Looking for Balance

(Editor's note:  Ranger Bob is back with a politically-oriented post in which he appeals for moderation and balance in American politics and especially in the next presidential election cycle.  His points are clear and logical, as they always are, and the list of candidates whom he says he could support would also have my support in the 2028 general election.  But until such time as the Democrats and Republicans choose their official nominees, and while I continue to love Ranger Bob like a brother, Pa Rock is staying off-balance and his heart belongs to AOC!  As always, please read and ponder the very sound advice that my good friend has to offer.   Bob and I both welcome your feedback. - Pa Rock)

Looking for Balance

by Bob Randall

I'm probably going to find it difficult to vote for a president at the next presidential election.  I generally don't vote for presidents anyway.   My vote is really a vote against the other canadidates.  Over the years, I have voted against more Democrats than Republicans.  Side note:  that will disappoint Pa Rock but we will still be friends.  January 6 sealed forever the fact that I will never vote Republican again . . . never, ever again.   January 6 is now a noun that describes more than a date. If I have to add a year to that date, you don't get it and should stop reading now.

All that aside, I agree with Repubs on some of the issues, however, I agree with almost none of the tactics that Trump has used.  For instance, I'm glad the other NATO nations are taking a serious look at their defenses and are paying a larger share.  I believe, however, that DJT's tactics have weakened the organization's cohesion.  I don't know if this is his intention or just the result of his narcissism.  He may seriously weaken both NATO and the UN in favor of the Board of Peace.  It started out as the UN's Board of Peace for the management of Palestine, but now it is Donald Trump's BofP.  He controls the money and its membership, as well as the leadership.  It's like a mafia organization and he's the Don, pun intended.

I wrote most of this before the IranGate war started.  This is added:  I'm also glad that the Ayatollah is dead.  However, the way it was done highlights our drift away from Constitutional requirements that hold our republic together.  BTW, I can make a long list of names whose absence would benefit mankind.  I welcome news of their obituarries.

That said, in my opinion, the far left uses tactics to swing the issues to the other extreme, but it's not for power.  It's for ideology.  Their tactics are also motivated by anger, tribalism, and the feeling of superiority.  On the PBS Newshour just before Thanksgiving, Jonathan Capehart and his debater responded to a question about how to keep the peace at the holiday dinner table.  The debater offered that we should listen to what other people have to say, try and understand them, and realize that politics is not what defines us.  I was impressed by that.  Then Jonathan said that they (conservatives at the table) need to listen to him, not the other way around.  His tone of voice was angry.  I was disappointed.

I'll mention a few tactics used by the left that smear the entire Democratic Party.  How about name-calling, deplatforming speakers, disregarding data that doesn't support a social justice agenda, doxing opponents, etc.   Not everyone who has a different opinion about the trans movement is a transphobe, but you can't tell that by the name-calling.  Calling someone a name does not win a debate.  Speakers of different opinions should debate, either face to face, by follow-up lectures, or with editorials.  Neither name-calling nor shouting is debate.  Peaceful demonstrations are acceptable, but they are not debate and they are not acceptable if the aim is to prevent someone else from speaking.  Confronting a Jewish American student on campus without their consent is not a peaceful demonstration.  Reactionary demands do not make an argument.  Defund the police is reactionary.  I agree that more policing should include social workers and that would likely change the budget requirements of policing.  That's different from defunding.  I realize that's not on the Democratic Party's platform,  but chanting it stains the entire left of center agenda and gives Trump talking points.  Trump already uses a broad paint brush, and the far left is giving him the paint.  Do you think it doesn't matter?  A new poll shows that 30% of Demcorats have a negative view of their party.  Does that sound like an acceptable number to you?  Not to me when I consider that in 2025 a Gallup poll showed that 45% of American adults are political independents.  Do Democraats want to win elections, or do they just like feeling superior?

Do I hear you saying,  "But what about . . . "   Nope.  Don't respond to me with whataboutism.   It is a logical fallacy response, not a valid argument.  As far as I'm concerned, the sins of the Republicans are stated, implied, or assumed in this post.  I've already given up on the Repubs.  Recounting more of their sins here only excuses the mistakes of the Dems.   If you just have to list them, that's okay, but it's not the subject here.  Write your own post.  No hostility intended, just keeping on point.

So what would I like from a presidential candidate?  I'll list generalities, even though the Devil is always in the details.  The following is neither comprehensive nor in order of importance:

• Committment to the separation of powers outlined in our Constitution.
• Cancellation of Donald Trump's executive orders and a thoughtful use of future EO's.
• Recognition and commitment to the independence of certain agencies such as the Federal Reserve and the Justice Department, including Inspectors General.
• Along that line, commitment to fighting political corruption.
• Renewal of a commitment to fighting climate change.
• A renewed commitment to the separation of church and state;
• A reasonable balance of equal opportunity with skills and ability. The words that DEI stand for are honorable, but the implementation of them as currently used applauds the reverse discrimination for hirees and cancelation of anyone who doesn't sing its praise loudly.
• A reasonable balance of trans rights.  Penis's do not belong in women's prisons.  Women who call a domestic abuse hotline should not have to talk to a transwoman.  My transgender grandchild married a cisgender spouse.  I'm glad they're happy.  Their marriage does not interfere with anyone else's rights.  That's an example of balance of rights. 
• A commitment to leading the world, not dividing it up with Russia and China.
• An honest commitment to a comprehensive immigration policy.
• A commitment to freedom of speech.  (I can't believe I have to write that.)
• Etc., etc,. etc.

I took a political science course in college.  I hated it.  The class focused on power politics.  That's the only thing I remember about it.  I never dreamed I would see such power politics.  It is now in plain sight.  If Trump succeeds in nationalizing elections, our constitutional federal representative government will be gone.  It will have been replaced by the American version of fascism.  Nobody voted for that.

Maybe my acceptable candidate doesn't exist.  Actually, more than one probably does exist.  It is doubtful that any of them can win the nomination of their party.  Our electoral system may just doom our democracy.   A two-party system with closed primaries has given us extreme ideologues.   Recently Missouri amended its constitution to eliminate any possibility for ranked-choice elections.  Much of the rest of the country seems to be leaning the same way.  The two sides don't want a triangle or some other polygon.  Individuals could lose their seats and parties could lose their power.  Where's the balance?  It's not there.   Do I think the next president will give up that power for balance?  Nah.

So who can I trust?   I think I can trust Jamie Raskin, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzingeer, Mark Kelly, maybe more if I take some time to think of them, maybe Andy Beshear,  In order, I've named a liberal, a conservative, a Repub centerist, and two Dem centerists.   Of this list, the only one who has a chance of getting the nomination and maybe winning is Mark Kelly.   Maybe Andy beshear.  If either gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.  If neither get it, I'm going to write in Pa Rock's name.  It won't matter because Missouri will cast its electoral votes for the Republican.  

P.S.  Other possible acceptable but long-shot candidates are Mayor Pete, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro.  Rats!  I can't find the crying emoji!