To the Electors of the 2016 Presidential Election

To the Electors of the 2016 Presidential Election,

In the last month there may have been more written on the purpose of the body that you comprise than any other time since it was conceived, so this will spare you the history lesson that you no doubt know and will just speak from the heart:

Something is not right.

It is as if history is being replayed; that we know a train wreck is coming but are just standing by to wait for it to happen. We allowed this situation to be created due to years of propaganda that polarized the nation in addition to being coaxed to believe that turning a blind eye to creeping abnormalities will somehow be without consequence.

Let's briefly reflect on the abnormalities of the present to understand more fully why many of us feel that something is greatly amiss:

Is it considered a normal state of affairs for the most important job in the world to be given to somebody without any relevant job experience in diplomacy, the federal government or the military?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs when the American intelligence community confirms overt meddling in our elections by a Russian dictator to bring to power the presumed president-elect?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs when that Russian dictator and his government, along with communist China, white supremacist groups of Europe, the Philippines' new "strong man" and radical Jihad groups celebrated Donald Trump's presumed ascension to the White House in the days that followed November 8th?

In contrast to the point above, is it considered a normal state of affairs when our long-standing allies, those who stood by us to fight fascism and communism, are expressing concern with this new tone and direction of America?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs when a man who is a known propagandist who ran a publication he termed the "platform for the alt-right" is named Trump's Chief Strategist for the White House?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs when white extremists are being emboldened across the nation and doing Nazi salutes a few blocks from the White House while saying “Heil Trump”?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs for a presumed incoming administration to contact a far right political party in France to collaborate when power is taken?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs for a presumed president-elect to have so many conflicts of interest with other nations?

Is it considered normal to have not seen the tax returns of a modern presumed president-elect?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs to have a presumed president-elect berate the media and ask them not to report critically of him?

Is it considered a normal state of affairs for the presumed president-elect to be more interested in stoking controversy domestically and internationally rather than being a steward of stability and progress?

There are many more abnormalities that could be recounted, but know that all of them most certainly will not be without negative consequence. History has taught us time and time again when such phenomena have arisen in society that the people suffer. With this in mind, imagine the following: imagine that the Framers of the Constitution who created the body you represent could have had a TV installed in Independence Hall when drafting the Constitution. On that TV they could see what we have recently seen: how Trump ran his campaign, his demonstrations of abject ignorance, his thin-skinned temperament, his rhetoric and actions that are causing dangerous waves in the diplomatic arena, especially with nuclear powers. Can you honestly say to yourselves that the Framers would have thought it fine for the Electoral College they created to elect one such as Donald Trump to the highest office of the land?

Whether perceptible to all or not, lessons once hard learned are being forgotten in America. It wasn't caused by Trump, but he is the symptom and a symptom that must be eradicated. The demagoguery that has been at work has boiled the nation at a slow pace so that we would get used to each incremental abnormality without naturally rejecting it as we otherwise would. Instead it has been normalized. The danger is that by the time a critical mass of the public realizes this that like the proverbial frog in hot water it will be too late and the lesser angels of our nature will bring about negative consequences for us and our children. The only questions will be what will those consequences be and what will be there severity.

I know you agree deep down that the Founders would have denounced Trump as patently unfit for office, but that you fear to vote against him when pledged otherwise. You fear political repercussions. You fear faithless elector laws. You fear threats, whether real or perceived. I do not judge you for any of these fears because they are natural. What I wish to do is say the most sobering thing of this letter, something that should place your natural fear in context:

Some say that the nation's system of checks and balances as found in the three branches of the federal government will ensure that someone like Trump won't do too much damage in office. It is how they justify and deal with someone like Trump being the chief diplomat, head of government and commander in chief. They say the Electoral College should be a rubber stamp and just put him in. The following is why such reasoning should be completely rejected as short sighted and devoid of the lessons of history:

The nation's system of internal checks and balances might be fine to mitigate damage from somebody like Trump if the USA were the only country on the planet. To illustrate this, internal checks and balances worked fine before, during and after the Cold War, a period of recent history where the lives of hundreds of millions would have abruptly ended within a few minutes of nukes being launched in a thermonuclear war. Depending on how severe that war could have been, complete human extinction through environmental devastation was also a possibility.

Many today are too young to remember or understand the dangers of the Cold War. In short, internal checks and balances didn’t and don't place a check on horrific scenarios that exist in our fragile human world, a world where aggressive nuclear powers amid a loosely patched together international community still exist and can be dangerously disrupted by a rogue American head of state.

Why did the Cold War not result in a nuclear exchange? Many reasons, but one key one being that experienced, restrained and qualified people held office. Now contrast this with what you have seen this election cycle. Trump's erratic behaviors, whether calculated or off the cuff, have not showed signs of abating since he became the presumed president-elect. Nor should they have been expected to abate for anybody who understands his type of personality. He is not the person who should be leading the world's most powerful nation and the indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining a hard-earned and restrained nuclear international order. In short, he is not fit to lead the nation through anything to do with armed conflict.

There are those who advocate that the Cold War never actually ended; that so long as Russia (and China for that matter, a country becoming highly disturbed by Trumps' actions) has thousands of hydrogen bombs atop ICBMs that could rain down on America within 30 minutes of launch with the ability to wipe out half the nation or more then the cold war cannot be over.

Now, Trump may have advisers in terms of diplomacy and military affairs, but at the end of the day as president he will set the tone, he will speak for America and he alone will make the toughest decisions, decisions where the only choices are between terrible and worse and relevant experience and sound judgment are needed to make the right call. This is why 50 Republican national security experts all signed a letter stating that Trump “would be the most reckless president in American history” and that Trump “would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

If you as Electors install Trump as president, he will no doubt have to lead America through conflicts abroad and will no doubt have to make decisions about how to contain and respond to nuclear aggression (and those nuclear aggressive nations consider him in over his head as is). Please do not be complacent to think that a) some type of nuclear arms race could never happen again and that b) if it does we will avoid nuclear war just like we did in the Cold War.

Wars rarely starts with bullet and bombs. Rather, they usually start with words and offenses. If the campaign trail nor his history in general did not offer enough evidence that Donald Trump is a man "who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications” to be president, then the weeks since the popular vote on November 8th have offered enough. As your Republican colleague from Texas Christopher Suprun has publicly stated, “Federalist 68 argued that an Electoral College should determine if candidates are qualified, not engaged in demagogy, and independent from foreign influence,” he said. “Mr. Trump shows us again and again that he does not meet these standards.” “I owe no debt to a party,” he said. “I owe a debt to my children to leave them a nation they can trust.”

Electors, it is within your power to send a message to Putin, that our Founders are not yet redundant in their understandings of politics and human nature.

Electors, it is within your power to send a message to all far right groups, both domestically and internationally, that the American system protects against both tyrannies of the majority and tyrannies of the minority.

Electors, it is within your power to send a loud and clear message to terrorist groups who say that Trump’s pending ascension to power is evidence that U.S. democracy doesn’t work that the American system as enshrined in our Constitution embodies the greatest wisdom of the ages when it comes to governing large bodies of people and thus contains a mechanism to root out a disastrously bad candidate.

Electors, what other reason would you need to exercise the power that those gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 gave you?

There are those among you, as has already been quoted, who want to deny Trump the presidency. You may admire Alexander Hamilton and his description of the purpose of the electoral college in Federalist No. 68: to prevent someone like Trump ascending to office. May you therefore be reminded of Hamilton's pivotal role in the election of 1800. After a tie in the Electoral College, the choice for president was between his political arch-rival, a man he deemed wrong in his politics (Jefferson) and a candidate he deemed unfit for office entirely (Burr). You may face a similar choice yourselves: vote for a candidate who was your political arch-rival, or vote for he who is absolutely unfit for office.

This letter is obviously a part of a pro-Clinton blog, but this blog emerged out of how unfit for office Trump is. Should you elect another Republican as president, one who is qualified, a very deep sigh of relief will be breathed by this author and millions across the country. So, let it be clear, if it is possible to install a qualified Republican for president in Trump’s stead, then do so. However, as this is contemplated, let us not forget that politics is the art of the possible. Mathematically the easiest option to replace Trump is with Clinton. She has a large victory in the popular vote, lending legitimacy to such a choice. Moreover, she will need the least number of Electors to change their votes to deny Trump the presidency.

To those of you who wish to deny Trump the presidency, please remember what your ultimate objective is here: stopping him from becoming president and all that would entail. Therefore, if it is not likely to place another Republican in office, merely denying Trump 270 votes by voting for other Republicans and thereby throwing the election upon the house of representatives will not deny Trump the presidency. It will just delay him becoming officially the president-elect. Therefore, if it is not feasible to ensure another Republican becomes president, you must follow Alexander Hamilton's example in 1800 and consider putting Clinton in office to deny Trump and thereby put country first.

There is no sugarcoating this: your choice is a choice is between some pain now or a lot of pain later. Denying Trump the presidency will cause anger throughout sections of the nation. But there are already riots given his looming president and, like those riots, any new riots will subside. Moreover, any riots from denying Trump the presidency may not be as acute as they could be given that it is becoming clearer to many Trump supporters that he is not "draining the swamp" nor carrying through with all campaign promises. Better to let a few riot now than to destabilize the fragile international order that keeps in check aggressive regimes with nuclear capabilities.

Some of you will respond to this by simply saying “I am pledged to Trump and will therefore do my job” without further room for discussion. However, the world heard a similar thing at Nuremburg: “I was just following orders”. The psychology of this reasoning, as uncovered by Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, is interesting. Says Haggard, “acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused”.

Electors, you can do your job and do it right. Your job is to serve the interests of the United States of America. Please allow this unprecedented election season to end in an unprecedented way - do what is right for God and country and deny the demagogue Trump and his foreign colluders the presidency once and for all.

This will be the most pivotal moment of your lives. You will never do a greater nor more influential act for the course of human history than this. Now is your moment. We depend upon you. Do not let us nor our children down.

Bloglius

Evan McMullin is not the best option to avoid a Trump Presidency

It is almost over… but here is a final thought.

The presidential contest in Utah garnered more national attention than usual, not just because Trump’s lead in Utah is much smaller than recent Republican presidential candidates, but also due to the fact that an independent candidate has polled at numbers above or near major party candidates. Evan McMullin, an anomaly as far as independent candidates go, has had double digit polling in Utah, far higher than other independent candidates in general.

McMullin’s high polling in Utah is due to two factors: 1) The strong dislike in the state for both Trump and Clinton, and 2) McMullin is a Utah native and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormon Church. He is “one of us” according to the predominant religion as headquartered in the state.

As word of McMullin has got out in Utah, his polling numbers rose quickly, especially after the 2005 Access Hollywood tape surfaced where Trump was speaking of trying to bed a married woman in addition to how his star status allows him to sexually assault women. Unfortunately, in the last few weeks momentum in Utah has unfortunately swung back towards Trump.

The former post “Why Third Party Candidates Are Not Better Than Clinton” outlined the reasons why Clinton’s experience clearly suits her for the job over any other candidate. To briefly recap, the three primary responsibilities of the president as described in Article II of the Constitution are:

1) Head of State and Diplomat in Chief.

2) Head of Government.

3) Commander in Chief.

For simplicity that post just focused on Gary Johnson to represent the third party candidates, being perhaps the most well-known third party candidate at this time. This post will summarize the same things but for Evan McMullin to show that flocking to McMullin to avoid Trump is a mistake given the option at hand with Clinton.

1) Head of State and Diplomat in Chief.

McMullin has no diplomatic experience. He definitely has knowledge of international relations but Clinton has experience in this respect second only to somebody who has served as president.

2) Head of Government.

McMullin has worked in the executive branch as a CIA agent. However, this experience pales to insignificance compare to the previously described experience Clinton has amassed in government over decades, experience pertinent to the role of president.

3) Commander in Chief.

McMullin has had no oversight over anything to do with the armed forces. Clinton has had oversight experience and has in an official capacity advised the president of the U.S. on these matters. It is a no-brainer.

If you don’t want Trump, be a part of electing somebody who will be ready come day one

From the little we know of Evan McMullin he appears to be a good young man. But he is not even close to being the most qualified for president nor is he the way to stop a Trump presidency. The only way McMullin can be president is to have Trump come within an inch of winning the White House that will ultimately end up giving Trump the White House. This is why:

McMullin cannot win the electoral college vote to become president. It is simple math; he just simply isn’t on enough ballots to reach 270 electoral votes. Nor will a majority of Americans (who don’t know about him anyway) suddenly write him in to elect him. The only hope McMullin has of being president is for him to win Utah’s six electoral college votes and then hope that Clinton and Trump be tied in the electoral college vote at 266 each. With no candidate reaching the necessary 270 electoral college votes, the top three electoral vote takers would then have their names before the incoming House of Representatives and the incoming House will decide the election (the Senate will have the top two electoral vote takers from the VP candidates to decide that). Each state delegation in Congress has one vote thereby such a tie breaker is most probably going to be controlled by Republicans given that they are projected to have the most state delegations. Would they elect Clinton? Highly doubtful. McMullin? Anything is possible but he is not their candidate, someone else is. Trump? Yes – he’s their candidate and if Trump got 266 electoral college votes then for the House to not elect him would be to go against the voice of many Americans, the same Americans who would remember in two years’ time that the House didn’t respect their voice in the presidential election. Therefore, for the House to elect anyone but Trump in a tie-breaking situation would be to hurt their own reelection chances.

Utahns, you must understand that not only will McMullin not become president but that the only hope he has which is the longest shots of all longest shots will for all intents and purposes only end up electing Trump.

Many Utahns won’t vote for either Clinton or Trump because their conscience won’t allow them to. If that is the case, understand that a “conscience” vote for McMullin or any other third party candidate is only going to help elect one of the two people you don’t want. The reality is that America is a two-party system and always has been. Even before political parties formed in the nation there were two political camps forming, those who were pro-George Washington and those who were anti-George Washington. For better or worse, this is the reality given the power structure and voting methods of the American federal system. Therefore, you must determine who is the best out of Clinton and Trump and vote for them. As the other posts on this blog have pointed out, as has been amply demonstrated in many publications and as common sense and wisdom clearly dictate, the better of the two major party candidates is Clinton by lightyears.

Do not elect Trump. It will be one of Utah’s biggest regrets should Utah help put him in the White House.

Do not vote for McMullin. Vote for Clinton and get out there tomorrow to do so if you haven’t already.

Bloglius

A Lesson from Brexit for the 2016 Election

The Consequences of Voting or Lack Thereof

Brexit refers to the recent referendum in the United Kingdom that posed the question whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK voted to leave and immediately markets tumbled, the Pound dropped and voters felt regret and frustration that they had been misinformed by the Leave Campaign, a campaign that immediately started to backtrack on the claims and promises they had made before the vote.

Now that we can look at that referendum in hindsight there are various lessons to learn, lessons that apply to the contest between Clinton and Trump and what will shortly be at stake in America.

Do Not Fall into Complacency by Believing that Trump Will Lose

Yes, Clinton had a strong first debate performance against Trump, and will most likely perform well again in the final two debates. But that is not what ultimately matters. Here is the big lesson from Brexit, regardless of whether you think Brexit was a good or a bad thing:

Leading up to the day of voting in the UK referendum, especially just before the vote came, it was looking like those voting to remain in the EU would win. Then the vote came, the vote was counted and like a shock-wave felt around the world it was revealed that those who had campaigned to leave had won. For many Britons (and others around the world) it was like they had suddenly entered an alternate reality. Not only did they expect the Remain camp to win based on the most recent polling, but instead they were learning that events were set in motion for the United Kingdom to sever over 40 years of membership in a larger European community. However, it wasn’t an alternate reality. It was simply a case of more people turning up to the polls for Leave on the day that counted.

Imagine what it will feel like the evening of November 8 when the electoral votes are counted and if Trump surpasses the 270 required to be elected president. It too would feel like an alternate reality would be commencing; that a man with zero relevant experience for the most important job in the world, a pathological liar, a racist, sexist, misogynistic, thin-skinned man with a child’s level of self-control would soon be leading the most powerful military the world has ever known as well as representing and governing America. However, such a scenario would not be an alternate reality, but rather a very dangerous reality and one that definitely has the possibility of happening. It would be a situation where Americans including Utahns would learn the hard way that elections matter.

Commit Now to Register, Be at the Polls November 8 and Vote for Clinton

Ultimately with elections, as with referenda, it is those who show up to vote on election day that decide the outcome and not the truthfulness, preparedness or decorum of the candidates. In the UK, there was not just regret from many of those who showed up to vote to leave the EU after the negative consequences began, but regret from those who didn’t show up to vote to remain because they simply thought such would be the outcome. There would absolutely be regret in the United States should Trump win, and a deep felt regret in Utah, especially if Utah’s six electoral votes went his way and it decided the election in his favor.

For all Utahns and Americans who wouldn’t normally vote for Clinton but know deep down that she is more qualified than Trump for the presidency, don’t just think or hope that she beats him. Your part is needed. Plan now to register to vote, find where your polling location is and make the effort in November to show up at the polls to ensure Clinton beats him. Do not underestimate the motivation of those duped into thinking that Trump is the man for the job. They will be out in November to vote. Don’t make the mistake that Britons did in their vote in assuming that the highest polling option would win. Don’t wake up to the knowledge of a looming Trump presidency come November 9th.

Share this blog now.

Bloglius

Why a Third Party Candidate is not better than Clinton

The Basics

Article II of the Constitution outlines three primary responsibilities for the office of President of the United States:

1) Head of State and Diplomat in Chief.

2) Head of Government.

3) Commander in Chief.

There are other responsibilities of the president but generally speaking the president's responsibilities fall under one of the three categories above. Let us dive deeper into each category to reveal even more reasons why Trump should not go within 1,000 proverbial miles of the Oval Office and why Clinton far exceeds both Trump and third party candidates in relevant experience for the job.

(Although there are various third party candidates, for sake of simplicity just Gary Johnson will be included here given that he has the most exposure out of the third party candidates, but the points from this post will apply to all third party candidates).

Head of State and Diplomat in Chief

The President of the United States is the nation's highest representative to the world. The president interacts with other heads of state and other foreign dignitaries on the world stage. The diplomatic arena has always by its nature been one where decorum and respect are currency. But beyond simply representing the United States in this arena and the ceremonial duties it encompasses the president is also vested with powers that relate to America's relations with the rest of the world, foremost amongst those powers being the ability to negotiate and sign treaties.

By virtue of the treaty making power, the president will work with their counterparts across the globe in defining international law. Such international law will govern many facets of life from trade to military deployment to the ease of international travel.

Head of Government

Unlike other governmental systems, the President of the United States is not just a ceremonial office but a political one as well. The President doubles as the head of state and the head of national the government. In this latter role they are at the head of the executive branch of the federal government. They oversee the entire federal bureaucracy, appoints all cabinet positions and other senior leaders in the federal bureaucracy and have the power of executive orders. In addition, they also appoint supreme court justices and other federal judges

In addition to being the boss of the massive entity that carries out federal law, being the head of government also involves working with the legislative branch of the federal government - the congress. The president works with the congressional leadership of both parties and seeks to influence the agenda of congress and has veto power over legislation.

Congress is a complex entity that operates within the context of with political parties, chambers, different rules for each chamber, different leadership for each chamber, committees and sub committees in each chamber with their own leadership and a lot of concern for re-election among its membership.

Commander in Chief

The President of the United States leads the armed forces of the nation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff may specialize in the abilities and tactics of the various armed forces and the Secretary of Defense may have authority, direction and control over the defense network but the president decides when and how they are used, including, heaven forbid, the use of nuclear weapons.

The command of the most powerful force the earth has ever known is given to the winner of the presidential election. The president is a civilian and this was by design as a check on military power in the governance of the nation. The winner of the presidential election when sworn into office becomes "Commander in Chief" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1).

With the basic understanding outlined above, let us now examine the experience each candidate brings to the table as it relates to these responsibilities of the presidency.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Head of State and Diplomat in Chief

Trump

Donald Trump has zero diplomatic experience nor is his temperament and skill suited for diplomacy. Outside of zero related job experience, as the highest representative and symbol of America, his remarks about women, Mexicans, people of African descent and other minority groups would be an insult to the dignity of the office and has already garnered a lack of respect from counterparts around the world. Need a refresher? Here are some gems:

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.” – Donald Trump

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bring crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.” – Donald Trump

“I don’t think Ivanka would do that (pose for Playboy), although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” – Donald Trump

“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.” – Donald Trump

"The point is, you can never be too greedy." – Donald Trump

“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" – Donald Trump

There are many other offensive Trump quotes that don’t just tarnish the office he seeks but are simply not the type of example we want the highest office of the land setting for our children. How is it that large portions of America have turned a blind eye to how far removed from the dignity of the office Trump is??

Verdict: Failure as clear as it comes.

Johnson

Gary Johnson has no international government or diplomatic experience. His tenure as governor of New Mexico did provide him with being a representative of the state which would serve to prepare for the role of head of state but his role as governor was purely local and did not come with any diplomatic power or experience.

Verdict: More qualified than Trump but would require on the job learning.

Clinton

Clinton's experience relating to diplomacy and the international arena is light years beyond her opponents and includes:

• Serving as the second highest American diplomatic: Secretary of State (2009 - 2013). Logging 956,733 miles in traveling around the world and meeting with heads of state, foreign counterparts and various foreign dignitaries, she knows the rules and decorum of this space and was well received abroad during her tenure. The only other possible experience that would compare with this would be service as President of the United States for one term which is not applicable in this race given that a two term president is exiting office.
• Assignment to the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009), particularly the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities (sales of U.S. military technology to foreign countries).

Verdict: outside of serving as president for one term, there is no other experience that compares. Clinton has done what the president will do.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Head of Government

Trump

Trump has zero executive experience in government. Trump has zero legislative experience in government. He has zero experience in government period (assuming you ignore all the times he has had his companies in court for being sued or times the government has investigated his business activities).

"Wait," says a Trump supporter. "Trump is the CEO of his company. He has TREMENDOUS executive experience!"

This is a common fallacy (especially when your reason for being CEO was a result of an accident of birth i.e. inheritance). The skill set required to be a successful CEO of a private organization is not the same as that required to be an effective executive in government. The arenas are different. The rules are different. A personality type that might succeed in the private sector is no guarantee of success in the public sector. Moreover, even within the private sector there are different skills sets required for different activities (e.g. someone more have the skill set to found a company but they may not have what it takes to run that company as it grows). This is why there is often nothing to write home about when successful CEOs in the private sector get into government.

To be clear, this is not to say that a CEO in the private sector can't be effective in government. It just doesn't always translate. Apart from Trump inheriting his fortune, his success in business is not even close to what he boasts about.

Finally, aside from the lack of experience in government, Trump is sorely uneducated in government. Not only does he lack a fundamental understand of how the government works perhaps even worse he displays no desire to learn and fill his void. As he said, he just gets his information from the "shows".

Verdict. Zero government experience to suddenly be thrust into the highest office of the land.

Johnson

Johnson’s service as governor of New Mexico did serve as a preparatory role for being head of the federal government. Being a governor of a state is a microcosm of being the head of the federal government – there is a legislature to deal with, bills to sign into law, bills to veto, judges to appoint and various constituent groups to meet with. Johnson’s successful career in the private sector also provides executive experience but as stated the skill set does not necessarily translate. His experience as governor however would.

Verdict: Johnson does possess experience that would prepare him for the presidential role of head of government.

Clinton

Clinton's experience in government far exceeds the alternatives there is almost no comparison. Her experience includes:

• Being just one level down from the president in running the executive branch, that is, being CEO of one of the major departments in the executive branch: The State Department. With approximately 69,000 employees and an annual budget of around $66 billion, the state department is a much larger organization that the average entity in the private sector (and for that matter, the State of New Mexico that currently has 23,365 executive branch employees [27,114 total employees] and a current budget of $6.29 billion). In this role Clinton was also fourth in line for the presidency even above the secretary of defense.
• United States Senator from New York (2001 - 2009). During her tenure in the senate Clinton had first hand experience in the legislative branch of the federal government and received the following assignments:

Committee on the Budget (2001-2003)

Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009)

Subcommittee on Airland

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001-2009)

Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water

Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure (2007-2008)

Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chairwoman, 2007-2009)

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001-2009)

Subcommittee on Children and Families

Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety

Special Committee on Aging.

She was also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001-2009).

Clinton also held two leadership positions in the Senate Democratic Caucus:

Chairwoman of Steering and Outreach Committee (2003–2006)

Vice Chairwoman of Committee Outreach (2007–2009)

(above from Wikipedia. The same information available from many other sources)

• Although not an office of the federal government, as First Lady (1993 - 2001) she had an intimate look into the presidency as only a handful of living individuals have. As First Lady Clinton also participated in the presidency’s ceremonial functions.
• Although not an office of the State of Arkansas, as First Lady of the state (1983 - 1992) she had an intimate look into the workings of a state government for roughly a decade.
• Clinton's education in political science and law and her subsequent law practice provide further context and understanding as to the workings of the public sector.

Verdict: rarely if ever does a presidential candidate come this experienced for being a head of government.

The Candidates' Experience Relating to Commander in Chief

Trump

Donald Trump has zero military experience (yet apparently knows more than military generals about ISIS), displays a dangerous lack of knowledge about military facts (for example nuclear weapons), seems to have no clue about foreign policy and affairs (e.g. did not know that Russia was in the Ukraine) and has praise for authoritarian dictators (e.g. his unusual praise for Vladimir Putin). There is nothing more to say here.

Verdict: Dangerously unqualified to be at the head of the most powerful military in the world and is one of the many reasons why prominent Republicans refuse to endorse him.

Johnson

Johnson does not possess any military experience. His service as governor of New Mexico provided him with a commander-in-chief experience over the national guard in New Mexico, but it is not an apples to apples comparison with the presidential role of commander in chief with armed forces spread out over the world. When it comes to understanding foreign and military policy, Johnson, like Trump, has displayed some major gaps of basic knowledge, for example when asked if elected what would he do about Aleppo (city in Syria central to the conflict there), his was response was “And what is Aleppo?”

Verdict: No direct experience but with experience that would qualify him more than Trump.

Clinton

Clinton has direct experience with military affairs:

• As Secretary of State Clinton was a statutory member of the National Security Council (NSC). As such Clinton was an official advisor and assistant to the president in national security matters as well as foreign policy. For example, it was the NSC with Clinton as a member that advised the president to conduct the raid that lead to the death of Osama Bin Laden (Clinton having reviewed the intelligence and advising for it).
• As already referenced, as senator Clinton served on the Committee on Armed Services (2003-2009), the subcommittees being: 1) Airland, providing experience in all issues relating to the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation programs; the the National Guard, the Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve. 2) Emerging Threats and Capabilities, providing Clinton with experience in overseeing the sale of military equipment abroad. 3) Readiness and Management Support, providing Clinton with oversight of “Military readiness including training, logistics, and maintenance; military construction; housing construction and privatization; contracting and acquisition policy; business and financial management; base realignment and closure; and defense environmental programs.” (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/about/subcommittees)

Verdict: Significant experience in addition to being well versed in foreign policy. Light years ahead of her opponents.

Conclusion

Although Utah only has six votes in the electoral college, they could make or break the election, an election that will more than just define America’s future but an election that will influence the world. Utah’s electoral college votes must go to Clinton who has the relevant experience and not Trump just because he is a Republican.

If there are still concerns over Clinton’s politics, or difficulties in general in voting for a Democrat, then the solution is not to vote for a third party candidate because again Clinton far surpasses the third party options in relevant experience for the job. The solution is to vote for Clinton for president and to vote Republican for Utah’s congressional candidates to be reminded that congress will keep Clinton in check.

This is a serious election. As the next post will discuss, the attitude that “Don’t worry Trump will lose” is a dangerous one. I call upon Utah to rise above other traditionally Republican states that will give their electoral votes to Trump because he is a Republican, or he has fooled them into thinking he can do the job, or because Clinton’s shortcomings have been grossly over exaggerated and not put in context.

Let’s give our electoral votes to the candidate with the most relevant experience for the job description as outlined by the Constitution. Let us put country over party and do what is right by giving our electoral votes to Clinton.

Bloglius

Wrong Principles Versus No Principles

A Parallel in American History

In the 1800 United States presidential election, there was a tie in the electoral votes between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. At the time, each member of the Electoral College cast two votes for president, the candidate with the most votes becoming president and the runner up vice president. Given that both Jefferson and Burr received 73 electoral votes each, the tied election then became the responsibility of the House of Representative to decide. However, after 35 ballots in that body to try to settle the election, the two candidates remained tied and the election undecided.

The tie in the Electoral College was largely the result of some failed political maneuverings on behalf of the Democratic-Republicans to attempt to elect Jefferson and so other political maneuverings were undertaken to break the tied vote in the house. Chief among those to undertake these political maneuverings to settle the tie was Alexander Hamilton.

In the election, Hamilton had supported Federalist candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, but Pinckney only received 64 electoral college votes. With his candidate out of the race, Hamilton knew that the United States was going to be under the leadership of either Jefferson or Burr, the former being Hamilton's political enemy, the latter being a man he did not see fit for the presidency.

In short, Hamilton decided that the United States would be better off under a Jefferson presidency than a Burr presidency, and so Hamilton used his influence to have the house of representatives vote for Jefferson, which they did on the 36th ballot, electing Jefferson as president and Burr as vice president. What is interesting and is applicable in the 2016 presidential election is Hamilton's rationale for wanting to elect Jefferson over Burr.

Although Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson on almost all matters of policy, when it came to comparing Jefferson with Burr he said that Jefferson was "by far not so dangerous a man" as Burr. Hamilton would rather have a president with "wrong principles" than a president who had "no principles". And so Hamilton did what he believed was right for his country, even though it would require electing his arch-nemesis to the highest office in the land.

History Repeating Itself

Although there are no Electoral College ties to break at present, the lesson above is important as Utahns face a similar choice in 2016. It is no secret that there is not a whole lot of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton in Utah; for various reasons many Utahns don't like her and or they do not subscribe to her ideas for governing the nation. But in Utah there is also widespread dislike of Donald Trump, and not just in democratic leaning Salt Lake City. Trump is widely viewed as an arrogant phony with a short fuse who will say or do whatever to get attention. In short, he is viewed as a man who would be dangerous to put in the Oval Office.

The purpose of this post is not to say that Hillary's policies are right or wrong, only that she has been guided by principles of public service throughout her life whereas Trump's only principle seems to be aggrandizing and enriching himself. Beyond that, Hillary is experienced in all the areas pertaining to the responsibilities of the presidency, whereas Trump is ignorant of some of the most basic things a president should know. These things and others are the reasons why various Republicans are saying it would be dangerous to put Trump in the White House and why they will vote for Clinton over him.

I say to Utah that it is fine to believe that Hillary Clinton has wrong policies, but it is really worth it to vote Republican just because that is your political party and you dislike the idea of voting for a Democrat? Do you really want to play a part in a Donald Trump presidency?

Another Lesson Drawn from 1800

There are those who will say that there is another way to address the problem of Trump: to vote for a third party candidate instead of Hillary. Another post shall give attention to that idea, but for now, let this post end on another lesson from the election of 1800 that is applicable to this election:

Even though the Federalists believed Jefferson was better for the United States than Burr, they still feared what Jefferson would do once in office. However, their fears of a revolutionary, extremist Jefferson went unrealized as Jefferson's actions in office were far more practical and moderate compared to some of his rhetoric before he shouldered the burdens of the White House. The same will be true of Hillary Clinton should she win. She will make her mistakes in office like all other presidents. But like Jefferson in his day, Clinton has extensive government experience and deep knowledge of domestic policy and international relations, even having served in the same capacity beforehand, that is, as secretary of state. Trump, as a presidential candidate, didn't even know some of the basics about the Constitution.

Utah, the choice doesn't often get much clearer than it is this year: we must go blue this November; we must play our part in electing Clinton over Trump.

Bloglius.