The other night the LWC household was enjoying an evening of televised entertainment, courtesy of one of the inhabitants of the NCIS ecosystem. Not a bad show; pretty good, in fact, considering the acting, directing, dialog and overall production values. But procedural and formulaic, without a doubt.
For variety we can always turn to the presidential candidacies of The Bern (Senator Bernie Sanders - Independent/Democratic Socialist/Democrat (for current purposes, at least), Vermont) and The Donald ( Billionaire Mr. Donald Trump - Republican (currently), At Large) which are both anything but procedural and formulaic. And they are entertaining, too, although to this viewer they are two very different types of entertainment: one is like the PBS News Hour, sober, factual and thoughtful, though with an occasional touch of irritability; the other is something like an exaggerated Game of Thrones (there's something bad on the other side of the wall!) with fewer socially redeeming values.
However, both Trump and Sanders are responsible for doing something good -- Together, they are dragging out of electoral torpor great new numbers of voters. The wealthy and decidedly-white collar Trump seems to have made himself into tribal war chieftain for legions of older blue collar workers who are inconsistent voters; grumpy, grandfatherly Sanders has become some kind of superhero rock star for millions of young people who, as a group, are historically infrequent voters. In a country that has come to congratulate itself when 60% of registered voters actually vote in an election, this is a good thing.
Both deserve credit for something else -- Stimulating the political conversation. I am not entirely convinced that this year's newly-stimulated conversation is going to yield positive results in the short run, but in the long run democracy requires stimulated public conversation in order to produce better and long-lasting governance.
Do not misunderstand the giving of credit where credit is due as any type of endorsement. Both of these candidacies are seriously flawed. Sanders is cerebral and positive, but does the voters a disservice by ginning them up with hot-button issues only by presenting a portion of the story. Manufacturing jobs, for example, have been lost not just because of international trade agreements, but also because of the profit-driven motivation that manufacturers have to relocate their labor-intensive operations to locations with the lowest cost of labor (assuming other things are equal). And let's not forget about quality and end-user appeal: like many of my contemporaries, my first brand-new car was a Toyota. Built in Japan, that car and its clones cost America some manufacturing jobs. But it met my needs, it was fun to drive, it looked good, and it was the right price. By the way, this was in 1976, so it was way, way pre-NAFTA.
But if we are to count flaws in a candidate, Trump is light-years ahead of Sanders. He is the opposite of cerebral and positive by appealing to -- and amplifying -- the base emotions of hostility, fear and anger. Listening to him talk about "illegal immigrants," you would never guess that in the last few years the flow across the southern border has actually reversed direction (based on comparing the numbers of border crossings), or that repeated and reliable research consistently shows that undocumented immigrants in the United States are among the most law-abiding residents in the country. After all, they have more reasons to avoid the notice of the authorities than the rest of us.
The Donald is an authoritarian. Authoritarianism does not mix well with democracy. The administration of a President Trump would not be likely to result in a country that is able to robustly advance itself in foreign affairs, economic and fiscal policies, and civil and human rights.
The Bern is an idealist. To produce positive results, a President Sanders would have to recognize that the appeal of idealism in a new government quickly goes on life-support without the backing of an electoral mandate for a sensible, fact-based and near-term action plan.
At this point, Trump will probably (though not definitely) be the Republican nominee for president. Sanders is not likely to be the Democratic nominee; that is, as long as "not likely" is read in the context of "anything is possible."
So, yes, The Donald still has an opportunity to change those tiger's stripes of his, and The Bern has time to more completely bake (pun intended) his policy proposals. That is two pretty tall orders, so I wouldn't bet even money on either of them happening.
For now, though, I will maintain my own personal confession that the non-procedural, non-formulaic candidacies of Trump and Sanders are good for the country. As for entertainment value, though? Well, I will have to give the edge on that competition to the NCIS people.
