When I was younger, say 34-35, I still thought the longest word in the English language was antidisestablishmentandinterrism. I thought was a combination of antidisestablishment and interrism. That wasn't quite it. It was actually antidisestablishmentarianism and it wasn't the longest word either. Oddly, I have understood the issue as a Baptist and as an Anglican. Needless to say, there was a difference. Granted, this could be resolved by allowing for context but even with that, separation of church and state seemed to be what was fair for all. But few have seen it as a black and white situation. Not only is there a lot of gray, there is a lot of direct involvement, especially by the larger churches. It seems that it's quite important to be a part of the establishment regardless of how it actually works or is defined.
Even the briefest attention paid to the news gets you an awareness of primary politics that leaves one wondering who or what the establishment really is? Or is there even such a thing in the first place if you can be part of it and not part of it at the same time. Most candidates can claim both at the same time or better yet show it by their actions when they are trailing in the polls. Since I believe we live in a world full of paradoxes, this just might be one of them.
But I suspect the answer is much more a matter of convenience than anything else. Apparently the establishment has come under more challenge than it has in many years. Perhaps going back to when the Republicans were formed out of what was left of the Whig Party. So, this election cycle has the possibility of establishing a new establishment in both parties. But more than likely there will be quite the mess in the Republican Party if Trump is the candidate and a leftward ho shift in the Democrat Party even when Bernie doesn't become the national candidate.
For better or for worse, change is coming. How far it will go is anyone's guess. But for sure, if successful, the new establishment that will likely succumb to power, privilege, prestige, partisanship, personal agendas, pandering and political exclusion. So right now, I can't get too excited. But I'm sure there is going to be a lot more entertainment like how Evangelicals actually end up voting, like a third party effort, like the possibility of both candidates being disqualified, like the media still not knowing what is going on, like more outrageous claims as to how a woman's body works - hence no need for equality, like how promises are made with no real idea of how to pay for them, like all the reasons that Wall Street is more important than the care of our wounded veterans, and like so many other things that are exploited or ignored when no one can agree on what the facts are in the first place.
It might be too simplistic to say the next presidential election will be the greed of a few versus the greed of the many or a vote for the lesser of two evils which still means voting for evil. There is a potential to change the way things don't get done in Washington. It will be interesting to see where the vote for self-interest comes out and if there is any kind of establishment change. My prediction is that enough will be disrupted that it will be hard to put it back the way it was. ...But what do I know, I was going for Scott Walker to win.
