The main current bet in the social-disintegration betting pool would be this: Who will end up with the most disgusting behavior in Washington DC politics? Is it the Establishment Swamp, the Dark State, or Donald Trump? Folks, this is shaping up into an historic battle. Vegas could make a fortune on this nose-to-nose horse race. Just when one of these three is exposed for dastardly deeds, incompetency, or sheer double-dealing obnoxiousness, another one jumps ahead. I am getting whiplash watching this! How about you?

Our fearless President recently gained body lengths in the race. Sprinting ­­­­­­furiously, he reportedly grasped defeat out of the jaws of victory when he buried his positive television session on immigration policy with his latest “this is me” remarks about immigration groups and poverty-plagued nations. Seeking to bring in skilled immigrants, he denigrated (“widgetized”) countries with a supposed lesser-skill-set of people.

Those of us betting on the race, currently savoring the ongoing reports of systemic prejudice and deception in the FBI, Justice Department, the Clinton’s business deals with the Russians and nefarious Democrats, have taken a real set-back in our prognostications of who will win the race. Leave it to the President to fearlessly jump ahead!

The Rude, the Crude, and the Lewd vs. The Corrupt and the Nefarious

We are clear on the fact that our Commander-In-Chief can be rude, crude, and lewd. He is, as the horse-better said, a real “mudder.” He runs best when insulting everyone in the race. I am now waiting with bated breath for the next surge of corruption and hypocrisy to emerge from behind closed doors in Washington where the Deep State Horses and the Swamp Establishment show off their stuff. My great concern is, when will the next horse enter the race called The Sea of Despair, i.e., the American Voters? How much of this can we endure?

Here Is What’s Clear to Me:

The challenge with positions of great power, responsibility, or influence is this: These positions tend to turn leaders into people who view the masses as “widgets,” that is, people to be viewed only by ethnicity, as pawns to be used or manipulated, or as “expendable” and of marginal use. Generals, for example, are forced in combat to create casualty estimates before deciding on military engagements. These troops are made up of real human beings with families, dreams, and a right to life who, by force of strategic realities, must be “widgetized” in order to make wise assessments concerning their likely deaths. This kind of decision-making happens all the time in economics and marketing, politics, investments, and of course, senior levels of global leadership. The question then becomes, who can (or should) we trust to take these positions of power when we know they must face the “widgetizing” challenge? Who has the greatest ability to handle mass people movements without dehumanizing people into widgets? This is a truly major question, if what I am saying is clear to you.

For political purposes, the media “widgetized” Trump’s wording analysis into a purely racist discussion. Was it a pure-and-simple racist comment or was it the product of “widgetized thinking” about countries struggling with poverty? I honestly don’t know if he is “racist in the traditional sense,” as MLK’s nephew worded it. What I do know is that his language consistently displays a crude dehumanizing of people. Racist or not, he is clearly unable to personalize people when dealing with them in large numbers. He is, like many other leaders, guilty of the dehumanization effect I refer to as “widgetizing.” I hear this all the time in leaders’ language (Hillary’s comment about a “basket full of deplorables” comes to mind), and it is a huge challenge for those in high positions. Having dehumanized people recently, Trump will likely do it again and frequently, as he seems to do with those outside his circle of family, dear friends, and supporters.

What bothers me just as much as this tragic nonsense is that it clearly speaks to where we are as a people. Who cares about character? President Clinton, clearly no moral icon himself, made it clear in his own presidential campaign that the job was only about one thing: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

As one who is clear economically and politically on what that means, I beg to differ. It’s really all about character first and competency second. “Widgetizing” people with our language or our decision-making is not okay. Folks, that really is…