The worst form of government

Near bottom of paragraph 3 I misspelled specter. Did you get new head shot?
   DB

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The worst form of government
From: David Brankley <kleybran@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016, 6:12 PM
To: editor <editor@telluridedailyplanet.com>
CC:


      Everything about Donald Trump's candidacy has been surprising. Maybe it's just me. I am shocked that so many in my party ,or drawn to my party at least temporarily by this singular candidate from who knows what political netherworld, would find Trump an acceptable choice for president. Why aren't they seeing what I see? It's a good question. I find myself asking it at least once a day, but then I do think about politics way too much. I have this funny idea that understanding politics, especially the how and why of people coming to their political views tells us something significant about humanity, maybe even more than what shows we watch. Some say the two are related.
      If you're not a Republican you're probably thinking, "Of course he's popular. He speaks to people's fears and appeals to all their bassist instincts. That's exactly what your party has been about since Goldwater and Nixon." I don't think that's a fair assessment, but given Trumps success among a large portion of traditional GOP supporters there's undoubtedly some truth in it.
       In this election cycle you are either very cynical or you're not paying attention. My cynicism has been fed recently by coming across the very scholarly " Democracy for Realists" a book by social scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels. They show that study after study highlights the conclusion that very little of our political thinking results from actual thought. Our opinions grow out of our affiliations rather than lead us to them. Our political opinions are largely an accident of circumstance. We use our rational minds mostly to justify these views, not so much for rearranging them, less still for originating them or changing our minds. Even worse than this finding is that the votes that really count in most national elections come from those who haven't even thought things through enough to have a cogent political opinion one way or the other. This group is unburdened by ideological considerations but surprisingly open to considerations as arbitrary and beside the point as ,for instance, the weather, or the color tie last seen on the candidate under consideration. God help us! These are the people who's spector keeps me up at night. Not only do they vote, often elections turn on their irrational impulses and proclivities .
        When it comes right down to it the state of the weather is just as good a reason for voting for or against a candidate or party as the state of the economy. Consider that there are a multitude of factors to hamper,crash, or promote an economy. There are so many, and the process is so complex ,that otherwise reasonable economists can't come to any sort of consensus. Not even Nobel prize winning economists. Like most of the rest of us they come down on ideological lines on economic questions. Little wonder that the rest of us, who haven't devoted a lifetime to studying economics, reach for any trope that's comes handy to base or justify an opinion. Nothing beats a simplistic answer, especially when it reinforces what we already believe and is accepted by those around us. Unfortunately, simplistic answers never work in economics. Maybe that's why it's called the dismal science.
         Did the Clinton tax hike of 1993 stimulate the economic growth that followed, and help lower the deficit? Well actually the economic boom of that period was largely due to the digital revolution that was making economies all around the world more productive and efficient. The reduction in the deficit ( but not the debt) was due to the stimulation of that tech boom combined with budget slashing measures taken by a largely Republican reformist minded Congress. Of course, that tax hike didn't hurt the economy as many of us feared, and it did help considerably to lower the deficit. How you view those events depends almost entirely on what side of the political fence you sit on.
       We like giving credit to our side whenever we can, and accuse the other side of only hurting the causes we care most about. Both sides, right and left, take this to extremes. So you have two opposing sides, alike in blind loyalty to the faith, determined to not give an inch. In the middle you have those who have somehow arrived at their views without the encumbrance of thought. From such strange preferences and enmitys you get modern politics, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. As Churchill said " Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time."