idea what the nuclear triad is nor did he understand its strategic importance to national security.
Why didn't one of the other candidates simply ask him? Why didn't one of them say, Donald I yield you twenty seconds of my time to define what the nuclear triad is. Why didn't we use intelligence and curiosity about policy, some sort of knowledge about the issues facing our country, as part of the elimination process? Why is it that Trump getting a "sick burn" on Rubio/Carson/Christie/ Cruz was the story in the media and not the fact that he couldn't answer a question about one of the most fucking important national security policies?
Because the fight is more interesting than the answer.
I would bring up a DNC primary debate, but let's be honest, no one remembers and no one cares. It was Hilary and the Democrats almost from day 1. Yes Bernie showed a little bit of promise in the early, more liberal states-- go figure-- but petered out. Most of the scandals and disqualifying attributes about Hilary came out during the General. The absolute last place you want scandals or controversies coming out.
The only thing that could have made it worse for Hilary during the General is if the FBI decided to re-open an investigation about her a week before the election… yeah I went there.
In terms of the DNC, none of the events after the convention really matter. It was prior to the convention that we really need to change. It wasn't the electoral college that handed the Democrats the loss in 2016, it was the Primaries.
The fact that Bernie Sanders-- who may very well be the love child of a benevolent Lenin and a young Einstein-- was arguably the most popular candidate on Facebook, says something about where Democratic politics have gone.
What really screwed the DNC was acceptance. They accepted that Hilary would be the nominee in 2016, they accepted that Bernie was just a paranoid Socialist with crazy ideas when he complained about an unfair process. They accepted a subpar candidate because of her perceived popularity and the truly ridiculous idea that Trump could win a Primary race, let alone the General.
Granted a lot of this is on us as a society. We ridicule the opposing side's ideas, debase the candidate of the opposite party, scoff at education and intellect, and belittle reasonable solutions to complex and nuanced problems.
We let politicians push us around with simplistic answers to questions a PhD candidate would have trouble answering.
We accept one line slogans and sound bites over a well-constructed, well-researched policy ideas.
We blame the acts of terrorists on immigration.
We blame the acts of a madman on guns.
We blame regulation for layoffs in the coal/auto/tech industry
We blame rich people for the plight of the poor.
We blame poor people for the national debt and deficit.
We blame Senators for their inability to get anything done and we blame the House for doing too much.
We blame former President's for a terrible economy and take credit for a soaring stock market.
We've lost the ability to understand that a difference of opinion doesn't mean a difference of principle.
We've forgotten that wanting to own guns isn't a mental disorder and wanting to put regulations on who gets those guns isn't a war on guns or gun owners.
We've forgotten how to tell the difference between a person who has a different idea from a person who will destroy America.
We've forgotten the world is a lot more complicated than a four word phrase or a three word slogan; a hashtag on a hat won't make anything great.
In short, we've accepted the idea that the lesser of two evils is and should be the norm when it comes to elections. Until 2016, most of us haven't had a difficult choice in the General election. In fact, the last time anyone had a difficult choice based on merit and not scandal or disagreement was 1960.
So Democrats, it wasn't the electoral college or James Comey that lost the election for you, it was the fact you accepted anything less than someone who truly represents who you are. Republicans, you may have won the West Wing, Senate, and House, but really look at the White House and ask yourself if you trust those employees, would you buy a car from Trump Jr. or a house from Jared Kushner.
My larger point in all this: we need to take a step back from the daily activities of the White House, the constant blame shifting back and forth, and really consider how we elect people, how we talk about the people we're thinking about electing, and the definition qualified.
Hilary, on paper, was one of the most qualified candidates we've had since Bush '41-- yes I can hear Dems rolling their eyes from here. She was a Senator from New York, ran the State Department, founded and ran the Clinton Foundation, and put Barack Obama through a very tough Primary in 2008.
Here's the problem: she isn't from New York originally, she was fairly incompetent at State, her foundation is riddled with scandal, and Obama was going to get nominated no matter how rough the Primary was. In terms of credibility, she failed the test.
But it was her turn.
Republicans, I point you to the Republican Primary debate question about the nuclear triad. Disqualified.
This isn't new.
We've consistently had the lesser of two evils since 1996.
It's time we demanded more from our candidates, demanded more from the Primary process, demanded more from each other in terms of political debate and the positions we hold.
It's time we demand more.
I remember talking to my XO as Primary season was starting to wind down and the General was about to start. Our relationship was one of professional ribbing-- with him calling me a dirty Oregon hippy and me calling him a nerdy Fox News contributor. Often we’d discuss the primary candidates of both parties and how none of them seemed to really inspire much confidence in their leadership abilities.
Unfortunately, he told me during one of these discussions, my grandmother was right: in a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
We deserve better.
Keep your feet moving