You Choose What You Deserve and Deserve What You Choose

About 30 years ago I saw a wonderful, quirky movie called Choose Me, starring Keith Carradine and Genevieve Bujold.  At the time I was 35 years old and in search of someone who would "choose" me, and that was true for many of my friends as well.  We were all in the perpetual cycle of searching, having high hopes and having our hopes dashed after a tempestuous two or three months.  That was the norm, rather than the exception.  We were all so eager to be in relationships that we ignored potential consequences until it was too late.  "Choose me, please, and things will work out," was the plaint.

If there was one thing that I learned during the ups and downs of the 1980's--something that I rely on to this day--it's that you choose what you deserve and you deserve what you choose.  I think you can apply that adage to any part of your life that is obtainable and controllable through free will.  There are things you can't control completely--your health, accidents, natural disasters, chance meetings, the behavior of others.  But you can control most of the things in your life.  If you believe in free will, as I do, then your life comes down to a complex, interconnecting series of choices.

We lose sight of the fact that we are constantly making choices.  We choose our activities, responsibilities, diets, friendships, associations and commitments.  Sometimes our choices are informed and intentional, but all too often they are automatic, careless, and uninformed.  What if we gave each choice the same attention and importance as every other choice?

You Choose What You Deserve

The thing about free will is that we often don't use it wisely.  I'm talking about adults here, not kids.  I'm convinced that the primary jobs of parents are to keep their kids safe and to bring them to the point where the kids can make their own responsible choices.  Part of that process is showing the kids that all choices have consequences--and that usually good choices lead to good consequences.  That's the tricky part, because sometimes good choices can lead to bad consequences.

When I make a choice and it leads to a not-so-good consequence, I look at why I made that choice.  Did I willfully make the choice or give in to what was easy or expected of me?  Did I actually think about it, or was the choice automatic and uninformed?

For me, the best process for making choices is to willfully choose what I think I deserve, and I consider the probable consequences in that process--do I deserve those consequences?  This is usually a very quick process, maybe a few seconds, but if the consequences can be really significant, I'll spend more time thinking about them.

There are two important distinctions to make about this process.  First, all people make choices based on their own personal values of "right" and "wrong," and values are constantly being refined and redefined.  During difficult "choosing" processes, I will often ask myself, "Okay, what's the right thing to do, and why is it right?"  Second, very often our choices affect other people, but I still consider choices based on my own consequences.  That's how we all do it.  If I make a choice that potentially hurts someone else, how will that affect me?  When I look at how consequences will affect me, and if I live by a clear set of "right" and "wrong" values, then I'm confident in my choices.

So, think about that for a minute.  Do you consciously make choices based on what you deserve?  One thing I love about my wife, Suzanne, is that she has worked on choosing what she deserves in life.  When we met in 1998, she was mired in a terrible job and work environment, and I asked her whether she thought she deserved that.  Was she choosing the job she deserved?  When she contemplated that, she decided to quit her job (regardless of her economic situation) and go after what she deserved.  Ever since then she has chosen good jobs, and she deserves all of the good things that have come from them.

Of course, many people can't afford to make those types of changes quickly, and I appreciate that.  A person often can't leave a job or a relationship just because it's less than they deserve.  But my point is that when you make a change in your life, part of the decision should include choosing what you think you deserve.

You Deserve What You Choose

I knew a woman who always complained about things that happened to her, and then she complained that she had an unsuccessful, unfulfilled life.  Having been taught to complain by my mother, who was a top-rate complainer, I developed a sensitive radar for others who complain.  I still fight the tendency to complain about things, but I've developed the personal philosophy that I pretty much deserve what I choose.  That usually does the trick, and I shut up (except to my wife, who is endlessly tolerant).

What I've noticed about people who frequently complain is that they let life come to them; they don't go after life.  I hear things like, "Oh, if it's meant to happen, it will happen," or "Well, something better will come along."  I want to shout at them that they're letting life steer them, that they should be in the driver's seat of their own life.

I was taught to steer my own life by one very pivotal episode in the 1980's.  Skiing one day with my good friend, Chet Ratliff, I was struggling down an intermediate slope, and he was skiing next to me in his beautiful, fluid fashion. We were alone on the hill, and I heard him say softly, distinctly, "Ski the hill; don't let the hill ski you."  That was my Zen moment.  I became a better skier by going after the hill; I became a better person by going after life.

Once again I want to stress that one cannot always control the course of life.  Stuff happens that prevents you from getting the job or relationship you really wanted.  You can only put in so much good effort and wise consideration on a decision, and your health can always throw you for a loop that minimizes your choices.  We can't always choose for something to happen and then see our choice realized.  But we do have a lot of power to do things for ourselves, and we deserve the consequences if we do little or nothing to "make life happen."

I was very impressed by how Suzanne approached finding her current job, when she was laid off from her previous job two years ago.  She didn't get the first good job that came along, so she redoubled her efforts.  She saw finding a job as an 8-hour-a-day "job" by itself, whether she was taking classes, networking with people, sending out resumes, or updating her LinkedIn page.  Still, with her incredible effort, it took her four months to find that new job.  It may have taken a lot longer had she had the "whatever's meant to happen" attitude.

And Finally....

The "You Choose What You Deserve and Deserve What You Choose" philosophy not only applies to individuals, but to groups, states and countries as well.

I look at the number of gun-related deaths in this country.  It isn't something that just "happens," because it doesn't just happen in other civilized countries.  We, as a country, choose that path by letting the gun lobby control our culture, much the same way I once let the steepness of a hill control my skiing.  The analogy could go much further, such as comparing our frequent mass murders with my frequent ski crashes, but you get the point.  As a country, we deserve the consequences of our choices.  Other countries have decided they don't need that carnage in their cultures, so they have chosen much stronger gun laws, among other solutions.  When we, as a country, decide that we don't deserve so many gun deaths, we will choose what we do deserve.

In the meantime, with each choice you make, start to consider whether it's something you deserve, because you choose what you deserve and then you deserve what you choose.

Liberal vs. Conservative

Image from patriotupdate.com.

For several years I have been captivated by the words "liberal" and "conservative."  What do they mean?  We all use those words, but we often have very different definitions of them.  In asking people how they define those two words, I often get examples of behavior or principles, rather than actual, precise definitions.

While vacationing in Tennessee with my wife many years ago, I asked our friends, Billy and Grace, how they defined the word "redneck."  At the time we were driving across their beautiful state, so we had a lot of time to kill.  My quick definition of a redneck was anyone who had at least one inoperable vehicle sitting in their front yard. Each of the others gave their own definitions, some funny and some serious, but as we discussed each one, we readily thought of exceptions and had counter-definitions.  After a surprisingly lengthy conversation, we all agreed that there was no clear-cut definition of a "redneck," but we "knew one when we saw one."

As with defining "redneck," it is easier to recognize a liberal or conservative person than to define the terms.  Although we can be fooled by first impressions, most of us can quickly identify whether a person is liberal or conservative in their values, after a short conversation.  Why is that?

We Are All Liberal And Conservative

One of the complexities of trying to define "liberal" and "conservative" is that we all show those traits at different times, and that is somewhat amazing to me.  I am a socially liberal person, in that I fully support the rights of all minorities, but I wear conservative shirts and ties and I spend my money in a conservative fashion.  I use liberal amounts of ketchup and conservative amounts of butter on my food.  My tastes in music are liberal by standards of my peers (e.g., I love steel pan music and European jazz), but conservative to younger people (e.g., I don't love rap and heavy metal).  Yet in my love for classical music, I am conservative (Beethoven, Bach, Mozart) in my preferences, rather than liberal (Cage, Glass, Schoenberg).

It is also interesting that "liberal" and "conservative" have become increasingly antagonizing words in our society.  When used to describe people in politics, they have become downright dirty words.  A liberal is understood to be a left-wing Democratic, while a conservative is a right-wing Republican.  It hasn't always been that way, however.  Lyndon Johnson thanked the Republican Party for its support and votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Law, because many Democrats voted against it.  Many of them were Southern Democrats, who later switched to the Republican Party.  Even into the 1980's one would find Southern Democrats who were more conservative than their Republican counterparts.

What's Money Got To Do With It?

"Liberal" and "conservative" have become more and more associated with the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively, although I still know socially-liberal Republicans and fiscally-conservative Democrats.  In fact, "liberal" and "conservative" in politics has little or nothing to do with how much money is spent, but how the money is spent.  If the money is spent on funding wars, the Department of Defense or tax cuts, conservative Republicans are fine with it.  If the money is spent on health care, social security, the environment or the country's infrastructure repair, liberal Democrats are fine with that.  Neither Party is close to supporting a balanced budget that would reduce what gets spent on their favored programs.

Of the people I know well, probably 90-95% are Democrats.  They run the gamut from being conservative Democrats (think of people like Warren Buffett) to very liberal Democrats (think of people like Eugene McCarthy).  Most of the Republicans I know are socially liberal, supporting the right to choose, Gay rights and equal justice for all.  They say that they are fiscally conservative, but that's where the term "conservative" gets fuzzy.  The Republicans I know consistently take more risk in their financial lives than any of the Democrats I know.  Warren Buffett is a fiscal conservative in that he intentionally minimizes the risk he takes in choosing his investments.  He touts indexed funds for the average investor, and he thoroughly understands an industry before he invests in it.  I can't believe the level of risk many of my Republican friends are willing to take; it is much more risk than I take in my investments.

Similarly, I can't understand what is "conservative" about how Republicans govern at the national level, if we're talking about fiscal responsibility.  Every President (whether Republican or Democrat) increases the national debt--some by increasing social programs, some by waging wars or lowering taxes, and some by doing both.  In the last 40 years, only two Presidents have had a surplus in their federal budgets--Democrats Carter and Clinton--and they each did it three times!  Republicans Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush had budget deficits in all 20 years in which they were President.  And yet people thought of them as fiscally conservative.  They were only fiscally "conservative" when they ignored the costs of wars and tax cuts.  If Obama ignored the costs of Medicare and Social Security, perhaps he would be labeled a fiscal "conservative" also.

Inclusive vs. Exclusive

When someone tells me that he/she is conservative or liberal, I have to look beyond the subject of how they manage their money.  A much more accurate observation is whether they are "inclusive" or "exclusive," beginning with their fiscal policies.  Liberals I know ascribe to fiscal policies that equitably benefit a broad base of people, regardless of economic levels or groups, while conservatives I know align with policies that benefit their own economic level or group of the population primarily--or the level or group to which they aspire. A liberal is much more likely to vote "yes" on an education tax bond than a conservative is, if neither person has a child who is of school age.

When asked how he would fund social causes, such as health care and food for the poor, Mitt Romney said that he'd do it through private donations.  Our corporations are funded by private investments, so why couldn't social problems be handled and solved in the same way?  Therein lies a major difference between conservatives and liberals.  Donations and investments are, by nature, exclusive, and there are two fundamental reasons why they will always fail to fund large national programs.  First, donations are not distributed evenly and, thus, large numbers of people are likely to be left out.  Second, donations are not consistent over time.  One good fundraising year doesn't mean the next year will be good.  For those two reasons, liberals choose to not rely on private donations and private industry to solve national problems--especially social problems like health, disability, unemployment and welfare of seniors.

As my opinions about "conservative" and "liberal" evolved over the years, I spent a lot of time trying to observe whether people are, by nature, inclusive or exclusive in how they interact with others.  The word "exclusive," interestingly, has positive and negative connotations.  You might be attracted to an exclusive restaurant or club, but that attraction would quickly diminish if you learned they exclude blacks or gays or some other minority.  A vegan excludes animal products in their diets, which may or may not be healthy.  And if you throw a party, you probably won't include everybody you know, because of space constraints, so you must be "exclusive" in whom you invite.

In observing people who profess to be liberal or conservative, I have found that liberals are much more inclusive in how they address people and talk about people.  In meeting someone for the first time, a liberal person will invariably ask questions about me and my family first, and then they will share things about themselves.  A conservative will initially say things about his or her own life and, almost reluctantly, ask questions about me and my life.  I have spent many conversations at parties or events where, after ten minutes and a polite parting, the conservative person knew absolutely nothing about my life and I knew dozens of things about their life.

I believe that liberals (or at least social liberals) show interest in others because they are naturally inclusive of others.  They have empathy for another person's plight, not through pity but by imagining themselves in the other person's place.  All people are concerned about their own family, own health, own financial situation, own security and own opportunities, but liberals are also fundamentally (and almost equally) concerned about the health, security and opportunities of others.  This is true in people's attitudes toward illegal immigrants, for instance.  Conservatives want to exclude illegal immigrants from our country and send them back to whatever their plight was.  Liberals want to find a way to include illegal immigrants in our society.  Conservatives think of the issue in terms of "us" versus "them."  Liberals think of the issue in terms of "all of us."

So, a person's views on inclusion vs. exclusion play a big part in determining whether they are liberal or conservative.  But there's an even bigger criterion.

The Question of Change

There is a second, even more fundamental comparison that can be made between liberal and conservative values.  As I ask people to define the difference between the two, it is the comparison I hear the most often now, perhaps because the two political parties have separated more and more in the last several years.  Being "liberal" is associated with people who look forward to and embrace change, while being "conservative" is associated with people who either want no change, very slow change, or want to go back to how things used to be.  Liberals want to expedite change, while conservatives want to slow it down.

Now, we are all nostalgic for times past.  I miss the decade in which I grew up (the 1950's), and I especially miss the music of the 1960's.  But there are hundreds of things in our daily lives that I wouldn't want to give up in order to return to the 1950's.  Many of those things were developed or invented or advocated because people embraced the concept of daring change--from the advent of all things "computer" to laws guaranteeing the equal rights of people, from the development of ground-breaking medical advancements to the spread of democracy and free markets throughout the world.

When I think of how quickly a country changes, I am always amused at how slow this country was in giving women the right to vote.  The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1920, a full 50 years after the 15th Amendment was ratified giving black males the right to vote!  The 14th Amendment had originally mentioned the rights of citizens to vote, but the word "male" was inserted before it was finalized.  This set women's suffrage back 50 years!

In the case of LGBT rights, one might think that the country has changed very quickly, given recent court judgments, but that certainly is not the case.  The country changes "quickly" once the scales of public opinion on any given subject tip in the opposite direction, but that "tipping" process can take many decades.

Perhaps most indicative today of the difference in how liberals and conservatives view change is the interrelated subject of global warming and the development of alternative (renewable) energy solutions.  Liberals generally are for the accelerated development of renewable energy solutions, in order to offset the creep of global warming.  Conservatives feel, despite an overwhelming amount of data to the contrary, that global warming either doesn't exist or isn't serious enough to reduce the use of fossil fuels.  If you understand that, since 1880, 13 of the 15 hottest years on record (globally) have occurred since 2000 (!), it's difficult to understand how anyone could discount the presence and growing effects of global warming.

So, why don't we change faster as a country to combat the effects of that global warming?  The answer isn't purely economic, because there are huge profits to be made in alternative energy industries--profits that U.S. companies could be making.  China funds and produces much more alternative energy than the U.S. does.  Their pollution problems are much greater, and they are using that as an opportunity to be first in the world in alternative energy exports.  Why isn't the United States taking that lead?

The answer is that, in order to take the lead in something, you have to embrace and value significant change.  Conservatives certainly embrace change in developing new weapons and national defense; we have the best in the world.  But conservatives do not embrace significant change in other areas, and thus the United States does not lead as universally as it used to.  The countries which embrace and promote "forward" change are the ones that will lead in the future.

Last Thoughts On Liberal vs. Conservative

For me to think of a person as truly "liberal," that person must be both inclusive of others and open to significant, progressive change.  It's that magical combination of the two that defines a person with liberal values, as far as I can see.  I know of one couple who are generally considered "left-wing liberals" by most, but they are neither inclusive of others nor open to change from their current prejudices.  I consider them "radicals," just as I consider far-right religious zealots as radicals.  You can take liberal values and conservative values too far to the extremes, and I dislike both.

My final thought about the words "liberal" and "conservative" is that they are often used as limiting, derogatory labels, and that further polarizes the two positions.  I've learned to accept my conservative friends, even though I disagree with many of their opinions.  We do not become more polarized when we respect each other's right to have those views.

Ten Reasons Why The Republicans Will Win In 2016

Image from marketing-chine.com

 
In my lifetime, the United States has not been in a place similar to where it is right now.  Barack Obama is only the second Democrat to be President for more than six years since FDR in the 1940's, and Bill Clinton was mired in impeachment proceedings during his sixth year as President.  Things are going so much better for the country right now (comparatively low unemployment, high stock markets, low inflation, no active wars, new freedoms) that we are due for a big change of direction in 2016.  That is why I see it unlikely that Democrats will win the Presidency in 2016, and I'll give you ten reasons (plus a bonus reason for good measure).

(1)  America is not ready for a woman President.  Many other countries have had women heads of state, including England, Germany, Australia, Israel, India, Brazil, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, and several African countries.  Russia, China, Japan and the United States have not had a woman leader since Russia's Catherine the Great in 1796, and I don't see that changing.  Though I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is as tough as any male leader in the world, the American people are still too biased against women.  In the conservative South and Midwest, women have their place, and that place is not as a leader of a powerful country.  This reason is closely associated with the next one.

(2)  Two steps forward, one step back.  Having a woman President would represent a big change for this country, and we've had a lot of changes in the last few years.  Conservatives feel it's time to resist and even roll back the changes we've accomplished.  Liberals have brought the country a new health care system, a woman Fed chief, equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a revitalized auto industry, Wall Street reform and have ended two wars.  That's too much change for most conservatives.  The mind-set in this country is that change should be done in small increments, if at all.  It's simply time to go backward, because in the last several years we've progressed beyond what most of us could have imagined and predicted in 2008.

(3)  It's Time For Another War.  Now that we've officially exited Iraq and greatly wound down Afghanistan, it's time for another war, and a Republican is much, much more likely to bring us into another war than a Democrat is.  Hillary Clinton is, first and foremost, a diplomat.  Conservative America doesn't like diplomats, because diplomacy involves compromise.  Diplomats somehow appear as weak people to many Americans, and people who lead us into war somehow appear as strong people.  I was raised to think of diplomats as smart people and those partial to war as stupid people.  If given the simple choice--Hillary Clinton OR another war under a Republican President--I'm sure the result would be close to 50/50 in this country.

(4)   America's Gun Addiction.  Related to its propensity for war is America's gun addiction.  By far, the United States has more gun deaths than any other "high income" country in the world.  We also have the most lax gun laws in that collection of countries.  As I see it, the subjects of guns and religious rights (i.e., anti-abortion prejudice) are the two most deeply-rooted biases of conservative America, and the subjects have come more to the forefront in the last several years.  Not only are mass shootings happening almost weekly in our country, but other "far right" hot issues, such as opposing gay rights and restricting voter rights, have swung more to the left due to recent legislation.  America's gun addiction will only increase, and that's bad for Democrats who support and campaign for gun laws.

(5)  The Myth of Reducing Big Government.  Whenever a federal spending law is passed or an executive order is given, conservatives complain about "Big Government" invading private lives and adding to the national debt.  Conservatives seem to only blame Democrats for contributing to the size of government, but that's an inaccurate assessment.  As of the middle of March, 2015, Obama had given 205 executive orders in his term.  George W. Bush gave 291, Nixon gave 346, Bill Clinton gave 364, and Reagan gave 381.  Obama's number of executive orders is certainly not excessive, and yet his executive orders draw more attention than the executive orders of other Presidents.  The attention is all part of the myth of Big Government--that it is evil and not to be trusted--and yet there is no alternative, regardless of which party is in office.

George W. Bush added 101% to the national debt during his presidency, while Barrack Obama (through FY 2014) has added 53% to the national debt during his presidency.  The amount added to the national debt in 2014 ($1,086 trillion) is very similar to what Bush added in 2008 ($1,017 trillion).  By far, the largest expenditures each fiscal year are for the Defense Department, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt.  To not fund things like Energy, Education, Health and Human Services, and HUD is just plain stupid, because they cost a small fraction of the sum of the other five.

While part of the general population may want to reduce Medicaid (and thus increase the medical expenses of all of the paying population), no politician will campaign for reducing Medicare or Social Security benefits.  The myth is that we can do without Big Government--we can't.  We depend on Big Government for hundreds of things in our daily lives.  Any service we cut at the federal level will have to be supported at the state level if it is to continue.  So, the main result of reducing Big Government is for millions of people to lose or settle for sub-standard services they currently have.  That, in fact, is happening with the accelerated deterioration of our roads and bridges.  Congress won't fund long-term infrastructure repairs, pushing the burden onto the states, which can't afford them.

Of course, to fund the deficit reduction, we'd have to raise taxes.  Before I retired, my wife and I belonged to the top 3-1/2 percent of the U.S. population (based on income), and we would not complain if we saw our taxes go up to help the bottom 96-1/2 percent.  We also recognize that any tax cut is tantamount to increasing the deficit.  Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy, while Republicans, if anything, want to reduce taxes and services.  Therein lies the dilemma.  The myth of reducing Big Government will always work against the Democratic candidate, because Democrats are loathe to reduce services to people, and it will work against Hillary.

(6)  Non-Stop Political Campaigns Hurt Democrats.  Because the Supreme Court ruled to allow super-PAC's (as organizations) to fund political campaigns, there is now no practical limit to how much time and money is spent on those campaigns.  We have a broken political system in America, because of unlimited spending--something that Republicans, ironically, say they're against.  Political campaigns are as attractive, useful and non-stop as tabloid journalism--little, if any, substance and constant rants by dunderheads.

The conservative columnist, David Brooks, has stated many times that there is no proof that gross, excessive spending affects the political process, but I think he's dead wrong.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent, not to inform, but to inundate the voter to the point of numbness.  That inundation turns off millions of people to the entire political process.  I'm convinced that hurts the pursuit of Democratic values much more than it hurts the pursuit of Republican values.

Somehow Americans love non-stop political campaigns that involve a feeding frenzy--the messier and more controversial, the better.  Since Hillary is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and because there are no real limits on campaign spending, she will be in the cross hairs much longer than the Republican nominee is--at least one year longer!

(7)  The Democratic VP Candidate Is An Unknown.  Unlike most past Presidential years in my lifetime, it's hard to think of viable Vice-Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party for 2016.  Whoever is nominated to accompany Hillary Clinton on the ticket, it won't be a political figure who is well-known across the country.  There seems to be a dearth of charismatic, 40- to 55-year-old candidates in the Democratic Party.  Hillary must choose a white male VP candidate; two minority candidates on one ticket won't fly.  Martin O'Malley is a possibility, but both he and Hillary are from the northeast part of the country.  By contrast, the Republicans have a host of recognizable names to place on the ballot, and people tend to vote for candidates they recognize.  I need only remind people of the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket in 1988 to demonstrate how important familiarity is.  (Could you even remember who ran with Dukakis if I didn't tell you?)

(8)  The Inconsistency of Liberal Voters.  Left-leaning voters are notoriously fickle.  The mid-term elections in 2010 and 2014 showed that--very low voter turnouts among certain parts of the Democratic base.  It used to be that the Democratic Party stood for American workers--and especially unionized American workers--but that demographic continues to decrease.  That means that Democrats must depend on a coalition of other minority voters to win.  Those voters primarily fall into four minorities--Blacks, Latinos, gays and students.

The gay community offers a dependable, consistent constituency for Democrats, but Blacks, Latinos and students are less so.  Blacks and Latinos face real voter registration challenges throughout the country--partly from the lack of community leadership and voter "education" and partly from gerrymandering and efforts of white majorities to make it more difficult for minorities to register.  Blacks and Latinos comprise a high percentage of America's poverty-level population, and poor people often do not even have the transportation to get to the polls.

Although today's students clearly are more open-minded and accepting of others--and thus more liberal--than previous generations were, they are also a lot less driven than the students from my era, the 1960's and 1970's.  Not only did my generation speak up against the Vietnam War in mass demonstrations, but we valued the importance of voting irresponsible people out of office, thanks to the saga of Watergate.  Of all the adjectives you might use to describe the students of the 1960's and 1970's, "apathetic" was not one of them.  Students of this generation are more apathetic and thus more inconsistent as voters.  I don't see that Republicans have a corresponding demographic that is as inconsistent.

(9)  Image Is Everything.  More and more, image has surpassed issues, values and policy in how people pick their candidates.  Obama had a sparkling, positive image during both of his Presidential campaigns, despite the fact that many people (in 2012) disagreed with Obamacare.  Romney, on the other hand, made the historic "47%" gaffe that was documented on a live recording.  His image plummeted in the minds of millions of people, completely irrespective of whether the comment was factually correct.

Hillary has so far deflected accusations surrounding Benghazi and her email server, but even if she were to be 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, her image has not been enhanced by those issues.  Conveniently for the Democrats, the Republicans have meanwhile built their own 3-ring circus and populated it with clowns who fill the image spotlights with daily amusements.  Today's image tidbit [on 7/28/2015] was that Rick Perry challenged Donald Trump to a pull-up contest.  That was after Donald Trump made fun of Rick Perry's glasses.  Really?!  Seventh-graders have outgrown that stuff, and these two want to be President of the United States?

But people love that type of controversy, so the personal image of the candidates will always play a big part of the selection process for President.  Part of the problem is that the selection process is SO LONG, but the biggest part of the problem for the Democrats regarding image maintenance is that they only have one viable, long-term candidate.  She is a marked target and will remain so for the next year.  Republicans have more than 15 candidates, and it will take another year to winnow that field down to two or three.

Yesterday [on 7/29/2015] the biggest national issues were the Iran pact hearings, the shooting of a Black Cincinnati man and Hillary's $600 haircut.  Well, I have to say, it was a nice haircut.

(10)  What Draws People To Hillary?  Finally, there is the ever-changing issue of why people might want to vote for Hillary.  What draws them to her?  Many people, especially Blacks and Latinos, were drawn to the candidacy of Barrack Obama, in much the same way that Catholics were drawn to the candidacy of John F. Kennedy.  An innate trust was initially based on a tangible similarity between candidate and voter.  Beyond that comparison, though, there were a number of striking similarities.  Obama was not only the nation's first Black President--a landmark event in our history--but he offered a profile that hadn't been seen since Kennedy.  He was young, athletic, very smart, had a beautiful family and had served as a junior Senator from a liberal state.  Both men were totally magnetic and captivating in their speeches.

Hillary must carve a profile of herself that is compelling to all social and economic classes.  She's not young, but must appear young.  She's not known for her speeches, but she must inspire when she speaks.  She's arguably the toughest woman we've ever had in our government, but she must appear approachable and able to facilitate change.  Unlike most Republican candidates, who have developed their speaking points over the last eight years, Hillary must somehow go beyond speaking points in order to transcend what Obama has accomplished in his two terms.  That would be a difficult task for any Democratic candidate.  Her appeal must be mainstream, middle America stuff, but the candidate can't simply be Barack Obama, part 2.

(11) (Bonus Reason)  Rising Interest Rates.  On the surface, this might seem to be a surprising reason why Democrats face an uphill battle (with any candidate) for 2016.  Interest rates have been close to zero in the United States for years, but they are bound to start rising in late 2015 or early 2016--just in time for the campaign season.  The bond and equity markets will remain volatile, mortgage rates will go up and earnings will stay flat or even go down.  Some people understand that interest rates rise when you have a strong economy (and are lowered when you have a weak economy), but the average person will react negatively to the effects of rising interest rates.  That's never good for the incumbent party.  As sure as economic cycles fluctuate, so do political parties in power, and I think the two are closely associated.

Summary. There are, of course, reasons why the Democratic Party will remain in power in 2016.  More and more people have become attached to Obamacare; the Republican-led Congress has all-time low approval ratings; the U.S. economy is still better than almost every other country in the world; the population of Latinos and Millennials continues to grow; Donald Trump is a distraction for the Republican Party; and the Clintons are born leaders who just seem to always land on their feet.  No one can estimate how much Bill Clinton will be able to contribute to Hillary's campaign, but he has a very high approval rating right now.

Still, if Democrats are voted out of office, I believe these eleven reasons will play a large part in the change.