U.S.A. election 2016: The Bern and The Donald -- Believe it or not, their candidacies are a good thing

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.

Election 2016: Can a candidate win without using “voter anger?” – a conversation with Sue Savary, candidate for Congress

Pretend, for the moment, that this year’s electioneering could look different than it does.  Imagine that the candidates’ bellowing, and the media hype, about “voter anger” were to be replaced with other messages.  For example:  Perhaps  there could be more meaningful and detailed discussions about policy positions and growth proposals?  Would not that make for more informed voting decisions?  I think most people would answer that last question with a big “YES!”

But, the reality is that “voter anger” – whatever that really means – has been a dominate political theme for most of the last year, and will continue in that way for the rest of 2016.

Leaving aside the presidential aspirants, there must be other candidates – perhaps candidates for Congress – whose message is not dominated by references to voter anger.  Change can be done constructively and without rancor, whether from one side of the political spectrum or the other.  There must be some candidates out there who are brave enough to appeal to voters’ intelligence instead of simply seeking to amplify emotions.

And so I finally wade into the mission of analyzing the issues and candidates of this year’s election by starting locally.  Can I find a local candidate for Congress with a message of constructive change that has little or nothing to do with voter anger?

I found one.

This one is a Democrat.  (Maybe there’s a Republican for another time.)  She is a Democrat who has no trouble embracing ideas that are comfortable for Republicans and other conservatives as well, too.  And she does this in the spirit that “all things are possible;” anger is not needed, nor would it be helpful.

Dr. Suzanne Savary is a Democratic candidate for Congress in the 48^th Congressional District in California.  That area is coastal Orange County – from Seal Beach at its northern end, to Laguna Beach at its southern reach, and a few miles inland.  Its wealth and income levels are above mean and median.  The District is currently represented by 14-term Republican Dana Rohrabacher, who was first voted into Congress in the election of 1988.  The District has a decades’ long record of a Republican voting majority – although it interrupted consistency with a vote for Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election – and Rohrabacher will stand for re-election.  With the additional advantage of incumbency, it would be no surprise if Rohrabacher were confident of victory.

In fact, Savary and Rohrabacher faced off in the last election in 2014.  Rohrabacher, of course, won handily.  So, why would Savary want to try again?

As it turned out, she had several good answers to that question.

2014 was Savary’s first – and, until now, only – try for elective office.  Now, in 2016, that has to count for something in an election year in which voters seem to place a premium on candidates whose careers have been something other than politics.  She seems happy to look at 2014 as a novice’s learning experience, with lessons, and a certain amount of legacy campaign organization, that can help produce a better campaign the second time around.  Also, 2016 could see a larger turnout of Democratic voters than was the case in the last election.

Savary positions herself as the Democrat candidate who is proud of her political affiliation, and at the same time is equally sincere in promoting a pro-business theme.  She sees that as a way of accelerating local economic and employment growth while maintaining a commitment to addressing root causes of income and wealth inequities, including constrained employment and educational opportunities.  She emphasizes small and medium sized businesses as those providing the best fit in the Congressional District’s cities.

There is nothing particularly novel about that message.  It sounds somewhat Clinton-esque, in the sense of the Bill Clinton administrations of the 1990s, although Savary did not try to make that connection.  Instead, she draws on her extensive experience in management consulting and on her time on the faculty of the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business, where she taught on the subject of management and communications.

And so, there will be a Democratic candidate in the 48^th Congressional District who can make a very convincing case that she can best represent the business development needs of the local cities to the nation’s government in Washington, D.C.  Rohrabacher can disagree with Savary on that, but he could find himself forced into a defensive position because of Savary’s business background and credibility.  She has the ability to occupy space that is traditionally Republican turf.

Savary is challenging the established order of things, but without the need to appeal to voter anger.  She speaks instead in positive and optimistic terms about the boundlessness of America’s future, both locally and nationally.  In her words, now is the “time to accomplish bold things.”  She is eager to present herself to the electorate by saying that “bold things” ought to include policies to stimulate business formation, job creation, empowerment of women and families, enhancement of educational opportunities, rethinking foreign policy, additional space exploration – a full spectrum of things, from the work-a-day needs of employees and business owners, to the wide-open visions of developing and using new technologies.

California’s June 7 primary election will be Savary’s electoral gateway to competing against Congressman Rohrabacher in the November contest.  California runs a jungle primary – only the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, advance to November.  She will compete against other Democrats; Rohrabacher is unlikely to face any Republican challengers.

California’s 48CD has a largely conservative and Republican population.  But Savary, as a Democrat, probably has a style that is too conservative for the more liberal type of Democrats who are turning out in relatively large numbers in other parts of the country in voting for Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential nominating process.  Should Democratic voters in the 48^th follow in that same pattern it could hurt her chances to advance beyond the primary election.

If, however, Savary is one of the two finishers who walk out of the June 7 jungle, then her business-aware approach is likely to serve her well in November.