Think it can't be worse? Really?

After nearly eight years under the "leadership" of Barack Obama, most Americans looked forward to the election of 2016.  Yet when the primaries were finally said and done, the candidates selected to represent the Republican and the Democrat parties resulted in a massive boost in the sales of Pepto-Bismol throughout the United States.

Almost all the people I've spoken to in the past six months expressed, in multiple (and frequently very creative) ways, that they believe that this is possibly the worst matchup in the history of the Republic.  They tell me again and again that it couldn't be worse, that we have a choice that results in a selection of "really bad" or "much worse."

Believing that this is the worst it could be is wishful thinking at its most extreme.  Imagine a national election that consisted of David Duke versus Charlie Manson.  That would be worse, when you consider that one of them would actually win.

There really isn't very much that can be done in the next four weeks that will ease the deep-seated fear of what will happen to our nation regardless of which one of these people is elected.

So what are we able at least to plan on doing over the next four years?

If you think this is a unique situation, please look back to 1854.  With so many disgusted with the unacceptable choices presented by the Democratic Party versus the Whig Party, a new party was formed – namely, the Republican Party.  Six years later, the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln as their candidate to guide the United States of America.

Not really a bad choice, was it?

It would seem that the nation is facing the exact same issue today.  We have abysmally corrupt political parties that claim to offer leadership while their leaders simply line their own pockets and scramble for more personal power.

This very scenario has been acted out time and time again, over the whole world.  Rapacious men and women, hungry for power and wealth, scramble and claw their way to the top of the political structure.  What type of political structure they were working to control is almost immaterial.  Today, as in 1854, we struggle for control over a democratically designed republic.  But ordinary folk, the common man (and woman, of course), have risen time and again in rebellion against the elites. Just a few years after America declared its independence from the monarchy of Great Britain, thousands of lives were spent to ensure that those whom Great Britain's monarchy considered their elite would no longer dominate the citizens of America.

Barely a decade after that, the government of France went through a similar, and very bloody, revolution.  Their elites weren't simply banned from France; they were beheaded.

Losing an election, by comparison, doesn't sound too bad, does it?

So it appears that we have to select the least repulsive candidate we can determine on November 8.

But I submit that a second choice must also be made.  The time is come for us to repeat what happened in 1854.

No, not form a new Republican Party.  Form a replacement for the current Republican Party, and start selecting honest men and women to run for Congress and state offices in 2018.  The key word in that sentence is "honest."  Begin before the new president we will be stuck with actually takes office in seeking candidates to replace them in 2020.

Those who believe that this may be the only way to eliminate the corruption that has been embedded in the political party called Republican, those who have to search for an honest man or woman to run for president in 2020, have to start immediately.

Why must the search begin immediately?  Because finding an honest man or woman isn't exactly easy.  Think about how successful the Greek philosopher Diogenes Laërtius was when he took his lantern and held it up to the faces of his fellow citizens. 

When Diogenes was asked what he was doing, walking around in broad daylight with a lit lantern, he responded, "I am looking for an honest man."

Now we too must go looking for honest men and women.  Uncorrupted men and women.  Idealistic realists (or perhaps it should be realistic idealists). 

Perhaps, if we are extremely lucky, we will find such people.  I find it hard to believe that we can't find even one in 315 million.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller and a two-tour Vietnam veteran.  He writes frequently about political idiocy, business and economic idiocy, and American cultural idiocy.  Jim also blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, and can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.

After nearly eight years under the "leadership" of Barack Obama, most Americans looked forward to the election of 2016.  Yet when the primaries were finally said and done, the candidates selected to represent the Republican and the Democrat parties resulted in a massive boost in the sales of Pepto-Bismol throughout the United States.

Almost all the people I've spoken to in the past six months expressed, in multiple (and frequently very creative) ways, that they believe that this is possibly the worst matchup in the history of the Republic.  They tell me again and again that it couldn't be worse, that we have a choice that results in a selection of "really bad" or "much worse."

Believing that this is the worst it could be is wishful thinking at its most extreme.  Imagine a national election that consisted of David Duke versus Charlie Manson.  That would be worse, when you consider that one of them would actually win.

There really isn't very much that can be done in the next four weeks that will ease the deep-seated fear of what will happen to our nation regardless of which one of these people is elected.

So what are we able at least to plan on doing over the next four years?

If you think this is a unique situation, please look back to 1854.  With so many disgusted with the unacceptable choices presented by the Democratic Party versus the Whig Party, a new party was formed – namely, the Republican Party.  Six years later, the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln as their candidate to guide the United States of America.

Not really a bad choice, was it?

It would seem that the nation is facing the exact same issue today.  We have abysmally corrupt political parties that claim to offer leadership while their leaders simply line their own pockets and scramble for more personal power.

This very scenario has been acted out time and time again, over the whole world.  Rapacious men and women, hungry for power and wealth, scramble and claw their way to the top of the political structure.  What type of political structure they were working to control is almost immaterial.  Today, as in 1854, we struggle for control over a democratically designed republic.  But ordinary folk, the common man (and woman, of course), have risen time and again in rebellion against the elites. Just a few years after America declared its independence from the monarchy of Great Britain, thousands of lives were spent to ensure that those whom Great Britain's monarchy considered their elite would no longer dominate the citizens of America.

Barely a decade after that, the government of France went through a similar, and very bloody, revolution.  Their elites weren't simply banned from France; they were beheaded.

Losing an election, by comparison, doesn't sound too bad, does it?

So it appears that we have to select the least repulsive candidate we can determine on November 8.

But I submit that a second choice must also be made.  The time is come for us to repeat what happened in 1854.

No, not form a new Republican Party.  Form a replacement for the current Republican Party, and start selecting honest men and women to run for Congress and state offices in 2018.  The key word in that sentence is "honest."  Begin before the new president we will be stuck with actually takes office in seeking candidates to replace them in 2020.

Those who believe that this may be the only way to eliminate the corruption that has been embedded in the political party called Republican, those who have to search for an honest man or woman to run for president in 2020, have to start immediately.

Why must the search begin immediately?  Because finding an honest man or woman isn't exactly easy.  Think about how successful the Greek philosopher Diogenes Laërtius was when he took his lantern and held it up to the faces of his fellow citizens. 

When Diogenes was asked what he was doing, walking around in broad daylight with a lit lantern, he responded, "I am looking for an honest man."

Now we too must go looking for honest men and women.  Uncorrupted men and women.  Idealistic realists (or perhaps it should be realistic idealists). 

Perhaps, if we are extremely lucky, we will find such people.  I find it hard to believe that we can't find even one in 315 million.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller and a two-tour Vietnam veteran.  He writes frequently about political idiocy, business and economic idiocy, and American cultural idiocy.  Jim also blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, and can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.