This election is not just about Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton or Roy Cooper versus Pat McCrory. This election is about who we are as a country.
The core movement behind Donald Trump is not Republican. It’s a force driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment that has very little to do with conservatism, the movement that once drove the Republican Party. Trump’s most ardent supporters more resemble skinheads than the country club Republicans that have led the GOP for the past 50 years.
The comments on my Facebook page are disheartening. Trump supporters use racist, violent language to attack people who disagree with them. They buy in to ancient conspiracy theories and reinforce each other’s delusions. The most virulent attackers are barely literate.
Most of the Republicans I’ve known and argued with over the years don’t share many of these sentiments. However, almost all looked the other way while their base turned nastier and nastier. They allowed Fox News to become their mouthpiece and go-to source of “news.” Now, the architect of Fox News, Roger Ailes, has been exposed as a boorish, xenophobic, anti-Semitic boss who sexually harassed female employees. They created a culture within the base that has now taken over the party.
In North Carolina, otherwise responsible Republicans defended voter suppression laws that clearly targeted African-Americans, Hispanics and younger voters. They looked the other way while legislative leaders motivated their base with anti-LGBT legislation. They portrayed discrimination as protecting religious freedom and the safety of women and children. They promoted the atmosphere that’s made Trump the GOP nominee.
Trump has largely destroyed the Republican Party. As it’s standard bearer, he’s abandoned conservative principles and rejected GOP leaders like John McCain and Paul Ryan. He caters to the bigotry of his supporters by vowing to ban Muslims and force the ones here to “register.” He excites his supporters by promising to deport 11 million immigrants and build a wall to keep more out.
Clearly, this election is no longer about Democrats and Republicans because the Republican Party is largely gone, replaced by the Donald Trump cult of personality. The goal now should be to keep Trump away from the levers of powers. His rhetoric inflames the ugliest prejudices in society and his temperament makes him unsuited for the presidency.
The GOP largely created the Trump phenomena by exploiting the prejudices and fears of people who have been left out of our economic recovery. Republican leaders stood silent while Fox News and right-wing radio demonized immigrants and Muslims and anybody else who doesn’t look like them. Republicans need to take some of the responsibility for stopping Trump even if they lose the presidency. If they don’t, they’ve lost their party.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
“The most virulent attackers are barely literate.” Well that stands to reason – Sounds like a typical Trump supporter.
‘ Nuff said.
This is what happens when your public education system is constantly under attack by those that only want for a society filled with low information and uneducated citizens. You reap, what you sow: Wake up, folks, and don’t be the sheep to slaughter.
Yeah
I was a high school dropout , raised in a Republican family , full of Right Wing , Goldwater propaganda.
Faced with the war in Vietnam, I finally woke up.
I’ve been trying to make up for that ever since.
Even with the scam that was the 2000 election that made Dubya President , I’m still learning ‘Won’t get fooled again’ !
Obama himself has asked for the GOP to come back to being a center-right party. Certainly there is a rift between the likes of Lindsey Graham, Rob Portman, and John McCain as against the Trump voters.
It’s well known that American political parties are often strange coalitions which may not have much coherence either in terms of ideology or economic interest. But the situation now is more extreme than usual, and we have to wonder if we are in a period like the aftermath of Civil Rights legislation, when the “solid South” flipped from the Dems to the GOP. Or even more dramatic, when the Whigs expired altogether, and people like Lincoln created the original Republican Party.
There are many on the Left who would like to see the “Elizabeth Warren Wing” of the Dems split away and become a true left, progressive party. I myself would love to see a tilt left in US Politics, but I’m afraid it can only happen if the extreme elements on the right lose a lot of their voting base.
That might happen as they, er, age out of the voting public. What else would be helpful?
The Republican Party started on its downward spiral when Richard Nixon adopted his Southern Strategy. Ever since that time the party has simply gravitated toward catering to the racists and poorest educated in rural America. Can we ever forget their great white hero, Ronald Reagan, making his first campaign speech following the 1980 Republican convention in Philadelphia, Miss. As far as I know that tiny little community is known outside of a 50 mile radius for one thing and only one thing. It is the town where 3 freedom riders were murdered with the direct involvement of local law enforcement with their bodies buried in an earthen dam. And the “great communicator” delivered a speech on “states’ rights” the same subject trotted out regularly in those days to oppose all of the civil rights legislation. Their pandering has only continued since then. They also use social issues to get the poorly educated yet “salt of the earth” types to vote against their own best interests. They created the environment that made the Donald possible.
“The Republican Party started on its downward spiral when Richard Nixon adopted his Southern Strategy.”
The southern strategy was not started by Richard Nixon. It was started by Barry Goldwater in 1964. Nixon helped build on it but he did not start it.
I dare say that both parties created a desperate need for someone not beholden to the corrupt status quo!!!!
If indeed it is the status quo that is corrupt, then the players are not solely comprised of members of just the two prominent political parties.
So in that regard, it is the status quo that needs changing. The players are playing by the rules which have been established…for better or worse. And yes, I’m thinking about Citizens United as a prime example.
But it also encompasses our State Legislature drawing unconstitutional districts, passing unconstitutional laws, trying to adopt an official state religion, changing the manner in which we are allowed to vote. That is the status quo as it currently stands and that is what we need to reject piecemeal this November.
Also, Trump would continue to be the ‘Look at Me’ emperor while leaving the ‘running of the day to day’ to Mike Pence who makes McCrory look like a lightweight when it comes to defunding public education and forcing antiquated rules of ‘what should be’ from the 40’s and 50’s. Pence is advocating charter schools for the country and if there is no money left for public education, oh well, if you don’t have the $$ to pay for your child’s education, then they shall remain uneducated…..after all, where will the serfs waiting to cater to their masters come from if not from there?
This is so bizarre, I had just had to reply. Driving to work this morning with nothing better to do, I began thinking of prior civilizations and social structures. It occurred to me that, generally speaking, a “service economy” is essentially an Oligarchy. The haves and the have nots. You are born into a life of privilege or you are born into a life of servitude. Your stature at birth was your place in society through your lifetime. The rise or decent begins with education.
“The ringing of the division bell has begun…”
I remember too reading something in 20th Century history that rings hollow and sharp at the same time in our present age. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, when discussing the prospects of war with the Imperial Council of Japan opined that, “I can run wild for six months, after that, I have no expectation of success.” He had toured America, lived in this country prior to World War twice, and knew of the immense manufacturing capability the United States possessed. Now, of course, we have no manufacturing base, our shrinking middle class, which used to be the backbone of America continues to whither and shrink and the elites, those icons of opulence, grow in wealth with little regard to the nation, the state, or the people.
The scions of power, wealth, and privilege reject a living minimum wage opting instead for the -ism, “get a better job.” That would be great…if there were any. They reject healthcare for all since those with myriad problems would only serve to be a burden to society, the insurance companies, and cost more than they are worth. In a state and nation such as ours, I can find no greater dilemma between ideas and the growing trend is toward the extremists that support the very tenets of those ideas. It utterly confounds me that someone living at or below the poverty line or goes to work every day punching a clock and working for someone else could consider, nay, remotely fathom voting for any Republican/Conservative on the ballot.
We are no longer a nation of laws, we are a nation of economic derivatives. We have become the reality of Mayer Rothschild’s words, “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” Citizens United was the crowning touch to 40+ years of Reaganomics and a host of others who perpetuated and paid homage to the words of a man who couldn’t find his ass with both hands.
I couldn’t hold it in any longer.
Conservatism has not driven the Republican Party since Gingrich popularized the oxymoron term “Radical Conservative”. They have been intensely pro-corporate and pro-rich, actively expressing contempt for the poor and the marginalized – far, far from the “live and let live” attitude that characterized American Conservatives for most of the 20th century.
I understand that you are trying to draw a distinction between the so-called “sane” Republicans and the “insane” ones – but there has been no meaningful difference between the two for 50 years. Other than the fact that one group should know better, and the other is not interested in knowing anything whatsoever.
And I would also like to point out that the Democratic Party deserves a lot of blame for the current sorry state of politics, as well. Because they have actively refused to address the economic issues of the working class, in favor of identity politics that seeks to obscure the vicious class warfare being waged under the rubric of “globalization”. That is not a conspiracy theory, but it is treated like one. By failing to identify the very real corporate forces that are driving down the earning power of American workers (and taking their bribe money instead), Dems have abandoned the economic field for the GOP to define any way they want.
We can all agree that the GOP needs to step up and denounce Trump for his fascistic ways, but we also must increase pressure on Clinton to address the deep-rooted economic pain and fear that afflicts this nation. And if Trump is beaten down so badly that he no longer represents a credible threat to Clinton, what leverage do we have to force her away from her pro-corporate, pro-rich, DLC comfort zone and address the problems of ordinary, working-class people?
If the potential “Trump realignment” causes an exodus of the right-leaning Country Club set to flee to the Democratic Party, that would consolidate the pro-globalization, pro-financialization, pro-MIC forces under one banner. So losing the GOP could very well mean losing the Democratic Party at the same time.
CLEARLY, this election is no longer about Democrats or Republicans – it’s about those who care more about style and image vs. those who care more about substance and actual policy.
Amen, Christopher Lizak. I agree with everything you’ve written. And that’s why I’m now voting for Libertarians Gary Johnson and William Weld– now that Bernie has fallen by the wayside due to the corrupted Clinton forces.
Ms. Baran , you are quite mistaken.
Bernie is a Democratic Socialist.
Libertarians are radical , ‘free’ enterprise (as if there were such a thing) Capitalists.
They are opposites with nothing in common.
I am distressed at how many American can be so misinformed.
This is a more interesting topic than might first appear. There is a natural alliance between certain Libertarians and certain Progressives. For example, there can be Libertarians on the anti-drug-war issue who are not necessarily free-market zealots. And vice versa.
Every political party is a coalition of various opinions and interests. I’d like to see the progressive left pick up the Libertarian factions who are repulsed by the bigoted and the Wall Street factions of the GOP.
Of course I agree that the Libertarian ideological structure is toxic and destructive. I’m just pointing out that there are some non-ideologues in every party, and some of those are open to ticket-splitting.
***This is a more interesting topic than might first appear. There is a natural alliance between certain Libertarians and certain Progressives. For example, there can be Libertarians on the anti-drug-war issue who are not necessarily free-market zealots. And vice versa.***
This is a common observation.
Frankly , I consider it a classic ‘bait and switch’.
I can’t put legalization of cannabis and prostitution on the same page with eliminating the ‘social safety net’ , eliminating the IRS , or eliminating oversight of food and product safety, or privatizing everything in sight ;
allowing corporations to reap unrestricted profit from natural resources at the expense of an environment that belongs to all ( a religious issue , if one cares to see it that way)
The current GOP platform calls for the sale of all ‘federal’ lands and national parks , a Libertarian scheme if there ever was one.
This and more can be found in the shopping lists of the likes of Newt Gingrich or Rand Paul , two men whose hubris and self-absorption should be embarrassing to anyone with an ounce of compassion.
You’re making an argument for ideological consistency and/or uniformity which is also well known. It is politically feasible for a party in a parliamentary system like Canada or the UK to be far more economically and ideologically uniform. Then after the election, when MP’s are counted up, they can form a coalition government by mixing and matching a trade of favors.
But in the US we have a single elected president, not a prime minister. And the Congress has never had more than token representation from third parties. The US model depends on each party forming a coalition from the electorate.
Consider the Dems themselves. After Reconstruction, the Dems got elected by a coalition between Southern segregationists and Northern labor unions. That is an example of the term “strange bedfellows.”
It’s only bait and switch if you don’t understand how the system works.
Mr. Hawkeye–Please peruse the issue statements on the Johnson-Weld website. These are rationally “sane” gentlemen who have placed themselves midpoint between Clinton and Trump–the place where the majority of the American voters reside. And remember–both gentlemen were hugely popular Republican governors in Democratic states.
I read most, but not all of the positions of your “…perfectly sane gentlemen….”
Dismantling the Department of Education and cutting things like Social Security are not positions of moderate rational people.
So when I vote in November, it won’t be Republican Lite. I regret Bernie didn’t carry the nomination too. But my regret didn’t negate my common sense. As I’ve stated before, I fully intend to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. So if you see someone literally holding their nose at the polls voting, it might be me.
Dear doG, no. Johnson’s (and the Libertarians) economic policies are as bad as, if not worse, than Trump’s would be:
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/07/29/gary-johnson-is-worse-than-donald-trump/
***Now republicans are faced with a bunch of folks who don’t give a dam about this country or the party. Their only concern is the ability to stick it to somebody or something.
Educational opportunities, min. wage, wage discrimination, consumer protection, social security, medicare, are the least of their concerns. In most cases, the system has not worked for them, so why should it work for anybody.***
A good definition of what I see from most Trump supporters and many l
Libertarians…
I may be repeating myself here , but I guess it’s necessary.
How can a supporter of Sen Sander’s Democratic Socialism switch to the Libertarians?
The two are political and ideological OPPOSITES !
Libertarianism has more in common with the wave of Tea Party zealots that have brought us to the brink , and yes, der Drumpf.
I wonder if those that make the claim of such a switch are serious, delusional or lying.
Well, the reason I’ve switched from Bernie Sanders to Gary Johnson and Bill Weld is because Bernie quit running and Gary and Bill are the only authentically experienced and honest candidates with creative and impressive resumes of real accomplishments.
I’d rather vote for them because I can trust them to tell me the truth as they see it.
Clinton and Trump are liars. She’s dishonest to the core because she’s bought and paid for by Wall Street. Trump is also a liar with no apparent core values except to “win” at any cost.
I vote my values. I don’t vote for corrupted liars.
I’d rather be with Johnson and Weld who do have track records as very popular two term Republican Governors who were well-liked and supported by their Democratic New Mexico and Massachusetts constituents. Also, I have actually read their positions, listened to them in two CNN Town Halls, and feel I can live comfortably with what they want to do.
Besides, I know what I’ve had–and I’m not inclined to bend over and let the “Establishment’s Status Quo” stick it to me again.
This is such an important discussion. My own view is close to Noam Chomsky (link below) but still I think a stronger argument is possible.
I think there are two broad categories of attitudes towards voting, and I call these the “Free Speech” view and the “Equal Protection” view. This corresponds to the 1st and 14th amendment concepts.
In the Free Speech view, a vote is an expression of one’s opinions, values, and ideas. In this view, its practically dishonest to vote for someone you don’t approve. In the Equal Protection view, a vote is different. Voting is a way of exerting political power, and the voter’s only decision is, what do you expect to happen if one or another candidate wins. Then you do what you can to tip the scales that way.
So my view is that we exercise our 1st amendment rights when we are involved in campaigns and when we argue on blogs. When it comes to voting, it’s the 14th that protects us, and also should motivate us.
I agree it’s unfortunate that Bernie was denied the nomination, by whatever means. But It’s clear to me that there’s a difference between HRC and DJT. So I’m putting my vote where it will count.
And so is Chomsky:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/noam-chomskys-8-point-rationale-voting-lesser-evil-presidential-candidate
Mr. Presting–thank you for your carefully thought argument for your willingness to choose what you believe to be the lesser of two evils. However from my point of view–choosing the lesser of two evils is choosing evil, period.
I prefer to chose the good. It’s the way I can best feel honest, progressive, and responsible for supporting the long term health and safety of our Democracy.
In this election we have a third way toward good government. That third way is Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.
Ms. Baran :
I can only assume that you are a Tea Party conservative who considers the GOP too slack.
The Libertarians depend on an ideology that is 200 years out of date.
Could you seriously have supported Se. Sander’s ‘Democratic Socialism ” , an ideology for a sustainable future ?
I doubt it.
There’s a lot of misinformation concerning the election this year , created by a lot of very sly managers of language (a science known a Semantics , very useful in advertising).
Either you have been taken in by them , or you are one of them
Actually, Mr. Hawkeye, I am not a Tea Party Republican. Far from it.
I’m a registered mainstream, socially progressive, fiscally conservative Republican of long standing. However, as a Certified Financial Planner , I totally understand that our current health care system is rapidly bankrupting both our citizens and our country and needs to be changed.
Ergo, I’ve been a supporter of “Medicare for All” for the past two decades. So, when Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy for President and his stance on health care–I decided to support him. And I put my money where my mouth and mind was with over $600 in regularly occurring small contributions while he was running–even to the end when he dropped out.
Also, I am definitely NOT a victim of sly Semanticists who deftly spout political propaganda to fool the uniformed voting public. Actually, I’ve been elected many times to public offices in the past and currently serve the State of North Carolina as an appointed Trustee and Fiduciary for its Supplemental Retirement System plans for approximately 300,000 state and local employees with nearly ten billion dollars under our direct management.
In addition, in response to Mr. Presting’s gentle criticism of my “childish” description of our current Democratic and Republican candidates as “evil”–well, I suggest that we have yet to hear or read of anyone delighting in having the opportunity of choosing between the “greater of two goods” this year. On the contrary–most folks and commentators regularly bemoan the burden of having to pick between the lesser of two evils. As Libertarian Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, says–“…choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil”.
Thus, my choice for Johnson and Weld rests on the fact that these two gentlemen are the only honest, authentic, reputable, experienced government leaders who do not lie. Neither Trump nor Clinton can be offered as trust-worthy candidates for the Presidency–and should be rejected by the voting public in November.
Mr. Presting :
Your measured reply is likely closer to what is recommended concerning those on the wrong path , rather than my own which is driven by a certain amount of panic over what a Trump victory might mean.
Between foul posts from trolls , and poor logic from Green and Libertarian supporters , I tend to rant.
Just a word of thanks…
Well , you can believe that if you want.
The consensus is that the only truly honest politician in the past 100 years was Jimmy Carter , and we all know what happened to him.
Yes, Carter was a one term President in the White House–but is now revered as the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize recipient for his world wide conflict resolution work with his Carter Center. And, he is widely recognized as our nation’s most successful ex-President in United States history.
Not bad for a peanut farmer from a small town in Georgia.
There is one dynamic that I think equally important Mr. Presting; that of responsible citizen. While there is no corollary Amendment to that premise in the Bill of Rights, I believe it to be equally important.
While voting doesn’t rise to the level of being a right, in a representative democracy, it does equate with the concept of “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people…” and I can think of few responsibilities bearing a greater responsibility.
Sadly however, voting is more of a burden than a fiercely protected duty. The apathy of electioneering overload, the dirty tricks of political actors and their minions, and the fact that we can’t seem to disagree any more without it being in the monochromatic context of, “you’re either for me or against me.”
While I adamantly disagree with Ms. Baran’s rationales and her conclusions. she is certainly free to support whomever she pleases. And I support her ability to make those decisions; as I believe most everyone here does.
What a great discussion. It’s interesting to point out that voting is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I would say that’s only because voting is so basic to democracy that the issue was taken as settled when amendments 1-10 were drafted.
This is why I referred to the 14th amendment clause of equal protection. Equal access to polling places and equal representation in government are parallel to equal enforcement on individuals of any color. I want to emphasize that voting is about the power relation between people and government. First, the power is each individual is equal to every other. Second, the power of the voters over the government is absolute. Democracy accomplishes peacefully what otherwise would require a revolution or a coup – we depose our government at regular intervals. In England they do it whenever they please.
One more comment to Ms. Baran: It is questionable (not to say childish) to view persons and politics in black-and-white categories, labeling some “good” and the others “evil”. Certainly we’ve all learned about the political spectrum.
And finally, if you think Libertarians are on the “good” side of a binary politics, you certainly don’t understand them. Paul Ryan and his library of Ayn Rand books is a practical example of where Libertarian thinking leads.
Keen analysis Ken. When the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified, I don’t think voting was a part of those amendments since voting was reserved to those who were landowners. While the first ten amendments were guarantees to the people from government as protections, I believe voting was left off since it was not intended at that time to be something afforded to everyone. Owning property made you a stakeholder of the Nation. That too is the beauty of the Constitution; as society and the nation changes, so too can the Constitution. It isn’t easy to do nor should it be. Whimsy should never be a provision of a document that has shown it’s wisdom and foresight time and again through the time of it’s existence. And so as society changed, it included those who were previously prohibited from voting. Something for the better since as a citizen you should have a say, regardless of whether you own real property or not.
(I bear no illusions that you are not aware of those parameters, but given the context of our discussion, I thought I’d lay them out.)
We can all agree that there are irrefutable double standards in the Constitution; no one ever said it was perfect. But its worked well despite those contradictions.
All of that brings the next question; should voting be a right included in the Constitution as a guarantee for all citizens? I think it should. I think it’s time. We’ve seen that acts adopted into law by Congress can likewise be modified, repealed, or discarded through judicial interpretation or by congressional modification. The States likewise wouldn’t be so quick or contemptuous to adopt their own laws that could run counter to a Constitutional right.
Thanks, this is a really interesting question. Here is a serious discussion: http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/
My own feeling is that the Founding Parents were correct to advocate indirect democracy, rather than direct democracy. This means we all vote personally for local representatives, who then make the real decisions. Both the Brexit vote lately in the UK, and the rise of Trump here show how dangerous the “unwashed masses” can be.
Interesting article. Like minds, as it were.
I too believe that representative democracy is one of the best concepts for governance since the dawn of man. Direct democracy can work, there are a few municipalities still in New England that use that approach. Unlike trying that on the state or even federal levels, local can endure that sort of governance. We have so much turmoil and angst today among our elected representatives trying to get things accomplished. Imagine the cluster trying to use direct democracy on the national level. It would be worse than trying to herd cats. It’s not a perfect system by any means, but its intent is to be fair. To give people a voice in how they are governed. To have a say about the rules by which they and the rest of the nation will live by.
Thinking; all too often, people are accused of not thinking before they cast their vote. They don’t educate themselves to the issues; they don’t research the people they vote for. We’ve heard those statements and more. It’s not that they don’t think, it’s what they think about. Due consideration usually doesn’t pass beyond the tip of their own nose. They don’t pause to consider how that vote they’re casting on the basis of a single hot button topic is going to affect others, national policy, or a host of other issues. No, it’s just about this or that single issue, something they are passionate about, something that can be spewed and spun in a couple of sentences inside 30 seconds or 160 characters. We have the most access to information at this time than at any other time in our existence; yet our ignorance continues to grow by the day.
No one person is going to be the answer. Voters seek to connect to the candidate on some personal level vis a vis that single thing they are passionate about. They have to like the person they’re voting for. No consideration or thought is given to someone they don’t like, despite the fact that person is more qualified than the person they are going to vote for.
Hopefully people will look beyond the words, they hype, the slurs, the insults, the hyperbole. It’s all about deeds. Not what these people are saying, but what they’ll do.
Economics is my single point issue. Because without money, nothing else is relevant. So I view economic policy and how it will affect the middle class and go from there. For middle class Americans, the truth of Trump lies with this paradox. “I just can’t raise the minimum wage” contrasted by, “I’m for working people.” Yeah, right.
“And that’s why I’m now voting for Libertarians Gary Johnson and William Weld– now that Bernie has fallen by the wayside due to the corrupted Clinton forces.”
Yes, because Libertarians and democratic socialists are so similar.
***Yes, because Libertarians and democratic socialists are so similar.***
Well , you have a right to your opinion, but they say , opinions are like a******* , everybody has one.
You are SO wrong.
But , over the years , there is one thing I have learned , and that is :
when either the Left or the Right drift into their respective extremes , they do seem to meet with the same results , totalitarianism and lack of compassion for the least among us.
Therefore , in today’s America , you have the Revolutionary Communist Party on the Left , and various White Rights groups , extreme Tea Partiers , Libertarians , Patriot militias , and , of course, the Donald , on the Right, all leading to the same Dead End.
Sorry if I couldn’t name more Leftist extremists , and please don’t name the SPLC or Greenpeace as examples. Both are advocates of nonviolence.
The RCP is more correct , and advocates armed revolution
I don’t know if this happens to other people, but passing the 70-year mark has made me relatively fearless. In addition, most of what could happen to me for taking an “unpopular” stand has already happened: I’m divorced, my children are on their own & don’t need my protection, and I’ve already had my home burned down once by the KKK–oh, and it turns out I’m not as “white” as I grew up thinking. So what’s the worst that can happen? I could go out as a martyr for justice and freedom, or sit at home and watch bigotry take over my country. My preference would be “neither of the above”, but what the hell–if it comes to it, I’ll take door #1.