EMBRACING NOSTALGIA ALLOWS US TO DECOMPRESS

A few weeks ago, while erecting our Christmas tree, listening to Christmas carols, and inhaling the scent of cookies baking in the oven, I was overcome by an overwhelming sense of nostalgia. With everything our minds have been preoccupied with this past year, and with all the challenging issues at home and abroad that will confront us in the coming year, this sensation actually felt tremendously comforting, be it somewhat melancholic. It occurred to me that, perhaps, this is exactly what we as a community and as a nation need right now - enjoy the season, take some time off, and reflect on what has always made us feel safe and comfortable.

While processing this experience I recognized intuitively that in my mind "nostalgia" contains characteristics that are largely positive and beneficial.

The dictionary definition of nostalgia is "a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition," sometimes enhanced by a "yearning for the happiness felt in a former place, time or situation." However, for centuries, giving into feelings of nostalgia was considered a sign of weakness.

The word originated from the Greek for "homecoming" and "pain." Throughout most of the 19th Century this sensation was considered a potentially debilitating, and sometimes fatal, medical condition, expressing extreme homesickness. (Melissa Dahl, "The Little-Known Medical History of Homesickness," February, 2016). A Swiss medical student, Johannes Hofer, first defined nostalgia in a dissertation he wrote in 1688. He defined it as a mental illness, an affliction of those who had left their home, and which struck them as they recalled fond memories. In some cases they were crippled by the sense of longing these memories brought. His research focused on Swiss mercenaries fighting abroad. Consequently, early on, nostalgia was often referred to as the "Swiss disease." The characteristics Hofer identified and discussed were recognized well before he published his dissertation.

During the Thirty Years War - which ran from 1618 to 1648, involving much of central and southern Europe, Spanish soldiers were discharged from service because they suffered so strongly from it that they were no longer capable of fighting. During the early 1700s, Russian troops were often buried alive if they succumbed to the so-called nostalgia virus. And during the U.S. Civil War, soldiers who grew nostalgic for their homes and families were publicly shamed and ridiculed until they got over it. (Debra Kelly, "When Nostalgia Was Considered A Crippling Mental Illness," June 29, 2014).

These days nostalgia is viewed as an independent, and even positive, emotion many people tend to experience frequently. Led by University of Southampton psychologist Constantine Sedikides, scientists focus on its potentially therapeutic aspects. Research suggests that nostalgia can promote psychological health, including counteracting the effects of loneliness and providing us with a greater sense of continuity and meaning to our lives. It seems to help us maintain a sense of who we are, and how we are connected to other people through our relationships. Participation in religious traditions or cultural norms, especially during the Holiday season, helps us do that. (Krystine Batcho, "Why We Feel Nostalgic During The Holidays," New York, Le Moyne College, December 20, 2011).

This past year has been stressful for many of us. The daily bombardment of controversial input, emanating from a brutal election campaign, caused many relationships to become severely frayed. A post-election article in the Boston Globe stated that the mental health of Americans of all persuasions had been seriously challenged. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and other hot line services reported huge surges in calls for help.

As a result of all that we have been confronted with this past year, many of us have experienced the feeling of being disconnected from reality, and acknowledged that somehow we have been separated from some of our friends and family members. The feeling of nostalgia that may overpower us during this time of the year, if we allow ourselves to embrace it, could help us regain a margin of separation from all that befuddles us, while bringing us mentally back to a time when political and social distractions did not get in the way of our sanity. It can help make us feel grounded again, and provide continuity and context to our lives. If we feel we need it, it may even help give us the strength to move on. We will realize  that there will be ample time to confront and assess our challenges after the holidays.

Wishing everyone Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, or Happy Kwanzaa, all of which this year are celebrated around the same time. They provide a fitting spiritual conclusion to a tumultuous year. I am confident that even those of us who don't subscribe to a religious tradition will still be inspired by the spirit of the season, and feel connected to all who surround us.

ANXIETY AND XENOPHOBIA IN POST- ELECTION AMERICA

One of the troublesome aftermaths of a nationalist electoral victory continues to be that the victors, especially those who used to occupy the fringes of society, now feel emancipated and entitled to act on their nativist impulses and begin to attack minorities, immigrants, and basically anyone they don't like. Back in June, when many voters in the U.K., upset over what they believed was an unrestricted inflow of migrants, voted to leave the E.U., racist abuse increased almost 100% overnight. Much of this abuse was directed at Polish immigrants, many of whom had been British citizens for generations. Pamphleteers spread the word that now that the U.K. was leaving the E.U., its citizens no longer needed to tolerate "Polish varmint." Kids in school were told that they would be deported. Casual racism spread unchallenged.

Fast forward to our own post-election period. Two days after the election results were in, USA Today headlined: "Rise in racists acts follow elections." Educators were quoted suggesting that feelings that had festered for years in private were now coming into the open. A swastika was scrawled on a softball field dug-out in Wellsville, N.Y., accompanied by the slogan: "Make America White Again." In Maple Gove, Minn, messages on a high school bathroom wall included: "#gobacktoafrica," and #whitesonly." White students in De Witt, Mich. formed a physical wall of students to block Latino kids from entering school. A Muslin woman had a knife pulled on her in a bus by a Trump supporter. Several California Mosques received threatening letters stating: "Trump will do what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews." And a personal friend, who immigrated many years ago, who built a successful business, and who employs many in our community, has been confronted by people coming into her business telling her in no uncertain terms: "Go home!"

The Southern Poverty Law Center tracked more than 80 reported hate crime and racist incidents in California between Nov. 9 and 16, the most of any state. The pattern is not just disturbing, it is scary.

Whether President-Elect Donald Trump can stem this tide is questionable. After all, candidate Trump provided ample ammunition for these hate groups. In November last year, on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program, Trump vowed to build a "deportation force" and deport 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country. That same month Trump confirmed that he would "absolutely require Muslims to register in a data-base." One of his surrogates, Carl Higbie, representing the biggest Super-Pac supporting candidate Trump, reiterated this intent, and suggested that the Japanese internment camps could serve as legal precedent for establishing a Muslim registry. During a subsequent interview on "Meet the Press," incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared to confirm this when he stated that he "would not rule anything out."

The selection of Stephen Bannon as President Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor has dampened the hopes of many that Mr. Trump's transition to President-Elect and President would somehow prompt a softening of the populist and nativist positions he ran on when he was still a mere candidate for the office. Only two years ago, in an email to supporters, Bannon wrote: "Let the grassroots turn on the hate, because that's the only thing that will make them do their duty." In his role as (former) Executive Chairman of the Breitbart New, Bannon is known for statements like: 'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy," calling Bill Kristol - editor of the Weekly Standard - a Republican spoiler  and a renegade Jew," claiming that Huma Abedin, aide to Hillary Clinton, is connected to a terrorist conspiracy, and calling progressive women "a bunch of dykes."

People like Richard Spencer, leader of the so-called "alt-right" movement, a distinctly white supremacist organization, for which, according to Mr. Bannon, the Breitbart News provides a platform, rejoiced at the appointment. During a Nov. 19 meeting in Washington D.C., Mr. Spencer suggested that the "alt-right" could serve as "an intellectual vanguard" that would complete Trump. He hoped that they could be "the ones who are out front, and who are thinking about things that he (Trump) hasn't grasped yet." He ended his speech, appropriately, with the Nazi salute: "Hail Trump!"

Six days after the election, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich declared that the administration should push Congress to organize a new House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to the former Speaker, who has not been shy about his desire to become part of the new administration: "We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis ..... We're going to presently have to take similar steps here in regards to Muslims."

The anxiety, and the fear induced by xenophobia permeating through much of, non white, post-election society is palpable. This was aptly articulated when a member of the cast of "Hamilton," actor Brandon Dixon, asked Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, after he attended  a performance, to listen to this message: "We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and to work on behalf of all of us - all of us!

Enough said.

ELECTION 2016 - WHAT HAPPENED, AND WHAT IS NEXT?

This post was supposed to be titled "What's Next?". While the answers to this question are now probably more important than ever, the first thing that comes to mind right now is "What Happened?"

While  most analysts, pollsters, and political pundits are busy explaining why they were wrong predicting a vastly different outcome, some will suggest that there were indicators that Donald Trump winning the election, while surviving a brutal campaign, was not entirely unexpected. Some experts, perhaps afraid to end up on the wrong side of the prognosis, timidly cautioned not to forget what happened in the U.K. earlier this year when Britons were asked, in a referendum commonly referred to as "Brexit," whether or not to stay in the European Union. Polls massively predicted a "stay" vote, only to be stunned by a 52% to 48% defeat.

The similarities to what happened in our election are striking. Both countries, and for this matter most continental European countries as well, are experiencing a populist surge. While an increasing exhibition of populist anger has been recognized during election campaigns, the phenomenon infrequently developed into a predictable threat to real power. Because of labels like "ignorant" and "degenerate" the establishment attempted to attach to this group, a substantial number of these voters remained publicly silent about their intentions. In the U.S., as well as in Great Britain, this silent electorate produced largely unexpected election results.

We are engaged in a cultural civil war. A struggle between a mostly rural, blue collar, older, mostly white population segment which feels estranged from the social and demographic trends that are reshaping their country, against multi-cultural urbanites, social liberals, immigrants and minorities, supported by a status-quo elite structure that has ignored them. Populist demagogues across the spectrum successfully corral this sentiment, and provide simplistic answers to real problems. Instead of suggesting the workable solutions complicated challenges demand, they provide scapegoats like globalization, immigration, trade agreements, and government failure. "Let's Make America Great Again," in reality, becomes "Let's Make America White Again." Our election was about "restoration" against "transformation." It was not just about "change." For populists it was about turning the clock back to a more traditional time. The concerns about losing jobs and the elimination of entire industries is not just about losing income and obstructing a path to joining the middle class. It is about ending the progression of the social and demographic changes that threaten the identity of many lost in their own country.

Politicians leading this civil war view it as a revolutionary movement. Nigel Farage, head of the United Kingdom Independence Party, who led the campaign for Brexit, was energized by Donald Trump's electoral success, proclaiming: "The revolution continues!

So, what's next?
There will be plenty of time to assess the aftermath of the election when we move into 2017. We can only contemplate some of the following:

* The wall along our southern border could become a reality, even if Mexico won't pay for it.
* The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is on life support. The insurance of 20 million people could be at risk.
* The Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is dead.
* Judge Merrick Garland's elevation to the Supreme Court is dead.
* The Iran Agreement is in trouble. However, since this is a multi-lateral agreement, us pulling out won't kill it.
* NAFTA could be in trouble.
* Eleven million undocumented workers and three million American Muslims are worried about their future status, especially now that Steve Bannon, Executive Chairman of The Breitbart News, an explicitly racist organization, has become Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to the President-Elect.
* Impeachment of Hillary Clinton is now off the table. However, House Republicans are planning to "continue investigating her for years to come."
* Mike Pence won't be running for President in 2020.
* The Democratic Party is fielding calls to replace the Electoral College with a system using only the popular vote when selecting a President. This movement gained traction after the 2000 election, and since Clinton could well end up with 2 million more votes than Trump, the issue has again become popular.

A friend of mine composed a list of 123 promises candidate Trump made during the campaign. Supporters and opponents of the President Elect will surely maintain a running tab on what President Trump will actually follow thru on. As David Miliband, a British Labour Party politician, observed, when confronted with the Brexit vote in the U.K.: "Populism is popular until it gets elected - then it has to make decisions." The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

THE END IS NEAR - 270 OR BUST!

It is (almost) all over but the crying, grumbling, whining, growling, or complaining, whichever verb you might select to express your sentiment if you end up having supported the losing side in this year's presidential election. It is fair to say that the entire world will be holding its collective breath in anticipation of the outcome. And even though we are only a few days away from what some would refer to as "Armageddon" -  the final battle between the forces of good and evil - nobody predicts that the last days before November 8 will be uneventful. 

With all the venomous rhetoric spewed throughout the campaign, what will happen after the election is finally over is still very much in question. Nevertheless, this is decision time, and we are compelled to do our civic duty. As Theodore Roosevelt aptly observed: "In any moment of decision, the best thing to do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Before we begin to express concerns about potential implications of the outcome of this election, we should focus on how that decision is actually reached.

Most of us are aware that the popular vote does not decide the election. We vote for electors who represent us in the Electoral College. The number of electors each state is allotted is equal to the number of members of Congress to which they are entitled. Combined, these amount to 538 electors. This means that the winner will need to collect 270 electoral votes to be elected President. Most states use a winner take all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electors by Congressional District. Once the votes are in, the Electoral College meets the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to officially verify the outcome. This year that will be December 19.

While all states participate in the election, the real battle takes place in so-called "battleground" or "toss-up" states. Democrats traditionally control the outcome on both coasts, with the possible exception of Florida, while Republicans have historically exerted more of a strangle-hold on the central and southern states. This year the dynamics could prove to be somewhat different. The Associated Press has rated 278 electoral votes to be safely Democratic. Their list of toss-ups include: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Nevada and New Hampshire, totaling 72 electoral votes. The Republican nominee needs to win all of these to have a chance at reaching the 270 target. Other states that could be in play are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and possibly even Arizona and Georgia, both traditional Republican strongholds. In Utah, which has traditionally voted safely Republican, a political unknown, Evan McMullin, could have a shot at winning that state's election. Another race to watch, if for no other reason than curiosity, is the Senate race in Louisiana, where ex KKK Grand Wizard David Duke is, again, attempting to get elected. An estimated 50 million plus votes will already have been cast before we get to November 8. A very sizable percentage, considering that we have 146 million registered voters, of which only 126 million voted in the 2012 election.

Aside from the selection of a new President, 469 congressional seats are up for election as well, 34 Senate seats and all 435 House seats. Republicans control 246 seats in the House of Representatives, while Democrats occupy 186. Three are vacant. To retain control of the House, the GOP can lose no more than 29 seats. The Cook Political Report has rated 57 seats as "competitive."

On the Senate side the battle for control is significantly tighter. If Clinton is elected, Democrats need to turn 4 Republican seats to get control of the Senate, 5 if Trumps gains the presidency. (Democratic VP candidate Tim Kane would hold the tie breaker in a Clinton administration.) Republican incumbents at risk are: Mark Kirk, Illinois; Ron Johnson, Wisconsin; Kelly Ayote, New Hampshire; Patrick Toomey, Pennsylvania; Rob Portman, Ohio; Marco Rubio, Florida; and the open seat in Indiana contested by Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Todd Young. In Nevada the seat being vacated by Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat, could be in play for the GOP. Leaders in both parties consider the battle for control of the Senate almost as significant and consequential as the contest for the White House.

Local candidates, bundled with a myriad of initiatives, dot the ballots in every state. Proposals covering the death penalty, marijuana reform, gun control, tax proposals and others are presented in hundreds of ballot initiatives offered up in states across the country. Throughout the years some of these have been real odd-balls. It has not been unusual to find ballot measures like: "Should we prohibit toxic waste in our drinking water?" (1986); "Should a police officer get to walk his beat with a ventriloquist dummy?" (1993); "Should we give $1 million to one random voter?" (2006).Or, as we see on our California ballot this year: "Should porn actors be required to wear condoms?"

Donald Trump recently proclaimed: "We should just cancel the election and declare me the winner." Hillary Clinton's team seems to be confident that their candidate is the odds on favorite to be elected President. While confidence promotes optimism, we should keep in mind what happened during the 1948 election between President Truman and Governor Dewey. With Dewey well ahead in all the polls, the Chicago Daily Tribune jumped the gun and announced in its morning edition on November 3rd that "Dewey Defeats Truman," only to be confronted with what has been called "the greatest upset in our history." (Truman beat Dewey by 114 electoral votes.) 

Something to consider when we watch the returns coming in. It is not over until it actually is. What happens next will depend on who wins.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? - LESSONS FROM WEIMAR

Sex, lies and videotapes appear to dominate the dialogue this election cycle. Our electorate seems to be more focused on character traits than on policy proposals. Chances are that eligible voters will select their choice for President based on leaks and innuendo, rather than on what they believe their collective votes will mean for the future of our country. Unfortunately, many are unable to see the forest for the trees. They are unable to understand, or unwilling to consider, the consequences of their selection, because they are concentrating on all the surface noise. Buyer beware!

George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, has been quoted saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The recent influx of populist movements across the globe, and their influence on the political discourse at home and abroad, has reminded some of us of the populist uprising that took place in Germany immediately following World War One. It could be beneficial to look at how our current political environment resembles relevant influences that were dominant in Weimar Germany.

While trying to recover from the effects of losing the war, German leaders attempted to create a modern liberal democracy. In a country that had up to then only known militarism and authoritarian monarchy, this proved to be difficult. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, required Germany to take full responsibility for the loss and damage during the war, forced it to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay $31.4 billion in reparations (equal to $442 billion in 2016 money). The Weimar Republic confronted obstacles at every turn. The terms of the Treaty were impossible to comply with. Simultaneously, and legislatively, the Russian revolutions of 1917, and the consequent influence of the Communist International, effectively prevented cooperation among the strongest political parties represented in the Reichstag. When the world descended into the "Great Depression" the end was in sight. By the election of 1933 "Weimar" was effectively done.

With "war guilt" hanging over everyone's head, an economy in shambles, unemployment rampant, and the national parliament unable to agree on even the simple things, a populist belief in the power of regular people, and in their right rather than that of a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite, to control their government, took hold. Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) co-opted the national mood, and translated its sentiment into a political platform that contained: opposition to "Versailles," cultural superiority of the Aryan race, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-immigrant, Germany first, and economic isolationism. With support of the disenfranchised middle class and an autocratic elite, Hitler parasitized the movement, and shifted it to the ideological right. Six days before the 1933 elections, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a campaign of violence against the Communist Party, trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party, and the center-right Catholic Party. Even so, Hitler only received 43.9% of the vote, and needed to coalesce with the German National People's Party to give the NSDAP a tiny majority in the Reichstag. With their help he was elected Chancellor. Within two weeks he acquired dictatorial powers, and within months all other parties were banned. We know the rest.

So, what do we learn from this? What was once considered an anomaly, has become a trend. Nationalist and populist politicians have begun to assume power in many countries. The end is nowhere in sight. Ant-Semitism, in many places accompanied by Islamophobia, is cropping up all over. The migrant crisis in Europe revived a strong sense of populism. In country after country, anti-immigrant attitudes are blended with a nativist sentiment, focused on effecting cultural purification. Racial profiling, anti-trade, anti-globalization, and economic protectionism arguments feed into discussions similar to those prevalent during the troubled Weimar experiment. Messianic and pathological narcissists have taken center-stage in a growing number of countries. Russia has Vladimir Putin. Hungary elected Viktor Orban and his far-right Fidesz party on the premise of keeping migrants out, and keeping Hungary's national identity pure. In Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party are converting its constitution and judicial system to more closely reflect an authoritarian past. The National Front, France's third largest party, is lead by politicians who once proposed to use the Ebola virus to take care of France's "immigration problem." On December 4, Austria will most likely elect Norbert Hofer its first Neo-Nazi President since World War Two.
And the Philippines just elected a new President, Rodrigo Duterte, who has already been accused of having his hand in the death of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders, while joking about the Holocaust. In this country our populist contender for the presidency, while subscribing to all the elements feeding into these pathological political positions, has suggested that, if successful, he would jail his opponent. If he loses, he appears disinclined to accept the outcome. Some of his supporters are already on record promising to start an insurrection.

While considering these worrying trends, I could not help but remember a poem by the anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
My mother warned me in the late 1940's that "next time they will come for the Catholics." In 1942 they did come for my grandfather, a butcher, who was accused of feeding the Jews in our community. He was convicted and sent to the gallows in the Nazi re-education camp in Lahde, Germany.

I am far from predicting another holocaust. However, I am suggesting that when pathological narcissists assume power, nothing is off the table.
"What do you have to lose?" is not a rhetorical question.

WE NEED TO RAISE THE BAR - SO, WHY ARE WE WATCHING A LIMBO CONTEST?

In a New York Times column published March 2 of this year Thomas Friedman observed that: "The three largest forces on the planet - technology, globalization and climate change - are in simultaneous nonlinear acceleration. Climate change is intensifying. Technology is making everything faster and amplifying every voice. And globalization is making the world more interdependent than ever."

To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.

Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.

We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."

Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE - THE PROPAGANDA IGNORES THE EVIDENCE

The cover of The Economist of September 10 of this year promotes the issue's feature article: "Art of the Lie." In it the magazine claims that many populist politicians rely on assertions that "feel true," but have no basis in fact. It editorializes that "politicians have always lied," and it wonders if it really matters if they leave the truth behind entirely. The author concludes that the manner in which some politicians now lie, and the havoc they wreak by doing so, is extremely worrying.

Nothing illustrates the crux of this article better than the populist pre-occupation with all facets of immigration, especially when it concerns illegal aliens. Critics of immigration policy make their points by grossly exaggerating undesirable effects of a perceived influx of undocumented immigrants. The propaganda developed to make their points focuses primarily on welfare costs related to assisting illegal aliens. Jim Hoft, an ultra right-wing blogger and owner of "Gateway Pundit," managed to arouse his following by headlining: "We're $16 trillion in debt and giving welfare to illegal immigrants. It is confirmed: Majority of Illegal Immigrants Receive Government Welfare." (March 26, 2013). The Federation for American Immigration Reform published an article in June of 2010 suggesting that "Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Taxpayers More Than $100 Billion Annually." And Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, during an event in May of 2013, when asked how many illegal immigrants were on welfare, answered: "11 million!"

These proclamations are generally unsupported by statistical evidence, but they have the intended effect of causing level-headed citizens to doubt their own conclusions. Even those sympathetic to the plight of undocumented workers may profess to be uncomfortable with the thought that illegal immigrants have access to government entitlements. While recognizing that some available data could be interpreted differently by folks on opposite sides of the issue, and that inclusion or exclusion of some components could skew the argument, we do well to familiarize ourselves with substantiated facts if we want to engage in intelligent discourse.

* Contrary to populist opinion, illegal immigrants do not "swarm into the country" (Mizanor Rahman, January 25, 2008). Over 40% overstay their visas. They don't all come from Mexico. In 2014 5.4 million came from Asia and Central America. None are eligible to receive public benefits - ever.

* Welfare for illegal immigrants is mostly associated with children. Under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, U.S.-born children of immigrants are natural-born United States citizens, and they are eligible for programs like Medicaid and the state's Children's Health Insurance Program.

There are an estimated 3.4 million households headed by illegal immigrants (Center for Immigration Studies, 2015). Illegal immigrant households without children accessing welfare programs comprise only 14% of all illegal households receiving welfare benefits.

* Less than 1% of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5% of households headed by native-born citizens.

* An estimated 50% of undocumented workers are paid legally. They end up paying Social Security and other payroll taxes. Since many have fake or stolen documents (especially Social Security numbers) they cannot benefit from taxes withheld. Undocumented workers pay an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security. (In 2010 they also paid $10.6 billion in state and local taxes.) (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). The magnitude of this is evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "Earnings Suspense File," which holds taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and Social Security numbers. These deposits are significant. In 2003 alone $7.2 billion was credited to this fund. As of 2014 there were about 340 million unclaimed tax forms recorded in the file, compared to 270 million a decade ago.A good portion of these forms were filed by employers on behalf of undocumented immigrants. (SSA report of September, 2015, and The Atlantic of September, 2016).

Government agencies like the Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Health and Human Services produce ample statistics that counter the trumped up propaganda spewed by populist anti immigrant groups. However, many potential critics are lazy, and allow exaggerated claims to feed their ignorance. Such is the political climate we live in. While none of this excuses illegal immigration or undocumented workers, this information ought to contribute to the discussion and provide some perspective.

ELECTIONS - WHEN WE HOLD THEM, WILL THEY COME?

With the election less than two months away, one of the questions already cropping up is what percentage of eligible voters will actually participate in the process. Given the relative disenchantment with our major parties' candidates, and the anxiety among many about the state of the world and our place in it, voter participation could be a major factor in the outcome on November 8. Presidential elections traditionally tend to draw more voters than mid-term elections. In 2012 roughly 55% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, while in 2014 only 37% exercised their right to cast a ballot. The US has traditionally had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free world." Of 39 countries listing average participation percentages during lower house elections between 1960 and 1995 we end up dead last, averaging only 48%. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Participation," 2001).

Political scientists are often pre-occupied with voter turnout as a measure of system legitimacy. A high turnout is generally considered desirable. However, the issue tends to be more complex. Dictators have fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections to reflect their "legitimacy," while some low participation rates may result from opposition parties boycotting elections they see as unfair or illegitimate. Consequently, there are political scientists who question the view that high turnout is implicit endorsement of the system. One of these, Mark Franklin, contends, for instance, that in the European Union elections opponents of the EU are just as likely to vote as its opponents. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Engineering," British Journal of Political Science, 1999).

Esoteric discourse aside, political operatives regularly confront the practical question: "How do we increase participation by Americans eligible to vote?" Strategies designed to elevate participation rates include: Making voting compulsory, as is the norm in 22 other countries, including 12 Latin American countries (something President Obama suggested while addressing a civic group in Cleveland in 2015), automatic voter registration, designating election day a federal holiday, and moving election day to a weekend. None of these promises to be a panacea, but they do deserve consideration.

A study completed for the In Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that participation in compulsory voting countries averaged around 85%, compared to 65% in countries featuring voluntary voting rules. Some legal experts believe that making voting mandatory may be unconstitutional since "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to vote. opponents and proponents of such a law line up either supporting civil rights or asserting civic duty (as in the case of jury duty). Since some experts believe that compulsory voting would actually benefit the Democratic Party, such a change would more than likely die in Congress. However, the facts speak for themselves. In countries where voting is mandatory and enforced participation rates are significant. Australia, which has had a compulsory system since 1920, has turnout rates in excess of 93%. Countries like Venezuela and The Netherlands, where compulsory voting has been rescinded, have seen substantial decreases in turnout.

Proponents of automatic voter registration argue that adopting such a system will add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, increase accuracy, improve the security of our elections, and substantially enhance participation rates. (New York Unversity School of Law, September 22, 2015). This system has been provided to eligible citizens in 15 states, but there appears to be opposition to rolling it out nationally. In November of 2015 Governor Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed New Jersey to join this group.

A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was submitted and rejected by Congress in 2005. The suggestion was reintroduced in 2014, but has not yet been enacted. Proponents argue that it would increase election participation by allowing people to vote without interfering with their jobs, while underscoring the importance of elections in a democracy. Thus far eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico have declared Election Day a civic holiday. Turnout in Puerto Rico's quadrennial elections has been 50% higher than it was for presidential elections in the fifty states. However, the other members of this group have seen little real effect.

Another question that keeps coming up is: "Why do we vote on Tuesday? Saturday or Sunday would make much more sense." The reasoning goes back to 1845. That year Congress instituted a uniform date. The US was a largely agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicle to the County seat to vote. Tuesdays did not interfere with the biblical Sabbath or with market day, which in many towns was on Wednesday. Now Tuesday is a work day, which decreases turnout. Outside the U.S. Strong election participation in countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany and India are often attributed in part to holding elections on a weekend or on designated holidays.

No matter how many of us will ultimately cast our ballots this November, the question about participation rates will continue to be raised and potential solutions will continue to be controversial. The issue is not new. Greek philosopher Plato already admonished us centuries ago that "one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." So, go out and do your civic duty. Every election is determined by the people who show up.

COULD UN-SKILLED LABOR GO THE WAY THE HORSES WENT?

In July employers added 255,000 jobs, keeping the jobless rate steady at 4.9%. Whenever the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes these numbers, politicians of all stripes grab onto them to either exploit positive trends or to question their veracity. While most of us may not focus on more than that calculation, arrived at by dividing the number of people out of work and actively seeking employment by all individuals currently in the labor force, this simplistic expression of a national trend is insufficient to help craft policy responses. When we search for ways to combat unemployment it is essential that we understand why people are out of work. Economists basically identify three types of unemployment: frictional, cyclical and structural, while some also add seasonal as a distinct category. "Frictional unemployment" occurs because of normal turnover in the labor market, and the time it takes for workers to find new jobs. "Cyclical unemployment" refers to the ups and downs experienced by the economy, and is essentially the relative result of a bad economy. It increases during periods of slow economic growth. "Seasonal" identifies employment fluctuations that occur when jobs are only available during certain times of the year - like in agriculture and construction. The most complicated, and most difficult to fix, type of unemployment is "structural." This results when there are mismatches between the skills employers want and the skills that workers have.

Between 2008 and 2010 the economy lost roughly 8.7 million jobs, unemployment rates exceeded 10%. While the economy is recovering, and while overall unemployment is down, many workers have left the labor force, and are no longer included in that computation. For them the  recession is not over. Between 2000 and 2010 structural unemployment in the manufacturing sector alone shed 5.67 million lower-income, blue-collar workers. Significantly, much of this happened before the onset of the recession in December 2007. Populist candidates on the left and the right have been quick to collar this receptive segment of a potential, angry and discouraged voter segment. Nobody disagrees that this is a legitimate target. However, their approach of largely blaming globalization and international trade agreements has been well off-base. In reality only 13% of overall job losses resulted from trade. (Douglas Irwin, The Truth About Trade, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016). The main culprit is technology. "Automation and other technologies have enabled vast productivity and efficiency improvements, but they have also made many blue-collar jobs obsolete." Research at Ball State University found that improvement in productivity accounted for more than 85% of job losses between 2000 and 2010.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that 25% of current unemployment is structural. This equates to more than 3 million jobs. Structural unemployment is caused by fundamental shifts in the economy, exacerbated by factors such as technology, competition and government policy. A prime example of technology affecting the job market was what happened after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. For many decades, horse labor appeared impervious to technological change. Between 1840 and 1900 the equine population in this country increased to 21 million horses and mules. After the introduction of the automobile the trend quickly reversed. By 1960, the United States counted just 3 million horses, a decline of 88% in half a century. Many occupations linked to horse labor became obsolete.

While it took half a century to transition from an equine-based labor force, technological change today occurs much more rapidly, making it difficult for re-training programs to keep pace. Financial difficulties prompted many high schools to deemphasize vocational training, and community colleges are not always well connected to local job markets. Ultimately, however, we need to come to grips with the reality that simplistic cures based on attacking international trade agreements by political candidates affected by some form of Tourette's syndrome are unproductive. Structural unemployment can't easily be remedied by simple demand-side stimulus. Education is the key. Unemployment for college-educated workers is 2.4%. It is more than 7.4% for those without a high school diploma. This may be easier said than done. Our government may need to incent corporations to develop re-training programs for workers in endangered positions. But, as some have pointed out, it is unclear what kind of training will transform a 55 year old assembly-line worker into a computer programmers or a web designer. Another initiative, designed to bring blue-collar workers back into the labor force, is a massive campaign to rebuild our infrastructure. However, the proposals that are currently circulating appear grossly under-capitalized. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that it would take $3.6 trillion to adequately upgrade the country's infrastructure by 2020. To make this idea a reality we would need to change the political will in Washington. After all, much of this comes back to politics. Regrettably, politicians shun complicated solutions - they are more difficult to sell. Our de-activated workforce deserves better. 

DECISION 2016 - WILL OUR BIASES DEFINE US?

Many of us will go into the voting booth this November to register our selection for President and various members of Congress. While this exercise should be the culmination of a rational decision making process, a significant number of voters will use shortcuts and vote a straight party ticket. Until the 1960s and 1970s this remained a common occurrence. However, this method used to decide preferences has been in decline as the number of voters registering as "Independent" significantly increased. Nevertheless, Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Utah still accommodate strong partisans by providing a ballot option allowing them to select "vote straight-ticket Democrat" and "vote straight-ticket Republican" to eliminate the need to vote for each race separately. When asked, many of us won't admit that party preference dominates the process we use to select our preferred candidates. We may proclaim that we, without articulating the details, use an intuitive or a rational process to reach our decisions. The intuitive method involves the belief that we have a grasp on the issues, and that we are therefore able to choose without the necessity to reason. The rational process requires greater intellectual involvement. It means systematically selecting among possible choices based on reason and facts. Even though many of us like to think that we listen to all sides of an issue, we don't often recognize the biases and emotions that influence our decisions. The study of ways in which emotional influences help voters make decisions is the subject of inquiry of an interdisciplinary academic field called "Political Psychology."

Some of the emotions recognized in academic studies publicized by researchers in this field include anger, fear and anxiety, emotions observers also idenitify as being prevalent in this year's election cycle. "Anger" is said to increase the use of generalized knowledge and reliance on stereotypes. Voters displaying this emotion tend to be less likely to research a candidate's policy positions. Studies in psychology have shown that voters experiencing "fear," on the other hand, rely more on detailed processing when arriving at choices. "Anxiety" emotes increases in political attentiveness, while decreasing reliance on party affiliation. These voters are more likely to vote for candidates whose policies they prefer, and they are twice as likely to defect and vote for the opposition candidate. In addition, during every election cycle some writers will report that irrelevant events, like football games or the weather, have some influence on voters' choices in the voting booth. While this influence might be minimal, empirical studies have concluded that a win by a local football team during the final ten days of an election cycle on average causes the incumbent party to benefit by an additional 1.6% of the vote. Feeling good benefits the status quo.

Aside from emotions and their basing effect on voting outcomes, other biases producing an inclination toward a particular belief or perspective, often ill-supported by reason of evidence, include conditions we often are not even aware of. The most prevalent one of these is what we refer to as the "confirmation bias." People displaying this bias, and many of us do, have a tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. An example would be a reporter writing  an article on an important issue, but only interviewing experts that support her or his views on the subject, or several people on opposite sides of an issue can listen to the exact same story, and walk away with a vastly different interpretation. This bias prevents us from looking at candidates and ideas objectively. We search for information that put our candidates in a positive light, while only reading opinions about the opposing candidate that cast him or her in a negative light. We only listen to and hear what we want to hear.

Among other general biases psychologists identify, a few are also applicable to the voting process. Some voters have a "bias blind spot" - a tendency to think they are less biased than others - the thought that you somehow are above them, smarter, etc. The "halo effect" is another one, and one campaign managers frequently take advantage of. The idea here is that some  people believe that if someone is good at one particular trait, they are also trustworthy in something else that is totally unrelated. This often describes what happens when celebrities become part of a campaign. And then there is the "more exposure effect" - a tendency to like things merely because we are familliar with them, or the belief that since everyone you know believes the way you do, most everybody else does.

Finally, it is a fact that 70% of Americans believe that there is a great deal, or at least a fair amount, of media bias in news coverage. Most of what citizens know about politics comes from what they learn via the media. However, this perception tends to fit comfortably into the "confirmation bias." It is not so much the news media we follow we have a problem with, it is what the "other" media project. We select what channels we tune into. Right-wing voters may tune into FOX NEWS, while left-wing voters turn to MSNBC. Studies tend to show that the left-right bias balances each other out.

So, whether you tend to stick with party preference, as many of us tend to do, or whether you let your emotions determine the outcome of your selection process, be aware of what to be aware of. As long as you plan to vote with your head, follow the steps involved in making this election meaningful.

ELECTION 2016 - LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!

With the long-awaited political conventions finally behind us, and the competing slates of presidential and vice presidential candidates in place, the political world is shifting its focus to the final 100 or so days of a contest that sometimes seemed to have no end.The race to the finish on November 8 is on. Early polling has the candidates of the dominant parties running neck-and-neck, separating them by about 4% - well within the margin of error. While this may be of some consequence and comfort to both, these polls, reflecting the national popular sentiment of voters, are ultimately irrelevant. In 1824 John Quincy Adams was elected President (by the House of Representatives) even though he amassed no majority of either electoral or popular votes; Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 election

By one electoral vote, but lost the popular vote by 90,000; and George W. Bush surpassed Al Gore's electoral tally 271-266, but missed the popular vote by a whopping 540,000 votes. Popular vote tallies may provide bragging rights, they don't count in the outcome of the contest.

When we vote for a President, we are actually voting for presidential electors, known collectively as the Electoral College. These electors elect our chief executive. The Constitution assigns each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of the state's Senate and House of Representative delegation. The number of electors by state ranges from 3 to 54, for a total of 538. The magic number for the winner is 270. The vote results are counted and certified by a joint session of Congress on Januray 6 of the year following the election. If no candidate receives a majority, the President is elected by the House of Representatives, and the Vice President by the Senate. This happened when President John Quincy Adams was elected. The method of electing a President was established during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The convention considered a number of different methods, including selection by Congress, by state legislatures and by direct popular election. The current system, which was adopted with the intent to reconcile differing state and federal interests. It also was thought to provide a degree of popular participation in the process, to give the less populous states some additional leverage by providing "senatorial" electors, and to preserve the presidency as independent from Congress. Today all presidential electors are chosen by popular vote.During the early republic more than half the states chose their electors in their legislatures, eliminating direct involvement by the voting public.

The upshot of all of this is that political junkies intent on keeping an eye on their favorite candidate's progress need to tune into polling in so-called battleground states. Traditionally, Democrats are counting West Coast and East Coast states like California, Oregon, Washington, New York and others as "safe." Republicans  "control" a large segment of the center and south of the country, including states like Utah, Idaho, Arizona, all the way to Georgia and South Carolina. The most intense battles will be fought in 8 to 10 states that have swung one way or another in previous elections. Perennial swing states include Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina and Virginia, while minority voters, and the perceived relative qualities and characters of the dominant candidates, more states than usual may be up for grabs. Most nonpartisan political analysts currently see the electoral map tilting in the Democrats' favor. Merging the ratings from four major handicappers reveal a lopsided outlook if the election was held today, with 216 electoral votes considered safe for likely leaning Democrat. (Wall Street Journal, Jul;y 22). However, a lot can happen during the next 100 days.

Potential influences on the outcome in November include a series of debates, scheduled for September 26, and October 9 and 19. The VP debate will take place October 4. Aside from these debates, the relative strength of Gary Johnson, presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, could have an out-sized impact on the performance of the dominant candidates. Mr. Johnson is already polling at 13%. He only needs to bump this up to 15% to be included in the debates, which would give him more exposure, and could potentially affect the outcome of the election. Finally, let's not forget the crucial "down-ballot" races that help determine which party controls Congress next year. The Republicans are defending 7 states which President Obama won twice. Republicans currently have a 54-44 advantage in the Senate. "Down ballot" races are frequently decided by who wins the White House. This year might be different. Either way, Democrats smell an opportunity.

All in all, there is a lot at stake during this election. Next January our Electoral College will, in a very real sense, cast ballots that could determine the direction of the country for some time to come. Our option is not to sit this one out. Become familliar with the important issues, listen to the debates, make educated decisions, and plan to vote with your head, not your heart. These races are too important.

WILL TRUMP'S CORONATION LEAD TO A RESURGENCE OF THE "KNOW NOTHING" PARTY?

With the long-awaited political conventions now imminent, Americans will soon be confronted with the opportunity to choose between several starkly different candidates hoping to become our 45th President. While polling suggests that unfavorable opinions continue to dominate our opinions about  both major candidates - potentially a "wash" - our decision will ultimately come down to policy prescriptions and personalities contrasting a populist, nativist or nationalist candidate with one generally perceived to represent the status quo. Within populism, as understood in rapidly spreading similar movements across Europe, including the driving force behind the British decision to leave the EU, pervasive anti-immigrant tendencies, discontent with globalization, and a resurgent nationalism are leading the charge.

Our country has gone through a similar period in history before, none more prominent than during the early to mid-nineteenth century. As immigration from Europe increased during the early 1800's, citizens who were born in the U.S., began to feel resentment at the new arrivals, which occasionally developed into violent encounters. In July of 1844 riots broke out in Philadelphia, when anti-immigrant, nativists, mobs battled Irish immigrants. Two Catholic Churches and a Catholic school were burned, and at least 20 people were killed.

With anti-immigrant sentiment running high, small political parties espousing nationalist doctrines shot up - among them the "American Republican Partry" (not to be confused with the current GOP) and the "Nativist Party." At the same time secret societies, such as the "Order of the United Americans," and the "Order of the Star-Spangled Banner", were formed. Members were sworn to keep immigrants out of America, or at least to keep them out of mainstream society once they arrived. Leaders would not publicly reveal themselves, and members, when asked about the organization, were instructed to say: "I know nothing." The name "KNow-Nothing" stuck, even though the party's original name was the "American Party," formed in 1849. It's basic platform contained a strong stand against against immigration and immigrants. It promised to "purify" American politics by limiting or ending the influence  of Irish Catholic and other immigrants. "Know-Nothing" candidates had to be born in the U.S., and there was a concerted effort to agitate for laws stipulating that only immigrants who had lived in the country for 25 years could become citizens.

Many Americans were appalled by the "Know-Nothings." Abraham Lincoln expressed his own disgust with the party in a letter written in 1855. He noted that if the "Know-Nothings" every rose to power, the Declaration of Independence would have to be amended to say that all men are created equal "except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." He went on to say that he would rather emigrate to Russia where despotism is out in the open, then live in such an America.

Even though many were appalled, ethnocentric tendencies were not new to us. In 1751 Benjamin Franklin warned that Pennsylvania was becoming a "colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to germamize us instead of our anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion." Jefferson was equally worried about immigrants from "foreign monarchies  who will infuse into American legislation their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." (Peter Schrag, The Unwanted Immigratrion and Nativism in America. September, 2010.)

Donald Trump, the soon to be crowned nominee of the Republican Party, unscripted during the primary contest, mirrored many of the positions once held by the "Know-Nothing" party. Although he, imposed by the reality of the general election, recently transitioned into using a more sanitized vocabulary, he can't conceal the opinion of Mexicans, immigrants and Muslims he expressed to galvanize support for his "America First" xenophobic movement. Unfiltered, resurgent nationalism, expressed stridently from a national platform can be dangerous and trigger a return of the 1930's in Europe. Mr. Trump has a following at his beck and call, part of which could  be triggered into action without much effort. Concerned people are already envisioning a walled off southern border, eleven million undocumented migrants in deportation camps, and Muslim Americans required to carry documentation similar to what the Jewish pollution in Nazi Germany was forced to do.

We have laws in place that may prevent these extremes from becoming reality. However, the populist, Brexit, decision in Great Britain a few weeks ago, was followed by hundreds of assaults on immigrants - some of whom had lived in the UK for a decade or more - germinated by people who now apparently felt justified to do this. People were beaten, businesses burned, and entire neighborhoods threatened. After American Muslims became the target of Donald Trump's nationalist message, mosques were burned, people have been beaten, "patriot" groups organized hate demonstrations in which dozens of heavily armed white men stand outside of Islamic community centers with anti-Muslim paraphernalia, and people who have lived here their entire lives have been "encouraged" to go back to where they came from. During 2015, 174 incidents, including 12 murders, were reported . Of these, 53 occurred in December alone. Immigrant children are coming home crying after being told by classmates that they will be deported once Trump becomes President. The "Know-Nothings" were dangerous. The 21st century followers of a similar stripe need to be controlled before things get even further out of hand..  Ignorance is a curse. Imbecilic attacks on people totally removed from those implicated in attacks on our country are not only counter-productive, they are criminal. Imbeciles without compunction have generated support for horrendous atrocities throughout history. Donald Trump ignited these responses to his incendiary message to get through the primaries. Once the genie was out of the bottle, however, it has proven difficult to contain it. Just sanitizing his choice of vocabulary won't be enough. He needs to demonstrate leadership, and control the results before we slide into the abyss.

1776 - THE YEAR THAT PRECIPITATED THE DECLINE OF COLONIALISM ACROSS THE GLOBE

On July 4, 1776, 240 years ago, at a meeting of the second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, 56 "revolutionaries" signed on to a document declaring their independence from their colonial over-lord Great Britain. The signatories, which included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin among others, announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with the kingdom of Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer under British rule. Instead they formed a new nation - the United States of America. By declaring themselves an independent nation, the American colonists were able to forge an official alliance with the government of France and obtain French assistance in the war against Great Britain. While this declaration appears archaic in today's world, it was truly unique and revolutionary for the time, as it preceded the French Revolution by 13 years. (We tend to celebrate this event as the beginning of the American Revolution. However, our revolution actually started on April 19, 1775 when the first shots of the revolutionary war were fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.)

At the time when we declared our independence, colonialism and colonial empires were the norm. Defined as the establishment of a colony by a political power from another territory, and the subsequent maintenance, expansion and exploitation of that colony, countries established their sphere of influence, considered important to their political and economic prominence in the world. Although very early colonialism started with the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans, modern colonialism started around the 16th century when countries like Spain and Portugal ventured across the oceans to find new land and new riches. At first the countries followed the dictates of mercantilism, an economic theory and practice that promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. Expeditions were sent out over great distances with the express objective of finding riches - often identified as gold and silver - elsewhere and claiming exclusive access for the political powers - not always states - financing the endeavor. Eventually this activity morphed into two overlapping forms of colonialism: "settle colonialism" - involving large-scale immigration - often motivated by religious, political or economic reasons, and "exploration colonialism" - involving fewer colonialists and focusing on access to resources for export. The French, Dutch and British created colonial empires during the 17th century, while Germany, France and Belgium became involved in the "scramble for Africa" in the late 19th century.

It would be easy to condemn these colonial movements, especially since they produced a set of unequal relationships between a colonial power and a colony, and often between the colonists and the indigenous population. However, for better or for worse, without the exploration generated during the "age of discovery" in the late 15th and 16th century, the world might look quite different today. The British empire expanded most extensively. Before World War Two British politicians could still maintain that "the sun never set on the British Empire," since its colonial empire touched all corners of the globe. The French, not to be outdone by Britain, worked diligently to compete for dominance, and by 1900 amassed the second largest colonial empire in the world. It became their moral mission to lift the world up to French standards by bringing Christianity and French culture. In 1884, the leading French exponent of colonialism, Jules Ferry, declared: "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilize the inferior races."

And so it went. Although the United States initiated a very early independence movement, decolonization did not progress significantly until after the Second World War. Many indigenous populations began to realize that the colonial powers were not invincible. Besides, many colonial powers were severely weakened as a result of the war effort. India gained independence in 1947, and Indonesia, which had been ruled by the Dutch, claimed their freedom in 1949. In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan, in a speech known as the "winds of change" admitted that decolonization was an established fact. In 1962 the United Nations set up a Special Committee on Decolonization to speed up the process.

If not for the scope of the colonial experience, most countries today might celebrate alternate national days, like "liberation day" in The Netherlands or "Bastille Day" in France. However, most, like us, celebrate independence from an occupying colonial power. While we were unique and revolutionary when we declared our independence 240 years ago, we have not been the only ones. Today 59 countries celebrate their independence from the British Empire. Interestingly, the U.K. Is one of very few countries which does not feature such a celebration. However, after the "Brexit" vote on June 23rd, Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independent Party, proclaimed that Great Britain may now finally have its own independence celebration. Time will tell what that ultimately may mean.

Have a fabulous, safe and memorable Independence Day.

WILL THE EUROPEAN UNION SURVIVE THE U.K. REFERENDUM?

While our political candidates are busily attempting to unify their support for the upcoming presidential election campaign, Europe is on edge  anticipating an up or down vote on whether Great Britain should continue its membership in the European Union. The contentious debate, which will culminate in a national referendum on June 23, has revealed deep political fractures in the U.K., and even led to warnings about peace and security in Europe. At E.U. Headquarters in Brussels paranoia has reached its peak. Although withdrawal from the European Union is a right of E.U. Member states under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, no member state has ever held a national referendum on withdrawal. In 1975 the U.K. Did hold a referendum on withdrawal from its predecessor, the E.E.C., at which time 67.2% of voters chose to remain in the Community.

Dutch historian Dirk-Jan van Baar, in a column published in De Volkskrant earlier this year, assessed the situation from the European perspective when he opined: "This will be the first time that a member state leaves the E.U., a premiere which will attack the "irreversibility" of the European Union. Once started, the decline can pick up speed. David Cameron will go into history as the assassin of the E.U., a cowardly variant of Gravillo Princip, the Serbian student who in June 1914 fired the deadly shots in Sartajevo." A;lthough British Prime Minister David Cameron set the process in motion, he is actually campaigning for his country to remain part of the Union.

The two camps, "remain" and "leave," are not aligned along party lines. Cameron's position is opposed by half a dozen of his own ministers, led by former London Mayor and long-time friend Boris Johnson. While Johnson leads the "brexit" campaign with a sharp-tongued assault on Brussels, which he says saps Britain's sovereignty and burdens it with regulation, the Prime Minister has joined forces with London's new Mayor Sadiq Khan from the opposition Labour Party, a man he suggested last month had consorted with Islamic extremists. And, even though there is no love lost between the conservative Tories. And Labour, ten leaders of Britain's biggest trade unions, in a letter to The Guardian, issued a plea to six million members to stay in th E.U.. They warned that leaving would allow a Tory government to dismantle hard-won workers rights that the E.U. Now guarantees for British workers. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn even moved from his historic position as euroskeptic to advocating a vote to remain in the E.U..

As it has been since this divisive debate began, the polls attempting to predict the outcome of the referendum are all over the place. In late May the "remain" contingency was still leading 46% to 43%, with 11% "don't know." (Financial Times, May 31.) A week later Bloomberg had the "leave" campaign leading 45%-41%. And, as recently as June 13 The Guardian quoted a poll showing the "leave" campaign ahead by 6%. The latter campaign's recent surge in the polls appears to have been prompted by the release of new immigration numbers. The latest figures for 2015 revealed a net inflow of 318,000 migrants. Half came from E.U. Countries, and 40% from China, Pakistan, Australia and Malaysia. Peter Kellner, an experienced British pollster, noted that in previous referendums the safety of the status quo tended to dominate at the end. He suggested that the "leave" camp may dominate in on-line polling, but that in more traditional telephone polling the "remain" group leads by a substantial margin. He predicts they will win. While bookmakers report that millions of pounds are being bet on "leave," ostensibly for the potential pay-off, they privately believe that the "remain" camp has a 73% chance of succeeding.

Those promoting staying in the Union point out that the economic cost of leaving would be very high. Brexit would cause stocks to plunge and bond yields to rise. The pound is already heading lower. After leaving, British companies may not have the same access to the hugely important European market. Mr. Cameron is going all out to register the younger vote, and to get them to actually vote. Younger voters, under 30, favor remaining by almost 70%. In the mean time members of parliament who support staying in are already hedging, suggesting that the outcome of the referendum is principally advisory. They recognize that they would have to respect the mandate, if it got to that, but they feel they have plenty of latitude on how and when to quit the E.U.. Britain would have to notify the European Council of its intention, and a withdrawal agreement would then be negotiated with the Union, a process that could take as long as two years. So, while everyone appears to sit on pins and needles, the effect of a Brexit vote may not actually be felt for some time. However, the political ramifications would likely develop quite quickly. David Cameron may lose his job, Boris Johnson could ascend to become Prime Minister, anti E.U. Populist parties will take note, while Moscow would relish the outcome. Sergei Medvedev, professor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics, believes it is quite simple: Brexit=a weaker Europe=a stronger Russia. The balance of power in Europe would change.

DOES CALIFORNIA'S PRIMARY STILL MATTER?

Californians will go to the polls tomorrow to help select their party's nominees for a variety of offices, none more important than the presidency of the United States. It was not long ago that the political buzz was that California could finally matter this primary season. In February we encountered headlines like: "Could California cast deciding votes this primary season?" (The Press Enterprise). An L.A. Times article on March 31 suggested that "Donald Trump is about to blow up the California primary," indicating that his fate as Republican nominee could be at stake. And, as recently as April 12, news media intimated that California could decide who wins the Republican Party nomination.

The "experts" all agreed that Donald Trump could not get to the 1,237 delegates needed to win - even with California. Then Indiana happened, and his nomination essentially became reality. He has since acquired the requisite number of delegates needed to insure his coronation at his party's convention in July. Hillary Clinton's selection was never in doubt, although Bernie Sanders and his supporters are going all out to make a statement in California and wrest concessions from the Democratic establishment at their convention. Some of his supporters continue to believe that Sanders could overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate category with a win in California, giving him a moral claim to the nomination.

The relative irrelevance of the California primary this year must come as a disappointment to political consultants who expected better this cycle. The last time California really mattered for democrats was during the 1972 primary when George McGovern beat former Vice President Hubert Humphrey in a contest dominated by the debate over the Vietnam war. With his win McGovern clinched the nomination, only to lose the election to Richard Nixon. A Republican California primary has not made a difference since June of 1976, when "favorite son" and future President Ronald Reagan beat then-President Gerald Ford. Reagan lost the nomination, and Ford lost the election to Jimmy Carter.

The only time when primaries worked for California was when the contests were "winner-take-all" in both parties. George McGovern's win in 1972 gave him 15% of the delegates he needed to clinch the nomination. During the latter part of the 1970s both parties decided to adopt a proportional system, which meant that, in a close race, the winner might only get a few more delegates than the loser. The state did experiment with holding special elections in March (1996, 2000, 2004) and February (2008), but, although Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed that California would henceforth be important again in presidential nomination politics, the dynamics did not change.

The allocation of delegates during the upcoming primary is more significant for Democrats than Republicans. Republicans will divide 172 delegates, most of which will probably go to Donald Trump, although Ted Cruz and John Kasich are also still on the ballot. Of these, 13 go to the state-wide winner and 159 are awarded by district on a winner-take-all basis, three to be awarded by district. Democrats distribute 548 delegates - 158 are divided proportionately state-wide, 317 proportionately by district, and 73 are super-delegates. While the Republican primary is no longer competitive, recent polling suggests that Donald Trump is only getting 46.4% of the votes.

Even though the results in California won't change the outcome of the nomination contest for the Democrats, an outside observer, witnessing the intensity of the battle between Clinton and Sanders, would never know it. Bernie Sanders has vowed to take his campaign all the way to the convention. His supporters are fired up, and initiated an aggressive voter registration drive. Between January and April they (most new voters are inspired by Sanders) convinced 850,000 new voters to sign up. Another 600,000 re-registered, most likely because they moved or switched parties. Moreover, 200,000 recently registered through Facebook during a two-day stretch when the company stuck a voter registration button on news feeds, linking to the state's online registration system. Of the newly registered voters 50% signed up as Democrats, one-third Independent, and 16.7% Republican. Most were under 35 years old. The Democrats did open the primary to independents this year. This is important for the Sanders campaign. A little over one quarter of Democratic voters will be independent - a group Sanders has been winning by a large margin.

While the nomination contest hogs the headlines, it is prudent to remember that the California ballot also contains 34 candidates for U.S. Senator, multiple local contestants for U.S. Representative, State Senator, the California State Assembly, County Supervisor and bond measures Q and S in Santa Cruz County. Ample reason to vote, even if our presidential contest seems to have reached its climax. California won't be the only state running a primary in June. Puerto Rico votes on June 5. Joining California on the 7th are: New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota (Democratic caucus). On June 14 the District of Columbia goes to the polls (Democrats only). If the picture was cloudy at all going into the upcoming primaries, it should develop a measure of clarity after the dust is settled. Nevertheless, significant strategic battles will continue to surface during the run-up to the respective conventions at the end of July. The fireworks will extend well beyond Independence Day.

WILL CHARISMA TRUMP COMPETENCE?

A Time Magazine article due to be published on May 23 is headlined: "Hillary's new plan to trump Trump - by being boring." Multiple media outlets appear to agree with the opinion expressed in this piece. Much of what we have been exposed to during this election cycle and, essentially, what we are bombarded with to help us decide how to vote, consists of style vs. substance, or charisma vs. competence.

Pre-eminent sociologist Max Weber, while discussing "leadership" in his essay "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," identified  traditional , charismatic and rational forms of authority. For our current discussion traditional authority is irrelevant. Weber defines charismatic authority as being possessed by a leader whose mission and vision inspires others. It is based on the perceived, extraordinary, characteristics of an individual. Leadership based on rational authority is derived from significant, hands on experience developed during extensive bureaucratic and political involvement. While the latter translates into "competence," a technocratic ability to perform well within institutions, the charismatic individual is described as someone with a compelling attractiveness or charm inspiring devotion in others. This is someone who possesses a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm, especially if this person is a public figure.

While defining the terms in our original question helps to identify some of the players in our current presidential election, it does not help us decide their importance relative to the process they are engaged in. David Brooks, in a column entitled: "In Praise of Dullness" (N.Y. Times, May 18, 2009), suggests that, when it comes to leadership, people skills don't matter - it is organization and execution that counts. Pat Murphy, a columnist for the Waterloo Region Record, agrees that "in politics, competence almost always trumps charisma." However, Thomas Bateman, a professor at the University of Virginia, contends that: "Charm without substance is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst....poor people skills undermine a leader's credibility, reduce people's commitment, engender cynicism and other negative attitudes, and undermine motivatiion and commitment." He argues for a significant role of what we call charisma in the public sphere.

While we absorb these observations, we might rephrase the question we opened with to: How does charisma and competence, incorporated in electoral strategy, affect the outcome? It seems prudent to stipulate that most voters ultimately prefer competence in their political leaders. However, although the majority of voters may not select candidates without any regard for substantive experience, achievements and vision, many don't really follow issues and current events very closely. They may look to the general election debates to see who has the most personality. Our electoral history provides multiple examples of very competent candidates being upstaged by more charismatic counterparts. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry came with impressive credentials, but they lacked the personable nature of their competitors. George H.W. Bush had a fairly successful first term, but Bill Clinton had star  power and overcame all that. Obama had charisma, but no real experience. Mc.Cain and Romney possessed loads of competence, but they could not overcome his personal appeal.

Which brings us to our current election. I don't intend to slight Bernie Sanders, who has lots of charisma, inspired millions, and who has given the Democratic front-runner much more than she expected. However, looking forward to the general election, we should consider the presumptive nominees of both parties. Hillary Clinton has decades of experience as First Lady, as Senator, and as Secretary of State. Nevertheless she comes across as canned, unauthentic, programmed and robotic - as the Time Magazine  article suggests, "boring." By her own admission, she is a lousy politician. While campaigning with her husband in 1992 her approval rating was only 38%. After becoming First Lady this improved to 66%. During her campaign against Barack Obama her polls came in at 48%, only to rebound to 66% during her stint as Secretary of State. She is liked as a technocrat, not as a candidate.

Donald Trump has no public record of policy and legislative competence. His "competence" is based on a perception fed by choreographed imagery. However, he has an innate, magnetic charisma. His detractors believe that he suffers from "grandiose narcissism, believing himself to be the smartest person in the world, and behaving accordingly." But, like other charismatic people, he can make others "drink the kool-aid." Whether this appeal with his substantial following will hold throughout the election cycle is somewhat questionable. Charisma, by nature, is unstable. The appeal to his base may diminish as he begins to pivot towards more mainstream policy prescriptions.   Besides, charisma unsupported by substance is usually a recipe for failure. Flash works for a while, but eventually people want more substance.

Having said all this, there are six months left in the election campaign. Tactics change as "red" and "blue" states and majority opinion within each become the primary focus. Weber did not suggest that charisma and competence are necessarily mutually exclusive. Most of us want both personality and ability. History tells us however that charisma often trumps competence during the selection process, while experience and ability become desirable in the candidate we ultimately choose. When we vote for empty promises, no matter how cleverly packaged, we get what we pay for. Whatever side you are on during our election, we should consider the consequences of registered uninformed decisions based solely on a candidate's charisma. If we make the wrong choice, we will be stuck for years to come.

WHAT ARE WE, A REPUBLIC OR A DEMOCRACY?

A May 3rd Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald entitled "Don't blame Trump: American Democracy was broken before he muscled in," suggests that "democracy" is supposedly a source of pride for Americans, yet held in contempt by too many citizens. The argument supports Donald Trump's contention that, even if he does not get to 1,237 delegates in the election process, he should get the nomination because he would presumably amass more than any other candidate. Anything less would be un-democratic. Eichenald concludes that "Democracy is not complicated: Whoever gets the most votes is supposed to win. That's it."

While most Americans tend to subscribe to basic democratic principles, and generally consider "democracy" and "republic" to be one of the same thing, there are substantive differences between those two concepts. History tells us that our Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to democracy.
John Adams contended that: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, in Federalist Paper no. 10, wrote: "In a pure democracy there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." The politicians were not the only ones critiquing democracy as a form of government. Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that "between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The framers adopted a compromise that fell somewhere between the ancient Greek democracy and the Roman republic, between (perceived) mob rule and stability. As it was understood, in a true democracy the majority ruled in all cases, regardless of consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue. The republic, as instituted, was set up as a representative form of government, ruled according to a constitution limiting governmental powers, and protecting the individual's rights against the desire of the majority. To insure that every state would follow suit, article 4, section 4, of our Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government. And our Pledge of Allegiance, composed in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942, states clearly: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands....."

Many historical documents were designed to emphasize our republican institutions, although there were times when explanation and indoctrination converged. Notably, in 1928, the U.S. Army produced a document which defined democracy and republic as follows: "A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope. A republic is a government of law un der a constitution. The constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise."

Over the years the distinction between these two forms of government began to soften. Democratic countries modified majority rule by adopting a system of proportional representation, balancing the interests of multiple factions in their society, and by forcing the use of coalition governments. A significant exception to this development has been the growing dominance of populist governments with an absolute majority in countries like Hungary and Poland. Their leaders were able to rewrite constitutions without input from opposition parties. Most of us subscribe to republican principles included in our Constitution, including "checks and balances" and the "Bill of Rights." While we contrast these with our understanding of a "pure" democracy, and while we reject its down-side, some of us are first in line to complain when majority rule is not applied, and when republican rules work against our interests. Political candidates running for president are complaining about an un-democratic selection process in both parties. Caucuses tend to be un-democratic, while "winner-take-all" primaries , while democratic, don't protect the voices of voters who end up losing. The Electoral College is a republican construct designed to prevent large, heavily populated states from running roughshod over small, sparsely populated states. However, polls show that 70 of the voting public supports a National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire country.

Ultimately, the discussion surrounding our institutional identity is as simple as it may appear convoluted. Structurally we are a republic. Emotionally we tend to believe that many of our consequential decisions ought to be based on democratic principles.

EUROPE'S POPULIST EVOLUTION

Europe's populist movement, which for the longest time existed on the fringes and in the shadows, has evolved into politically powerful organizations challenging liberal democratic institutions and jeopardizing the continued existence of supranational organizations like the European Union. Populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the "pure people" and the "corrupt elite." Populists hold that politics should be an expression of the "general will" of the people. They are pro democracy, but anti liberal democracy. They support popular sovereignty and majority rule, but reject pluralism (a conviction that various religious, ethnic, racial, and political groups should be allowed to thrive in a single society) and minority rights. Populist movements have a history of memorable and charismatic leaders, from fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, dictators like Stalin, reactionaries like Franco, to revolutionaries like Che Guevara. Europe's post World War II populist movements morphed into established political parties on the right (mostly in northern Europe) and on the left (in countries like Greece and Italy). Herman Van Rompuy, former president of the European Council, called populism "the greatest danger for Europe." An out-of-control migrant crisis, an influx of identifiable - mostly Islamic - immigrants, and the recent devastating terrorist attacks, have served to intensify populist sentiment, and enhanced the growing dominance of political organizations that articulate related concerns.

Populist parties tend to be anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, and anti E.U.. They successfully use islamophobia to mobilize its supporters. One of the earliest post-war organizations expressing these views was the "National Front" in France. Its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, began the movement in 1972 on a platform of French nationalism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration and euroskeptic. The party was openly racist and xenophobic. His daughter Marine was elected to succeed him in 2011, and managed to grow the movement into the third most powerful political party in France. Polls covering the 2017 presidential elections show her competing effectively with current president Francois Hollande. While the "National Front" operates in opposition to the traditional parties, hard-right populist parties in Hungary and Poland recently managed to expand their political base and transition into governing majorities. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run Hungary since 2010. Orban styled himself as the sole defender of Christian Europe, and has called for blocking migrants to keep Europe Christian. "Fidesz" won a two-thirds majority of seats in the 2010 parliamentary election, which allowed Orban to pass a new constitution with little or no input from opposition parties, and which included his right-wing "illiberal" viewpoints. Under his guidance, and contrary to E.U. rules, Hungary built a fence on its border with Serbia and Croatia to effectively keep immigrants out. Poland's radical right-wing anti-immigrant and euroskeptic "Law and Justice Party," under Jaroslaw Kaczynski, came to power in October 2015. Since being elected, it has used its muscle to stack Poland's judiciary, undermine its constitutional order, and take full control over public media. Its "reforms" have placed it firmly in the fascist camp, and squarely in conflict with the E.U.'s "Copenhagen criteria" which stipulate conditions for membership, even though Poland has been a member state since May 2004. Kaczynski has defiantly declared that "Poland will not bow to the E.U. on its reforms."

While these populist parties already dominate their respective national governments, this may just be the onset of things to come. Others are becoming increasingly more prominent. Kristian Thulesen Dahl's "Danish People's Party" has grown to being the second largest party in Denmark. Geert Wilders's "Party of Freedom" in The Netherlands, and Heinz Christian Strache's "Freedom Party of Austria" currently rank third in their respective countries. Polls preceding next year's national elections in The Netherlands suggest that Wilders' party could end up winning the elction and leading a governing coalition. While all of these and other parties proclaim their support for the same set of populist principles, and although they are euroskeptic, they also claim seats in the European Parliament. As of 2014 one-third of the members elected to that body represent political organizations opposed to the E.U. and its reach.

Van Rompuy's opinion that populism is the greatest danger for Europe appears to have merit. When populism becomes the dominant ideology in national parliaments, Europe's future could be in jeopardy.  A few weeks ago, in a referendum, the Dutch rejected the European Union's trade and political treaty with Ukraine. This result effectively cancelled the agreement, since approval requires unanimous consent from all 28 member states. All others had voted in favor. Geert Wilders called the vote "the beginning of the end of the E.U." On June 23rd Britain goes to the polls to decide whether it should remain in the union. As of this week the group supporting to stay in polls just one percent ahead of the "brexit" contingent, which is led by the U.K. Independent Party. In the mean time, violent demonstrations like the one by 500 or so black shirted, Nazi-style, islamophobic goons flashing Nazi salutes at a vigil in Brussels right after the attacks there, can't make Europeans familiar with the excesses of the 1920's and 30's feel very comfortable.