Never Trump

The Republican Party officially nominated Donald J. Trump as its presidential candidate last night. Reasonable, well-educated people thought this would never happen, but it has. Either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be elected to lead the Free World (as we used to say) this November by the people of the United States.

In The Episcopal Church, we also hold elections. Bishops are elected by the people of our dioceses. Before candidates are put forth, however, nominating committees investigate possible candidates for their suitability for the job. One mandatory element of this vetting is a psychological evaluation. A potential candidate who shows little concern for others, for example, would normally be eliminated from consideration.

Illustration for The New Yorker
by Javier Jaén

Regrettably, we have no such test for presidential candidates. In the case of Donald Trump, however, I think we have the information we would want from a formal psychological evaluation. The July 25, 2016, issue of The New Yorker, contains a revealing article by Jane Mayer titled “Trump’s Boswell Speaks.” The tagline at the head of the piece is “The ghostwriter of ‘The Art of the Deal’ says that Trump is unfit to lead.” (Note: The story is available on the Web here, where it is titled “Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All.” The tagline is “‘The Art of the Deal’ made America see Trump as a charmer with an unfailing knack for business. Tony Schwartz helped create that myth—and regrets it.” I can’t say why the article has a different title on the Web from what appears in the magazine. I suspect that the Web title makes better click bait.)

Mayer’s piece explains how ghostwriter Tony Schwartz had to manipulate Trump in order to extract enough information to write the book that became a bestseller. Because Trump seems incapable of self-reflection, Schwartz was forced to shadow the mogul throughout his day, even listening in on all his phone calls. For the sake of a good read, Schwartz made Trump seem engaging and clever. In fact, he saw Trump as a narcissistic sociopath with the attention span of a gnat. Schwartz is remorseful for the part he played in advancing Trump’s career and presumably consented to be interviewed as a means of atoning for his sin.

Anyone with even the slightest thought that voting for Trump might be a sane thing to do needs to read and reflect on Mayer’s article.

Black Lives Matter, Too

Black Lives Matter is a fine slogan, born of a spate of murders of young black men, largely at the hands of white police. The slogan was never intended to mean that non-black lives do not matter, but it invariably led to the currency of the counter-slogan All Lives Matter. Some offered this alternative innocently enough, seeing it as a logical corrective to the original slogan. Others, however, used it as a racist put-down of blacks.

Slogan-making is a tricky enterprise, and there are many opportunities for it to go awry. African-American Lives Matter, for example, is clumsy for shouting, and its adoption would have been a big mistake. The conciseness of Black Lives Matter is a real plus. Better, not much longer, and without any words longer than two syllables, is Black Lives Matter, Too. This delivers exactly the right message, especially to the white population: not only do white lives matter, but black lives also matter.

Alas, an opportunity was missed.

The Wisdom of George W. Bush

No, the title of this post isn’t a mistake, though it is true that I am not a big fan of the last Republican president. Both President Obama and President Bush spoke at yesterday’s memorial service for the five police officers killed by a sniper last week. Mr. Obama’s thoughtful and moving speech rightly got more publicity, but Mr. Bush, too, had some helpful words for Dallas and for the nation. This inspired me to design the graphic below. The message is one we all should hear. It is one that Donald Trump, especially, needs to hear and digest.

Click on image for a larger view.
Please share freely.

Note: An earlier observation from yesterday’s event is here.

Rethinking the National Anthem

I’m listening to (and sometimes watching) the interfaith memorial service being held in Dallas, Texas, for those police officers who died last week at the hands of a gunman.

The service began with the singing of The Star-Spangled Banner by the Dallas Police Choir.

I have always found our national anthem stirring, but I have felt a bit queasy about its association with warfare. I have even written my own candidate for a national anthem, “Out of Many, One,” which I thought better characterizes our nation. My text ends with

To our Republic, this we pledge:
For every challenge that awaits,
Free men and women will come forth
Whose work a better world creates.
With banner raised, with grateful hearts,
We honor these United States!

Today, however, I can see The Star-Spangled Banner in a new light. I can excuse the line of the third stanza,

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

because it does not capture the overall spirit of the text. The second verse offers a positive assertion to the question ending the first:

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
’Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The theme of the anthem, then, is not conquest, but victory over adversity. It is about carrying on against overwhelming odds.

That is an appropriate theme for this afternoon in Dallas and, perhaps, an appropriate theme for the Republic as it enters its 241st year.

Time to Study Gun Violence

Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions. All Congress has been able to do is to offer prayers and moments of silence. Not only that, but Congress has prevented the CDC from collecting gun-related statistics and doing research into ways of decreasing the toll that guns have taken on Americans and the American psyche. It is time for Congress to say “no” to the NRA and do what is logical and right. After all, good public policy is impossible to craft when we insist on not knowing the relevant facts. If acting responsibly costs a few Republican seats, it will be a small price to pay (not to mention poetic justice).

Feel free to copy the image below or the larger version of it available by clicking on it.

More on Gun Control

I had not intended to embark on a campaign for gun control, but, since the massacre at the Pulse nightclub on June 12, I have written two essays on the subject: “Gun Control” and “I Do Want to Take Away Your Guns.” Two days ago, I posted a graphic on Facebook that has been shared more often than any contribution I have ever made there.

That graphic is shown below. (Click on it for a larger version.) For years, Congress has been in the pocket of the NRA, but change may be coming. Americans are clearly fed up with gun violence in America, though the average citizen is still not as passionate about the subject as the average NRA supporter. The recent sit-in by House Democrats, however, is an indication that gun control may be moving up the list of legislative priorities.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan complained about the flagrant disregard of House rules that the sit-in represented. That is a fair criticism, but the encouragement the event gave to people who think our gun laws are crazy was worth the inconvenience and lapse in decorum. Besides, Republicans shut down the whole government in 2013 for no rational purpose. Shutting down the House, which hasn’t accomplished anything useful anyway, for a single day, doesn’t seem like a big deal. Write your senators and representatives.

On the Revolution in the House

I cheered the sit-in in the House of Representatives led by Representative John Lewis yesterday. I was particularly delighted with the DYI live streaming done by the Democratic protesters after the C-SPAN cameras were ordered shut off.

I am normally a proponent of playing by the rules, and the House rules, for good or ill, put the agenda in the hands of the Speaker of the House. That said, Americans are overwhelming in favor of tighter gun controls and are tired of the House of Representatives reacting to gun massacres with nothing more than moments of silence. Speaker Paul Ryan, however, showed that it was more important to Republicans to allow financial advisors to fleece their customers than to do anything about gun violence in America.

It isn’t clear that, in the end, the sit-in will have achieved votes on the two issues pressed by the Democrats. Even if there are votes, the measures will surely fail, with all, or nearly all, Republicans voting against change. Welcome to a government run by the NRA. Some great Democratic campaign spots will be made from the House revolution, however.

Stepping back, I must admit that denying guns to people on the no-fly list or other terrorism-related lists is problematic. It is unclear how one gets on these lists, and it is even less clear how one gets off. The lists call to mind Minority Report, in which people are apprehended for crimes they are expected to commit. This has more in common with Soviet Union justice than it has with traditional American justice. Although denying gun sales to “terrorists” on the no-fly list is a popular idea, it is, sadly, a bad one.

Universal background checks are another matter. There is no reason why one needs to pass a background check to buy a gun at a gun store but can purchase a gun without such a check at a gun show or from someone in a back alley. Americans are behind this measure, and Congress should be, too. Unfortunately, Republican legislators (and even some Democrats) have been bought and paid for by the terrorist organization known as the National Rifle Association.

Republican congressmen and -women should be ashamed of themselves. (The Senate hasn’t covered itself with glory, either.)

Note: I recently wrote two essays on guns, which you can find here and here.

Where Is Bishop McConnell’s Signature?

The Pittsburgh-Post Gazette carried the full-page ad shown below on page A-12 of this morning’s newspaper. (Click on the image for a PDF version of the page.) The ad was paid for by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Readers are asked to pledge to end gender violence, specifically to

• Not use violence of any form in my relationships.
• Speak up if another man is abusing his partner or is disrespectful or abusive to women and girls. I will not remain silent.
• Be an ally to women who are working to end all forms of gender violence.
• Mentor antd teach boys how to be men in ways that don’t involve degrading or abusing girls and women. I will lead by example.

Signatures in the ad include those of Pittsburgh Pirates, the mayor of Pittsburgh and governor of Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh business leaders and leaders of key Pittsburgh institutions. Among the other signers are five college and university presidents, presidents of two Jewish organizations, and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh.

Certain signatures one might have expected to see are absent, but I do not know who was asked to sign and who was not. I am sorry, however, that Bishop Dorsey McConnell, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, is not represented. Perhaps the Episcopal bishop was not considered important enough to be part of this effort, or perhaps Bishop McConnell did not respond to a request for an endorsement. Pity.

I Do Want to Take Away Your Guns

Gun control advocates regularly assure gun owners that they only want to tighten gun laws; they do not want to take people’s guns away. This assurance has seemed necessary, particularly in light of the disinformation campaign to convince people that “Obama wants to take away your guns.”

President Obama does not want to take away people’s guns. More’s the pity. I most certainly do want to take away your guns, particularly military-grade weapons, and I suspect that many Americans, in their heart of hearts, would like to do so also.

Australia has shown that substantive gun legislation is possible. (See “Here’s the deal with the Australian gun control law that Obama is talking about.”) That country instituted new controls on firearms after a 1996 massacre of 35 people in Tasmania. Semi-automatic and automatic weapons were banned and, most significantly, a mandatory buy-back program was instituted. The country has not experienced a mass-casualty shooting since.

Admittedly, as long as any guns remain, certain people will use them for nefarious purposes. Absent guns, those same people will find other weapons. Nevertheless, the assault rifle has become the weapon of choice for mass murder because of its ease-of-use, lethality, efficiency, and specificity. It is tautological that removing such weapons from circulation cannot but eliminate the sort of tragedy experienced in Orlando a week ago.

The right to bear arms, like any right in the Constitution, is not unlimited. We do not allow individuals to purchase Stinger missiles, howitzers, or nuclear weapons, all of which are “arms.” There is no reason the government cannot draw the line between lawful and unlawful arms somewhere other than where it is currently drawn.

A few days ago, I suggested what I consider reasonable gun laws that seem meet and proper in light our our nation’s experience with gun violence. (See “Gun Control.”) In that essay, I did not consider implementation. Obviously, a buy-back program would be a fair way of implementing certain provisions of my program.

I found myself curiously undisturbed by the Orlando tragedy. I should have been seriously upset, but mass shootings have simply become business as usual in America. What has followed has been totally predictable, including moments of silence in Congress, followed by a lack of legislative action.

It’s time to make mass murder rare again by changing our gun laws. Express your outrage to our politicians, and pray for the souls of those gunned down in Orlando.

Sincere Bigotry

Click on image for a larger view.
Permission is granted to use this image elsewhere.

Gun Control

In response to the massacre of club goers in Orlando carried out with an assault rifle, the House of Representatives responded quickly by staging the now obligatory moment of silence. The Republican shills of the NRA  will, of course, do nothing more.

There is reason to think, however, that, in the immortal words of Bob Dylan, the times they are a-changin’. Americans are becoming impatient with the never-ending cavalcade of mass shootings. A Hillary Clinton victory in November will likely be accompanied by shifts towards the Democrats in the Senate and House. And a Clinton administration will have an opportunity to tilt the Supreme Court toward sanity and justice.

The Second Amendment reads

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is ambiguity in this provision, and it is significant that the Supreme Court has only recently reinterpreted it as favoring unlimited gun ownership. (I wonder how constitutional originalists justify this. In 1791, this amendment did not countenance AR-15s.) A new court could find a different meaning in the Second Amendment.

I doubt that we will see a change in the Constitution to undo the damage of the Second Amendment, although at least one legal scholar, in response to Orlando, has argued that that must be done. David S. Cohen, writing for Rolling Stone, wrote

But sometimes we just have to acknowledge that the Founders and the Constitution are wrong. This is one of those times. We need to say loud and clear: The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Even if the Second Amendment is not repealed, the Supreme Court could revisit the question of whether there is an individual right to bear arms. I believe that a more liberal court would allow more stringent gun laws.

Here is a proposed list of rational gun laws for the U.S.:

1. All guns must be individually licensed.
2. A background check is required to obtain a license.
3. A gun license is good for three years and may be renewed after another background check.
4. Guns can only be purchased in person through licensed dealers at a dealer’s permanent place of business. (Guns cannot be purchased through mail order or at gun shows.)
5. Every firearm requires the owner to carry liability insurance of at least $1 million.
6. It is a felony to possess an assault rifle and certain types of ammunition. (I am not an expert here. Others can draw up specifications for prohibited items.)
7. It is a felony to own an unlicensed firearm.
8. It is a misdemeanor to fail to carry the required liability insurance, and a conviction for such failure results in forfeiture of the weapon.
9. It is a misdemeanor to carry a gun without having its license on one’s person.

It may take a while to enact such laws, and there will be many Second Amendment martyrs before it’s done. It is my hope and prayer, however, that these or similar laws will eventually be passed.

Update, 6/14/2016. Being Liberal on Facebook has suggested additional regulations, including mandatory training and testing

Update, 6/18/2016. Clarification of item (4): Guns cannot be transferred between individuals. The transfer or sale must take place at a licensed dealer’s. Clarification of item (5): Proof of insurance is necessary to purchase a gun. Clarification of item (6): Prohibited items should not be specified in a list of models or types; it should be based on performance (e.g., muzzle velocity, projectile weight, rate of fire, etc.).

A Time to Choose

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
                                                                     —James Russell Lowell, “The Present Crisis”

The words of James Russell Lowell are from an earlier time in our country’s history, but they are surely relevant to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

It should be clear to thoughtful Americans that Donald J. Trump is a bullying, narcissistic, ignorant, and prejudiced demagogue possessed of a temperament incomparable with public office, much less the highest office in the land. Despite all this, Mr. Trump is apparently going to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

Distressing as the Trump candidacy is, even more disheartening are the attitudes of many voters and, particularly, Republican Party leaders. Increasingly, notable Republicans who clearly appreciate Mr. Trump’s myriad deficiencies are declaring their support, however grudging, for his candidacy. A few have said that they cannot vote for Mr. Trump, and some of these have suggested that they will either not vote at all or will vote for an unspecified third-party office-seeker. No prominent Republican of whom I am aware has indicated an intention to vote for Hillary Clinton.

If, however, a person believes that a Trump presidency represents an existential threat to the Republic (or even only a serious threat), does not that person have an obligation to vote for Hillary Clinton? Even if you believe that Ms. Clinton is flawed and has a distressing habit of pushing the envelope of what is legal and proper, it cannot be denied that she has a sterling résumé and a temperament unlikely to cause widespread anxiety simply because her finger is on the nuclear trigger.

I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is the duplicitous person that Republicans have made her out to be in their years-long attack on her character. But even if she were, it is important for everyone who recognizes the danger inherent in a Trump presidency to vote for her, not to refrain from voting, and not to vote for a third-party candidate. It would be better to elect a reasonable but flawed candidate rather than chance electing an unqualified and unpredictable one. Donald Trump must not become president, and Hillary Clinton is the only realistic alternative. 

I would remind people of the 1991 runoff election in Louisiana between former Democratic governor Edwin Edwards and neo-Nazi David Duke. Edwards’ popularity was low and he was widely (and, no doubt, correctly) viewed as corrupt. Nonetheless, even Republicans such as President George H.W. Bush urged voting for Edwards in light of the alternative. The election became famous for the bumper sticker that read “VOTE FOR THE CROOK. IT’S IMPORTANT.”

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe she will make a fine president, even though she is not my ideal candidate. But even if you think she is morally challenged, she must be viewed as the lesser—very much lesser, actually—of two evils. No to vote for her can only help elect Donald Trump.

Click on image for a larger view.
Permission is granted to use this image elsewhere.

We Are Episcopal Relief & Development

Last week, I attended the 2016 Network Meeting of Episcopal Relief & Development. The event, which was held at a hotel near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, was intended to inspire and empower diocesan representatives of the Episcopal charity to bring awareness, enthusiasm, and giving opportunities to the people of their dioceses.

The most inspiring presentation—to me at least—was a relatively unlikely one. “The Hidden Meaning of the Ampersand” was presented by Communications Officer Faith Rowold, The talk was about corporate identity and image, and some of the content —discussion of corporate fonts and colors, for example—was not the most obvious to be brought before a room of volunteers. As a writer and designer, however, I was fascinated by this stuff.

Rowold’s most important message was that, although Episcopal Relief & Development began as a relief agency early in World War II, and although activities such as disaster relief at home and abroad remain important, development work has become the organization’s primary focus. This work is carried out using a model referred to as asset-based community development, which might be characterized—my words, not Rowold’s—as a coöperative alternative to simply carrying the white man’s burden.

Episcopal Relief & Development began in 1940 as the Presiding Bishop’s Fund for World Relief. Episcopalians may have gotten used to the new name, but the significance of “& Development” may not be widely appreciated. After all, many parishes collect money for Episcopal Relief & Development following major disasters such as the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. The organization may not be mentioned again until the next disaster hits.

Presumably to emphasize the full range of the organization’s mission, volunteers have repeatedly been admonished to eschew the use of the acronym ERD, which had become very common since the current name was adopted. Whenever we refer to the agency, we were told that we must use the complete name: Episcopal Relief & Development. Presenters at the meeting were careful to toe the company line on this matter, but I have always found the prohibition of the use of ERD to be burdensome. Rowold admitted as much by pointing out that the full name contains 11 syllables, whereas the acronym contains only three. Her presentation gave me the opportunity to air my frustrations about the rule.

When speaking about Episcopal Relief & Development, I said, one is likely to need to name the organization repeatedly. Using the full corporate name over and over is time-consuming and, frankly, tedious. It is difficult to resist the temptation to use the full corporate name on first mention and the acronym thereafter.*

This sparked an extended discussion of how one can adhere to what has been laid down as an ironclad rule without one’s conversation seeming stilted. People suggested workarounds, such as using such locutions as “the organization,” rather then “Episcopal Relief & Development.” (Notice that I myself have used such a trick in this essay.)

The most interesting and surprising suggestion was to use “we” in place of “Episcopal Relief & Development” after the corporate name is first mentioned. I had always thought of diocesan and parish representatives for Episcopal Relief & Development as speaking for an external organization, not an organization of which they are actually a part. The organization relies on volunteers to deliver its message and to generate funds, however, and the network meeting I attended was an indication of how important those volunteers are thought to be—most expenses were covered by Episcopal Relief & Development.

Many Episcopalians contribute directly to the support of Episcopal Relief & Development, but Rowold pointed out that even those that do not, support it indirectly if they contribute money to their parish. This is because parishes support dioceses that, in turn, support the general church. The General Convention budgets some money for Episcopal Relief & Development. The value of in-kind contributions from The Episcopal Church are even more valuable. More than $1 million in in-kind contributions are provided in the form of free rent, utilities, and security at the Episcopal Church Center.

In other words, the volunteers (who are now being called network representatives) are very much a part of Episcopal Relief & Development. In a very real way, however, so is nearly everyone who considers his- or herself an Episcopalian. It is time Episcopalians thought of Episcopal Relief & Development as a component of our own parish outreach and time to think of ourselves as part of Episcopal Relief & Development. We are a vital part of Episcopal Relief & Development, and we are such 12 months a year, not simply when disaster strikes.

Spread the word.

We are

_____________
* Interestingly, no one seems inclined to use the acronym ER&D. It is both longer than ERD and suggests that the agency name might be Episcopal Research and Development.

One More PPDI

For a long time, my Web site has contained a list of pluperfect digital invariants (PPDIs) in bases 2 through 10. Recently, I have been finding and posting PPDIs in larger bases. I just revised the list of base-11 PPDIs, fixing minor (mostly formatting) errors and adding an order-9 PPDI that had been omitted, namely,

[10][7][8][10][7][7][4][0][7]₁₁

which is 2,295,894,300 in decimal notation.

My page of PPDIs now lists PPDI in bases 2 through 12. I am certain of the correctness of PPDIs in the first 10 bases, but I still have to recheck the base-12 list to be sure no numbers were omitted.

No doubt, most readers have no idea what this post is about. I have written it just in case it is of interest to someone who finds my blog. In particular, if anyone is relying on my base-11 list, he or she needs to know that the number above is also a PPDI.

Stop Donald Trump, Etc.

Readers may notice a few changes in the sidebar at the right. I removed the list of recent posts because the software that generated the titles no longer worked properly. You can always scroll down to see the most recent posts, of course, and you can also access a complete list of posts in the Blog Archive near the bottom of the sidebar. Remember that a similar list, along with information about each post is available in the blog Table of Contents. (See Links at the right.)

I have removed the Christian Diversity badge from the sidebar, not because I believe any less in Christian diversity, but because I needed the space for something more pressing. That more pressing need is to help elect a reasonable President of the United States.

The Republic might not survive a Donald J. Trump presidency. People of good sense and goodwill need to do everything in their power to prevent the catastrophe that would represent. In this spirit, I am displaying the graphic below, which will become a regular part of my blog’s sidebar.

I encourage readers to use this image freely on blogs, on Facebook, and elsewhere on the Web and off.

A design note: The text color in the above graphic was inspired by Mr. Trump’s hair. (Did you catch that?)

How We Vote, Part 3: Early Voting

Absentee ballots have long been available to voters who expect to be out-of-town on election day or for whom, due to disability, find voting at the usual polling place burdensome. In recent years, states have broadened the acceptable justifications for requesting an absentee ballot, so that, in many jurisdictions, if a voter wants an absentee ballot, one will be provided.

A newer idea is early voting, a procedure whereby a person may vote at a polling place some number of days before election day. Like absentee voting, early voting is intended to accommodate those for whom voting on election day is difficult or impossible. By making voting easier to schedule, early voting is intended to increase participation in elections.

Republican legislatures in several states have sought to curtail early voting recently by shortening the period before election day during which votes may be cast. Whatever rationale may have been advanced publicly for such changes, the clear intent has been to make it more difficult for voters thought to favor Democrats to cast ballots.

Liberals have condemned the new abbreviated early voting periods. To be sure, the motivation of Republican legislators has been reprehensible, but early voting deserves more scrutiny than it usually receives.

Early voting does indeed promise greater participation in elections by giving voters more opportunities to fit voting into their busy schedules. This primarily helps blue-collar voters, who are less able to take time off from work to vote than are their white-collar counterparts. It has the added benefit of diminishing waiting lines, particularly on election day. Long lines can cause voters to give up waiting in disgust and simply not voting at all.

Early voting has its drawbacks, however. Too long an early voting period can result in voters choosing candidates based on less information than is available to later-voting citizens. Early voters do not see late-running political ads or endorsements, and they cannot react to late-breaking news about candidates, either positive or negative. A candidate might even be arrested or die between the beginning of the early voting period and election day!

I was made keenly aware of the perils of voting early in the recent Pennsylvania primary. A friend who votes by absentee ballot because of mobility issues voted for one candidate because he was from the Pittsburgh area. (The other candidate considered was from Philadelphia.) Unlike most of her votes, this one was something of a stab in the dark for a lesser publicized office. I voted on election day and was inclined to employ the same logic for selecting a candidate as my friend. Shortly before election day, I learned of “my” candidate’s anti-choice leanings, however, and chose instead to vote for the candidate recommended by Planned Parenthood. My friend was sorry she mailed in her ballot early. (Pennsylvania does not provide for early voting, by the way, and does not allow for “no-excuse” absentee voting.)

There is merit to early voting, and Republican efforts to do away with it should be resisted. But voters can be given flexibility regarding voting dates without creating a lengthy early-voting period. A month or more is simply too long. I see no reason to allow more than a week for early voting, assuming that voters for whom this imposes a hardship can vote by absentee ballot.

Update, 10/1/2016. The presidential election is more than a month away, and several states are already allowing early voting. This is foolish. There are more presidential debates to follow and, no doubt, damaging revelations about one or both of the major candidates.

How We Vote, Part 2: Superdelegates

As the Democratic presidential primaries have progressed, Bernie Sanders has repeatedly complained about superdelegates. These are delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are mostly party leaders and Democratic officeholders. Superdelegates are not bound by the results of party primaries and can vote for whoever they like for their party’s standard bearer. Every Democratic member of Congress, for example, is a superdelegate. The lack of congressional endorsements is therefore of greater concern to Bernie Sanders than it might, at first, appear.

Going into the convention this summer, Hillary Clinton will have won more pledged delegates and received more votes than her opponent. In fact, she will likely have enough votes to win nomination even without the votes of superdelegates. Sanders only hope—a hope that, at this juncture seems completely irrational—is to prevent Clinton from winning an outright victory by virtue of accumulating pledged delegates and to convince virtually all of the superdelegates to vote for him. His quest for the nomination would be easier if there were no superdelegates, since a contested convention would then result if Clinton failed to garner sufficient pledged delegates.

Does the existence of superdelegates make the primary battle unfair? Does it make it undemocratic? I don’t think so. For one thing, superdelegates are inclined to go along with the will of the people, as expressed in the presidential primaries. This is what happened in 2008, when Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton in primary voting, albeit not by much. Perhaps more importantly, superdelegates provide insurance against Democratic voters selecting a candidate thought unelectable by the professional politicians. (Were Donald Trump running as a Democrat, I have no doubt that superdelegates would be voting for someone else.)

This is not to say that professional politicians have a corner on political wisdom, but they are professionals and, at the very least, are likely to have more informed and sophisticated judgement regarding political races.

Are not superdelegates supremely conservative in their effect? Don’t they make political revolutions impossible? Yes, they do, but this is not a bad thing. Bernie Sanders’ call for a revolutionary change in American politics is a naïve dream. The American ship of state does not turn on a dime; change takes time. Trying to change any other way leads to the French Revolution (or, at the very least, the Democratic Nevada Convention).

Despite what Senator Sanders thinks—and his rhetoric gets progressively angrier as has candidacy approaches definitive failure—superdelegates are not a plot to deny him the nomination. Instead, they provide a safety net for the Republic that, in this age of The Donald, looks like a very good thing.

There is no such safety net in November. If Americans elect Donald Trump, the United States will go over the edge, with unpredictable, though certainly terrible results.

How We Vote, Part 1: Open Primaries

In the long run-up to the 2016 presidential election, I have frequently found myself thinking about how we vote in this country, in general and in party primaries. I had planned to write one long essay on the subject, but it quickly became clear that such a plan was too ambitious, at least if I wanted to post something anytime soon. Instead, I am beginning a series of more modest posts about voting. I begin with the subject of open primaries, a completely arbitrary starting point. More essays will follow. As always, comments are welcome.

Open Primaries

Bernie Sanders has expressed frustration over how states like New York conduct presidential primaries. In particular, he has complained about the inability of independents to vote in the Democratic primary because he seems to be especially popular with such voters.

In fact, states like New York have it right, insofar as they are discriminating as to who can vote in a Democratic or Republican primary election. The purpose of presidential primaries is to help select the candidate who will best represent a given party in the general election in November.

It makes no sense to allow Democrats to vote for the Republican candidate or Republicans to vote for the Democratic candidate. Allowing such crossover voting invites mischief. A Democrat, for example, could choose to vote in the Republican primary not for the strongest candidate, but for the candidate thought easiest for a Democrat to beat. (I imagined a certain satisfaction I would have felt had I been able to vote in the Pennsylvania primary for Donald Trump, a sociopath supremely unqualified for holding high office.)

Allowing a member of one party to vote in another party’s primary distorts the results in both primaries, as one party obtains an extra vote, and the other party is deprived of a vote. This could have the effect of obscuring the popularity of particular candidates as well as the likely turnout of partisans in the general election.

Why shouldn’t a registered independent be allowed to vote in a Republican or Democratic primary, however? To answer that question, we need to think about what it means to register as an independent. Independents are treated differently in different states.

In New York, for example, a voter can register as a member of one of eight different parties, including the Green party and the Women’s Equality party. One can also specify a party not listed on the registration form. A voter can choose to check the box indicating that “I do not wish to enroll in a political party.” Moreover, New York does not allow a voter to change registration except far in advance of an election. It is clearly a state that doesn’t want voters gaming the system.

New York is unusual in listing so many parties on the voter registration form, but it is common for states to allow a party to be written in or for a voter to indicate allegiance to no party when registering. Most states allow registration changes closer to elections than does New York, the extreme case being implemented in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, which allow same-day registration.

No doubt, New Hampshire is a favorite state of Bernie Sanders. There, one can be unaffiliated and still vote in either the Democratic or Republican presidential primary. By voting in a primary, you are automatically registered in the party for which you cast a vote. Before you leave the polling place, however, you can re-register as an independent.

If you are registered as a minor party member, say the Libertarian party, you should not be allowed to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary by the same logic advanced above—you should not be able to influence the decision-making of a party not your own.

A true independent (or uncommitted) voter, on the other hand, is one who has chosen not to be associated with any party. Many people, I suspect, eschew registration in a party out of frustration with the major parties (or parties in general) or because they feel a need for selecting candidates solely on their individual merit.

If you are unwilling to be associated with a particular party, however, why should that party allow you to participate in making one of its most important decisions? Senator Sanders would, no doubt, argue that allowing independents to vote in a party primary is helpful in predicting how swing voters will vote in the general election. There are at least two problems with this argument.

First, there is no direct way of knowing how independent voters have voted. Vote tallies do not tell us. Only through exit polling can we distinguish between the behavior of loyalist voters and independents. Like all polling, exit polling is subject to error.

Perhaps more importantly, the independence of uncommitted voters makes it difficult to know how they will vote in November. An independent voter who is allowed to vote for Sanders may well decide to vote for Donal Trump in November if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. Or the voter, strongly attached to neither major party, may simply stay home.

Thus, arguments for allowing independents to vote in party primaries are weak. Registering as an uncommitted voter in most states means opting out of partisan primaries. That is how it should be.

Postscript. One’s voter registration can be used to send a message. Registered independents are, in some sense, saying “a plague on both your houses.” As a young voter in Louisiana, I registered as a Republican. This meant opting out of choosing most office holders, since, in the time of the Democratic Solid South, election winners were really chosen in the Democratic primaries. My registration was really a vote for competitive elections in my home state. Alas, Louisiana politics are now as bad as ever, but it is the Republicans who are usually in control.

Episcopal Journal: We Deserve Answers

I recently wrote about the lack of transparency regarding the firings at the Episcopal Church Center. (See “Thoughts about Presiding Bishop Michael Curry’s Investigation Update.”) Since then, no additional information has been forthcoming from church headquarters.

No doubt, many Episcopalians are as frustrated as I about what happened at 815 Second Avenue. (In fact, the operation of the Episcopal Church Center is generally opaque.)

Under the circumstances, I was pleased to read an item (“From the Editor’s Desk”) in the May issue of Episcopal Journal. In it, editor Solange De Santis wrote that “[t]he letter announcing [the personnel actions taken by Presiding Bishop Michael Curry] was as notable for what it did not say as for what it did.” The piece concludes

Why should we have to rely on speculation? Episcopalians support the church’s main office with offerings and prayers. We would like to think that churchwide staff are working efficiently and upholding the principles of the denomination they serve. We deserve more substantive answers.

Perhaps Episcopalians should be emphasizing prayers over offerings.

Might Work, Might Not

Ted Cruz and John Kasich have cooked up an interesting scheme to help keep Donald Trump from accumulating the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president on the first ballot. They announced yesterday that Kasich will not campaign in Indiana, which has its primary on May 3. Cruz, on the other hand, will not contest the primary in Oregon on May 17 or that in New Mexico on June 7. The two candidates have encouraged their supporters to follow their lead in reducing competition in the three states. The agreement comes too late to have an effect on the April 26 primaries, and there is no agreement regarding contests in Nebraska, West Virginia, Washington, California, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, or South Dakota.

The theory behind this desperate move is that, with only two active candidates in these races, the non-Trump votes will be concentrated for either Cruz or Kasich, resulting in fewer delegates for Trump. This theory depends on voters (and, I suppose, independent campaign spenders) being as anti-Trump as are Cruz, Kasich, and other Republican Party leaders. Don’t count on it.

Will, for example, a Kasich supporter in Indiana vote for Cruz because Kasich has stepped aside? Were Cruz and Kasich very similar candidates, this might be likely. I think—I am greatly simplifying here—that Kasich is viewed as a center-right candidate and Cruz is viewed as a far-right candidate. Trump, on the other hand, is sui generis. One can easily imagine a Kasich voter viewing Trump as a reasonably second choice. Likewise, a Cruz voter might also see Trump as a viable second choice. One should therefore not assume that all the votes for the candidate stepping aside will go to the other non-Trump candidate. The effect might be to assure that Trump receives a majority of the votes. On the other hand, the candidate agreement may have little effect, as some voters will want to vote for their favored candidate no matter what.

The agreement between Cruz and Kasich may have the desired effect, but I doubt it.