These times appear to be a nexus of myriads of possibilities. The linearity of our written language imposes limitations upon what can be said simultaneously. What is presented here below is not meant to qualify in any way the ongoing effort to elect Bernie Sanders as the next President of these United States. It comes out of the feelings that I had after seeing the Ohio and Illinois results and the struggle that I have to avoid regarding the votes for Clinton as votes for lies, for moneyed interests, for corruption. Some her supporters have chuckled and pitied my descent into the clutches of the True Believers’ Syndrome. They say that I will get over it. I don’t want to get over it. I want my country to pull its collective head out of its corporate ass. Mark Twain once said of patriotism: “I am for my country all of the time and my government when it deserves it.” That’s what I am talking about.

There are many situations when a choice might be made as a matter of taste including, perhaps, a matter of voter preference. Matters of taste, however, only apply to situations wherein personal expression will not adversely affect the health and safety of others. Going beyond that eventually ends up as a matter of law. Similarly, the concept of voter preference relies upon the presumption of common ground and a consensus as to the overarching ideals and goals set to reach those ideals. Preference may be expressed as supporting a certain tactic or strategy: a way of presenting the commonly held ideal or reaching the commonly held goal. Going outside of that eventually ends up denying the ideals and abandoning the goals. It is possible that the contrast between two political candidates can be so stark that the choosing can no longer be merely a matter of preference, but must be a statement of either recommitment to the overarching ideals of the group or to a replacement. If this should happen, then the one group will have become two or more subgroups each coalescing around a differing set of ideals which might well be mutually exclusive. It may not be possible for all of the subgroups to either agree upon one candidate or to find it to be appropriate to do so.

The condition that our two major political parties find themselves in can be seen, in part, as a result of an inability to reconcile with a subgroup of significant size: the Republicans with the Reform Party and the Democrats with the Green Party. Both subgroups, as subgroups will, found themselves at odds with the largest group which they saw to be the establishment. It is argued here that the Freedom Party after being thoroughly repressed irrupted years later as the Tea Party in reference to an act of rebellion in Boston harbor but, perhaps, most similar to an event in “Alice in Wonderland”. The subgroup that became the Green Party felt that the establishment had become so complacent (if not corrupt) that it would not actively fight for the future of the planet Earth and so they felt that they must make a stand. The establishment did not reconcile with them even though many, if not most, Democrats agree that their defection was significant enough to cause the loss of the Presidency in 2000. In 2004, the great and vaunted party machine stood by while their candidate was subjected to the most vicious and despicable slandering in modern political history. The citizenry concluded that any candidate not worthy of the defense of his own party was not worthy of their vote. The eyes of this writer saw then evidence sufficient to conclude that the Democratic Party was no longer moored to its own ideals, adrift, and incapable of making way against the currents of those times. And then, in 2007, the Supreme Court proclaimed in the clearest fashion that we had reached the establishment’s final destination. The Democratic Party went with the tide, made for port and opened for bidness.

Now the reaction to the complacency of the Democratic Party towards the corruption of our political system is producing another subgroup which may be, after all the votes are counted, virtually half of those who vote with the Party when including independent voters. What is the appropriate response in this case? Some are saying that it is necessary, once again, to choose the lesser of two evils even though we all know that it is not possible to measure evil in differing amounts: a thing is either evil or it is not. Can a person be counted upon to commit certain acts of corruption and not others? When is enough too much?

Most people speak of the “establishment of the Republican Party” and the “establishment of the Democratic party” as if there are several establishments vying against each other. We are encouraged to think this way. Of course, there can be only one establishment. If we accept the fact as axiomatic that the MSM is owned by the establishment and will, therefore, ignore Bernie Sanders because he opposes the establishment isn’t the obverse true of Donald Trump? On the night of March 15th, all of the MSM actually cut away from Bernie Sanders as he started speaking and marked time specifically to wait for Donald Trump. We have heard it said that the MSM has created the candidacy of Donald Trump. (With Watergate we learned to follow the money. Perhaps now we should be learning to also follow the airtime.) If Hillary Clinton, the self-proclaimed champion of the status quo, is the establishment’s preferred Democratic candidate, then isn’t Donald Trump the establishment’s preferred Republican candidate? Doesn’t the establishment always try to have their candidates running against each other? It is safer that way. It should be clear to the most casual observer that the establishment gets what it wants when a Democrat is in the White House. The Republicans need a win and they need it bad: they need it much worse than anything else. Will they have a “brokered convention” if they already have what they want? On the morning of March 16th, my daughter wrote this: THOSE WHO WANT CLINTON DESERVE TRUMP.