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.