I realized a couple of weeks ago that I need to do some thinking about how to survive this year’s presidential elections without getting angry or crazy, or surrendering to much space in my head to enraged mobs, or to worthless and undeserving people and media arguments.

There is no angry mob in the history of the world that did any good, from Frankenstein to modern-day America, so I’ll stay on the fringes, where I belong. I am proud to say I have never been a part of any mob. You are invited to be on the fringes with me.

There is really no escaping politics this year, it is in the air, online, everyone is talking about it. I can limit how much of this stuff I drink, but I’m not sure I want to avoid all of it, or should.  I do live in this country and love it, I do care about it. My daughter lives here, and possibly, her children one day,

It’s an odd balance to have to strike, following all of this without being subsumed by it. I’m going to work at it. I mean, it’s going to be a long year, I want to try and be helpful, for me, for you. Reader beware: If you want to argue about who should be President, or whether the right is better than the left, or vice versa, do both of us a favor and stop reading now.

First off, I decided to share the experience with someone I admire, but also someone who is an alter ego, someone brilliant and wise but very different from me. I chose H.L. Mencken, the great journalist, cultural critic,  and political observer of some decades ago. I dug out a couple of his books, and ordered a few more online. I remember that when I first moved to the country and bought my cabin, I chose Thomas Merton as my grounding and spiritual guide and partner.

His own journals and writings grounded me and supported me when I need it.

I think Mencken will do the same for me this year, I will read him every day, or as often as necessary. It looks to only get louder and meaner. Mencken has already helped me, offered me a way to look at things.

Mencken was a cynic, and in many ways, an angry, even hateful one, but he had a genius for grasping the soul of a new and rambunctious nation. He wrote in the mid-part of the last century, and was widely read and influential.  He had such low expectations for politicians and the wisdom of the people that almost everything that happens in politics seems to turn out better than he might have expected.

He wrote once that a good politicians is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.

We live in a democracy where the will of the people is supposed to prevail, but rarely does. Do not get upset by ugly and frightening political movements, he wrote, they will always fail because the big money and power people in New York and Washington know real revolutions are bad for business and upset stockholders. They are not going to give up their power because we say they should.

One way or another, most radical political movements  are doomed. The people make revolutions, but the big boys and girls always suppress,  co-opt or define them. Thus it has always been.

We live in the Corporate Nation now, and no CEO wants the bottom line disrupted or massive amounts of wealth re-distributed. They always find a way around the will of the people if they need to. Sometimes that is a travesty, and sometimes a good thing. The will of the people is not always wise or benign either.

H.L. Mencken believed  that democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. In one of his famous utterances, he wrote that no one in this world, so far as I know – “and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

His view of democracy is harsher than mine, but he does offer perspective. And perspective is the ticket to surviving the election year, the pundits and screamers on cable TV are not going to be of much help.

There is a great blood cry in the land now for radical leaders, everyone seems to want a leader who will change a political system almost everyone thinks is damaged or broken. The term political radicalism refers to political principles intended to alter existing social and governmental structures through revolutionary means and changing the values of a culture in fundamental ways.

Traditionally, Americans have hated and feared radicals, shooting them, deporting them, jailing them. Radicals have always been driven to the margins of our political culture, there are hardly any in elective office and you will not find any spouting political wisdoms on Fox News or CNN or in the pages of The New York Times. The American political system has always pushed citizens towards the middle – it was designed to prevent violent conflict through negotiation and compromise  – and so the most interesting people are the ones we never hear from.

They are not allowed anywhere near TV cameras or microphones.

In recent years, the middle of the political system seems to be vanishing – there are few moderates left in Congress,and politicians reject compromise and negotiation  – and perhaps that is a reason why this election features the stunning appearance of two increasingly beloved radical politicians: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. They are both quite different, of course, and exist on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but they are both raising hell with conventional ideas about who can run for President and how.

They are both suggesting that our system of government no longer works well.

It seems many voters are agreeing with them, and getting radicalized as well.

There is almost no political trend that H.L. Mencken did not foresee or understand. That is why he is so valuable to me this year. I need some help in sorting this new reality out.

And he does make me think, rather than argue. Mencken wrote that the notion “that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen, driven to despair.”

I guess I have to concede that I am a political radical also, I am not a member of the “left” or the “right,” but I do like the idea of altering social structures through revolutionary means, if necessary, and changing the values of the culture in fundamental ways. I believe in caring for the poor, among other things, I believe health care and education are human rights. I believe in small government generally getting out of people’s way. I believe in full equality for women.  I believe government is a necessary evil, given that we are not good enough to be trusted with governing ourselves.

In my mind, there is no label to describe me, I get to define myself.

My idea about surviving this election is to pay some attention to it, but not too much. I want to know what is happening, but I don’t want to swim in it or have it supplant good books and movies and sex and peace of mind. My life is not an argument and neither are my political beliefs.

I look at it this way. I argue with my life, I vote with my life, I make my statements through the way I live, not through the arguments I make, or the posts I put up on Facebook or the yammering boobs of the left and the right. They are in my mind, polluting the sweet spring of freedom.

All I can do is live honestly and lovingly and with as much compassion as my complex self can muster. That is my vote, that is my argument. If you are looking for a fight, there are plenty of other angry places for you go go. If you are seeking a way to survive the angry din, stick around. I will try to help you.

I truly do not care who you decide to vote for, it is not my business. And I have interest at all in fighting with you about your choices. If you want to label  yourself, that’ s also up to you. I don’t play that game. Trust yourself, your face in the mirror is the only one you need to respect.

Me and my Election 2016 buddy, H.L.Mencken will be covering Election 2016 in our own eclectic way.

Wrote Mencken: “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.”