Category: Government, Policy, & Politics

Two ways he uses the charge are absurd. The third is absurdly dangerous.

This is the third sense in which the election is allegedly rigged. If Hillary wins, it will be with substantial majorities of the votes of women, of blacks, of Hispanics—but quite likely with support from only a minority of white voters. And it will signal a demographic shift that may prove irreversible. Unlike the claims of media conspiracies or systemic fraud, this charge is accurate on its own terms.

She’s suggesting that if most Americans disagree with her, she won’t be bound by the results of the election. She’d rather flirt with secession than accept an outcome in which the “us”—Americans as she’s used to defining them—get outvoted in an increasingly diverse nation. That represents a betrayal of the democratic faith.

It is also vile.

An American is an American. Our votes are equal. And the agreement to abide by the results of elections, particularly those whose outcomes we regret, is the pact that sustains our democracy.

Source: Three Things Trump Means When He Says the Election is ‘Rigged’

For the third time since The Atlantic’s founding [in 1860], the editors endorse a candidate for president. The case for Hillary Clinton.

Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964 [Lyndon B. Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater]. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy.

and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.

Source: ‘The Atlantic’ Editors Endorse Hillary Clinton for President – The Atlantic

During the latter part of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question.

“On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation’s longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?”

it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated making to it.

The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt’s excellent question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign: the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.

a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency isn’t rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics into theater).

Yet beyond the outsized presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere—in the utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national security.

Source: Time for Real Answers on War | The American Conservative

This year, for the first time since at least Richard Nixon, the leader of one of our major political parties has pledged to limit press freedom by restricting criticism of his prospective rule.

Anyone paying attention knows there is a great deal at stake in this election. Freedom of the press in this country may be among those stakes.

Source: Donald Trump and the Return of Seditious Libel – ProPublica

The integrity of the country’s political system is on the line.

the National Institute of Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona has just come out with guidelines for debaters, the debate audience and, importantly, the moderators, that need to be heeded. Most of the guidelines are simple and obvious: Debaters should be respectful of others, answer the questions asked, and stand against incivility; audience members should be respectful, not create disturbances, and listen to those speaking.

The key, though is the moderators. The Institute’s guidelines ask moderators to address uncivil behavior by calling it out; enforce debate rules equally; hold candidates accountable for truthfulness and integrity; treat candidates equally when it comes to complexity of issues and debate rules; and be respectful in interacting with the candidates.

debates need to be more than infotainment, offering a serious exploration of candidate’s positions, beliefs, and ability to govern. That puts a burden on the candidates, on the audience in the hall, and on the moderators. For the sake of America’s ability to govern itself, they all need to rise to the occasion. The NICD guidelines are a start.

Source: U.S. Presidential Candidates Should Maintain Civility – The Atlantic