Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Americans are Angry

Party leaders and pundits continue to wonder about the obvious anger on the part of the voters. They shouldn’t be so shocked.

The perception that the “Washington establishment” has failed the American people is accurate. The voters are taking out their justified anger at politicians whom they perceive to be representing more of the same.

The decline of the United States and the prospect that the millennials may be the first generation to inherit a diminished nation has, correctly, been laid at the foot of those currently in office.

Older Americans certainly have a right to be angry.  From Obamacare’s Independent Patient Advisory Board, which decides whether saving a senior’s life is cost effective, to the repeated lack of cost of living increases under Social Security, there has never been a time when the over 65 crowd has been less respected.

The middle class has taken it on the chin repeatedly.  Their net worth has declined, many of their jobs have moved overseas, and their 401k’s have not done well. They have become the “sandwich generation,” supporting their twenty-something kids who can’t find jobs and their older parents whose health care has been reduced and whose social security payments have not kept pace with inflation.  Extremist attempts to slash energy sources and raise prices in return for negligible gains in questionable environmental statistics present a clear threat to homeowners’ ability to heat and light their homes.

Blacks within inner cities have been treated worse than at any time since segregation ended.  Many of their youth can’t find starting-level employment because the positions have been taken by the vast numbers of illegals allowed into the nation. Race relations, which had been improving steadily and substantially for half a century, have been set back as a result of progressives false or exaggerated statements seeking to gin up the voting base and distract from the failures of their economic policies.

Youth, as a whole, have been ill-served. Upon reaching college, they have had their free speech rights abridged by leftist administrators and professors. They have been charged unjustifiably, outrageously high tuition rates, and upon graduation have had few job opportunities.

It was patented in the year 1996, and in 1998 it tadalafil lowest price became available for the use of impotent males. In that way, when you are completely capable viagra store in canada of taking care the organ and doing the process in successfully manner. It proved highly efficient in increasing the blood circulation to the brain, which will levitra on line go to this shop help you to fight with exhaustion. 3. Many women suffer from low sexual drive purchase of viagra and impotence. Servicemen and woman, not only in the regular armed forces but in the National Guard and Reserves, have been overused because there are simply too few of them to provide adequate rotation. When they leave, they face excessive wait times for treatment at VA medical centers. And, by the way, there are times when their votes have been conveniently not counted.

Seven years ago, America was the “indispensable nation,” sometimes feared, sometimes respected, sometimes hated, but always the most important factor in any international matter of any consequence. Seven years of cuts to the military, demanded by President Obama and bartered away by establishment Republicans, ended that. Combined with diplomatic moves so inept that “amateurish” doesn’t begin to convey the foolishness of it, The U.S. is seen as a has-been on the world stage, incapable of defending its interests or those of its allies.

Examples are rampant. The premature withdrawal from Iraq—whatever one thought of the war there in the first place—created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to prosper. The “Reset” with Russia allowed Moscow to replace Washington as the major power in Europe. The failure to even diplomatically confront China’s aggression in the Philippines and elsewhere encouraged Beijing’s hardliners to adopt intimidation as a matter of course. The refusal to forcefully confront Islamic extremists—or even utter those words—after the murder of an American ambassador, the slayings in San Bernardino, the bombing of the Boston Marathon, and so much more, have portrayed the United States as rudderless, weak, and cowardly. The failure to confront the growing presence of Russian, Chinese, and terrorist military elements in our own hemisphere is negligence writ large.

Utterly counterproductive moves, including encouraging the attempted toppling of pro-Western regimes in the Middle East, and opening up discussions with the Taliban in Afghanistan, have left the American public openly wondering whether the White House is even paying attention.

Many Americans are furious that federal agencies have been misused for partisan political purposes. The Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Election Commission, and the Department of Justice are among the examples.

While all these very real crises go unaddressed, false or exaggerated problems get the spotlight.  While isolated examples of law enforcement abuse may occur, there is no war on minorities by police forces. There is no wave of discrimination against Muslims (indeed, FBI statistics indicate that Jews are far more prone to be the target of hate crimes.) Wall Street is not seeking to rob the middle class. Asking unions to not force people to join, and demanding that union leaders be accountable for pension plans they administer, is not an attack on collective bargaining. There are no substantive reports of government agencies harassing LGBT individuals.

Listening to leftist politicians, pundits, and academicians, many Americans wonder whether any of the individuals employed in those rarified fields inhabit the same reality as the rest of the country. It’s no wonder the voters are angry.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Independent Presidential Bid Challenges Democrat Leaders

Michael Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor of New York City, is actively exploring a run for the presidency.  His entry into the race has the potential of dramatically altering an already chaotic campaign season, and could have a lasting effect on U.S. politics for years after.

Unlike prior third party candidates, he stands a substantial chance of producing a successful effort. Similar to Trump, Bloomberg can afford a self-financed campaign, and he has made it known that he could commit up to a billion dollars to finance a run for the White House.

The 73 year old billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist would run as an independent, a position he has experience in.  A Democrat and lifelong supporter of causes many would identify as leaning towards the left, he nevertheless first ran for NYC’s top spot as a Republican, later changing his registration to independent.

As mayor, Bloomberg governed essentially as a mid-century liberal.  He raised taxes more than any of his predecessors, reduced the size of the police force, and pursued a variety of nanny-state goals such as attempts to prohibit certain outlets from selling large-size soda drinks.  He sought to impose tolls on private vehicles traveling from residential sections of the city to the main business district, and imposed traffic rules that some labelled bizarre. On the other hand, he avoided large and expensive leftist programs, and worked to balance the budget. He also broke with  the traditional hard-left, progressive pandering to the public school bureaucracy, and had some success in bringing the notoriously self-indulgent NYC school system (which places the needs of unions ahead of that of students) under at least limited control.

All of which positions him as something the nation has not seen for some time, a traditional Democrat, despite his periodic affiliation with both Republican and independent registration. The hard-left, pacifist, neo-socialism of the current leadership of the Democrat Party has left many wondering whether America’s older political party has abandoned its core membership.

Therefore, if you cannot http://www.devensec.com/news/Devens_Press%20release_Certification_FINAL discount levitra afford to buy an expensive car, you need to date a beautiful woman and see how much they can take you for. The effect of such medicinal drugs last for approximately 4-6 hours after making its proper consumption.If your getting online pharmacy for levitra any problem after the consumption of meals. However, purchasing herbal Go Here tadalafil price in the open market can be an added inconvenience. In achieving a hard on, males require healthy browse address viagra cialis on line hormones, blood vessels, and nerves, and sexual desire for gaining erection and would be worthless for this issue. In many ways, Bloomberg’s entry into the race, even though he would do so as an independent, could be seen as a referendum on the future of the Democrat party. There is little resemblance of traditional Democrat values reflected in the current extremist, progressive-oriented party leadership. Unlike Democrat icons FDR, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy, the pacifist defense policies of the party’s current power brokers tends to disregard very real national security concerns.  Bloomberg is also more pro-Israel, which could also reassure supporters of America’s strongest Mideast ally that, unlike Obama and Clinton, they still had a sympathetic ear to turn to.

That, of course, leads to a fascinating speculation.  One of the original contenders for the Democrat nomination this year was James Webb, a former Democrat senator from Virginia. Webb is a far more traditional Democrat than any of the current candidates for the party’s nomination. He is generally considered an advocate of a strong defense policy.  In his own words, his candidacy pursued “a fresh approach to solving the problems that confront us and too often unnecessarily divide us. We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process. Our elected officials need to get back to the basics of good governance and to remember that their principal obligations are to protect our national interests abroad and to ensure a level playing field here at home, especially for those who otherwise have no voice in the corridors of power.” Should Bloomberg decide to join forces and establish a Bloomberg-Webb ticket, many Democrats currently ignored by their party’s pacifist leadership could find a candidacy to support.

Bloomberg might also attract those frustrated with the depressed state of employment growth. Despite the needs and interests of union members, who have been bedrock supporters of Democrat candidates, the environmental and international trade policies of Obama, Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley harshly disregard the need for employment security and wage growth for working men and women. West Virginia coal miners and pipeline construction workers across the nation have been particularly hard-hit.

The former Mayor may also have an appeal to minority voters. Ironically, considering that Mr. Obama is the first African American president, the support of black voters for the Democrats has been severely tested by party policies, particularly in the area of immigration.  The current White House tolerance for illegal immigration has hit inner city minority youth with particular severity, as they face massive competition for entry-level jobs from those entering the nation unlawfully, eager to take those starter positions at salaries below that which native-born youth would find acceptable.

Bloomberg would have to make a decision no later than March to move ahead with a campaign.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The alluring fraud of free stuff

The 2016 election cycle is underway, and the contrast between the candidates is stark.  Some have concentrated on the growing dangers from issues such as America’s unmanageable national debt, excessive taxes, the rise of international terrorism, Russia’s increased aggressiveness, China’s actions in the Pacific, or the challenges arising from illegal immigration.

Others have promised free stuff.

The allure of free stuff is seductive for a voting population suffering from continued long-term unemployment, stagnant wages, increasing prices in many key essentials, and heavy student debt from unjustifiably high college tuition. Politicians promising giveaways, particularly in an era when many in the media are inclined to agree with the practice of more entitlements and disinclined to examine how to pay for them, have a distinct edge.  It calls to mind Benjamin Franklin’s warning that “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

A list of the give-away ideas floated by several of the presidential hopefuls includes budget-breakers such as, to take two prominent examples, free college tuition and more subsidized or free health care. They also continue to favor more leniency on illegal immigration, which increases the population dependent on government largess.  It’s not just illegal immigration that presents an increased dependency problem.  U.S. consulates abroad feature helpful pamphlets on how to apply for benefits upon arrival in America. The United States cannot afford to function as the welfare agency for planet Earth.

Interestingly enough, those advocating for free stuff have not expressed equal concern for the fact that non-entitlement benefits already paid for by workers such as Social Security face bankruptcy, or that America’s military personnel and veterans continue to be underpaid or receive inadequate post-service care.

Prudent voters should ask how candidates promising free stuff intend to pay for their generous plans. The concept of taxing the rich is unconvincing.  It would not reduce “inequality,” another idea floated by candidates who favor increased entitlements. A Money.com review noted that “researchers …looked at what would happen if all the extra money raised from the tax hike on the rich were given to America’s poorest. Lower-income families would receive about $2,650 a year, they found. The country would still remain far more unequal than it was in the 1970s.”

John Stossel, writing in Forbes, notes “it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.” Add to that fact the reality that increased taxes serves as a disincentive to hire and invest.  A shrinking economy does not help pay for increased entitlements.  Margaret Thatcher, the late British Prime Minister, perhaps stated the problem most succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Through the years, there buy viagra for women have been well known bulimics in the news who’ve died from this problem. You may be eligible to take testosterone which may help in getting easy cheap cialis uk erection. If you are suffering from erectile dysfunction, as most men could think. cheapest viagra from india Commonplace physio medications are practice programmers, nerve preparing strategies, redress of poor carriage, pacing method, trunk segmental preparation and reinforcing of the profound flexor muscles of tadalafil from canada the cervical spine.
Details such as how to pay for giveaway plans fail to get airtime during televised debates, in the breathless press releases of campaigns promising more and greater entitlements, or in reviews by a generally left-leaning media. That lack of specificity tends to assist candidates proposing free stuff, and works to the detriment of candidates who focus on looming threats or fiscal reality.

It’s not just candidates that endure harsh criticism when entitlements are involved. In Maine, reports the Daily Signal, Governor LePage has enforced stricter requirements for food stamps, and has taken considerable press criticism for the effort.

“Since LePage assumed the governorship, Maine has reduced enrollment in the state’s food stamp program by over 58,000; currently… there are 197,000 people on food stamps, down from a high of 255,663 in February 2012…the decline is due to eliminating the waiver of the work requirement previously attached to food stamps, as also witnessed in Kansas. Under the new legislation, recipients would need to work 20 hours per week, volunteer for about an hour a day, or attend a class to receive food stamps past three months.”

Mary Mayhew is the commissioner of Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, responsible for administering Maine’s food stamp program. She has taken considerable criticism, she notes in a Daily Signal interview. “I can’t stress enough what an attack campaign it has been from the media for four and a half years…Mayhew claims that detractors—who mostly take issue with welfare reforms enacted by Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, since his election in 2011—have gone so far as to call her ‘Commissioner Evil,’ and her and LePage’s policies a ‘War on the Poor.”

The 24 hour news cycle may be broad, but far too often it is also shallow. Voters enduring America’s weak economy are targeted by candidates who promise free stuff and are confident there will be little follow-up on how to pay for their proposals. On the other hand, candidates with more realistic platforms are seen as miserly and uncaring.

When Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1940, he famously said “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” His blunt honesty in the darkest days of World War 2 helped rally his nation to victory. One wonders how an American version of Churchill would fare in a campaign against a candidate who simply offered more free stuff.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s widening division

There have been numerous elections filled with contentious and divisive issues. However, the 2016 presidential contest is highlighted by differences so profound that they have little precedent in American politics. Unlike other discordant eras, where singular topics or approaches to crises produced sharp differences within the electorate, it is the very fabric of the nation that is being argued over.

Consider these bedrock current topics:

What is the role of the federal government? What issues involve personal choice, as opposed to those that come under the purview of elected officials, administrative agencies, and the courts? Should the U.S. have enforceable borders? What is America’s role in the world? Which nations are our friends, and which are our enemies? Should U.S. foreign policy be subordinated to the United Nations? Should international treaties have precedent over American law? Should taxpayer dollars be used for citizens, or should some portion of them be set aside for the benefit of people around the world? How sacrosanct are the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights? How closely must the Constitution be followed in areas such as the separation of powers?   What is the best economic system for the U.S., one based on a free market, or that more closely identified with socialist systems? Should campaign regulations be allowed to interfere with free speech rights?

There are a number of illustrations, clarified by the recent televised candidate debates, which exemplify the yawning gap between the growing divisions in U.S. society.

In the economic sphere, Senator Bernie Sanders openly espouses a more socialist economic system, and the other two presidential hopefuls within his party are not that different from him in their economic views.  It’s not liberalism they are espousing; it is a form of true socialism.  Their solutions involve more federal programs, higher taxation, and increased regulation.  In sharp contrast, the GOP candidates advocate reducing the role of government in the marketplace and lowering taxes.  They point to the fact that programs such as the War on Poverty have spent over a trillion dollars and have failed to reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty, and emphasize that increased regulations prevents the economy from growing, impedes success in competing with other nations, and keeps unemployment high.

Unexpectedly, the First Amendment has become a political battleground. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants to amend it to eliminate the right when it comes to paid political speech. Others within the Democrat party advocate strict campaign regulations that also require limiting free speech.  Most Republicans take the opposite tack, and maintain that no limit on the First Amendment is acceptable.

On purchase cialis online January 2, 1992, Sullivan was named head coach at Samford University on December 1, 2006. One has to wait for a while before a person decides to go in buy canadian viagra for a check-up with the patient. A viagra online india major restriction to increase blood flow is elasticity of the blood vessels and cells. The rubbing of the oil viagra 10mg http://respitecaresa.org/staff/l-mejia/ in the genital areas and work as a natural remedy for hypothyroidism management as it has active compounds called guggulsterones which helps in curing hypothyroidism. The differences are generational as well.  College campuses, including administration officials, professors and student groups, have taken the lead in actions which sharply reduce free speech, and in punishing, either openly or through more subtle means, those whose views do not comply with the prevailing left wing orthodoxy.

The Pew Research organization  has found that 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech they term offensive to minorities.  That news may be even more worrying to free speech advocates than it at first seems.  The “offensive language” referred to is not racial slurs or related derogatory comments.  In many instances, what has been termed offensive are actually little more than disagreements about issues not directly related to race at all.  Saying, for example, that All Lives Matter, rather than just Black Lives Matter, has been termed offensive by some. Again, the differences are stark. The three Democrat candidates adhere to the Black Lives Matter saying; the Republicans prefer All Lives Matter.

Beyond the contentious issue of race, the increasing use of terms such as “micro aggression”—essentially any disagreement that makes someone uncomfortable– are employed to justify free speech limitations, in any variety of areas. When combined with the potential for international control of the internet which will give influence to nations advocating censorship, there is ample reason for the concern expressed by advocates. The concept of limiting coverage under the Bill of Rights is one that leaves little room for compromise between the growing divisions in American society.

International relations have always proved divisive, and again the differences are stark, but not always divided on strict party lines. The recently withdrawn Democrat candidate Jim Webb advocated a more muscular approach, as do the majority of GOP candidates. However, Republican Rand Paul has advised lesser U.S. involvement overseas. The clearest division is how international threats are perceived, not necessarily in the best way to deter them.  Under the leadership of President Obama and in the positions taken by those Democrats who hope to succeed him, the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have been downplayed. (Hillary Clinton has identified Republicans as the enemy.) The GOP hopefuls have stressed the dangers from those nations and organizations.

Similarly, Democrats tend to favor increased international influence from multinational treaties and organizations on internal American affairs. Republicans point to the lesser rights provided to citizens around the world, and worry that international influence will diminish American rights.

U.S. citizens increasingly read different publications, watch and listen to different news programs, and quote different versions of history. How this will affect the unity of the nation is an issue all sides should be troubled by.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Top Democrat candidates have ideological similarities to Obama

The similar views of the three top candidates for the Democrat nomination for the White House, Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and, very soon, Vice President Joe Biden with President Obama insure that the 2016 campaign will be a referendum on the overarching goal the incumbent has pursued during his tenure in office:  to reshape the American economy and culture into one designed to produce equality of outcomes. The President’s vision applies to non-Americans as well as to U.S. citizens.

Most of the ancillary issues, including examples such as the massive transfer of spending from defense to social programs,  the virtually open borders, the reduced footprint of American forces across the globe, Obamacare, etc. are means to this end.

The White House has largely managed to avoid a substantive national conversation on this goal, although the inclusion of those outside the U.S. has lately come more into focus. In this aspect, Mr. Obama has been fortunate, thanks to a largely compliant media. A certain percentage of the voters receiving federal aid may be attracted to his philosophy, but his consistent inclusion of those outside America rankles many natural Democrat supporters, including inner city blacks and union rank and file members who have lost jobs due to the large influx of illegals tacitly allowed into the nation thanks to the Administration’s intentionally lax enforcement of the southern border.

While Clinton, Sanders and Biden are ideologically similar to the President, they differ considerably in style. Senator Sanders has been bluntly honest about his rejection of the traditional U.S. economic structure (he does disagree with the President on some job-related issues.) The other two have been more subtle but equally as committed to his vision.  The more congenial Joe Biden would be more apt to work with Congress.

 The lack of transparency on the part of the Obama Administration has been an instrumental part of its efforts, as is the significant attempts to chill opposition, whether through IRS intimidation, attempts to place monitors in newsrooms, the bugging of reporters, and the plans to regulate the internet. But those tactics will not work for candidates, whose goals and proposed strategies will be the subject of intense discussion and analysis.
In this condition, levitra viagra online is suggested as the first line therapy of men’s erectile dysfunction. The recent study indicates that bladder neck due to enlarged prostate obstructs the erection process.Diseases like kidney disorder, neurological disorder, and others that cause harm to blood vessels or connective tissue in the surrounding region of penis are the major viagra sans prescription physical causes of erectile dysfunction although there are a lot of men that face erectile dysfunction due to physiological issues; however, younger adults are. You can find uk viagra prices solution for all the common and uncommon health problems in our medical field, if you reach a certain amount on your order. It gives them a chance to rise above their physical anomalies and lead a normal life like any other medication. generic viagra can also cause certain side effects in its users, which usually subside as your body gets used to the actual dosage of this medicine.
As summer draws to a close, the political conversation appears to dwell increasingly on immigration. The continued, essentially unregulated influx across the U.S. southern border sheds light on the President’s unspoken but apparent rejection of placing American concerns above those of the global population.

The fact that the equality of outcomes idea, under whatever approach it has been tried, has failed apparently doesn’t faze the White House or the Democrat front-runners. Whether attempted in a strict setting such as the old USSR, or the more genial social-democrat nations of Europe, it has failed to produce economies that provide financial rewards for the diligent or an incentive to the private sector to expand hiring.

That shouldn’t be surprising, since the key goal is not the prosperity of the people, but their equality. Taking down the middle class to the level of the poor is as acceptable an outcome as is bringing the poor up to the middle class. Both results provide an equality of outcomes. Examples from across the globe and throughout history virtually guarantee, however, that more middle class will wind up poor than poor wind up as middle class.

The President’s rather autocratic style in attaining his vision– avoiding Congress has been virtually a mantra for Mr. Obama (I can’t wait for Congress to act,” “I have a pen and a phone,” and the labelling of key international deals as just about anything other than treaties which require the consent of Congress)  may work against Biden, Clinton and Sanders unless they expressly reject the tactic.  For those concerned about safeguarding Constitutional guarantees and procedures, the President’s—and many of his key supporters—rejection of those bedrock rights will also serve as a detriment to the Democrat nominee.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Flawed candidates, flawed parties

What does it say about the legal, cultural and political environment of America in the 21st century when the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land have at times openly ignored the law, and when one has zero experience in governance, and the other has a stunning record of total failure and duplicity during her time as part of a presidential administration?

While irrelevant issues have always had far too great an influence in presidential politics, the United States has apparently entered into an era where the race for the White House has a distinct resemblance to a Kardashian-like reality TV show.

Journalists seek access, so many have failed to openly confront either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump on their obvious and significant shortcomings as a potential Commander in Chief.

Clinton has a record of ethical questionability and scandals extending back to her earliest days in government. Recently, her tenure as Secretary of State was marked by the “reset” with Russia, one of the most significant failures in American diplomacy. Her blatant mismanagement and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi attack are still under investigation, as is her apparent carelessness with state secrets evident in her use of a personal email server for official communications, including those considered top secret. Indeed, the Obama-Clinton record in Middle Eastern affairs as a whole is a study in amateurism, if not worse, in foreign affairs.

The worse may be yet to come, as questions about her approval of the sale of uranium to Moscow and another serious allegation of influence peddling have yet to be fully explored.

Ms. Clinton is apparently aware of the threat to her campaign from all of these issues, as she has vigorously avoided frank meetings with the media, and her allies in the Democratic National Committee do their best to delay debates with other party candidates.

Leading the GOP pack, Donald Trump scored high marks with fellow Republicans by discussing problems with China and illegal immigration that the party leadership, to its discredit, has failed to adequately address. But serious questions about his intentions remain unanswered. Why did he consult with Clinton before entering the race? He has bragged about his ties to the Clintons, and his current claim to allegiance to the GOP is belied by his extensive past contributions to Democrats.

These pharmacy sites offer extensively detailed information about a cialis 20mg generika popular ED treatment for curing erections’ weakness. It is FDA approved product of Pfizer pharmaceuticals that contains cialis buy the same ingredient sildenafil citrate. Sildenafil Citrate) which is used to increase blood flow to the penis and may help men with erectile difficulties to alleviate anxiety and restlessness, and cheap viagra selling here thus easily get erections naturally. The reason why this medicine is dominant among others is its cheap price and false promises, taking a lethal drug into your system is not working effectively. price of viagra pills His headline-making pejorative comments about women and Mexicans are a gift, intended or not, to the Clinton camp, underscoring an already underperforming relationship Republicans have with those two demographics. His refusal to rule out a third-party run that would make a Democrat victory far more likely is a serious threat. During the recent debate, his claims to have purchased influence through campaign contributions raises substantive ethical and legal questions.

The two campaigns say a great deal about the parties they operate within.

Republican voters have become increasingly enraged about their party leaders’ failure to stand up for the principles the GOP purports to stand for. Even after gaining control of both houses of Congress, Republicans have failed to exercise power in any meaningful way. A key constituency within the GOP, the Tea Party, complains that organizational chiefs have been more confrontational with them than with the White House.

That anger has become incendiary, leading another presidential hopeful, Ted Cruz, to white-hot criticisms of Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Despite Cruz’s revolt, Trump has been the beneficiary of the growing split between the party faithful and GOP leadership.

Ms. Clinton’s belief that she can avoid a great deal of the expected contact with the press, and Democrat leadership’s failure to distance itself from her history of misdeeds and policy failures, points to a party with a lackluster bullpen of candidates and a hidebound adherence to dogmas that have only worsened the challenges America faces at home and abroad. The fact that Bernie Sanders, a curmudgeonly old-school socialist who is not even a registered Democrat is closing in on Ms. Clinton describes much about the state of the party.

Beyond all the descriptions (or criticisms) of character and career histories, the two candidates have gained popularity based on their message. For disgruntled Republicans, the lack of attention by party leaders to illegal immigration and the rise of China, issues Trump has concentrated on, have driven many to support him. Hillary Clinton’s role as a standard bearer for various victimization groups, her hard-left positions, and her connection to the original (Bill) Clinton administration loom large.

As the campaign progresses, it remains to be seen whether the flaws in both candidates overcome their roles as symbols for the causes and issues they headline.