The person holding the presidency matters very little in 2016. The PARTY of the person holding the presidency matters a great deal.



It wasn’t always so. In years past, the most liberal Republican was more liberal than the most conservative Democrat. There was overlap between the parties. And, because of this overlap (and also due to earmarks) they were able to compromise and work together on legislation. But we’ve seen that those days are gone. The most liberal Republican is much, much more conservative than the most conservative Democrat today.



In 2016, political parties are collections of interest groups. There are huge institutions that work to craft the legislative priorities and messaging for the political parties. The types of groups and institutions that make up the Democratic party (Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, Human Right Campaign, Etc.) are a lot closer to my priorities than that groups and institutions that make up the Republican party (Energy conglomerates, megachurches, Heritage Foundation, NRA, etc.).



This is especially true for domestic policy, which is controlled by Congress. The Republican party is expected to control at least the House of Representatives for the next several years. During that time, no Democratic domestic agenda will pass. There will be no $15.00 minimum wage, there will be no $12.00 minimum wage. There will be no free college, there will be no debt free college. The Republican controlled Congress will vote for and pass legislation that reflects the priorities of the Heritage Foundation and the NRA. The next president will either veto or sign that legislation.



The acrimony of the Democratic primary is mind boggling. We’re simply voting on who we believe will hold a veto pen better.



Donald Trump is a fantastically dangerous man and should be allowed nowhere near the presidency. This is not primarily because he’s unqualified (which he is) or because he’s a bigot (which he is), it is primarily because he is a Republican. I’ve heard some people argue that the Congress will stop him from doing the crazy things he says he wants to do. That gets it exactly backwards. Donald Trump will not stop the Congress from doing the crazy things it says it wants to do. Does anybody think that Trump is going to veto a partial privatization of Social Security, or a repeal of the minimum wage, or a massive tax cut for billionaires?



In foreign and military policy, the executive branch has much more power to act on its own, but it is still a creature of the parties. The president does not act alone — he (or, hopefully, she) has advisors and experts that shape the operations of the executive branch at a high level. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and numerous other roles inside and outside of the Cabinet make up the foreign policy team of the president. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would have virtually indistinguishable foreign policy teams. Each would pick among high ranking members of the party with experience and expertise in foreign policy. Likewise, Donald Trump and John Ellis Bush would have very similar foreign policy teams.

The party system as it exists now is far from ideal. Almost everyone recognizes this, which I believe is a big part of why Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders have found so much support in this election. What’s missing, however, is any solution for changing it. With all due respect to Robert Reich, nobody has explained how electing Bernie Sanders will change the massive partisan apparatus or the centuries old system of checks and balances that make up the United States Federal Government.



Changing the system isn’t up to Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. It’s up to you, me, and every other potential U.S. voter. We need to elect Democrats and Republicans at the local and congressional level who are responsive to US, not to the interest groups. While we’re at it, we can elect Greens, Socialists, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians to city councils, mayor’s offices, state legislatures, and beyond. Maybe some states (our “laboratories of democracy”) can experiment with other voting systems or representation systems for their state legislatures. European countries have multiple parties due to different electoral rules, and we could try copying that, one state at a time.



This would, of course, take time and effort. We’ll need to vote for every single office, every single election, not just vote at the top and leave the rest of the ticket blank, as many voters in Michigan did this year. But, if we really do it, if we really make the effort, we can change the system over the course of several elections.



However, in 2016, the system is as it is. Either the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate will be president next year. We can make the choice. Do we want to elect the party that represents the Sierra Club, the United Auto Workers, and Planned Parenthood, or do we want to elect the party that represents The Heritage Foundation and the National Rifle Association? For the time being, those are our choices. And for me, the choice is clear.