"The Mid-Terms: Some Thoughts"

 Apologies for taking so long to comment on the election, but below are my thoughts. I am a slow thinker and even slower writer. With Democrats in control of both houses,  but divided between Socialist/progressives and centrists, the next few months may be unsettling, as everyone learns the playing field. I just hope common sense prevails and the Republic remains strong. After all, we are all in this together.

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“The Mid-Terms: Some Thoughts”

November 9, 2026

 

“Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read...”

                                                                                                                       “Ozymandias,” 1818

                                                                                                                         Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

 

When I woke Wednesday morning and learned of the night’s debacle, my first thought was of Shelly’s poem. Since my wife and I retire early, we did not listen to the returns. Instead we watched Frank Capra’s 1944 screwball comedy “Arsenic and Old Lace.” We laughed while the Trump White House cringed.

 

Republicans took a shellacking, and the blame lies solely on President Trump. In my opinion, it was not the war with Iran, nor was it the economy or immigration. It was imperative that Iran be deprived of nuclear weapons, but Mr. Trump never adequately explained the purpose, nor did he execute the mission well. Of course, inflation was a problem, but the economy expanded at a 3.4% rate in the 3^rd quarter, besting analyst expectations, the labor participation rate rose and unemployment declined. Inflation, though, driven by energy prices, remained high at 3.7%. The border was closed, but Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) was ruthless in the deportation of illegal migrants. Even so. more than three times as many were deported during the eight years of President Obama’s term.

 

Despite having a 37% approval rating, Mr. Trump told fans at his thirty-odd political rallies over the past month to pretend he was on the ticket. They did, but so did the 63% who disapproved of his performance. It was a gross miscalculation by a self-indulgent individual high on the applause of his loyal followers.

 

It is not as though everything has been bad under the second Trump presidency. The border has been secured. Nicolas Maduro was captured. The Jones Act was waived, at least temporarily. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officially rescinded its 50-year-old “gag rule.” Elite universities were confronted regarding woke policies. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were set back. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere has been curtailed. NATO countries have increased defense spending. In contrast to other Western nations, the U.S. economy has done well. US GDP is 10% higher than two years ago, as are corporate earnings.

 

But the Iran war is at a stalemate. Ukraine appears to have been abandoned. China has increased its presence in the Pacific. The U.S. still spends less on defense, as a percent of GDP, than it did thirty years ago, five years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. While GDP and corporate earnings have expanded over the past two years, so has the size of the federal deficit. Tariffs against neighbors and allies have damaged relationships and contributed to inflation. And the Trump Administration has shifted industrial policy, so that about $30 billion in public funds have been committed to dozens of public and private companies.   

 

In my opinion, the biggest cause for the Republican rout was President Trump – his ego, his desire for revenge and his corruption. Corruption plagues both parties and neither party is trusted to combat it. Yet John Fund recently noted in The Spectator: “A stunning 90 percent of voters said it was a crucial or major factor in their vote,” which neither party is trusted to combat. In his first term, President Trump was mercilessly attacked by Democrats and the media, yet he never personally benefitted from his position. In fact, Forbes estimated that his net worth declined by about a billion dollars.

 

In contrast, Forbes now estimates that his net worth has roughly doubled to about seven billion dollars, fed by cryptocurrency projects like World Liberty Financial, meme coins, and with alleged real-estate and licensing projects in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Trump’s two oldest sons are presumed to have ties to companies like Vulcan Elements, Unusual Machines and Powerus, which have received favorable contracts with the Pentagon. During the 2024 campaign, he railed against President Biden’s corruption and that of his son. But they seem pikers in comparison. And for God’s sake, why does he go on radio and TV selling Trump watches?

 

The Republican party has long been home for conservatives, those who believe in limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, free enterprise, rule of law, tradition and social order, and strong defense. As conservatives, we see those values and standards forsaken. In fact, we have not had a President who abided by those principles since Ronald Reagan.

 

The Obama and Biden administrations ignored those principles. In 2016 Mr. Trump represented a change – perhaps not our first choice, but a disruptor to the coziness of Washington and K Street. In his first term he was restrained, with Mike Pence as Vice President, Michael Pompeo as Secretary of State, Nikki Haley at the UN, William Barr as Attorney General, and others. Nevertheless, he was treated ruthlessly by most Democrats and their friends in the media. In his second term, he is extracting revenge.

 

His selection of Stephen Miller to be his next Chief of Staff, suggests there will be no mea culpa. Unless something dramatic changes, his attitude seems to be – the hell with conservatives, the Republican Party and the Union. His demise – for that is what it is likely to be – is Shakespearean. From a man who over ten years ago descended the escalator to announce his run for President, to disrupt a status quo that had become statist, elitist and distant from the people, his greed and ego have destroyed him, at least for all but his MAGA stalwarts. The last three lines of Shelly’s poem are relevant:

 

“Nothing beside remains, Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

"Thoughts on Voting, Including Ranked Choice Voting"

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Thought of the Day

“Thoughts on Voting, Including Ranked Choice Voting”

July 7, 2021

 

“Our life is frittered away by detail.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.”

                                                                                                                               Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

                                                                                                                               Walden, 1854

 

Because of technology we are able to live in a complex world. Yet, we make better decisions, when, as Confucius said, we make the complicated simple. Through early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, officials have made voting more accessible but associated complexities have increased the likelihood of fraud. Debate persists as to whether those changes have proven efficacious.  Now, there is a renewed effort to improve the election process through the (re)introduction of ranked choice voting (RCV). 

 

From a personal perspective, I am not a fan of early voting for two reasons: One, it deprives the voter of weighing issues until Election Day and, two, early voters are more likely to go to the polls following a pep rally, so their decisions are likely to be emotional rather than deliberative. As for absentee voting, I believe that, to the extent possible, voters who are able should vote in person. Not only does is it simpler, it is easier to assure that the voter is legitimate. As for ranked choice voting, I lean in its favor.

 

RCV is used in elections when three or more candidates are on the ballot, as it eliminates the need for a runoff election. As the name implies, it allows voters to rank choices by preference, i.e., 1 - 5. When the votes are tallied, if one candidate has won an outright majority, then he or she wins the election. If not, the candidate with the fewest number of first choice votes is eliminated. Those who voted for that candidate have their votes transferred to their second choice. This continues until a single candidate gains a majority. If the process is prolonged, some ballots will be eliminated – “exhausted” is the term used.

 

Feedback regarding RCV suggests that problems lie not in the counting of votes, but with voters’ abilities to process the complexities of the ballot. In a New York Times article in February 2020, Jacey Fortin wrote, “…members of the N.A.A.C.P. and the City’s Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus spoke out against ranked choice voting. They were partly worried that it could hurt candidates of color, and that a more complicated ballot would reduce turnout.” In an op-ed in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal, Michael Saltsman and Rebekah Paxton quoted Jason McDaniel, a political scientist at San Francisco State University: “…turnout declines among African-American and white voters [were] significantly correlated with adoption of RCV.” To me, both comments reek of condescension. 

 

Proponents of RCV say it would strengthen majority victories with broadly acceptable winners, though the ultimate winner may be the second or third choice of some voters. (Perhaps it is right that a politician know whether or not he or she is a plurality victor?) Some say it would increase voter turnout, thought the jury is out on that claim. Those in favor of RCV tell us campaigns would be less divisive, though New York City’s recent Democratic Mayoral primary questions that assumption. And, by eliminating the need for runoffs, RCVs should reduce the amounts of money needed in campaigns. Andrew Yang has argued that RCV will lead to fewer ideological extremists.

 

Opponents claim its complexity would dampen voter turnout. New York City Council Member Adrienne Adams said it would allow candidates to “game the system.” Simon Waxman of Harvard University Press noted that voters who have their ballots eliminated through “exhaustion” have no say in the final outcome. Other critics have said it gives advantage to incumbents and those whose names are well known, but that is true in any election. Problems in New York City’s last month’s Democratic Mayoral primary, reflected, as John Fund pointed out in the June issue of The Spectator, corruption and incompetence at the New York City Board of Elections, not anything inherently wrong with RCV. 

 

Ranked choice voting dates to the 19^th Century. In the Times article quoted above, Ms. Fortin wrote that the idea was “promoted by the philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1861,” and that a version was “developed about a decade later by William Ware, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” RCV is not foreign to many voters. According to Wikipedia, it is used in at least twenty U.S. cities and in many states, in lieu of runoff elections. It is also used in non-government elections, including those in hundreds of schools and more than eighty-five colleges and universities. 

 

In the debate over ranked choice voting, we should not let a quest for the perfect detract from what is important – keeping elections simple and secure. Two rules should govern all elections: One, every eligible citizen should be permitted to vote. Two, voter IDs should be required, as no one who is not eligible should be allowed to vote. All other rules are secondary. As long as the process is simple and seen to be honest, most people, as William Buckley inferred many years ago, have confidence in the collective intelligence of the American voter and, therefore, in outcomes.