Disgust

Author: Gary Hart

“We are disgusted” she said, “with the political elite.”  A summary to explain the motivation of those who favor Trump.  Meanwhile, the Clintonians are disgusted with Trump supporters as the now infamous “basket of deplorables.”

When and how did the nation of “all men are created equal”, “we here resolve these dead shall not have died in vain”, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”, the greatest generation, and “ask what you can do for your country” become so disgusted with itself?

To the degree the political elite represents a self-promoting, insider Court of revolving doors maintaining its own access and power through special interest lobbying and campaign contributions, no one is more disgusted with it than I am.  [Cf. The Republic of Conscience, Blue Rider Press, 2015]  How that disgust leads one to support Donald Trump is quite another matter.

Surely, even the most ardent Trump supporter would not include in this elite elected officials, including the President, Senators, and Members of Congress, all of whom are where they are because a majority of Americans, or voters in States and Congressional districts, sent them to Washington.  If you are disgusted with them, vote them out.  That’s called democracy.

When an elected official, the product of majority will, becomes disgusting, anger is best directed at fellow citizens who elected him or her.

Endless analysis has gone into diagnosing the Trump “base”.  Popular media wisdom has it as primarily rural, white, older males, especially those whose manufacturing jobs were eroded by global competition or low wage immigrants.  More intricate analysis, well beyond “deplorables”, is required.  To the degree they are disgusted with the insider power structure described above, they have a lot of company from people like me.

Some of us who are students of American history take comfort from the knowledge that we have been through something like this before, usually during periods of dislocation and fractures in our economic base.  The populist movement in the late 19th/early 20th century is a principal case in point, a time when we were transitioning from an agricultural to an urban manufacturing economy.

As with individuals, the transition of nations through periods of disruption is rarely painless.  The test of great individuals and nations is whether that painful transition is managed with dignity, collective respect, honor, and decency.  These standards are particularly demanded when the nation in question holds itself out to the world as exceptional.

This American election is characterized by disgust but, even worse, it has become disgusting.  If there is a lower level to which it may still descend in the closing days and hours, it is difficult to imagine.  The idealism of my generation to give something back to our nation is being replaced by fear and loathing of politics and government by the current generation of young Americans.

Too many Americans assume this political mud wrestling match is being consumed only by those of us at home.  Regrettably, it is also being closely observed by people around the world.  For those like me, who have had the opportunity to travel through much of the world, it is stunningly obvious that we Americans are more closely studied by people around the world as to how we govern ourselves than most Americans can imagine.

From our founding we have believed ourselves to be exceptional.  At our best we have held ourselves to a higher standard of principle, honor, and dignity than virtually any other nation.  We have even believed it our responsibility to wage war on behalf of democratic ideals.  Our foreign policies have been guided by our belief that others should follow our example.

The effect of this exceptionalism is to submit our nation to international judgment as to the degree we meet our own standards.

How then can our nation disgusted with itself expect others to respect us and our proclaimed ideals.  We are paying a price, a heavy price, for our current failure to conduct a national election with dignity rather than disgust.  History alone will judge the responsible individuals and parties for the descent of American politics to the basement, as well as for enabling of a corrupt political Court in Washington.

After the impending election, we all must participate in clearing the wreckage, sweeping out the political stables, and beginning the long process of restoring order to our system.  Years of effort will be required and women and men of good will and love of our country will be required to participate.

Our final goal: replace disgust with dignity.

30 Responses to “Disgust”

  1. Paul G Says:

    LEADERS (CIVILIZED EXEMPLARS) OF THE FREE WORLD

    “For those like me, who have had the opportunity to travel through much of the world, it is stunningly obvious that we Americans are more closely studied by people around the world as to how we govern ourselves than most Americans can imagine.” – Gary Hart

    THE ACT OF KILLING
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09OgJ3hv8bk

    SUBJUGATING INNOCENTS
    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

    Asked “What do you think of western civilization?” Mahatma Gandhi smilingly responded, “That would be nice!”

  2. Brian C. McCarthy Says:

    Senator,

    There is little I can add to what you have already said. I would be embarrassed to visit Europe right now and have my friends over there ask me about the state of our elections. Have we hit rock bottom? Or will even worse than than this come to pass? What can we do but hold our heads high and attempt to show the world that at least some of us Americans are as disgusted with our broken political system as they are? How do we fight back? When the forum for doing so is now the Internet which recognizes no facts or objective realities but only the voices of those who speak in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS? It seems the patients are running the asylum. God help us. – BCM

  3. Paul McCarthy Says:

    Our political system is becoming more about personal objectives and less about compromise.  The amount of hypocrisy and decisiveness in our system exhibits that bipartisanship rarely occurs.  Every elected official should represent all of their constituents.  I understand that people’s views can be anywhere from the far left to far right but unless there is a clear mandate demonstrated by election results then bipartisanship should occur.
    I agree the that world is watching and I have often been embarrassed by some of our activities.  The money itself, spent on political elections and special intrests, could be utilized to end poverty and cure disease.  This country is a democracy where all citizens should be represented regardless of which party is in power. The abuse of power by our officials must come to an end for true bipartisanship to work. 

  4. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Disgust is so easily misdirected in a political and media culture that is as dysfunctional as it is in America.

    If nothing is done about that, what then happens when someone who is far more savvy than Donald Trump gets a hold of the electorate?

  5. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    On a brighter note and to mix metaphors, when the pendulum swings so far down to the bottom, someday soon it has to swing back up again, right?

  6. Gary Hart Says:

    Perhaps what we are dealing with here is not a pendulum but a yo-yo.
    GH

  7. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Perhaps.

    That is actually a very apt analogy when you think about it and definitely worth exploring.

    Especially when you consider that it is Putin’s finger in one of the slip knots …

  8. Paul G Says:

    “Our final goal: replace disgust with dignity.” – Gary Hart

    Imagine a network president responding to shareholder disgust at TV’s crude content and tone: “Ask not what yo-yo swings; it swings for thee!”

    JFK’s call to the nobility of public service seems a distant memory as all three private corporations (two major parties and commission on debates) shamelessly and publicly declare their greed as good (for the rest of us?)! Today, even the “moderating” messenger, TV news, has become hopelessly corrupted by their addiction to attention-grabbing profit. As a CBS president recently declared, “It’s bad for America but it’s great for TV!”

    So, it’s not difficult to imagine a new US president’s inaugural call to future generations: “Ask not for whom the yo-yo swings; it swings at thee!”

  9. Gary Hart Says:

    Before leaving the subject of pendula entirely, it is worth nothing that a pendulum takes the same amount of time to swing two feet as it does two inches. Galileo discovered this by timing the swing of a cathedral chandelier as he took his pulse.

  10. Gary Hart Says:

    Galileo would also have written: “worth noting”
    GH

  11. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Heh.

  12. Brian C. McCarthy Says:

    Senator,

    There are many reasons why the electorate views the current system with disgust. Even those of us who have studied politics and been involved in the system cannot find ourselves less than disgusted.

    The choice facing us in the next 26 days or so is whether to elect as president a man who has no governing experience, an irrational temper, a complete lack of understanding of international affairs, and incredibly backward views of ethnic and religious differences, or to elect a woman who has none of these failings but yet disappoints because she is widely viewed, rightly or wrongly, as disingenuous and crooked.

    If the polling is right, then Secretary Clinton will easily win on Election Day with more than 300 electoral votes coming to her.

    A friend speculated yesterday that Hillary will easily win this year but will lose re-election in 2020 because whoever the GOP nominates will be so much more palatable than DT that he/she will seem a ‘white knight’.

    I have no such confidence that the 2020 election will bring a better choice than 2016 does. Rather, I think that this election has opened the floodgates and we should get used to the idea of having outrageous and unqualified candidates making it to the finals.

    Maybe not a pendulum or a yo-yo – maybe a country sinking fast in quicksand and there is nowhere to go but down. Many Americans get their news from one-sided sources now. The internet and openly partisan national news networks enable this. In 1964, 1972, and 1984 the country voted overwhelmingly for one party, not because we were as partisan and politically polarized as we are now, but because we weren’t and registered Democrats would vote for a Republican candidate if they thought him/her the better choice or vice-versa. Today, people will vote for their party’s candidate even though they must know the person simply isn’t qualified to hold the office; just as long as THEY don’t win.

    On 11/8, Hillary Clinton will win the presidency. Democrats will likely win the Senate and make significant gains in the House. But what does that even really mean anymore? What happens when the symbols shatter and there is no confidence in the political system, even among the members of the winning party?

    BCM

  13. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    I see at least two problems with the host’s assertion that (in sum) voters have only themselves to blame for electing feckless elitist pols:

    1) that the candidate choices on the ballot are the product of the entire political ecosystem, including the processes by which candidates are nominated (or self-selected) and funded. This ecosystem highly skews outcomes towards conservative candidates in both old parties. And

    2) that the journalists who cover politics and government long ago stopped “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” and began advancing the agenda of their corporate owners, including generating short term profits via salacious “eye candy” stories featuring gossip and other tabloid fare, and toe-ing the pro-business philosophical and policy party line established in media moguls’ boardrooms.

    What is striking about 2015-2016 is that the American people roused themselves like Gulliver and broke the ropes with which the which establishment elites had bound them, and rallied to (and financed with voluminous small donations made online) the DYI presidential candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

    Both Sanders and Trump promised that if elected president, they would (each in their way and to slightly varying degrees) “throw the moneychangers out of the temple” of American government and politics. The net result is that the American populace have had their hopes for a better world significantly raised in 2016 by the intentions strongly expressed by both of these movement-oriented candidates, one left-leaning and one right-leaning.

    It is “worth noting” (in what the host may consider a misappropriation of his phrase in the comment above) that Mr. Trump has commendably used his clout as a billionaire-turned-citizen-politician to hold first the Bushes and now the Clintons accountable for their conservative political records and agendas, which include in both instances malevolent crimes against humanity (eg. the Iraq War). And that consequently the Bushes’ and Clintons’ have formed a disgusting (yet predictable) near-united front against Mr. Trump, most recently manifested by 92 year old George H.W. Bush’s announced intention to vote for Hillary and by an expensively ticketed fund-raiser for Hillary held in Paris attended by Barbara Bush, George W. Bush’s daughter (not his mother).

    Along the way Mr Trump has turned-in bravura performances in:

    • first the decisive Republican debate in which Trump excoriated Jeb Bush for W’s (in sum) “disgusting” (my word not Trump’s) initiation of the Iraq War (in my view an illegal war of aggression for which W and his Chen-nanny should be serving life imprisonment); and

    • Trump’s second debate with Hillary in which he imposed political accountability on the Clintons for decades of opportunistic machinations, betrayals of public trust and unjust personal enrichment I believe the Clintons NEVER expected to receive. And that has been followed by devastating (I believe) irrefutably accurate ads such as the one found here: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/786204978629185536 .

    Because Mr. Trump is in a dead heat with establishment conservative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the only accurate poll (the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll found here: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/ ) the NY Times and other commercial media corporations are now plainly making a concerted effort to personally malign Mr. Trump and thereby preempt the public’s consideration of- and verdict upon the serious issues (including the life-or-death issue of U.S.-Russia relations) that the election outcome on November 8th should rightfully pivot- upon.

    In a short piece in Forbes published Thursday morning writer Nick Morgan (who, unlike myself, is substantively in agreement with Sen. Hart’s mend-it-don’t-end-it approach to corporatist globalization – I’m for roll-back) correctly states (in sum) the obvious: that essential American political discourse is now being displaced by that despicable tactic identified by the ancient Greeks, one employed by those incapable of logical refutation of a political opponent’s views: ad hominem attack, AKA character assassination. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorgan/2016/10/13/the-death-of-public-discourse-in-america/#4ac7ef6f36ad .

    Space does not permit a full anatomy of the unconscionable smears that are now being directed at Mr. Trump, but to briefly discuss just one: the response by the NY Times’ in-house counsel to Mr. Trump’s lawyer who threatened a libel suit over the Times’ articles publicizing two women’s claims that Trump made unwanted advances is telling. A key line reads: “Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts.” See the Times’ article and counsel’s letter at http://nyti.ms/2e0XMPR and original of letter at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3141719/Response.pdf .

    That’s it? No elaboration of whether they succeeded in “confirming the women’s accounts”, what method they employed, or what exactly the results of their efforts in this regard were? Did the NY Times’ vetting include polygraph examinations, which is the least that a responsible newspaper would insist upon before publishing such sensational and potentially politically consequential claims. Almost certainly not.

    The Times knew full well that the quite possible (indeed likely) results of such polygraphs (either that the situations were ambiguous or that the women are politically motivated fabulists) would disable the Times from publishing under the lenient standard of NY Times v. Sullivan (which require that a defamed plaintiff prove that a media defendant knew at the time they published that the defamatory material they were publicizing was false).

    So here the Times deliberately and unreasonably refrained from employing this standard investigative tool (a polygraph) so as to be able to later say that they didn’t know the women were stretching the truth or fabulists. Get it?

    It’s disgusting (or more politely: too clever by half) and hopefully Mr. Trump will eventually persuade the Supreme Court that a libel lawsuit can lie where media defendants fail to engage in reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of scandalous allegations, allegations which are far too easy for a claimant to falsely make and a media entity to publish with impunity: it requires only a claimant with a proverbial warm body be willing to lie to a journalist when their lips are moving.

    Sen. Hart’s admonition when he “stepped aside” in May 1987 (as he puts in the recent PBS Contenders’ segment on his 1984 and 1988 presidential candidacies, linked below), warning the press not to view themselves as grand inquisitors into- and judges of the relationship histories of candidates – not to, in sum, reduce themselves to “hunters and candidates as the hunted” (see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/almanac-the-gary-hart-scandal and my comment thereon here: http://fyre.it/za0SfT.4 ) – is starting to look as prescient as President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning about the rise of the military-industrial complex which he said portended a “disastrous” confluence of special interest power.

    My plea to my fellow citizens is this: If we are to spurn Mr. Trump, let us do so on the merits or demerits of his agenda and policy intentions versus those of Hillary Clinton, not on the basis of scurrilous rumor-mongering (that may or may not contain a few grains of truth) and not on the basis of what novelist John Irving called (in Hart’s case) “commonly immoral” (consensual) relationship history, a record that would understandably cause most (though not necessarily all) women to reject Mr. Trump as HUSBAND material.

    The stakes are far too high. As Gary Hart advisor Mark Green said in the Contenders’ segment, when he was asked during the height of the Seven Days in May 1987 feeding frenzy: “What could be worse than adultery?” responded matter-of-factly: “Nuclear war!” See http://www.ozy.com/2016/watch-episode-4-of-the-contenders-16-for-16/72279#.V_aVuA9vf3M.facebook (at 21 min.29 sec. mark).

    In that same spirit I conclude by re-producing a portion of a recent comment I posted on my Facebook political page when I saw the dreaded dynamic that befell Sen. Hart recurring now to another talented political leader (albeit it one whose politics differ considerably but not entirely from my own) who, in my view, is infinitely preferable to a dynastic Clintons’ restoration.
    ————-
    https://www.facebook.com/ECJLA/posts/1105217256182556
    Oct. 6 at 1:15 pm:

    The magnitude of the loss our country experienced (without even really registering it) when Sen. Gary Hart, who NYC Democratic activist Mark Green describes in this segment of The Contenders as “the John F. Kennedy of the 1980s” was forced (he mistakenly felt) to abandon his 1988 presidential campaign due to the media uproar over an extramarital flirtation he had with Donna Rice, is just now being felt.

    This segment (which gives new meaning to Brando’s “On the Waterfront” line “I could’ve been a contenda”) details the way in which Hart had arranged with Mikhail Gorbachev for an orderly end to the Cold War beginning on inauguration day 1989 and with it the end forever of the prospect of what Hart called in his 1984 Democratic Convention speech “nuclear megadeath” by ultimately jointly eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons themselves.

    Instead the wretched Bush and Clinton family dynasties began with the election of George HW Bush over the Democrats’ tedious substitute nominee Michael Dukakis, a model husband but someone anyone with any discernment whatsoever could tell was NOT presidential material.

    History being relentless we are now on the verge of paying the ultimate price for the folly of wrecking the presidential nominating process in 1987: Just out of view of our “news cycles” featuring the latest “tit for tat” between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the political, military and moral pygmies elevated to positions of power during the baleful Bush-Clinton Dynasty years have brought the US and Russia to the very brink of war in Syria, a war which would almost certainly be destined (if a single military exchange occurs between us and them) to escalate first to tactical nuclear weapons and them to Armageddon.

    I’m NOT making this up (or working on a script for Hollywood like half the lawyers in this town [Los Angeles]). Our very own army chief, right out of Dr. Strangelove (a man named Gen. Mark A Milley), has just declared that WW3 between the US and Russia and China with fatalities on a scale not seen since WW2 is ‘almost guaranteed”. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/future-war-russia-china-us-extremely-lethal-fast-artificial-intelligence-cyber-warfare-a7347591.html and https://www.facebook.com/ECJLA/posts/1106389546065327 .

    And Hart’s demise all happened (apart from any hidden-hand conspiratorial role played by the chief beneficiaries of Hart’s downfall, the Clintons, which I have concluded did occur – see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5ilXuTzT1mlMHV6Y2l3QkFCbWM/view?usp=sharing ), at the end of the day, because Democratic feminist women made the outrageous decision in the mid-1980s to transpose their rejection of male infidelity/polyamory in their personal relationships to the Democratic Party’s nominee for president! A standard that would have disqualified FDR, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ!

    Our nation and world may be about to pay the ultimate price for the folly of allowing this personal female sensibility to corrupt the political process. The qualifications for presidential leadership are far more protean than the qualifications for matrimony and ideal family life. Feminism alas may well have doomed the human race.

  14. Gary Hart Says:

    The host’s experience some three decades ago has little if anything to do with a disastrous Trump candidacy and, despite alleged “bravura performances”, defense of his conduct is unconscionable.

  15. Brian C McCarthy Says:

    To commenter Eric C. Jacobson: if you’re going to write a manifesto-length response to Senator Hart’s blog and include a tenuous and far-fetched personal accusation of sorts against him, you might at least show the respect of addressing him directly instead of referring to him throughout in the third person. The level of discourse has generally been high and respectful on this blog page and that is due to the civility and manners of the host and it’s regular commenters. – BCM

  16. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    I thought there was a word limit here?? 🙂

  17. Brian C McCarthy Says:

    Elizabeth Miller – Senator Hart is too polite and magnanimous to impose a word limit. Nevertheless, when a blog response is 5 times longer than the original post it makes you wonder if it’s not just copied and pasted from some other forum. You are one of the regular responders I referred to earlier who behave with courtesy and respect on this blog.

  18. Eric C. Jacobson Says:

    Brian C. McCarthy: I take your (and Ms. Miller’s) point about undue comment length. Guilty as charged and if the penalty isn’t banishment I’ll do better in the future. And (on reflection) I also regret that I made a bad (flippant) play on the title of the PBS Contenders’ series. FWIW I retract that casual (highly inapposite) usage and see how you might have construed it as “a tenuous and far-fetched personal accusation of sorts against [Sen. Hart]”. I in no way meant it as such and can only attribute it to a need to inject some light-heartedness into a “heavy” subject. And I also ask for Sen. Hart’s forgiveness if he took any umbrage. “Enough said” (for a change). (Brian: If I have not intuited the source of your ire correctly, then you’ll have to be more specific.)

  19. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Brian, thanks! This has become one of my favourite places … thanks to everyone who participates here.

    Eric, well, that was a little joke … about the word limit, I mean. This may be a little known fact in these parts but, I have been known to make the odd non-brief comment, on occasion. Truth be known, I have often gone on and on … ad Bidenitum. I mean that sincerely, I’m not trying to be facetious, here. Ahem.

    However, I have been operating under some bad influences since the long gone but heady days of my uninhibited commenting style at the Huffington Post and, consequently, my comments have shortened up … quite a bit. 🙂

  20. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    Senator Hart,

    After the impending election, we all must participate in clearing the wreckage, sweeping out the political stables, and beginning the long process of restoring order to our system. Years of effort will be required and women and men of good will and love of our country will be required to participate.

    Your reference to the Augean stables and the herculean effort that will be required to clear the political mess that has built up over many decades in Washington and beyond is very apt. It reminds me of how then Senator Biden similarly warned a group of presidential candidate Obama’s most generous and fervent supporters just before the 2008 election about the situation that the next administration would have to deal with.

    Which leads me to a question that has been bothering me since it became apparent that the Obama/Biden administration would be restrained by political expediency from delivering the kind of accountability that many might have expected to the previous administration for war crimes and to certain entities most responsible for the near collapse of the global financial system.

    How will the next administration find the political will and courage to lead the effort to begin the long and difficult process of cleaning up America’s democracy when it is much easier – and, arguably, more prudent, in some cases – to leave much of the status-quo in place?

  21. Gary Hart Says:

    Historically, an age of reform in American politics has occurred only after a significant political scandal. (Here I use the word in its appropriate context). For example, after Watergate. In late 20th century/early 21st century that age of reform has been frustrated by the fact the nexus of influence peddling/access/campaign finance has been LEGAL. When the public demands that this nexus be broken, then Congress will get the political will. It would help if the next President were not the product of this system. This fact accounts for a great deal of the Trump appeal, but way too much catastrophic baggage is attached to that deal. I believe the reform formula must contain, at the least, a limit on individual contributions and defined access to the publicly licensed electronic media.
    GH

  22. Gary Hart Says:

    On the subject of campaign finance reform, let me direct Ms. Miller and others concerned with issues of integrity in government to the website of Issue One/the ReFormers, a bipartisan collection of 150 former Senators, Members of Congress, Ambassadors and former cabinet members proposing guidelines for reform and agitating for constructive citizen engagement.
    GH

  23. Elizabeth Miller Says:

    >>>>When the public demands that this nexus be broken, then Congress will get the political will. It would help if the next President were not the product of this system. This fact accounts for a great deal of the Trump appeal, but way too much catastrophic baggage is attached to that deal.

    We can wait for the public to demand the kind of change that will clean up the political mess. But, what is really needed here is the kind of political leadership that has the capacity to persuade the public to support that kind of change.

    I’ll check out that website!

  24. LORENZO CHERIN Says:

    Dear Senator ,

    I have to say , in common with many on the centre left , it is there , the most interesting patriotism is found . You are no exception, in an article on a topic in which exceptionalism is mentioned by you , your patriotism speaks volumes.

    I must add though , it takes very little for me to feel as patriotic at it’s deepest level , for my country , as it does you. Here , your phrase , ” virtually any other country ,” when talking about Americas highest standards, made me happy ! Please include my country , Great Britain therein, if you would ,and keep one of your admirers, and many million people , alive , happy too,and keep not a few million lost over the centuries in the cause of liberty , at least appreciated !

    You are correct to raise disgust . Not since Watergate , when I was in elementary school, has a nation been sailing so close to the winds , not of change, but of cold. They are cold winds ,of a Winter, or very long Summer, of discontent ! Too much is made by the populist , and very loud , of the reasons for their disgust , when they are as, or more disgusting ,than that which they so regularly cry out about ! Trump is ,on a daily basis, revealed to be the man we , on here , and in any decent or sensible forum , in person or online , knew him as!We are disgusted by him and with many reasons more!

    There are reasons to be disgusted , that chime. And there are reasons to be delighted and cheerful !I am glad that Hillary Clinton is going to win.Flawed , bruised, tarnished, she is , disgusted I am not . Not by her , with all her faults.

  25. LORENZO CHERIN Says:

    Just come back to this discussion and find a very interesting and likeable exchange re:length and nature of comments , only to see what I wrote on this thread has disappeared ! A mistake , I hope , as I have never been anything but consructive , and never , offensive !

    I admire this site and it’s main protagonist very much indeed !

  26. LORENZO CHERIN Says:

    And now my comments have returned, it was an error !I knew this place was and is a safe haven for freedom of speech , common sense and decency !

  27. Ken Cody Says:

    Dear Senator Hart,

    I noticed that Gov. Kasich decided to write-in Sen. John McCain for President the other day. I am seriously considering writing in your name for president too. I feel that all of the candidates nominated this year have not earned my vote. You have correctly named this article “Disgust”. I feel many Americans feel the way you do over this election. Write In Hart 2016!

  28. Gary Hart Says:

    Apologies for the interruption to Mr. Cherin, a loyal and constructive participant in our ongoing dialogues. A glitch in the server I suspect. No bad vibes from the moderator.

    With much gratitude to Mr. Cody for his kind sentiments, I’d not urge a wasted vote, though I understand the feelings behind it. In Colorado, write-ins are tossed if the subject of the write-in has not submitted a form announcing himself/herself to be a candidate for President. Well past time when I might have signed such a form. But many thanks anyway. GH

  29. LORENZO CHERIN Says:

    Thank you to Senator Hart , for the comments , and to Mr Cody , a lovely and tempting gesture , but I can think of better ways to pay respect to Senator Hart, and worse things than voting for a President Clinton, having a President Trump for example !

  30. Michael Says:

    Late to the discussion, but it is a mistake to engage in false equivalence. Both political parties are not equally to blame for the debasement of our politics. Decades ago, The Republican Party decided to leverage the politics of race and ridicule of government. Over the last couple of decades, a entire media infrastructure has been built to echo those sentiments. Today, the country in the midst of not only an economic dislocation, but also a rapid demographic change in which the votes of minorities increasingly swing elections. The Republican Party, now led by that right-wing media complex, has not only refused to adjust to the new electoral reality, but has doubled down on the old politics of race resentment. There is no reason to believe that any of that will change after this election. We are witnessing what is essentially the collapse of one of the two political institutions that govern this nation. We had better figure out a strategy to deal with this because to do nothing insures that, not only will future elections for the presidency continue to devolve into freak shows, but that the country will be ungovernable for years to come.

Leave a Reply

All comments are reviewed by a moderator prior to approval and are subject to the UCD blog use policy.