Well, Donald Trump has done it again.

In another one of his all too frequent outrageous moments, an impulsive, manipulative, contrarian, self-defeating moment, Trump asked Russia to mount a cyber attack on the former Secretary of State of the United States to find more of her emails and reveal them.

This revolting request by Trump borders on treason.

Nevertheless, that is who Mr. Trump is, celebrity personality, and all. He inherently knows how to manipulate to garner unlimited media attention. Moreover, the media simply goes along, playing him up despite attempts to deride him. These absurd pronouncements by Trump, against judges, for Russian spying, calling respected world leaders gutter names and most of all his childish bluster have allowed him to cause a revolution in American politics. He has brought out older white supremacists, disenfranchised middle class individuals and a host of gun supporters with the promise of undermining the stability of the Washington establishment.

The need for change in Washington is unquestioned by virtually every thinking person. The need for a Trump president who has no respect for policy, protocol, common decency and worse – encouraging espionage against his own country suggestive of an anarchist of the highest order – is not the sort of change thinking people seek.
Just so that we understand – an anarchist, according to Merriam-Webster, is someone “who rebels against any authority, established order or ruling power.” Yes, yes, and yes. Trump meets all three.

But wait, Bernie Sanders who not so graciously, and at the last minute conceded to Hillary Clinton, fits the same definition. He too professes a desire to rebel against authority, the established order and ruling power. It is not just Trump who debases the U.S. There are far too many in the Democratic Party who are overtly proud of their anarchistic goals. Sanders and his still ardent supporters added ideas and language to the Democratic Party Platform that potentially threaten international goals and treaties particularly with Israel and the Middle East in general.

They propose programs, which are glorious in their goals but without the proper planning, can potentially bankrupt the country. I personally am in favor of universal health care but as a health care provider, I understand that it is complex issue not resolved by simply instituting an unsound economic plan. They have no patience for complexity.
Interestingly, Sanders, who in all his years in Congress was known for not much more than being someone who was unwilling to negotiate or compromise, has tapped into the young, the disenfranchised millenials.

For those who question the research suggesting that millenials are by far the most narcissistic generation listening to their demands and observing their behaviors dispels any disbelief. Sanders supporters are not asking Russia to mount an infiltration of secret documents, but they are in the street outside of the convention burning American and Israeli flags. Israeli outlets are covering these demonstrations, not many American media sources seem to care enough to report it. There are other demonstrations reported in some certain limited sources. The most enthusiastic, funniest, and clearly most immature is called a “fart-in” by a local Pennsylvania newspaper. As if an attack of flatulence in the Convention Hall and outside will somehow derail the Clinton nomination or the Democratic National Convention. Nevertheless, it shows the degrees of degeneracy and juvenile behavior the US has regressed to.

Essentially, it appears that Trump got the disenfranchised middle aged and older people, those seeking to radically alter the American establishment while Sanders got the younger ones. Either candidate is likely to change America in a variety of ways. Trump will play to his angry base while Clinton will have to continue to appease the Sanders socialist leaning followers. The election of either Clinton or Trump suggests a period of anarchy to follow. The real question for American voters is which of the two candidates will be the least stabilizing.

No one can predict the future. However, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Unfortunately, there is no conciliation here either. Historically, neither candidate has impeccable credentials. Neither has a clean, respectable record without some significant blemish. Despite the grand spectacle each Party displayed at their Conventions, neither candidate can resoundingly prove that they can be trusted to follow through in a mature balanced fashion without caving to those seeking revolution and anarchy.

In a country of more than 250 million adults, how is it possible that these are the best that can be proposed to lead the United States?