Making Things The Way They Were. A Physics Problem

The Brexit decision is being showcased as a premonition of the American election, and there is no doubt that there are factors and variables that come into play in both. But sharing some or all of the variables doesn’t mean that they are the same, or even close, with respect to how those factors create the end-resulting conditions of ‘reality’. In fact, in order for anyone to posit that the degree to which these factors and outcomes are the same would imply that the values of the variables are essentially the same.  This assumes that the two ‘equations’ comprising these factors are the same, or the expectation of a common outcome is even more ludicrous.  If there were just two or three factors of significance, then attempting to quantify and compare them and the resulting ‘reality’ would be a reasonable assessment of how similar are the two results? Even if there are dozens or hundreds of variables but only two or three that dominate the equation then the other factors don’t matter much anyway. So whether the Brexit situation and America’s 2016 political election are equivalent would depend upon an understanding of the factors that they share, the factors that they don’t share, and the overall culmination of what results from them.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to enumerate some of the factors that we hear are what Brexit and the American election share. The news and media (I do not equate the two as the same) have been presenting a couple of ‘reasons’, which I will re-term ‘factors’, that were substantive to the British voters in their decisions. The short-list would include:

Sovereignty:      The UK voters want to run their own nation without the influence and constraints of the other EU nations, and particularly the EU bureaucracy. The commonality of this sentiment with an American counterpart is at best crude or requires a significant bit of contortions. But hey, let’s see how far one might be able to ‘stretch’ rationality.  Perhaps this is akin to the “states versus federal” authority issue, or the “local” versus “a DC government department”, or it may just be the “Us versus Them” mentality that pervades our political parties or those seeking an ‘easy’ answer to all their problems. I think that there is an emotional context that applies between the UK and the US along these lines, but an emotional appeal isn’t an actual connection or comparable situation that would relate to the having the same origins, the same impacts, or producing or being addressed by some common approach to government or social environment. One big difference between the US and the UK is that the US is and has been a sovereign nation since its inception.  So regaining a ‘sovereign’ government and social approach is somewhat of a contradiction with the situation that Britain’s voters were seeking via exiting the EU. So the emotions may be more a shared factor but the logic and reality would be quite questionable. This means that it will be a factor in the US election but hopefully there is more than just the ‘feel-good’ act without any substantive purpose; because there are cause and effect consequences to an act regardless of whether you understood what they would be or not.

 “The Economy”: British voters were also motived by a slumping, stagnant and unequal economy. Yes, just like in the US (and in most/all other nations) the recovery from the last economic crisis that toppled the unstable and irrational financial monstrosities that we, them, and everyone else created and participated in; the UK voters were unhappy, unsatisfied and mostly angry about the economic reality that they are experiencing now and for several years. The economy in the US has been slow in recovering. The economy in the UK, and in the EU, and in the rest of the world has also been experiencing slow, no, or other degrees of recovery/non-recovery; but while they share some causal factors (like the financial mortgage-debt crisis), there are numerous other factors that they do not. The EU countries did not and do not operate in as cohesive a manner as their counterparts in the US do. [You have to accept for argument sake that our states are the counterparts to the EU nations, or it’s really hard to equate some of the economic factors involved in the UK/UE environment to the US’s economic environment.]

The UK voters it would appear think that they would be better off if they were not part of the EU because of either advantages in being ‘independently’ able to manage their economic relationships both internally and externally, or in not being subject to the actions and consequences of the other EU nations. Equating this to where the US is today would seem to be more of the UK wants to become like the US which has its own independent control over it economic decisions. So it would seem hard to argue that what UK voters want isn’t the same thing that US voters are seeking even though both are unhappy with the current economic climates in their respective countries.

It’s possible I suppose that there are more factors involved in any (or all) nation’s economic reality; but how likely is it that factors like Trade, Resources, Technology, Competition, Education, Infrastructure, Investment, or Taxes have any relationship to a country’s, a union’s, or the world’s economy? Oh, yeah! An economy is influenced by more than the style of government a nation follows, or even the ‘who’ provides the leadership of a government. So the Brexit decision and the US’s upcoming election not only won’t be, but can’t, address or resolve via as simple-minded an approach as the economy can be solely dealt with by who runs the government (sovereign, union, or pick-your-favorite-descriptor).

The economy may be voted on like the Brexit case, but are we sure that that was based on reason or on emotion? And regardless of what prompts the vote, the situational realities are not the same.

Jobs and Trade: Brexit is supposedly going to improve the job situation and the trade situation in the UK. Well, that’s a position that was argued by one side, but many people on the other side argued exactly the opposite. Which one was right? Well, both and neither. Leaving the EU will change things, so some will be good, and some will be bad, and some won’t change much at all; but what the end-result is only time, leadership, investment, trade, competition, technology, and you-know a few other things will tell.

There should also be a consideration, a recognition actually, that the concept of ‘returning’ jobs is premised that ‘restoring’ the jobs of before (of the past) is practical, reasoned and even desirable. The objective is a ‘nice to want’ concept and would appear to solve a part of a nation’s jobs problem; but the objective isn’t the same thing as a proof, nor is it necessarily beneficial. The jobs issue isn’t whether the US or the UK gets its old jobs back but whether it can create new, good and productive jobs that enable a superior and competitive economy. If your leaders focus on the wrong approaches and policies, then you are not likely to reach the desired goals; it’s sort of a ‘cause - effect’ thing.

Immigration: The Brits were motivated by immigration issues and concerns. Some of these related to jobs, to security, to social change, and to other diverse factors that evoked a Brexit-solution. Just as there are issues that share a name and a conceptual arena, there is little comparison between the UK’s and the US’s immigration realities. So this would call the equivalence of the two realities into question, except perhaps with respect to the level of fear evoked, or the anger, or name your emotional state.

Maybe one of the sub-issues around immigration is a key factor in both, that is meaningfully the same.

Borders: The “Protecting ‘Our’ Borders” theme differs not some much in sentiments as in realities. The UK’s borders are currently defined and operated within the context of the EU’s policies that allow (even promote) the ability to move between EU nations more or less unimpeded outside of the security processes that apply across the EU. The US’s borders are managed under US policies and processes, which is what Brexit would bring about in the UK (more or less). So the US’s view isn’t to have the control but to apply a different level and nature of control. Brexit voters want to stop ‘outside’ immigration that threatens jobs, security (see next), culture, or ???. The notion of being invaded by a huge number of illegal aliens doesn’t appear to be the motivating factor that the influx of people from Central and South America into the US is and has been for 30-plus years (or longer). The impetuous for immigration to the UK would include economic and social reasons that are also applicable to the US’s but the situations and origins of US’s illegal immigration problem not identical.  The solutions for each are certainly not the same either in terms of methods, costs, consequences and even goals.

Security: Are UK security concerns and US security concerns fundamentally the same. The goal is of course. In terms of issues/problems related to immigration, the UK and the US face different realities in many ways. The answer can thus have the goal of Security, but that is the goal it isn’t the policies or processes that will achieve the goal. Will Brexit improve the UK’s security? We can be certain that it either will or it won’t, but that outcome is not a forgone fact it is a to be determined result with all its corresponding consequences to the how it works and works out. In the US, the same laws of physics cause and effect will operate. What we do will begin the process that turns into effects that follow, but if you think you have an answer without a well-defined plan and approach is just more “wishful thinking” (which isn’t actual ‘thinking’ in the realm of reality).

Culture:  I don’t know how much a factor the “culture of the UK” was in their Brexit voting, but I am sure that it played some role for some voters. Anyone who thinks that the UK’s culture and the US’s culture are equivalent in voting for Brexit to the US’s election voting will have make the case that they are the same; unless it’s nothing more than a ‘Keep the UK for Britons’ equivalent to ‘Keep America for Americans’ another meaningless slogan that supports other objectives.

Government Leadership: “The Elites” versus “The Non-Elites”
Now here is an issue that seems to resonate in a significant group within both the UK’s and US’s populations. I emphasize with the public’s dissatisfaction, disgust, and frustration with the politicians. However once again not clear that the situations are the same for the UK and the US. It is true that the political leaders in both nations are elected by the public. They are elected from the different parties that put forth candidates in their elections. There are many more than the two dominant US parties in the UK; but those who win are elected by their voters. Now one might argue that if your government (US or UK or ??) is run by an elite-class of politicians that you choose them. If these elite politicians aren’t looking out for you, then why did you elect them exactly? If you didn’t or don’t like them, then why do you keep electing them over and over? Perhaps they weren’t ‘elite’ when you elected them, but become corrupted into an ‘elite’ once they got into power. If this is true, why would the next set of politicians that you elect not be subject to the same ‘elite’ corruption?

Wait! Is it that the ‘establishment’ politicians are ‘elite’ in regards to some other criteria? Are they folks who see themselves as ‘smart’ and represent a class of people who think they are better than everyone else, and deserve to govern? But why did you elect them?  Now personally, I take argument with many people (perhaps the vast majority) that think politicians are ‘smart’ or ‘elite’. If anything, I think that it is much more likely that we (and the British) have lowered our expectations, or requirements and our desires for individuals who might be considered some of the ‘best and brightest’ to serve as our representatives.  I sometimes contemplate whether I think the US was served better by individuals elected that were ‘just your average’ person or who were ‘a cut above’ the norm. I don’t see our American Founding Fathers as simple, average men that were just good folk like everyone else. I would contend that the issue isn’t whether a politician is a member of the ‘elite’/’establishment’/party or not but whether they present sound, reasoned, and productive policies that have some basis in achieving benefits for the nation and people.

A Physics Problem: Looking at the Brexit decision and viewing upcoming American election, there is a lesson to be learned from looking at these events as a physics problem. There is a problem and you are seeking a solution, an answer to your needs. To successfully solve the problem, you can’t choose what you want the answer to be unless all you want and expect is to express your opinion. If you actually want the world, the reality, to change into what you want then you need to do much more. You need to understand the problem, and this is not easy but it is unavoidable. You need to define what you want to happen and how that will end in some physical conditions and circumstances that achieve your goals. Oh yes, and you need to define your goals. I don’t mean just say: “I want” this or that to be, but to explain how the goal can be determined to have been reached.  You have to deal with all the things that exist where we are now, where we are to go, how we are going to get there, and when do we know that we are on track to reaching those goals. This is not the work of emotions. You don’t get there just because you are angry or afraid.

Now for the part of the physics lesson that you won’t like at all. You cannot go back to when things were the way you want them to be. You can’t go back there because you don’t or can’t control all the variables that would be required. You can’t go back there because you won’t accept the cost to do it, if you could even find a way. And here’s the killer, you can’t go back to then because it never was the way you ‘want’ it to be again.

So learn to deal with the laws of physic, cause and effect, and nothing stays the same. The key to our success as a nation (or any nation’s) is to do what Americans have done before, seek to do it better than we have done so far or that anyone else has done to date.

Guns: Rights, Risks, Controls, Consequences

Guns are a major topic and source of controversy in America. Whether the intensity and extremes of the controversy has been amplified by or even created by the Political Parties is simply one more facet of the issues around guns. Guns are one of the most polarizing issues, if not the most, that even creates some groups that are essentially one-issue voters who are positionally align with the left or the right (and maybe some other location on the spectrum), that provide a political funding source, and that are a reliable media topic whenever there is a gun-related incident like the Orlando, FL nightclub; the San Bernardino, CA government office; the Sandy Hook, CN elementary school; the Virginia Tech, VA campus; and the many other locations/incidents of mass shootings. After each event there is an outcry for Congress and the state legislatures to take some action, but little to nothing results from these demands since the political sides are entrenched and resolved to hold fast to their singular view. There is no discussion, there is just politicians stating why they are right and the other side is wrong.

For such a highly charged and evocative social issue, it also seems to be a remarkably under-discussed and an almost unexamined topic between the two Parties, and I would predict it will not be a “well debated” issue between the two ‘presumptive’ Presidential candidates. Given how much attention and time is spent by politicians, the political Parties, the media, the NRA, numerous other pro-/anti-/control of gun groups, and the public at large this would seem an impossible self-contradiction. But while there is a great deal of time consumed on the issue there is little to no actual reasoned or rational discussion and particularly no debating of the issue.

Perhaps one contributing factor for the gun issue being a highly divisive and politically unresolvable issue is that the issue is not often, if ever, even clearly defined with regards to what the underlying differences and disagreements are. Just because guns are seen as a political or social issue doesn’t mean that politicians, Parties or advocacy groups have looked at the issue(s) from a rational perspective; in fact, it seems that this issue is more driven by emotional factors than logical and cognitive views. If one were a scientist, engineer, technologist, mathematician, system analyst, or anyone engaged in solving a problem (issue) in their business or job then understanding the dimensions of a problem and determining the facts relevant to the problem would be fundamental to trying to assess and resolve the problem. This is not how the gun issue is or has been dealt with. The ‘solution’ is almost universally known a priori, but the ‘known solution’ is dependent upon your established position not by asking what addresses the requirements of the problem.

So let’s try and look at the ‘guns’ issue, but let’s do it as if it were a problem that you were seeking a sound, reasoned, and intelligent solution to and not simply seeking a solution that fits your pre-determined answer. As we start, we should acknowledge that this is a task that politicians and political Parties are not competent in performing or, if they are, they have spectacularly failed to do or attempt to do so. Given this basic lacking of any problem-solving skill-set, it is strange that the public looks to their Parties and politicians to solve this and any of their other problems.

The first step is to define the ‘gun’ problem, as it is hoped that understanding the problem might be useful in finding a solution to the problem. Many of you might relate to this in terms of answering the question: “What’s your first move?” in that it likely causes you to ask or wonder “What game are we playing?” So what is the ‘gun’ problem?

On the pro-gun side, the following seem to be the essential areas of concern or requirements to a solution.

•      Goal: Protect citizen’s right to own a gun.  The ownership right supports the ability of a citizen to protect themselves and their families which is a justification for the need to own a gun.
•       Requirement: The right to own a gun(s) is guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and is not to be ‘infringed’ upon by the government passing laws to that affect.
•          Concern: Any gun control law or regulation is an attempt to prevent individuals from obtaining a gun and thus violate their right.
•          Concern: The collection of information about gun ownership is an attempt by the government to be able to seize private citizens’ guns, which if it occurred thus violating their right.
•          Concern: Efforts to control guns are misguided and counter-productive. Preventing citizens from obtaining or carrying guns places law-abiding citizens at risk from criminals who will not adhere to any gun regulation or law.
•          Sub-issues: Open carry and concealed carry restrictions are an illegal infringement upon citizens’ rights.

On an anti-gun side, the following seem to be the essential areas of concern or requirements to a solution.

•          Goal: Reduce the threat to the public presented from unrestricted access to guns.
•          Requirement: There is generally a broader range of views on the anti-gun side regarding ownership. The anit-gun goal is varied and extends from reducing the types of guns that can be owned, to restricting where guns can be owned, or to even a complete prohibition on guns. Different solutions would thus vary on the degree to which they accommodate a particular spectrum of an anti-gun proponent.
•          Sub-issue: Ban of hand-guns. This goal is focused specifically on hand-guns, which are seen as the weapon used in the vast majority of shootings. This is a variant of the ‘type of’ anti-gun group.
•          Sub-issue: Ban on assault-weapons. This goal is focused specifically on guns that are fundamentally designed to shoot a large number of rounds. The semi-automatic / automatic types of guns and of magazines are all facets of this issue.
•          Sub-issue: Locations / jurisdictions that ban guns. This goal is focused on banning guns from specified areas or jurisdictions. This goal would have to reflect either a public policy decision related directly to the residents of a ‘banned’ area, or would have to be based on some defined criteria that an area met which was legislatively identified as the justifying rationale.
•          Sub-issue:  Open-carry and/or concealed-carry restrictions are essentially the counter-position of those opposed to the proponents of open-carry or concealed-carry.
•         Sub-issue: Prohibition on purchasing a gun if purchaser is on a ‘restriction’ list. [Restriction category will need to be defined:  Terror watch list, no-fly, FBI active investigation list, …  .]

Not surprisingly, the pro-gun and anti-gun advocates position themselves as have been basically at non-negotiable odds with each other; since any restriction is seen as a violation of ownership rights and conversely no restriction/ban is seen as a disregard for public safety and national security.

Now if you thought the anti-gun side was the only other side, you’re just thinking in a binary world view. There is no ‘law of physics’ requirement that there are only two philosophical positions on guns. There are in fact many distinct positions that vary from each other. The pro-gun position was presented as an aggregate of positions that hold what are considered the ‘major’ themes; however, there are pro-gun proponents that support some elements of legal restrictions applied to gun ownership. The anti-gun side is its own aggregate view that isn’t a one-size fits all position, and there is another perspective that is focused on gun-violence control versus an anti-gun philosophy that is a distinct perspective that isn’t required to be aligned with or in opposition to the other two common orientations.

The gun-violence control side is focused on a dimension of guns that is quite different from the pro- or anti- gun positions. There is no absolute requirement from this group’s goals that would deny citizens their 2^nd Amendment right to own a gun. Thus resolving the gun issue from this perspective doesn’t require or result in a conflict over ownership rights versus public safety and national security.

On a gun-violence control side, the following seem to be the essential areas of concern or requirements to a solution.

• Goal: Reduce the incidents and number of deaths that are gun-related.
• Requirement: Accept and protect gun ownership rights in concert with providing adequate, effective and efficient mechanisms and processes to reduce gun deaths and other gun-related criminal activities.
• Sub-issue: Require back-ground checks for all gun purchases.
• Sub-issue: Waiting period for:  any gun, or hand gun, or a designated type of weapon.
• Sub-issue: Establish gun registry requirement.
• Sub-issue: Eliminate restrictions on law enforcement entities from sharing gun data/information.

Taking these three sides and the differing objectives, the problem might reasonable be summarized as:

1.           Gun ownership rights must be accommodated and protected.
2.           Limits on guns must be allowed.
3.        Reductions in gun deaths, crimes and security risks must be accounted for in any policy.

Solutions that can address these objectives are evidently perceived as non-existent since the ‘gun issue’ persists and persists without any evident or notable progress toward a resolution. A major obstacle is a perception that the gun ownership right is threatened by any law about guns other than ones that make access easier; however, this is not an historically accurate perception. It’s not that there aren’t adequate legal means to both preserve and protect the 2^nd Amendment right, and there are solutions that can overcome one of the deep-seated fears by some that the government will attempt to seize private individual’s guns under some nefarious attempt to overturn our democratic government.  So one question is how much of the resistance to laws directed at meeting other goals for guns would diminish or disappear, if the ‘right to own’ were further protected by legislation that defines the penalties that are required by law if Congress and/or the Administration were to attempt to undertake any seizure of guns not authorized jointly by a federal and state court or related to an imminent threat* of the owner to the public (* - a power that exists under current law and doesn’t violate the ownership right). The legislative language would be diligently reviewed by the pro-gun advocacy groups like the NRA so that gun rights are adequately insured.

By providing well-defined and clearly acknowledged ownership right ‘protection’ requirements, the fear of “The Government” taking everyone’s guns is rendered illegal. While there will be some who will insist that “The Government” could still attempt to seize all private weapons, the action itself would require that the US military would support it. For the military to do that would mean that our sons and daughters that serve in the armed forces would permit and participate in violating not just the 2^nd Amendment right but our basic American values.

If the ownership right aspect of the gun issue can be reasonable accommodated and protected, then some of the other concerns and issues can be examined as separate and solvable pieces of the problem.

The issue of ‘banning’ can be explored. Today there are already weapons that are banned, so this is not an all-or-none issues but rather determining what the categories of weapons are that are banned. What is at issue isn’t banning or not banning but where the line is drawn. So a decision must be made and if the current circumstances indicate that the previous decision may be questionable then it can be revisited. We have seen these decisions reexamined before, so it is not a threat to ownership but a responsibility of our elected officials to determine in the light of our own times. Additionally, even the term ‘banned’ needs to be clearly defined. Some weapons could be (and currently are) banned completely, some would be limited to specific conditions and banned outside that domain, and some others may have constraints that are defined under the legislation; with remaining weapons listed as unlimited by its designated and documented classification.

Each area of contention can be examined for how it can be resolved with an approach that protects ownership rights, and provides for public safety and national security, and that reduces the level of gun-related deaths and crime. Background checks, waiting-periods, sales and distribution reporting, and even registration processes can be established that are purposefully designed to insure that private citizens’ rights are protected.  The problem is that politicians are not likely to be able (competent) to solve these issues, which is why they haven’t been able to solve these problems. Now just because those who the public turns to are not equipped to handle the task doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who can.

The gun problems are there. If you think Congress or your state legislature has solved them then you are ok with the status quo. If you are not happy with the status quo then you need to ask Congress or your state legislature not to solve the problems but to seek people who are competent to provide them with public policy approaches that do, and to then enact appropriate legislation to accomplish the multiple goals that the multiple dimensions of the issues require. 

What We Can Learn From Ryan’s Endorsement

Sen. Paul Ryan endorsed the Republican Party’s 2016 Republican nominee, the presumptive and de facto nominee at least. The convention will formal confer the official title in an exciting climax that will keep everyone on the edge of their seats. As soon as ?news? of the endorsement broke there was an immediate and self-evident explanation by the political analysts and talking-heads that Ryan had no choice but to endorse. One might ask therefore, what does it mean to be endorsed by someone who has no choice; or what does it tell us about the politics of political parties?

So what can we learn?

We can learn, if we didn’t already know, a variety of things about politics, Parties, media, and the voters/public. Of course that we can learn from this doesn’t in any way mean that we will. As in all areas, the act of learning requires that information is noticed (in some way attended to), that some processing of the information creates a new state of awareness that would affect future behavior differently than if that information had not been noticed, and that the information or the processed results from it are retained/remembered at some level. Perhaps a simpler statement would be that ‘learning means that a changed understanding has occurred’, but like most things in life making simpler statements doesn’t mean that it’s easier to comprehend the meaning of such statements.

Learning something about politics: Ryan didn’t immediately endorse Trump once he had breached the ‘inevitable’ delegate barrier so there must have been some reasoning for refraining to ‘hop on the wagon’. Since we are talking about a politics the reasoning at least in part needs to be examined through the lens of a political calculus. One variable for Ryan most certainly was how to use his endorsement delay (assumes the inevitability as a given) to gain influence, position and commitments from the situation. In other words, to do what any politician would do, to increase their political capital and to get his agenda included in the Party’s platforms, policies, and plans. Thus through his delay tactic, Ryan is more powerful and influential within the Party. His position is strengthened regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, and he has established himself as an independent power-base for shaping and directing legislative direction and as a counter-balance to the Administration, even should it be Trump’s.

As a leader in the Party, particularly among the ideological conservatives, the delay provided for Ryan to get meetings and understandings from the Trump campaign that he thinks will serve his views, principles and policies. By engaging in these discussions, Ryan provides a basis for why what he thinks is in the best interests of the Party, the nation and his own career are being sufficiently met by or agreed to by Trump and his campaign. Thus Ryan enhances his image and his actual credibility with the Party, and with his own supporters.

Given that his endorsement was a given, or more accurately an event that he had no choice but to make, Ryan used his delay to an advantage which he could not have gotten had the Trump campaign been more politically astute in reacting to. At the political level, Ryan out maneuvered everyone else and it’s not clear anyone noticed.

Learning something about the Party: There are a few things that I would expect are commonly known about the Party, but on the off chance that they aren’t then you could learn that the Party puts its own interests before the nation, our citizens, its own constituents, its own ideology and principles, and our democratic form of government and American values. Since Ryan had and has no choice in endorsing the Party’s candidate, the Party requires absolute allegiance and obedience to its Party-first doctrine. This isn’t a unique or novel aspect of a political Party, it’s just a disappointing one. Surprisingly, it represents a philosophical and social mentality that is in oddly what should be in direct opposition to Ryan’s own views. Perhaps Ryan is struggling as best he can within a situation where he cannot find a clear path toward the goals that he believes in. What we can learn for this dilemma is that not every challenge is met and overcome by those who are confronted by the challenge, no matter how much they want to do what is right the Party offers no choice but to conform and obey.

Learning something about the media: The ‘Ryan Endorsement’ issue even tells us something about the media. What was the issue(s) that concerned Ryan that were at odds with the Trump campaign or Trump’s policies that required clarity or compromise before an endorsement could be given? What were the details of the resolution that enabled Ryan to support Trump? If it’s accepted that Ryan didn’t have a choice except to endorse then what did the media provide by way of information about what the delay was for? Did the media ever mention that Ryan would eventually ‘have to endorse’ before he announced his endorsement?

So what does this inform us about the media? It says that the media is quite ineffective and inefficient in applying any critical analysis to topics that they identify as an issue. They turn to ‘experts’ who they expect to provide them with answers and insights into an issue, to their questions, and to provide an understanding of an event, condition or circumstances. However, they don’t get answers or insights that appear to actually provide any substantive information. That may be a result that they don’t know they are not getting any value-added information and just accept that the answers given are the best that they can get. We learn that the media is very inept at following up on a response, in assessing defects or contradictions in answers, or in challenging their ‘experts’ to provide either immediate sources or references to their statements or in even asking if the sources will be provided within 24 hours in writing.

We can learn much from the media here, but it’s not necessarily much that puts them in a favorable light.  The purpose of a free, independent and constitutionally protected media is to provide information on events that serve to inform the public. Meeting this objective isn’t something that is accomplished simply by spending more and more time talking about the issue without providing any substance about the issue.

Learning something about the voters/public: What can be learned about voters or the public depends upon the various groups and demographics that compose the overall population. There are the Party-aligned groups, the Party-unaligned, the non-Partied but ideologically bent, the single-issued, the racial/ethnic/economic/gender/belief-orientation/generational/level of education stratifications that present views of the world that filter the ‘meaning’ or ‘importance’ of items like Ryan’s endorsement. If you are a Party faithful or die-hard then Ryan’s endorsement is demanded and required or you cannot be a Republican. Much like there will be a Democratic endorsement expectation and requirement for their Party faithful and die-hards. So for that segment of the population that falls into these groups, Party affiliation preempts any individual or personal views on what justifies and validates an endorsement. A Party member’s endorsement being required renders it unsubstantial and unimportant, it's just a pro forma task to retain one’s credentials in the Party. 

For the unaligned the endorsement is more relevant in terms of the individual given the endorsement than about the person being endorsed. Most people who are unaligned likely expect that the ‘no choice’ requirement means that it doesn’t mean anything that they care about. But the conditions and circumstances and the nature of the endorsement may be significant to this segment of voters. If the endorsement comes with a rationale and energy that demonstrates that the endorsement would have been made regardless of the Party’s ‘no-choice’ requirement. If the endorsement seems to be a cursory action that just couldn’t be avoided, then it may in fact be a de facto act of rejection in disguise.

For other groups/segments in the population that view Ryan’s endorsement through their own lens the consequence is more likely to be a response impacting Ryan than Trump. If the endorsement is seen as a capitulation on principles, policies or issues that are the core drivers to those individuals then it would not be advantageous to Ryan. If the endorsement is seen as a misjudgment or failure of leadership then it weakens Ryan’s image, support and influence with these groups.

The public may be influenced by endorsements but not necessarily in the manner or ways that the politicians or the Parties believe. Endorsement are double-edged weapons which more likely than not hurt the endorser than benefit the endorsed. For those who require it, the endorsements are useless in gaining any actual value. For those who look at the endorsement in non-Party terms, the significance is much more unpredictable since the “cause and effect” consequences from the endorsement depends upon other factors that are relevant to the individual voter who judges that endorsement in terms of their values, issues, and positions.

We learn that the public can see an endorsement as anywhere from being total unimportant and irrelevant to being a critical test of character, principles and values. Thus if not placed in the right context, politicians are skating on thin ice if they do not understand how the ripples from their endorsement will affect the voters’ boats.