ELECTION 2016 BY THE NUMBERS - AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISHES, STRATEGY DOMINATES

Bernie Sanders "creamed" Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, yet each candidate received the same number of delegates (once "super delegates" were added. This outcry from Bernie Sanders supporters was heard everywhere, and it underscores the fact that many voters don't understand how the selection of a party nominee works in our election process. During the initial stages coming in 2nd or 3rd may produce intangible advantages and reflect a candidate's potential for the benefit of sponsors. However, going forward, what determines advance on the road to their party's nomination is delegate count. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz flaunted their virtual tie for 2nd place in South Carolina, but Donald Trump collected all 50 pledged delegates from that state. It is perhaps worthwhile to attempt to untangle some of the elements candidates consider when strategizing how to compete for that prized nomination.

Every state in the union participates in the nomination process. They employ two different methods to arrive at their choices, a primary election or a caucus. A primary is a statewide voting process in which voters cast secret ballots for their preferred candidates, a method most of us have become accustomed to. However, there are still ten states using a caucus system, which was once the most common way of choosing presidential nominees. A caucus is a system of local gatherings where voters decide which candidate to support and select delegates for nominating conventions. Today Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming and Iowa still use this system. The selection taking place in each state is for delegates to each party's nominating convention, both of which this year are held late July. And here comes the rub, parties, Democrats more than Republicans, distinguish between "pledged delegates" and "super delegates."

Pledged delegates are chosen with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Super delegates are delegates seated at the convention who choose who they want to vote for. For Democrats these are party insiders who aren't bound by the popular vote and can support any candidate they choose. They include all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democrats count 712 super delegates nation-wide, making up about 30% of the total delegates needed to win the nomination. This obviously reflects a concerted effort by party principals to have a measure of control over the process. In a close election super delegates can snatch a victory away from a candidate with numerically more "voted" delegates. Republicans generally have three unpledged or unbound delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. They are supposed to vote according to the results  of primary elections in their state.

A Democratic candidate needs to amass 2,383 delegates to secure the nomination. Thru the Nevada caucus Bernie Sanders collected 51 pledged delegates and 19 super delegates. Hillarfy Clinton could count 52 pledged delegates, but her organization has been able to "secure" support of 451 super delegates, bringing her thus far 18% closer to the needed delegate count than Senator Sanders. On the Republican side Donald Trump is well ahead in the delegate count, tallying 100% better than his combined opposition. For him the numbers that matter are not just delegates, but the number of his so-called establishment opponents in the race, which tend to divide "inside" votes among themselves.

Under Republican rules, until March 15 each state's slate of delegates is selected proportionate to each candidate's performance. Their magic number to win the nomination is 1,237. After March 15 states can use a "winner-take-all" process. There are few of those. Only Florida, Ohio and Arizona use this method. However, many of the next states in the Republican contest have rules that require candidates to win a minimum percentage of the vote to claim delegates. That increases the pressure on Donald Trump's opponents. For instance, among the Super Tuesday states on  March 1, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Vermont and Tennessee all impose a 20% vote threshold, while Oklahoma and Arkansas have dropped this minimum to an imposed 15% before a candidate can receive any delegates. All of this could benefit the party's frontrunner who has thus far clocked between 35% and 45% of the vote in states he won. Recent cycles have demonstrated that the Republican candidate leading the delegate count at the point of the calendar where 50% of the delegates have been allocated goes to the nomination. That point will be reached by the middle of March.

All of this may still be as clear as mud. What is clear, is that going forward the tactics used to enhance delegate collection will become more important than the size of the candidate's support in each state. On Saturday February 27 the Democrats will vote in their South Carolina primary with 57 delegates at stake. Tuesday March 1 features "Super Tuesday" a contest involving 13 states (9 primaries and 4 caucuses) where Democrats will compete for 990 delegates, and Republicans will divide 660. At the end of that day Democrats will have "divided" 49% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination, while Republicans will already be at 64%. To the candidates and their followers the mantra should be "keep your eye on the prize," the conventions are only 5 months away.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S DEATH CHANGES EVERYTHING!

On October 5, 2015 journalist Kimberly Atkins published an article in the Boston Herald headlined: Next President will name as many as four Supreme Court justices." While this fact has hung over the 2016 election from the beginning, its consequences have not developed much traction until Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on February 13 at a resort in West Texas. The political world instantly exploded as activists on opposite sides of the political spectrum began arguing about who should nominate Scalia's replacement, and when that nomination should be submitted.

Justice Antonin Scalia, nominated by President Reagan in 1986, was the champion of "originalims," a theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to apply the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Scalia was the unquestioned dominant leader of the conservative majority on the court. Given current political realities, and what political leaders believe is at stake, the 5-4 conservative majority could quickly turn around if President Obama manages to replace Scalia with a Justice more to his liking.

The Republican opposition argues that a lame-duck President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. They submit that this should be left to the next President. Every Republican candidate for President subscribes to this position, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the nomination process should be delayed until the next President is inaugurated. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a sitting member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would need to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate for discussion and an up or down vote, vowed to filibuster any Supreme Court nomination President Obama would submit. Whether the obstructionist strategy will ultimately succeed may depend on what candidate Obama submits, and to what extend Senators facing tough re-election battles judge that supporting this strategy could backfire with independents and moderate  Republicans in their states.

Not surprisingly, Democratic candidates for their party's nomination have called Republican calls to block any nomination by President Obama "outrageous." Hillary Clinton asserts that 'the Senate has a constitutional responsibility that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons." She continued: "The longest successful confirmation process in the last four decades was Clarence Thomas and that took roughly 100 days. There are 340 days until the next President trakes office, so that is plenty of time." Her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, agrees. He believes that GOP threats are beyond his comprehension, and that Democrats need to rally people for leverage. Having said all this, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's presumed successor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, in a speech before the American Constitution Society mid 2007, opined that the Senate did not only have the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from  a lame-duck President. The only difference between then and now is the party controlling the White House and the Senate.....

Florida Senator Marco Rubio contends that it has been 80 years since a lame-duck President made a Supreme Court nomination. Actually, the last "lame-duck nomination" came from President Reagan when he presented Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1987, who was confirmed unanimously in 1988 - an election year. Prior to that nomination at least 13 justices have been confirmed during election years. All of the others were submitted prior to World War Two, when the politics of the Supreme Court were not as ideologically polarized as they are today. This polarization is at the crux of the current debate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others, has expressed a concern that the court was losing its independence and is being considered a political branch of the government. Several years ago she pointed at  the growing divisiveness of the judicial nomination process as evidence that political leanings were working their way into the system.

This entire discussion begs the question how the ramifications of Justice Scalia's death will impact the election process currently under way. Assuming that President Obama won't be able to muster confirmation of a nominee, the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court are now up for grabs. Whoever controls the first two could be in a position to change the ideological make-up of the court for a long time to come. Besides, three other justices are in their late seventies and early eighties - all of whom might be replaced during the coming eight years. Electability of each party's nominee, if it was not an issue already with party regulars, now becomes more crucial. On the Republican side Ted Cruz, given his background as Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Texas Law School, and his clerking for Chief Justice William Renquist in 1996, may start getting an edge. After all, Donald Trump is not really looked at knowing much about constitutional law. On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders may become an electoral liability as salient issues begin to shift.

Senator Cruz commented that: "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, everyone of those things hang in the balance." Party operatives like South Carolina Senator  Lindsey Graham tends to agree with the message, not the messenger. He said: "I hope conservatives will understand this is a wake-up call. You better nominate somebody who can get 270 electoral votes - Donald Trump can't, Ted Cruz can't." Both parties are hoping that a dynamic nominee will also help them claim a plurality in the U.S. Senate where this year 34 Senators are up for re-election (24 Republicans and 10 Democrats.)

Needless to say that, although the stakes really have not changed, their intensity, focus and perceived importance certainly have. Justice Scalia's death injected a renewed sense of urgency into the process of electing a new leader of the free world. Watch for the fireworks, This year's election just became more interesting.

POLITICS - IS IT MORE THAN HOLLYWOOD FOR UGLY PEOPLE?

"Have you had enough yet?" During a recent trip across country this question, referring to the ubiquitous coverage of all aspects of a raucous election cycle, came up over and over again. I suppose it is worth recognizing that not everyone is a political junkie, and that many are becoming frustrated trying to weed through the incessant barrage of political analyses projected by the national media. While we understand that in our system of government elections are a necessary by-product, pundits have historically and traditionally commented on candidates, the offices they aspire to, and politics in general with varying degrees of criticism, cynicism, sarcasm, or reduced these to ridicule. In a sense the composition of the current electoral field of candidates underscores that tradition. Many platforms tend to express criticism of rather than support for how our government works. Our politicians, what they do and why, are not always revered, especially during an election. To be fair, the competitive nature of the process feeds into the degenerfation of the dialogue.

Otto Von Bismarck, arguably the premier European politician of his time, in an 1867 interview when he was still Prime Minister of Prussia before becoming Germany's first Chancellor, said "Politics is not an exact science. Politics is the art of the possible." Bismarck, who dominated European affairs from 1860 to 1890, knew what he was talking about. Dubbed the Iron Chancellor, he engineered a series of wars that unified German states into a powerful empire. Of course, Bismarck was not the first nor the last personality coining a memorable sound-bite that resonated historically. Some more or less profound observations and comments about politics and its practitioners have entered the literature. Some of these have been indicative of a prevalent mindset during the period they were uttered, and some still appear applicable today. Here is a sampling of these:

Well before anyone in this country thought about these things, we heard from  Plato, who said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Much later, during the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli observed that "Politics have no relation to morals," something some of our current contestants apparently subscribe to as well. Our early history recorded pronouncements like: Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct," and "most bad government has grown out of too much government." Both of these attribuited to Thomas Jefferson. And who does not remember Abraham Lincoln' statement that "the ballot is stronger than the bullet."

Mark Twain's sharp tongue and quick wit featured prominently during the second half of the 19th Century. Most of his political commentary was very critical of politics and politicians. Some samples: Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself," or: "Politicians like diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the very same reason." Not to be outdone, humorist Will Rogers transitioned into the 20th Century with statements like: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." "Pol;itics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated." "Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."  And: "Everything is changing. People are taking their commedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."

Early 20th Century political and social commentary appeared to have had a more serious or outright dour content - although some of this might just be a reflection of my choices. Taking a cue from Machiavelli, Adolph Hitler pronounced: "What good fortune for those in power that people don't think," and: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." We all know what those observations led to. The journalist, satirist and cultural critic H.L. Mencken appears to have hooked into some of Hitler's expressions when he said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

A wealth of memorable quotes completed the century. There was Charles De Gaulle: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians." Winston Churchill: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Milton Friedman: "If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." Ronald Reagan: "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." He also said: " I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Paul Begala: "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people." And finally a quote reminiscent of the personal attacks during this year's election: " In a recent fire Bob Dole's library burned down. Both books were lost, and he hadn't even finished coloring one of them." (Attributed to Jack Kemp.)

Food for thought? Let's be thankful that we live in a country where we can actually say these things with impunity.

THIS YEAR'S ELECTION PITS A SOCIALIST AGAINST A NARCISSIST

The presidential candidates creating the most excitement this election cycle are fringe candidates who in previous elections would probably not have significantly moved the needle on a seismometer. These candidates occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum, and their political identities tend to run counter to traditional opinions held by American voters. On one hand there is Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, a self-proclaimed socialist, who is giving mainstream candidate Hillary Clinton a run for her money in several state primaries, and who is enormously popular with voters (especially young and college educated) on the left of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, on the far rigfht of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, a businessman, has thus far confounded almost all of his mainstream competitors as well as party regulars by leading the pack in national Republican polls. His blunt, some would say crass, statements have found a receptive ear among a substantial slice of the Republican base, especially among blue collar, more mature, voters with limited college background.

The impressive polling results both of these candidates have been able to amass have caught many political "professionals" by surprise. One of the questions being asked is whether this support reflects populist anger and frustration at the inability of representatives in Washington to get their act together, thus animating the White House race, or whether it represents a more fundamental shift in what type of candidate voters want to lead the country. Whichever it is, and the upcoming primaries should give us more clarity, we might dig a little deeper into the political identities of boith candidates, a socialist and a (media proclaimed) narcissist. Both of these candidates developed public identities that resulted in a significant following. However, what gave them prominence might ultimately become part of their undoing.

Many potential voters believe that Senator Sanders shot himself in the foot when he identified himself as a socialist, and more recently as a social democrat or a democratic socialist. Ever since the early 20th Century Americans have rejected Socialism as an ideology. In effect, most Americans do not distinguish between Socialism and Communism, intellectually or politically not recognizing the differences. According to some nothing is more feared and hated in America. "The word alone sends shivers down the spine of the American people." In "Ten Reasons to Reject Socialism," published by The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, this organization produces a litany of reasons stipulating that "Socialism and Communism are the same ideology." They morph into cautionary comments about freedom, human nature, personal property, traditional marriage, etc, ending with: "May God protect America from Socialism." Politicians in bothe parties have used the concept for their own purposes, more or less deliberately erasing the distinction between the two economic ideologies, and warning people that Socialism means centralized control over private industry and property.

So, why would any viable candidate for the office of the presidency label himself a socialist? Senator Sanders softened his identity, and adopted "Social Democrat" to describe his ideological affiliation, suggesting that there is a difference. Frank Llewellyn, former National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America, defines his new label as follows: "Contemporary democratic socialists want to mitigate the many adverse impacts that unregulated capitalist markets have on the lives of ordinary people by supporting intelligent democratic regulations of the economy and by using progressive taxation to finance high quality public goods that can satisfy all citizens' basic needs for healthcare, education, unemployment insurance and job training." Bernie Sanders hopes that voters will recognize that we already have adopted many "socialist" measures, like Social Security, Medicare, and the like. His support group appears to have bought into the concept, not seeing alternative candidates who carry their banner.

Although he teeters on the left fringe of the American political spectrum, Bernie Sanders is philosophically relatively consistent and concise. Donald Trump on the other hand has exhibited a more  or less freewheeling method of communicating a much less consistent set of ideas, principles, and policy suggestions with his politcal following.  However, his approach has proven to be just as, if not more, effective than the one used by the Senator from Vermont. Trump aptly recognized and corralled the intensity of anger and frustration within the Republican Party, and made it his mission to organize his base into a powerful voting bloc. His personality, bluster, attacks on the status quo, and un-political style has resulted in frustration among his competitors, genuine concern among party regulars, and identification as a narcissist by much of the media.

The term "narcissism" was introduced by Sigmund Freud when referring to a person who is pathologically self-absorbed. The word comes from the Greek story of Narcissus, who fell in love with his own reflection. To be fair, a diagnosis of "narcissistic personality disorder" requires a clinical evaluation, and nobody asserts that that has taken place. However, political observers react to exhibited symptoms. Signs of narcissism include: an exaggerated sense of self-importance, a need for constant attention and validation, a lack of empathy for others, a pre-occupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, and a sense of entitlement. It is not entirely unclear why a number of the attributes displayed by Donald Trump during this campaign thus far would lead observers to the conclusion that he possesses narcissistic qualities.

None of this takes away from potentially desirable traits driving Mr. Trump's pursuit. While discussing leadership, Amy Brunell, psychologist at Ohio State University in Newark, observes: "Narcissists have an inflated view of their talents and abilities and are all about themselves. It is not surprising that narcissists become leaders. They like power, they are egotistical, and they are usually charming and extroverted. But the problem is, they  don't necessarily make better leaders." Having said all this, a few psychologists agree that narcissism is not all bad. The condition denotes a specific mix of attributes. Whether it is useful to have these, and at what level, depends on the context. David Ley, Ph.D., sums it up as follows: "It takes an incredible degree of self-confidence, assuredness and arrogance to look at the world, and think you know how to run it better. But isn't that why we elect politicians? We've created an electoral system where every candidate must assert that they, and they alone, have the answers. We want someone to fix things, things that seem broken. We want a voice, and yes, we want one that will change things for the better."

Both candidates are out on the ledge. Their ideology and methodology have proven successful in developing a following by highlighting their "positives." However, politics being politics, their competitors are sure to take them apart and identify why they should not be allowed to succeed, We can expect an exciting few months to follow.

RALLYING CRIES DISTINGUISH POLITICAL CANDIDATES

Now that 2016 is finally here we can at last look forward to getting on top of the political election calendar. Too much may have been made of the campaign already. However, the Iowa caucuses are less than a month away. The New Hampshire primary follows on February 9, just ahead of a series of electoral events leading to "Super Tuesday" when 12 states attempt to clarify their preference among our presidential aspirants. All of these events ultimately lead to national party conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia in July when our choices are reduced to two. By the time we ultimately arrive at the election on Tuesday, November 8, we will all be exhausted, but we will finally know who is going to lead us during the next four years. In the mean time we attemptr to sort through more than a dozen candidates searching for reasons to select one over the other.

All contestants are busily trying to set themselves apart from each other, a chore not easily accomplished. During the Middle Ages competing entities used flags for the purpose of identification. By looking at a flag, observers were able to identify the status, association, or religion of the flag bearer. In war banners were used to help soldiers identify friends or enemies. Today political competitors have replaced banners with slogans used on posters and bumper stickers. In "How to win any election" Joe Garecht tells us that every campaign needs a message, issues that support the message, and an effective campaign slogan . "Slogans need to be easy to remember, short enough to be said in one breath, and snappy enough to say over and over again." Where combatants used to identify with the flag of their compatriots, today's voters identify with their chosen candidate  through her or his campaign slogan. In a way these taglines become a rallying call-to-action, and they can be used in support of or in opposition to specific candidates. Our electoral history is awash in memorable campaign slogans. Many of these reflect the values of society at the time. The Memorabilia Website of Duke University's Collections Library lists an impressive collection of presidential campaign slogans and catchprhrases. Some of these are quite memorable, pointed, and some are even risque. I selected the following to help us ease into what is sure to confront us this year.

One of the earliest rallying cries came from Patrick Henry, founding father, attorney, planter and politician who became the first post-colonial governor of Virginia, who is best remembered for his "Give  Me Liberty of Give Me Death" speech.

In 1789 George Washington, a reluctant candidate at best, used a poster with the slogan: "Let's Try it. See What Happens."

William Henry Harrison and running mate John Tyler made "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" part of history.

In 1852 Franklin Pierce, running against incumbent  President James Polk, came up with: "We Polked You in  '44. We Shall Pierce You in '52."

John Fremont, running in 1856, used the slogan: "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men and Fremont."

Abraham Lincoln's slogan in 1860 was: "Vote Yourself a Farm." During his re-election campaign in 1864 this changed to: "Don't Swap Horses when Crossing Streams."

In 1884 James Blaine, running against Grover Cleveland who had been accused of fathering an illegitimate child in 1874, ran the slogan: "Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa?"

In 1884 Republicans attacked the opposition for views against prohibition with: "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion."

Herbert Hoover ran using the catchphrase: "A Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage."

Hoover ran against Al Smith in 1928. One of the issues debated was prohibition. Proponents were called "drys," opponents were referred to as "wets." A popular tagline during that election became: "Vote for Al Smith and Make Your Wet Dreams Come True."

FDR used various battle cries and became the recipient of slogans opposing his election as well. In 1932 FDR used: "Happy Days Are Here Again." Alfred Landon retorted in 1936 with: 'Life, Liberty and Landon." Wendell Wilkie, running in opposition in 1940 ran posters stating: "Roosevelt for Ex-President." Some of the latter's supporters also circulated literature proclaiming: "No Man is Good Three Times."

Everyone remembers Harry Truman's "Give Em Hell, Harry," and Eisenhower's "I lIke Ike."

In 1960 even prostitutes got into the act proclaiming: "Nixon or Kennedy, We don't Care Who Gets In!"

Goldwater's run for office generated pro and con slogans like: "Goldwater - In Your Heart You Know He's Right."  "In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts."

The 1972 election campaign opposing Democrats saw: "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion for All."

Jimmy Carter flaunted his background in 1976 with bumper stickers that said: "Not Just Peanuts."

Ronald Reagan was the first one to come up with: "Make America Great Again." (Donald Trump adopted the slogan for his own campaign and is actually trying to trademark it.)

Many of us still remember Bill Clinton's slogan: "It's the Economy Stupid," and Barack Obama's: "Yes, We Can!"

This year we should look forward to some new slogans. The better ones, other than the one Donald Trump "borrowed" are:

Ben Carson - "Heal, Inspire, Revive."

Carly Fiorina - "New Possibilities. Real Leadership."

Ted Cruz - "Reigniting the Promise of America."

Bernie Sanders - "A Political Revolution is Coming.

Marco Rubio - "A New American Century."

Rand Paul - "Defeat the Washington Machine. Unleash the American Dream."

Mike Huckabee - "From Hope to Higher Ground."

Jeb Bush - "Jeb!"

Candidates missing from this list have not quite come up with a succinct battle cry most of us can remember.

If history provides a guideline, our message to the candidates should be: "keep it simple," or come November we will have forgotten how you tried to help us focus.

were called "drys," 

FUELING XENOPHOBIC HYSTERIA FEEDS FASCIST ELEMENTS

On December 7 Donald Trump, Republican frontrunner in the presidential election contest, announced that he was calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." His words elicited a firestorm of reaction from domestic as well as foreign pundits. Leaders in both political parties chastised him for making un-American statements. The British Parliament is considering a motion banning him from entering the U.K.. Business associates operating in the Middle East are removing Trump's name from branded properties . A previously scheduled meeting between Trump and Netanyahu was cancelled. And across the globe the GOP frontrunner is being referred to as a Fascist demagogue. Donald Trump says that he does not care, that what he said needed to be said. Upwards of 60% of potential Republican voters appear to agree. He apparently anticipated some of the reaction, and his proposal was obviously designed to feed into a growing Islamophobia permeating the country.

While Trump may have unleashed a political firestorm among mainstream politicians, his remarks mirrored similar utterances coming out of a growing number of far-right populist, nationalist or outright Fascist parties dotting the political landscape in Europe. Many of the elements leading to the development of Fascist parties across pre WWII Europe  are again in evidence. During the run-up of World War II political movements were focused on similar concerns far-right parties agitate about today: The economy, unemployment, immigration, a loss of national identity, and a loss of traditional values. While anti-semitism was a unifying factor for far-right parties during the first three decades of the 20th Century, Islamophobia has become the unifying factor during the early part of the 21st Century.

In our country political demagoguery may eventually be absorbed in platforms of one of the major political parties. In most European countries electoral systems allow fringe movements to organize their support in to political parties with real power. Today in Europe proto-Fascist parties that are anti-Islam, anti-Semitic, and anti-European Union have already become the second or third largest parties in a belt of formerly liberal societies that runs from Norway and Finland  to The Netherlands and France. In Hungary, where the nationalist Fidesz Party already governs, Jobbik, the more extreme and most obvious neo-Nazi party in Europe continues to gain in strength. Prime Minister Viktor Oban , already referred to as a dictator and the "Donald Trump of Europe," continues his movement to the extreme  right in an effort to thwart Jobbik's ascendance. In Poland a new right wing populist government controlled by the "Law and Justice Party" recently took steps to cancel previous appointments of judges to its Constitutional Tribunal, which rules on all legislation. In France Marine Le Pen's Nationalist Front took 30% of the vote in recent regional elections, positioning herself well for an anticipated challenge  in the upcoming 2017 presidential elections. It took collaboration between President Hollande's Socialists and past President Sarkozy's center-right "Les Republicains" to keep her from dominating the election.

The point is that the world is a dangerous place today, but our reaction to the dangers that seem to be lurking around every corner is potentially as dangerous as what we are trying to protect ourselves from. What we may now look at as political theater fed by powerful demagoguery can quickly deteriorate into mass hysteria and morph ideas into political power and control over public resources. While we yearn for a rebirth of traditional values, we tend to lose track of our core values. Witness Europe where ideas similar to those expressed by Donald Trump ultimately developed into political parties with real power running on platforms specifying desires to expel their Muslim population, register Jews and Muslims alike, stop the flow of refugees, reverse the influence of the European Union and its Parliament (one-third of which  now consists of far-right ant-E.U. representatives), restrict democratic values, and essentially reverted to the situation after the Weimar Republic in 1933 Germany. The Nazis who took over never won an election. However, their demagoguery acquired the support that eventually led us to World War II and the deaths of over 60 million people.

Political bluster and grandstanding can produce outcomes we don't imagine, and over which we could easily lose control. If you think that that can't happen here, just remember: we used to ostracize Catholics, we shamelessly allowed anti-semitism to fester and sent thousands of would-be Jewish immigrants back to Germany where most were exterminated, we interred our Japanese citizens, and if we follow Donald Trump's suggestions we will soon make life for our Muslim citizens a living hell.

Hitler's brown shirts were not very educated. They were storm troopers. When he released them  during the night of November 9, 1938 to execute a coordinated attack on Jews throughout Germany - during what was later dubbed as "Kristallnacht" - he destroyed the lives of millions of people and set the stage for what would become his "final solution." When I observed the raucous standing ovation Trump received in South Carolina when he announced his proposal I could not help but feel that he could have asked these people to do anything he wanted, and they would have complied. As we read this mosques are being firebombed,people are attacked, knifed and killed, businesses are being defaced and destroyed, and patriotic Americans are having their lives ruined.

My parents were living 300 miles from the center of activity in Germany in 1938. They were helpless to do anything about it, but they suffered the eventual consequences when my grandfather was enslaved and ultimately killed by the Nazis. We still have a choice. We need to use it, or we may wake up one morning regretting we didn't.

THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF

Our 32nd President, Franklin Roosevelt, spoke these words during his inaugural address in 1933. Within a decade our government would turn back thousands of Jewish refugees, desperate people fleeing a terrifying blood thirsty regime. We argued that they posed a serious thtreat to our national security, and we essentially returned them to Germany where many would be exterminated by the Nazis. Later in 1939 we rejected a proposal to allow 20,000 Jewish children to come into the country for safety. Three years later Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which resulted in interring nearly 120,000 citizens of Japanese descent while some of their offspring died on the battlefield fighting on our side during the war. At the time well over 80% of residents polled supported Roosevelt's turnabout. Politics trumped what was once a sensible expression of opinion in line with a set of values our country had always stood for. Since that time we have generally expressed regret for what we did back then. However, 70 years later we apparently still have not learned from it.

The terrorist acts in Paris where 130 people died at the hands of, mostly home-grown, criminals are stirring up the same type of political grand standing as what preceded our entry into World War II. More than half of our governors and most candidates running for president have grabbed onto heightened security concerns, misdiagnosed the facts, and again targeted a group of desperate refugees while identifying members of a specific religion to make political points, vastly under estimating real security threats.

This time around our focus is on Syrian refugees and followers of Islam. The House of Representatives passed a bill establishing a pause in resettling Syrian refugees until our vetting process has been reviewed. Mind you, currently refugees admitted to the U.S. undergo between one and two years of screening by multiple intelligence agencies, the State Department and the Department of Defense. Since 9/11 we have resettled 387,938 refugees from majority Muslim countries. Only 2 of these have subsequently been arrested for suspect activities. While pandering to their political base, and while trying to outdo each other, political candidates are falling all over each other making pathetic, pathological, xenophobic statements. Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush are suggesting that going forward we should only admit Christian refugees. Trans-Humanist Party candidate Zoltan Istvan suggested that small microchips could be implanted under the skin of Syrian refugees as part of the process admitting them into the U.S.. Donald Trump wants to close down or monitor all mosques, place Syrians into internment camps in Syria, send Syrians already processed and in the country back, and register all Muslims into a database. Chris Christy pronounced that he would not even make exceptions for orphans under the age of five. In the mean time Ben Carson, at a campaign stop in Mobile, Alabama, referred to Syrian refugees as "rabid dogs."

As the inflammatory rhetoric escalates and becomes less and less American, it is worth observing that the terrorists in Paris mostly carried French, Belgian and Moroccan passports. Given the vetting time it takes before refugees are allowed into the country, it would be highly unlikely that terrorist groups could muster the patience required to infiltrate their flow and smuggle anyone into the U.S.. The real security risk rests with people who carry passports from countries we typically trust and for which we don't require visas. The political pandering does not only undermine security threats we should focus on, the rhetoric has a way of inflaming those who don't think for themselves. As French writer and philosopher Voltaire noted centuries ago: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Two weeks ago armed protesters showed up at a mosque in Irving Texas, which underscores the point that we should deescalate the discourse before it really gets out of hand.

Finally, one can't escape the fact that, since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have experienced well over 360,000 gun related killings. In a way these acts of violence resemble a form of domestic terrorism that resulted in more devastation and agony than what we are currently observing internationally. However, these "terrorist" acts don't seem to elicit the same level of outrage. To combat terrorist acts within our borders, the Bush administration suggested in 2007 that we pass a law denying people who we suspect might engage in terrorist activities from purchasing guns and explosives. Almost nine years later this bill still has not passed Congress. Recently Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Peter King reintroduced this legislation, which is now dubbed the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorist Act of 2015." The point they make, convincingly in my view, is that if we deny people on our "no fly list" from boarding our planes, we should keep them away from explosives and firearms. Unfortunately the lunatic fringe at the helm of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's lobbying arm which manages its Political Action Committee, and which maintains its grasp over a cowardly Congress, has succeeded in keeping this sensible legislation from becoming law. Their aggressive arm twisting, presumably not by intent, but certainly in effect, appears to support domestic terrorism. Perhaps we should begin re-defining who our real enemies are.