My last post pointed out that the majority is now at the mercy of some minorities, and our communities are declining. Our political system has fallen prey to extreme minorities, but a reader asked how to fix it. I still think some past recommendations could make a difference. Maybe we can build on them.

Political parties exist for only one reason, to win elections. Primaries subvert the party’s mission instead of finding attractive positions on issues and finding candidates likely to succeed in implementing them. Candidates exposing extreme and generally unpopular positions can appeal to just enough primary voters to take places on the ballot rather than somebody who could win. I covered this in the series “The Future Party.”

If the Republicans and Democrats weren’t committed to primaries, would they run Biden or Trump? The two significant parties are frightened at the prospect; the new “No Labels Party” looks at candidates appealing to the broad middle range of voters who could win. If they weren’t likely to nominate two old guys most people don’t want; they wouldn’t be so terrified. At least “No Labels” knows what it’s in business to achieve.  

A curveball in this scenario could be one of these two candidates pulling out or having to pull out in favor of a younger, more popular candidate. The other party would be stuck with an unpopular oldster. Given their ages, health might result in such an unexpected outcome.

Another impediment to majorities regaining control is our segmented media. Most media outlets aim at slices rather than appealing to general audiences, and presenting information deviating from what that crowd believes could cost them big time.

Editors at the New York Times discovered the cost of presenting counter points. Likewise, CNN still needs to recover from hosting a Trump Townhall. Fox News tiptoes around Trump for fear of losing viewers to NewsMax. True believers have taken media hostages. This situation results in people having wildly different perceptions.

Customers looking at the same store display see different things. At Target stores, an array of goods under the LBGTQ+ colors provoked the ire of some of its customers. Their protests spread widely online and caused Target’s stock to suffer significant losses.  

If you are a consumer of legacy media, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets, you saw an inclusive presentation for LBGTQ+ month.

 People who get their news from Fox News, Newsmax, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and others see it as promoting Trans girls in female rest and changing rooms before they use their superior male strength to best their daughters across the female competitions. Confusing sexual teachings of young impressionable children sometimes results in children taking dangerous medication or, worse, having irreversible operations.

Because the LBGtQ+ community solidly supports the Trans agenda, people see the Pride colors as a threat to our children. As a grandparent, the idea of a big strapping guy who says he’s a girl competing against my athletic granddaughters is bizarre. What is more frightening is a grandchild doing irreversible harm to their bodies at an age we don’t let them get tattoos. 

In this environment, Bud Light cozying up to a Trans influencer showed a total lack of awareness of these controversies. The marketplace has extracted its punishment. 

Disney supports teaching about the sexual spectrum to third graders and earlier while keeping parents in the dark and thereby losing its unique place in Florida. Their stand seems odd for a company marketing to the parents of small children. (They’re the ones that pay) It doesn’t help that Disney-owned ABC Network is devoting an hour this week to LBGTQ+ awareness featuring the trans cause.

To these companies, LGBTQ+ month means remembering the Stonewall Bar and the Gay rights movement. To others, this is yesterday’s news, and they’re worried about the effect of the trans agenda on their children and grandchildren. One side probably has no idea about the Stonewall, while the other side is unaware many European nations have moved against Children’s transitioning.

How do we get on the same page? Find places where whatever you think can be challenged, and you get to reply. Positions are known and understood. We may not agree, but at least we know where we disagree and what support is for those positions—communicating with each other instead of past each other.

I proposed a town hall section on Twitter where we move challenged statements and put on a clock to reply to the challenge. The present Twitter Notes community challenges but needs the all-important clock. A challenge left unanswered for months would tell us a lot about the worth of the original argument.

A nightly TV show dedicated to hashing out controversies by knowledgeable people on all sides could be enlightening and entertaining. Fox has the most extensive and, surprisingly, the most diverse able audience and has a primetime hole in its primetime lineup since it fired Tucker Carlson. A rotating panel of well-versed people discussing the issues of the day willing to back up what they’re telling us. The show’s website can link to sources.

One of Fox’s most popular shows was Hannity and Combs. The conservative Hannity and liberal Combs went at it nightly, and we all benefitted. A covid program featuring Fauci and Birx and the Authors of the Great Barrington Declaration or their supporters duking it out face to face might’ve saved us from some of the horrors of the lockdowns. We’d have a place for this kind of thing can take place.

Structure the program similar to Fox’s highly popular “The Five” but with balanced rotating hosts to align with the subjects discussed respectfully and congenially-more “The Five” less the View. A little humor can make even contentious issues easier to handle.

Fox has an army of telegenic contributors from economics, legal, medicine, and other fields that would love the extended time to argue their points. Many have been on “Gutfeld!” so they are not without humor. On topic, high-profile guests are a plus.

Of course, the best airing of our significant issues is a Presidential contest between a leading Progressive and conservative—a match between California Governor Gavin Newsome and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. 

These two govern in entirely different ways, states large enough to rank in the top ten world economies if they were independent nations. On virtually every major issue, we can find them on opposite sides. Taxes, Covid, immigration, taxes, regulation, climate change, and almost everything else find them at loggerheads. The success or failure of their positions is visible for all to see.

This contest would be the most enlightening political campaign since Lincoln-Douglas—maybe even ranking higher as a Presidential race rather than a Senate contest. 

Alas, given the present way we select our Presidential candidates, we will never get this battle royal-only a rerun between two tarnished old fools nobody wants. With that, I’m right back where I started.