Should the U.S. make changes in the way it conducts presidential elections?

"8 Ways to Fix America's Messed-Up Presidential Elections" is an article by Ted Rall and posted on March 13, 2019 that discusses his take on how the election process can improve. His ideas are to the point, straight forward, and represent a progressive way of thinking. I really enjoyed his article, and I agree with many of his ideas. Rall states, "Presidential campaigns could be improved . . . and it wouldn't require revolutionary change, just common-sense reforms." This statement is really well put. Sometimes I wonder why our country resists change so much. We have this idea that what has been, based on the Founding Fathers and out dated political ways, is the only way; this simply is not true. Rall proposes that people consider eight steps to help improve presidential elections. These steps include: eliminating open primaries, amending Article II of the Constitution (requirements for running for president), giving presidential debates back to independent sponsorship, leveling the campaign playing field and limiting campaign spending, making voting easier for voters, setting limitations as to who can run for president, getting rid of the Electoral College, and giving third parties a better opportunity to get on the ballot. Of all Rall's proposals, I found one particularly interesting and unique: setting limitations as to who can run for president. Rall writes, "If you cannot pass a simple test about the U.S. and its political system, you should not be allowed to run." This concept sounds so simple, yet I never considered that a president may not be able to do this. That is a problem. In addition, Rall proposes that "if you're an incumbent officeholder, you should not run . . . If you own investments in a business . . . or hold office in a company, you should not present yourself as a candidate for the presidency . . . If a close family member by blood or marriage served as president or vice president, you should not run." I find this to be a very interesting take on the rules of selecting a president. At this moment, I can't say I disagree or agree, but I am intrigued with the idea. I believe Rall has some great ideas that could improve and bring great change to presidential elections. Unfortunately, others may not be open to change. I think refining the way we do elections is so important right now, and I enjoy reading other's opinions and ideas about how to take action and implement change.

Ted Rall is a columnist, author, and cartoon artist. Rall has gotten himself into some serious predicaments with some questionable cartoons. An example of this is a cartoon published in October 2007 saying, "Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared." As you can imagine, this upset many people, both liberal and conservative. A number of other cartoons by Rall attracted negative attention throughout his career. In addition, Rall writes about domestic and international affairs and pays special attention to central Asia. He seems to be someone who speaks his mind. Is he someone I can always agree with? No. However, I find his ideas in this article to be well presented and a way to promote change in our country.

The Question of Morality

As I prepared breakfast yesterday morning, I heard the news in the background reporting on the meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un. I stopped for a minute as I heard what appeared to be Trump defending Kim Jong Un. Wait. Did I hear this correctly? Trump believes that Kim Jong Un didn't know about Otto Warmbier's torture and time in prison? Trump believes Kim Jong Un "feels badly about it."? I already have my issues with Trump, but this I simply could not believe.

Later that day, I came across an article in the New York Times called "Morality and Michael Cohen" written by David Brooks and posted on February 28, 2019. This was perfect timing after hearing about Trump defending Kim Jong Un. In his article, Brooks writes with pure emotion as he questions Trump's, Cohen's, and Republican House members' morality. In addition, Brooks is challenging all of America to take a look at their lives and evaluate whether they are being true to their morals. Brooks first addresses that Trump seems to mainly care about his brand and writes, "In turning himself into a brand he's turned himself into a human shell," suggesting that Trump has completely turned himself off to doing what is right. In Michael Cohen's testimony on Wednesday, Cohen reveals many of Trump's questionable actions. Brooks discusses how he feels Cohen in telling the truth, but he doesn't "believe he [Cohen] is a changed man . . . He's [Cohen] just switched teams and concluded that the Democrats can now give him what he wants." By observing the actions of Trump and Cohen, Brooks is questioning the morality of Republican House members. Brooks believes they are traveling down a slippery path where they turn their moral sense off at work and try to turn it back on when they return home. Is this true? Could this be true with many politicians? Brooks goes on to address America in general by wondering if Trump supporters are completely distancing themselves from their morals to defend and support a man that is morally corrupt. He writes, "Immorality usually bites you in the ass. If you behave in a way that betrays relationship and obliterates the truth and erases your own integrity, you will sooner or later wind up where Michael Cohen has wound up--having ruined your life."

David Brooks is a Republican columnist at the New York Times and describes himself as a moderate. He has worked as an editor for The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Editor and as a contributing editor fo Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly. While I admire Brooks for speaking his mind, a number or writers and journalists criticize him for not supporting his views with facts and statistics. Furthermore, when Brooks has included supportive facts, they have turned out to be untrue. However, an opinion writer named Tom Scocca has defended Brooks by saying that Brooks may not turn to facts "because he perceives facts and statistics as an opportunity for dishonest people to work mischief." I appreciate how Brooks wrote this article. He uses what he is observing and what many Americans are observing every day to form an opinion. It many not be full of hard facts and tons of statistics, but I don't think that is always needed when writing about morality. All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and those in the middle--need to find a way to stay true to their morals, and we need to decide if Trump is a leader we can be proud of or if he is leading us down a path where we all end up lost.