End of the Nightmare

“It’s amazing what one honest man can do. One honest man and a cause.”

General Lo Armistead

“I don’t think on that too much anymore. My only cause is victory. This war comes upon us as a nightmare. You pick your nightmare side. Then you put your head down and win.”

General James Longstreet

I’ve had the Longstreet quote above running through my head the last few weeks, unable to recall where I’d heard it. Today I was finally able to retrieve the context from my aging brain. When I located the entire passage from the 1993 movie Gettysburg, I realized the complete exchange was even more pertinent to the entire 2016 election, now coming mercifully to a close.

In the movie, a group of Southern generals are discussing the excellence of Robert E. Lee, while their commander General James Longstreet is reflecting instead on the brutal nightmare the Civil War had become in its third bloody year. The ultimate result of the Civil War was largely decided at Gettysburg, just two hours drive from where I sit in eastern Pennsylvania. In the event that Trump pulls off a surprise upset tonight, Pennsylvania will likely be a key part of his victory.

This entire election cycle has been a nightmare. Asked about their feelings on the final day of the campaign, voters most often identify anger, fear, and depression. Those negative feelings are especially strong among independents, a group with which I find myself identified for the first time. Most Americans have picked one of the two nightmare sides, and are hoping their side wins.

Our national angst at the election contest derives in part from the bitterness and divisiveness of the rhetoric on both sides, but even more from the absolute lack of confidence in the nominees of either party. These are the two most disliked candidates of my lifetime. Despite the apologies of partisans on both sides, I believe that dislike is entirely deserved, again on both sides.

During the Civil War, Americans literally killed each other, in numbers never equaled in any other conflict. Yet the fighting men of both sides were able to recognize the excellence of their opponents, their courage and commitment, despite the fact that they were fighting to the death.

We seem to have lost that ability. The bitterness of this election divides friends, families, communities. How is it possible that our ancestors at Gettysburg could treat each other with respect immediately after slaughtering each other by the tens of thousands, yet our candidates today are unwilling even to shake hands before a debate?

A central reason for the partisan divide is that we have lost the very idea of virtue in public life. This process really began in the 1990s, during the first Clinton Presidency. Conservative William Bennett wrote The Book of Virtues, desiring to instruct children in those qualities of character necessary in a democratic society. Democrat Ben Wattenberg responded with Values Matter Most, a book asserting that such liberal priorities as education or affirmative action should form the core of a more elevated national conversation.

The problem, of course, is that values are something that you are not likely to share with your opponents, especially if values are defined in narrow partisan terms. Virtues, on the other hand, are affirmative qualities of character and soul that you can recognize even across profound partisan, cultural, national or religious divides. At Gettysburg Union General Winfield Hancock, gravely injured, brought water after the battle to his dying Masonic lodge brother, Confederate General Lo Armistead. He loved his friend, even though they fought on opposite sides of the most divisive question in American history, whether men might hold other men as property.

This year, the nominees of both major parties are individuals of poor character. Both have lied about issues of material importance. Both have a history of treating ordinary people with brutal indifference. Both have ignored the law, the rules, and common decency whenever necessary to advance their own interests. Neither candidate possesses any visible humility or ability to admit error.

We once shared the belief that good character was a necessity in any candidate for high office, and we celebrated such character in the lives of great Presidents like Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Truman. The choice of these two individuals, Trump and Clinton, to compete for the world’s most important office represents a betrayal, not just of a commitment to character in our leaders, but also of the central values of each party. The Democrats chose someone who has used political influence to accumulate a vast fortune, mostly through relationships with powerful financial interests and authoritarian foreign governments. The Republicans chose a crude man with no understanding of American history, Constitutional principle, or the necessary limits of government power.

Both parties have failed us, in fundamental and obvious ways. Each party’s voters believe that a victory by the other party’s candidate poses a fundamental danger to the health of our democracy.

So my wish is that both parties, regardless of the outcome of today’s contest, will recognize the damage done, in choosing their standard bearers, by abandoning a commitment to basic decency and to the principle that the public interest must take precedence over personal gain . Out nation needs, and our history and principles demand, a better class of candidate next election cycle.

Trump: Less Than Meets the Eye

“There is no there there.”

                                                                                                Gertrude Stein

Many years ago, Saturday Night Live did a bit called “The Thing that Wouldn’t Leave.” As I recall, John Belushi played the part of the dinner guest who refused to get the hint, hanging around long after his exhausted hosts were clearly ready for bed.

I feel that way about Donald Trump. His persistence atop the polls, despite statements that to me appear radioactive, and debate performances that combine ignorance with bombast, continually confounds my expectations.

So as a citizen, Republican, and conservative, I’m going to take another swing at the noisy excrescence that is The Donald.

A considerable part of Trump’s raison d’etre (reason for being, not just reason for running) is his oft-repeated claim to be smart and rich. “I’m, like, a really smart guy…I’m worth ten billion dollars.”

At the moment, Trump is in fact quite rich. Probably about one-third as rich as he claims, as discussed here. But almost certainly a billionaire. And surely he must have been pretty darn smart to get there…or perhaps not.

Recently several substantial news organizations have looked at a fairly simple question. How has Trump done as a businessman/investor, compared to how he might have done if he had simply taken the money he inherited from his father, a highly-successful real estate developer, and placed it into an utterly passive investment, a S&P 500 Index Fund?

The answer, pretty clearly, is not very well, as noted and here and here. Long story short, Trump has made about half as much, with all of his Trump-branding of casinos, office buildings, golf courses and condos, as if he had simply taken his inheritance, bought the Vanguard Index 500 mutual fund, and wandered off to spend the next few decades playing golf on a course he did not own.

And this is before adjusting for risk, and for opportunity set. In terms of risk, Trump has used leverage freely. He has swung for the fences, not once but many times. He’s taken enough risk to have his public company, once Trump Casinos and Hotels, more recently Trump Entertainment, go bankrupt four times.

And consider the opportunity set Trump confronted when he got started. Trump’s father put him in charge of a successful New York real estate development company in 1975. New York has, in the years since, floated atop a tidal wave of investment success. The stock market went up more than twenty-fold. When we talk about the richest 1% in the United States, we are talking largely about New York City. Surely there can have been few better places on the planet to have owned and developed real estate. Surely there can have been few better-heeled customers than Wall Street and its moguls. And yet Trump earned returns roughly half as large as those realized by a sensible mail carrier who put his Federal savings plan into a stock index fund.

One of the great ironies of Donald Trump’s life is his own utter lack of irony. It is entirely clear that Trump believes every one of his self-aggrandizing assertions. He believes himself to be the Titan of the age, one of the great businessmen of his time. It simply isn’t true. He is a guy who inherited a pile of money and a single-syllable Anglo-Saxon last name, engaged in a whirlwind of activity, relentlessly promoted his name and brand, and after four decades ended up with a larger pile of money, which he believes wrongly to be the result of his own activity, but which was actually simply the consequence of the swiftly-rising tide that made many others richer still.

Donald Trump was born on third base, re-named it Trump Terrace, and believes he hit a triple. He got thrown out four times trying to steal home. And he proclaims himself, to everyone who will listen (far, far too many of my fellow Republicans) one of the greatest hitters of all time. He is a fraud.

If Trump remains a player in the Republican field, at some point I promise to share what I really think about him.

’16 No Trump…Please!

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

Thomas Jefferson                    

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Sanskrit proverb                    

As a Republican, I weep for my party when I contemplate Donald Trump still leading the field of contenders for my party’s Presidential nomination, based on no qualifications other than a willingness to express crude outrage on a small number of hot-button issues.

Trump is no Republican, and no conservative. He has given mostly to Democrats. A few years ago, he declared himself a liberal, and said he was becoming more liberal over time. He is a past supporter of single payer healthcare, is pro-choice…the list goes on. Bill and Hillary Clinton came to Trump’s most recent wedding. Bill urged him to run for President. Indeed, the idea that Trump is actually a Clinton operative in the Republican camp is entirely plausible.

At last week’s debate, Trump explicitly refused to support the Republican Party’s nominee for President, should it prove to be someone other than himself. This Pat Buchanan-like move would normally be instantly disqualifying for any Republican. After all, this is the party whose nomination process almost always settles on the guy (must it always be a guy?) whose “turn” it is to carry the banner. Thus weak candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney periodically escort the party to defeat for the highest office.

Given his poor qualifications as a Republican, and add in that Trump is unqualified by experience, ability, and temperament to hold the office of President regardless of party, why is he still leading the field among likely Republican voters?

Pretty clearly, the answer is a growing groundswell of rage at the political and media establishment, who regardless of party appear to collude in preventing certain obvious issues from making their way into the public square. For a certain narrow and angry segment of Republican voters, it appears that if Trump is rude to people they dislike (any politician, any media figure including able and dispassionate journalists like Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace), he must be on their side.

Trump’s sudden prominence echoes a similar personality, regrettably also Republican, who emerged briefly from obscurity more than a half-century ago. From 1950 to 1954, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy led a crusade against Communists and homosexuals in American government. He started with a speech claiming possession of a list of Communists in the State Department.

McCarthy struck a nerve in an American public fearful the Washington establishment was not taking seriously the threat from communists within the government. The threat from Communism was real, as evidenced by the spying of Alger Hiss and others, but the real threat was in no sense clarified or mitigated by McCarthy’s irresponsible accusations. Indeed, because McCarthy was such a crass and vindictive bully, he left many convinced that anti-Communism was per se an indefensible position. Crafting a rational response to a real issue of public policy was made profoundly more challenging by McCarthy’s tactics. (There was no legitimate issue of public policy behind McCarthy’s persecution of gays. None. The man was just a bully.)

McCarthy was finally undone by his own bluster and lack of evidence. It all came to an end in June of 1954, at the Army-McCarthy hearings, when Army counsel Joseph Welch interrupted the blowhard Senator’s attack on one of Welch’s junior legal colleagues to ask, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

The question answered itself. That was the beginning of the end of McCarthy’s reign of terror. He disappeared from the public eye, and drank himself to death within three years.

We know already about Trump’s sense of decency. He has none. How long will it take before he vanishes, and what damage will he do to my party and our country in the meantime?