For the third Presidential election cycle we are experiencing an abandonment of reason by American citizenry. That this can happen in a world where data is virtually unlimited and effective research no further than your laptop is astounding and does not speak well for homo sapiens.
Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job. "Hope and Change" was the motto. Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean. Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success. The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),
The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries. Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.
But one thing is crystal clear: Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.
One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.
Apparently, not so much!
There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office. One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity. Such a person was not fit for public office...then!
Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times, and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times. And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!), who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars. No joke!
And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe. And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.
What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!
We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.
Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.
His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."
Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree. They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government. That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made. No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.
Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions. Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him. Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.
The Mob Rules...still.
We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena. There is no apparent reason to be optimistic. And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.