My fellow Americans, 'tis with heavy heart ...

As my old friend Julius C. used to say, "alea iacta". For those of you who don't know Julius, "the die has been cast". The stage has been set for the 2016 US presidential showdown. It's all over but the shouting; that is, all the shouting can now begin.

Maybe it was having the measles in 1956 and suffering through the disease as well as the only thing on TV -- the Republican National Convention -- that put me off (TV for one, but presidential elections for another), or the mere fact that it really doesn't matter who runs or who is elected in the end -- let's face it, nothing really changes -- at least not for the better, but for whatever reason it was, in the end, I'm not excited about this year at all, maybe even less excited than usual.

Growing up I went through the same indoctrination as everyone else, but I couldn't get all excited about it. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense. All that talk about democracy and democratic processes, well, it just never really jibed with what I saw all around me. Theory is one thing, experience is another. To reconcile these inconsistencies, I told myself that one was the ideal, the other simply the reality that we were working on to eventually come up to the ideal. It didn't take all that long to realize that there wasn't a whole lot of working-on-the-reality going on. There are too strong interests in the status quo that were, and are, willing to let the little matter of democratic ideals get in the way.

Back in those measly days, the Republicans came across as liberals (fiscal responsibility, high taxes, support for Social Security and unions, etc.) and the Democrats looked like they couldn't get their act together (Jim Crow South, voter suppression, but support for social programs and a desire for some kind, maybe any kind, of change). Remember, this was prior to the long overdue Civil Rights Movement and the first shift, in my lifetime, of the political center in America. In many regards, it looks like the parties have switched places since then, but that's not all that surprising. We know that in everyday language words can exchange meanings (e.g., for 250 years or so, "awful" meant what "awesome" means and vice versa), but in the active world of reality in which we live, this could simply be a matter of becoming what you hate.

But none of that's important, really. The problems that were known then -- gerrymandering, excessively restrictive voting legislation, too much money in politics, the Electoral College, etc. -- are still with us today. That's half-a-century of awareness of very specific and very specifically undemocratic issues, and not a single one of them has been changed for the better. Oh sure, every now and then something cosmetic has been done, but nothing of substance. And, in some regards, the situation has gotten even worse. After all, we knew in which direction change-for-the-better lay, but that wasn't the direction in which we moved. And it's not as if it would be difficult to really change any of these things:

• a simple law outlawing gerrymandering could be passed
• another law designating a simple formula for determining representation (in the House of Representatives, for example), like "1 representative for every 500,000 people" and requiring fairer districting to reflect that could be implemented
• ending voter-registration requirements; attaining a certain age automatically gives you the right to vote

But none of that ever really comes up for discussion and I haven't heard anybody actually clamoring for that public discussion either (though you can find one neatly tucked away in innocuous corners of the internet). Granted, the Electoral College -- an institution that has certainly outlived its age, but certainly not its intent -- would be more difficult to tackle, needing a constitutional amendment and all (and we all know how idolatrously sacrosanct American holds its constitution), but that money-in-politics thing got changed the most: the US has shown -- and judicially upheld -- that certain forms of bribery are not only legal, but encouraged. How much more undemocratic can you get? Of course, most Americans don't get it, and are so caught up in their self-adoration that they don't even realize that most of the rest of the world has long caught on: America is really good at saying one thing and doing another. Sometimes I think they're trying to turn it into an art form. But it isn't and it's not going to become one.

It's not that people aren't thinking about how the system could be improved, or that it's all too difficult to understand the fundamental shortcomings of a two-party system But the system America has is the system an elite 200+ years ago wanted in order to keep "the people" in their place, so naturally, it's the system that the current elite are simply loathe to change. Why should they? It works very much in their favor. For example,

• 75% of Americans want terms limits for Congress, but there are none.
• 63% of Americans want to get rid of the Electoral College, but they've still got it.
• 58% of Americans want federally funded healthcare for all, but they've only got a system most of them don't want anyway.
• The vast majority of Americans support some kind of enhanced background checks for buying guns, but are they going to get any? You know the answer.

Let's face it, what the people want in America is hardly the issue. Any substantial, visible change has to go through Congress and it's obvious that Congress isn't about to do anything but work for its owners. The people just don't count. They're there for the show, and a show is what we're all about to get, once the real campaigns are launched. It may just be the worst show to be staged thus far.

In the midst of a system that is as overtly corrupt and undemocratic as this one, we also have a certain mentality at work that gives me pause to wonder. It is in presidential election times that one gets to hear the truly bizarre. America is the only modern, allegedly democratic nation in which the phrase "a wasted vote" makes any sense. The very phrase oozes with undemocratic sentiment, but it is thrown about and used as if it were somehow meaningful. The mere concept should be enough to make all our hair stand on end, yet in America it somehow does make some sort of distorted sense: in a consciously designed and implemented two-party system, third parties are per definitionem outside the system; they don't count ... and they never counted, and as long as the system remains as it is, they never will count.

(As an aside: Bernie never stood a chance. Had he not tried to elbow his way into the Democratic Party, he wouldn't have gotten even the minimal media coverage that he got. Don't believe me? Ask Jill Smith or Gary Johnson. Now that we know he never stood a chance in the Democratic Party, what option did Bernie really have? First past the post wins, and that's that. Now his still recalcitrant supporters who know they have been more or less blocked out of the system are being harangued not to waste their votes in this oh, so important "historical" election. Go figure.)

In the end, though, because of the way in which the system has been set up and in light of the fact that for as democratically inclined most Americans like to think themselves, barely more than half of the voting-age population ever makes it out to cast a vote for their delegate to the Electoral College anyway (which I don't take as a sign of a particularly healthy democratic mindset). And when we consider that traditionally, around 4% of these will waste their votes on a hopeless cause, and that, at least in the last 10 elections the winner has garnered on average around a mere 51% of the vote, we have the, allegedly, most powerful person in the world being elected by about 25-27% of the US voting-age population. That, my fellow Americans, is minority rule. It takes a vivid and creative imagination to spin that into an exemplary model of democracy.

This is, however, how a two-party systems works (and how it was always intended to work). Moreover, the most fundamental assumption underlying the system, the one that should, at least in principle, make it acceptable or at least remotely viable, is that whoever is running is worth voting for in the first place. There was a time -- in my measly and post-measles days -- when I thought for a moment that such elections were about positions and policies. We're all allowed to be naive in our youth. In the meantime, as this latest presidential primary circus has shown, positions and policies apparently don't matter at all. The whole affair has degenerated into little more than a popularity contest. One party has no real policies and positions at all, just a lot of hate and fear, and the other has some, but they're the same, old same-old, regardless of how "progressive" the internal opposition was in the run-up to the nomination. I find it exceedingly interesting that there's more talk now about unity and togetherness than there is about anything substantial. Trump is being sold as anti-establishment, though he's anything but anti-elite; Clinton is being sold as a rallying point, because she's established in the elite. Somehow I'm still missing "the people" in this alleged democratic adventure.

What is more, one has to search far and wide to find actual engagement with and analysis of the Democratic Party platform, for more than anything, this election is already being pitched as "historic" because a woman is running (though not alone, nor for the first time, but it just so happens for one of the only two parties that count). Already we are being encouraged, in particular women are being encouraged, to vote for the woman, merely because she's a woman. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a particularly weak political argument, and there's nothing democratic about it. There's a lot at stake in this election, that much I will concede, and that's all the more reason in my mind to think really hard about if you're going to vote; if you are, how you're going to vote; and most definitely what you are actually voting for. The spin-wheels are already squealing that anything is better than Trump, but not why it is that only Clinton is that "anything".

And so, my fellow Americans, he we are, a decade-and-a-half into the 21st century and we're about to witness what promises to be one of the most unreasonable, dirty, hateful, mean, confrontational and potentially violent presidential election cycle ever. Oh, how far we have come. Oh, how rich and reasoned is our understanding of democracy and the democratic process. Oh, how proud we must be. This, my fellow Americans, is apparently the best we can do.

Though disappointed in my measly days, along the way I had hoped that we would learn and grow, just as all my adult guides expected of me. In my youthful naivite, I thought that's how the world worked. It doesn't. Learning, apparently, is what others are supposed to do. Still, I'm older now, just a little bit smarter in spite of it all, but not necessarily wiser. What I have seen this year will certainly be more than enough for the next four years, to be sure. I shudder when I think of the short-term. I'm concerned deeply for all our futures.

What I have seen that pains me most though is that we have apparently, been forced into submission to a "system" which has come to exhibit and represent all that it was meant to overcome.

My fellow Americans, thanks for the extra load of crap

It's not like I have nothing to do, nor that there aren't things I'd rather be doing. But, I'm not getting to them, because I have to spend way too much times "explaining" things that can't really be explained.

This week, the allegedly impossible happened: Trump was nominated by the Republican Party as their candidate for president. It's their good right. In contrast to lots of people I know, I'm all for democracy, even though I also know that it means you may get more than you bargained for or that you end up places you never wanted to be. I can live with that, but I don't want to have to live with trying to explain how things like this can happen ... in supposedly the most advanced country on earth ... in allegedly the greatest country the world has ever known ... in purportedly the zenith of Western culture.

My fellow Americans, you know and I know, even if the rest of the world hasn't caught on yet, that there is a massive disconnect between the marketing of a product and the actual product itself. After all, we grow up with exaggerated claims about everything. It's part and parcel of being American. The Greeks may have invented the word "hyperbole", but we filled it with life, everyday life. America is -- let's face it -- non-stop hyperbole.

It's hard to get that if you're not American. It's hard to understand that what is said has little resemblance to the reality it's supposed to describe and that what's shouted at the world shouldn't be taken all that seriously, for the most part. Words mean little in America. We're born pragmatists. It's in our blood: it's not what we say that makes a difference, it's what we do, and when you look at what America has been doing to the world since the last big war, well, you realize there's a reality there that lots of other peoples are having trouble living with. But that's a subject for another day.

Let's face it: the Donald -- the very moniker gives it all away -- is not presidential, and his wife isn't very first-lady-like at all. Oh, I'm not saying anyone else in the eventual race is cutting better figures here, far from it. You just have to realize that cute charm has worn off the American facade. Melania should have done her homework. I know students who almost lost their degrees for less plagiarism than she aired in her very short speech. In today's world of intellectual property, stealing others' words has become a mortal sin. Feigning ignorance, sloughing it off as cavalier, allowing for that much sloppiness at such a critical juncture is, well, inexplicable at best, but trust-eradicating at worst. Why do Americans expect so little of those who are going to represent them to the rest of the world?

And yes, the Donald ... sorry, I got side-tracked ... he's everything we imagine a leader of the free world is not. (OK, he's now got a Boris Johnson from that other wannabe empire flitting through the world distracting attention from serious issues, but that too is another story for another day). He is unstatesmanlike, vitriolic, incoherent, uninformed, and ignorant of history; he is unaware of his own effect on others, easily manipulated, insensitive to others, and of questionable ethics and beliefs. Yes, yes, I know that even the most seasoned politician can be any of these things on a bad day, but this is Trump on his good days. I used to think it was cute and somewhat funny when people made jokes about a senile Reagan getting to close to the nuclear button, but I have to tell you, I'm not the only one in my personal environment who is worried about Mr. I-don't-have-to-think-anything-through-because-I'm-great having such serious access.

You know, and I know, and I've said as much before, you don't live in much of a democracy, but given the wide range of more-than-life-threatening issues on the table, it is really not too much to expect that you'd at least offer someone up for office who gives you the impression he could be taken seriously. Too many of my Trump-supporting Facebook friends are tying to push his "outsider honesty", but a billionaire is never an outsider to elites and having no tact is not the same as being honest. There are too many Americans who simply don't know the difference, and this is the behavior we have come to expect from pubescing adolescents, but not from office holders whom we are supposed to be taking seriously and whose words and actions can cause major upheavals in financial markets or peace negotiations.

A lot of people I know once did -- and still want to -- have a high opinion of America, but between the apparent increase in good old police brutality, the lost-the-plot gun stuff being reported, the obvious über-aggression of US-led NATO, and now the Trump spectacle, it's getting harder and harder to explain to them why they should be taking American seriously. I certainly can't explain it to them, even if I wanted to, because my own head wags and my own jaw drops on a regular basis, but apparently Mr. Trump is what some people envision as the "most powerful person on earth". I get shivers.

Now, I'm fully aware that the other half of the gruesome twosome to be running for office in America has yet to be officially nominated. It's a done deal, though, we all know that. And no one should think it is any easier explaining Hillary to my fellow, questioning-asking German citizens. Yes, they know she's Bill's wife, they know she held political office, they know she was Secretary of State, but it's not like she left a lasting impression on anyone around here. Well, maybe on the politically elite, but I'm talking about everyday people with every problems who have an everyday understanding of international politics. But they know what Wall Street is, and they know what Goldman-Sachs is and they who has close ties to big money and who doesn't and, well, that just raises a whole lot of other questions that, to be quite frank, I have little desire to try and explain, even if I had a coherent explanation to offer.

No, my fellow Americans, you have and you are about to make my life much more difficult than it need be. I can't explain how Americans think, because I'm not convinced myself that a whole lot of thinking is going on over there, at least politically. I don't understand the gun fetish, even if there is an alleged constitutional amendment supporting it. I don't get the massive police violence that we're seeing on the news so often. I don't understand the too numerous killings of unarmed civilians. I don't understand how corrupt and manipulated allegedly democratic processes have become, be they the passing of simple legislation, the refusal to nominate a supreme-court justice, or the curtailing of voting rights, or the circuses you call the primaries. I don't get any of that, and neither do my German friends and neighbors, but I can't explain it to them either.

Personally, I have no vested interest in who you decide to have run or who you decide to field as presidential candidates. One thing I do understand, though, is something I can't explain to them anyway, namely it really doesn't matter in the end who is finally elected president in America: nothing is going to change anyway. Not only do Americans not elect its own president, as the primaries showed this time around, they really have nothing to say about who ends up being candidate. But it doesn't matter in the end. Yes, we all like to act like and think that the President of the United States has something to say, but other than little decisions, like who gets X'd off the kill list or which tie to wear to the press conference, the real decisions, such as whether there's a drone-kill list at all, are made by others. What everyone here knows and has no trouble saying is how badly money has corrupted America's political system, and my only real recourse is to affirm that they're right: America is not politically driven, it is money driven. If the right people or enough people stand to make a profit, it will be done, regardless of the politics of the situation.

Unfortunately, they really don't understand that either. Well, to be honest, I think they don't want to understand it. Nobody wants to think that at bottom it's all about money. My mother taught me, though, that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well ... I can understand that, even if I have trouble sympathizing with it. But we truly have to ask ourselves what real options do we have?

When you've run out of explanations, the best you can do, I think, is to motivate people to ask questions for themselves, so all I can do is repeatedly admonish my fellow German (and other European friends) to ask the only really relevant "political" question we have: cui bono? (Who benefits?) And that's the question I'm asking myself post-Republican National Convention: cui bono? That's the question everybody should be asking.