Revisiting Man of Steel And What Superman Is Really About

The recently-released film Batman vs. Superman, Dawn of Justice has been the subject of much criticism, some of it that has led to remarks about how the film's director, Zack Snyder, doesn't like Superman. Those who liked the film counter by saying that isn't true, that Snyder has crafted a story that stays true to Superman's roots and that critics are essentially too worried about having a particular vision in place.

I haven't seen BvS yet but I have seen Man of Steel. When I watched MoS for the first time, I thought it was fine but I didn't feel compelled to watch it again. That is, until I ran across it available on DVD for $7.50 and figured it was worth adding to my collection at that price.

I have read spoilers of BvS and won't get into them, but I did watch Man of Steel again to refresh my memory about the film and see whether or not the critics of that film or the strong supporters were right about it. As it turns out, both sides have valid points, but I believe the strong supporters are getting too caught up in the criticism that "Zack Snyder hates Superman" that they aren't willing to acknowledge the flaws for themselves.

I don't believe Zack Snyder "hates" Superman. I do believe that Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman enough to make his own vision for the character work. I'll touch upon a few things regarding why I believe that to be the case. First, though, I want to look at some things that worked well in Man of Steel.

* I liked the concept of Superman learning about his powers and how to control and harness them. This actually leads to a fun scene in the film in which Superman learns to fly for the first time, eventually figures out how to do it, and you can sit back and share his joy of flying around the world.

* I liked how Zod was portrayed. Zod isn't a generic "I want to take over the world" type; he's more complex than that. But that's how most dictators are: They do have a few valid points, but their weakness is that they have a grander agenda on their minds and are willing to resort to any depths to fulfill it. They use the valid points to drum up support for their agendas, then use that support to defend why those agendas are justified. This is what Zod is at his heart: He wants Krypton to survive (a noble idea) but his methods to go about it are what most people find unacceptable.

* I liked that they put Lois Lane into the loop from the start, in learning about Clark Kent first, rather than Superman first. A long time criticism of the Superman comic books was that Lois couldn't figure out Superman and Clark Kent were the same person, so why bother dragging that point along in the relaunch of the film franchise?

* The action scenes are certainly intense, some of the best done in a Superman film. Those who had been waiting for Superman to have an epic confrontation with the villain got their wishes.

Now, to what I find are the weaknesses of the film, the ones I think the ardent supporters overlook in their attempts to defend the film.

* First, there aren't enough lighthearted moments in the film, the type that remind you that Superman is a comic book character and that there will be some jokes dropped from time to time. There are a couple of moments that make you think "that's so cool" (the first time he learns to fly) or give you a chuckle, but the tone can be too serious for its own good.

* Superman, at his heart, is supposed to be trying to represent what is best about Kryptonians and best about humanity. He gets this from what he learns about Krypton from Jor-El and what he learns about Earth from Jonathan and Martha Kent.

Snyder is effective in illustrating how Jor-El, while a flawed individual, can discuss what was good about Krypton while recognizing the mistakes Kryptonians made, and believing that his son Kal-El can represent what was good about Krypton while giving an example for humans to follow. But he's not as effective at doing this with the Kents. You see it at times, but not enough.

The Kents are portrayed more as people who are afraid of what will happen to Clark Kent if more people find out what he can do, than they are about trying to instill what is good about humanity while cautioning Clark that not everyone he meets will immediately think of his powers as something cool or a benefit to mankind. It's fine for them to mention some would rather control Clark because they think he's dangerous, and certainly to mention some would want to use his powers in a way that doesn't benefit mankind.

No better example comes after a young Clark saves a busload of his fellow students from drowning in a river. I can understand that Snyder might want to get the point across that it would be tough for parents who see their child doing superhuman feats about what he should or shouldn't do, but rather than having Jonathan imply that "maybe" Clark shouldn't have saved those kids, he could say to a young Clark, "I know you want to help, I don't want you to just let somebody die, but you need to be careful how often this happens because you don't want the wrong person to learn about you and treat you as somebody to control or exploit."

* While I understand the point about Superman having to learn how to control his powers, there are some inconsistencies with how he handles himself in his first battle with Zod and his followers. At times, you see him trying to get innocent bystanders to get away from the scene or even attempt to help them, but the next thing you know, he takes an action that could actually put those bystanders into harm's way. It's this inconsistency that I believe bothers a lot of the critics. There could be an argument that Superman is learning as he goes, but it's not conveyed well enough. And if you are too focused on wanting a great action scene and not enough on how the character approaches the action, you will find it harder for viewers to understand or accept what you want to convey.

* The point about how Superman does not kill: There is a key word to add to that statement, so here's how it is: Superman does not kill indiscriminately. The times that he has killed are rare and it has been made clear that it's a last resort. (For those who bring up his actions in the New 52 comics, that's been a major reason why many comic book fans have complained about his New 52 portrayal.) But in order for his decision to kill to be accepted, you need to do a careful job building up to it.

The comic book writers did this when Superman first fought Doomsday in the comics, spending multiple issues establishing that Doomsday was a heartless, soulless monster whose only instinct was to kill. It's made clear through writing that Doomsday has killed multiple people and can match power with Superman, so it becomes clear that Superman doesn't have a choice but to deliver a deadly blow to Doomsday. In Man of Steel, we get the idea that Zod has no qualms with wiping out the human race so he and his followers can re-establish themselves on Earth, but we don't actually establish that Zod has actually killed a human, and the build to when he is about to do so isn't built to well enough. Why not just have Zod charge the first human he sees and have Superman make multiple attempts to fend him off if you want to accomplish that?

Honestly, the whole point of the final battle between Superman and Zod seems to be Snyder's wishes to have the two engage in a one-on-one throwdown, but it's not really necessary. I don't believe there was a need for that final battle and I would have been fine with Superman yanking Zod out of the scout ship after he zaps it with his heat vision and engaging in a battle in the skies, before the singularity is formed and starts pulling Zod in. Heck, if you want, you can still have Superman saving Lois and have Zod try to pull them along with him into the singularity, only for Superman to pull away at the last second.

But back to the point: The thing about Superman and the majority of superheroes out there is that they always try to find a way to avoid killing their adversary. They don't always succeed, but just because there are times when they don't succeed, doesn't mean they jump right to that line of defense the next time they confront the villain. And when there is a death at the superhero's hands, context is established so the reader or viewer understands why it happened that way. And if you don't do a good enough job of establishing context, you're going to lose some people (that goes back to the New 52 interpretation I mentioned earlier).

I believe that the overwhelming majority of Superman fans like him because he represents who they really want to be and who they want their leaders to be: Somebody who isn't perfect, but tries to be optimistic as much as possible. Superman does struggle with this ideal at times, but that's what keeps him relatable. But it's that optimism he retains that is what draws many people to him, and while exploring the complexities of the character is fine, it doesn't mean you have to lose the heart of Superman.

One final point: I know that we live in times in which many in the United States are skeptical, pessimistic or cynical about the future of the nation, but it's not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last. The Superman comic book first hit the scene in the Great Depression, the comic books got revamped to generic characters during the times of McCarthyism, the 1978 film hit theaters just a few years after Watergate, the end of the Vietnam War and in a time of economic uncertainty, and during all these eras, there were plenty of Americans who were suspicious, even hostile, toward cultures that Americans knew little about. And while Batman may have jumped ahead of Superman during years in which there was arguably more optimism than skepticism in the United States, it didn't stop people from raising a fuss when the DC Comics writers rolled out The Death of Superman.

The challenges the United States faces today may be different in some aspects than what it faced in the past, but most of the roots remain the same. And just as importantly, U.S. citizens -- and people throughout the world, for that matter -- view Superman as the character who represents what they really want humanity to become, difficult as that may be. Looking at different intepretations of Superman is fine, but that doesn't mean what became the heart of the character in his earlier years has to be lost in our current times.

Superhero Recommendations for Non-Geeks

I was always a comic book geek; I just didn't admit to it until I got older, discovered the Internet and watched animated series that came out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. These days, nobody should have any problem admitting to being a comic book geek now that superhero shows and movies are all over the place.

There are those people who still haven't paid much attention to such shows and movies, though, whether it's because they have no interest or they find that there is just too much to learn or understand in order to appreciate them. For those who have no interest, there probably isn't much I can do to spark your interest.

But for those who think it's too complicated or that you have to watch everything to understand what's going on, that's not really the case. The majority of the shows and films out there are ones that you can watch on their own without having to go out and buy all the graphic novels from the past or invest in those encyclopedias for the DC or Marvel universes.

There are a few shows and movies that I recommend to those people who don't know much about superheroes, but will give you a good exposure to their worlds while giving you good material you can relate to -- material that doesn't require you understand everybody's origin or all the trivia that gets tossed around.

My recommended list of shows and films:

* Justice League animated series: The series does a good job establishing its characters without having to spend too much time getting into everyone's backstory. And while some of the episodes date back to earlier animated series, you get enough explanation within the episodes to understand the basics and allow you to follow the rest of the story. The series does have an issue with some deus ex machina endings early on, but that diminishes over time and you can watch relationships unfold between the characters. And they keep the characters grounded in reality.

* Young Justice animated series: This series focuses on characters who aren't as well known outside of comic book geekery but spends more time exploring how teenagers act and putting over the storyline that sometimes the traditional method we believe works best, doesn't always work that way. The writers do a good job making characters relatable, to the point you aren't going to worry about the trivia that surrounds the characters in the comic book world. They also do a good job keeping the main storyline for the season moving forward while tying things up within each episode.

* The Flash live-action TV series (2014): A quick bit of trivia: There was a live-action series based on the superhero that ran in the early 1990s, but the one to track down if you are exploring superheroes for the first time is the current series. You get into the origins of Barry Allen, aka The Flash, and how he learns to uses his powers, but the meat of the series focuses on Barry's relationships with other people and how deeply he cares for his fellow human beings. The series does a good job exploring complex issues without making Barry a brooding character. It has a light-hearted tone but it takes itself seriously only when the story calls for it.

* The Dark Knight live-action movie: The best of the movies based on DC Properties. It does a very good job keeping The Joker a mysterious character. It doesn't get into his origins because it doesn't have to. And while it's the second movie in a trilogy, one doesn't have to get into Bruce Wayne's backstory to understand what is going on and what he is faced with. The acting is very good and the writing and directing are strong, and it gets across the idea that humanity will win in the end despite how hard somebody may push for a different outcome.

* Captain America, The Winter Soldier live-action movie: The Marvel Universe movies work well because, while they may be part of a series, they can each stand alone, too. The second Captain America film focuses on a relevant storyline about how far one should go to keep everyone safe, particularly when we find out the enemy we thought we were protecting ourselves against was working from within. Again, one doesn't have to understand anybody's origin in order to understand the premise or why the characters act the way they do.

* Guardians of the Galaxy live-action movie: What makes this movie so great is it took some Marvel superheroes who wouldn't be known by people who don't follow comic books and made them characters those people could relate to. The storyline falls into a more complex one that rides through most of the Marvel movies, but it works fine on its own. More importantly, it's a fun film overall, in which nobody is taking themselves seriously, yet the characters are still allowed to shine and even come across as sympathetic. It's the perfect example of how somebody can take material that may not be well known to anyone outside the comic book world and put it into a context that allows people who aren't comic book fans to enjoy it.

* Justice League: The New Frontier animated film: One of the first animated films DC rolled out that went straight to DVD, New Frontier is based on the graphic novel of the same title. It takes the characters and puts them into the late 1950s, a time in which Americans were worried about Communist threats, and the superheroes are forced to deal with how Americans behave, how they view others and the world around them, and how the superheroes have to deal with them. One doesn't need to read the graphic novel first to understand the material; all they need to know is about the various issues that impacted the United States throughout the 1950s and how they influenced people.

* Wonder Woman animated film: A hidden gem among the animated films DC released on DVD, this does get into the character's origin story but spends more time examining how Diana first comes to explore the world outside Themiscayra, particularly how she figures out how to relate to men. That subplot is what makes the film work so well, along with some great voice acting. I think it's one of the more underrated films DC put out and it's worth tracking down.

Hogan, Gawker And The Problem With "Drawing Eyeballs"

The verdict announced in former pro wrestler Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, in which a jury concluded that Gawker had indeed violated Hogan's right to privacy after Gawker published an excerpt of a sex tape involving himself and his former friend's wife, some questions have been raised about what this means for First Amendment rights.

As someone who has a background in journalism and written for newspapers for more than 20 years, I have sometimes asked myself the question as to where to draw the line regarding the responsibilities that come with freedom on the press. One of the questions that I think should be raised is whether or not something is truly newsworthy.

Gawker has gained a reputation for posting stories about various celebrities caught in embarassing situations or saying things that they probably shouldn't have said. There is a valid argument to be made that we all need to be held accountable for the things we say or do, particularly if those things have a direct impact on somebody else.

But does that really apply to the Hogan sex tape?

One doesn't have to look too far to find situations in which Hogan said or did something that he shouldn't have. A perfect example was when Hogan went on the Arsenio Hall show back in the early 1990s, proclaiming he had never used steroids. He contradicted those statements when he was called upon to testify during a trial in which WWE (then the World Wrestling Federation) President Vince McMahon was accused of distributing steroids. Hogan's admission gave enough evidence that Hogan was far from being this upstanding role model that he had portrayed during his height of popularity in the mid-to-late 1980s.

And while some may argue that allowing Hogan's right to privacy to trump Gawker's ability to publish something it can verify to be true, could mean Gawker could be shut down in a more serious matter, that doesn't mean Gawker should be allowed to do whatever it wants, any more than somebody claiming a right to privacy should be allowed to do whatever that person wants. An elected official who believes a transaction with a massive campaign donor should be kept private faces a higher standard: That elected official can shape policy that can affect many people and there is enough reason to believe the donor wants to influence that policy. Thus, there is a benefit to the greater good of society to make that transaction public and to hold the elected official and donor accountable.

But who exactly benefits from the release of the Hogan sex tape? If Gawker is honest, the only real benefit gained there is the ability to draw eyeballs to its website.

It's true that any publication, whether print or online, needs to draw readers in order to pay its bills, everyone who works for a publication needs to ask whether there is a greater benefit gained from releasing information and how that greater benefit will apply. Those who follow the mindset of only wanting to draw eyeballs, no matter the cost, may make questionable decisions and do more harm than good.

I have seen some good content from Gawker and the sites it oversees, but I believe the staff often falls into the trap of wanting to draw viewers at the expense of anything else. This means misleading headlines, useless information and material that is designed more to embarrass somebody than to hold them accountable populates the site. Gawker is not the only site to fall into these traps, but when it does fall into these traps, the staff needs to be held accountable, just like anyone else, be it a public official, a celebrity or a private citizen.

The temptation to "draw eyeballs" can be hard to resist, but those involved in any form of journalism must resist it if they want to be trusted to put out a product that truly informs people and serves the greater good. Those that only care about the number of viewers at the expense of everyone else become nothing more than gossip sites, drag down the quality of journalism and don't really provide a benefit beyond just "drawing eyeballs."

Education And Persuasion, Not Coercion, Remain The Best Methods

Donald Trump's Presidential campaign has drawn protestors to his recent campaign rallies and one was cancelled after Trump couldn't deliver his speech over protestors who spoke loudly. The next thing you know, verbal altercations between Trump protestors and supporters became physical.

Make no mistake: I don't agree with many of the things Trump says and, in some cases, he is wrong, bottom line. With that said, the price we have to pay for First Amendment rights is that Trump is allowed to speak his mind.

At the same time, protestors are allowed to peacably assemble and they can't be removed from the rallies, no matter how much Trump supporters may not like it. And the protestors have to deal with Trump supporters and whatever peacable means they demonstrate to back him. But once the protestors become disruptive to the point Trump can no longer speak, they have crossed a line, just as supporters who decide to punch out a protestor have crossed a line.

Shouting down somebody whose views you don't agree with, or even views which most agree are wrong to hold, is a form of coercion. Ditto for anyone who tells somebody scheduled for an appearance that they are not allowed to discuss a particular viewpoint or anybody who resorts to physical attacks to retaliate against somebody who holds an opposing viewpoint.

I am a believer in education and persuasion to get people to understand why certain views and language are unacceptable. Educations means taking time to explain why certain views are wrong to hold, by using facts and research to support that explanation. Persuasion means getting a person to understand why the view is wrong through explaining what is a better way to convey a viewpoint or communicate with people.

Coercion is the easy way out. Sure, you don't want to hear somebody throwing around racial slurs or stereotypes, but implementing a "zero tolerance" approach is only going to be met with more resistance. It also means you aren't truly promoting one of the basic ideas behind the First Amendment: That ideas should be freely exchanged and open discussion is important to evolving as a society.

When I entered college, I didn't know everything there was to know about the world. I still don't know everything there is to know today. That's no different from anyone else. Yet what happens when colleges decide that certain topics are not to be discussed whatsoever because those running the colleges don't want anyone to get upset? How can one truly learn more about the world around them and why certain things shouldn't be said without allowing students and professors to openly discuss things and reach a better understanding about how to communicate?

And while it's often difficult to get points conveyed to a person who is convinced that what he or she believes in is absolute and should never change, any response or method that results in coercion is not going to convince the person to change his or her mind. In some cases, there may be no guarantee to can change that person's mind. But you have a better chance of doing so through education and persuasion, than you ever will through coercion.

Coercion is easy to do and requires little to no thought. Education and persuasion are difficult and require more thought. But, ultimately, the latter two are the better route to go.

And as much as we may not like to hear what certain people have to say, we must recognize that they have a right to say it. If we want to prove them wrong, that requires us to use reason, research and facts to do so, things that take time to put together. Simply shouting those people down may not require time, but it's not the right way to do it.

Authoritarianism And Writing

I found this article about the rise of American authoritarianism to be a fascinating read. What made it fascinating was not just what it says about how the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination race is taking shape, but about so many of the books I've read and the movies I've watched.

There's a theme of authoritarianism that runs to a degree in books such as The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner and Divirgent, and in the Star Wars franchise and Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier. The whole idea of how fears about change and threats abroad can lead to the rise of a push to keep people safe, to prevent change or to ensure little deviates from what certain citizens believe should remain societal norms, result in the rise of such leaders who promise to protect those norms and keep people safe.

Authoritarianism certainly allows for an author to present a natural conflict in a story: A character who sees an issue with societal norms and wants to push for change, coming against those in charge who want to keep those norms in place. The character has legitimate reasons for pushing for change, while those in charge having their reasons for not wanting things to change.

What was interesting about the article, though, is that those citizens who do tend to favor authoritarianism have legitimate worries. These worries are not really touched upon in the books or movies I've mentioned, but raise the interesting point about what happens once somebody who holds absolute authority is removed from power. It's likely those people who would embrace authoritarianism will still exist, whether they were among those in power or not.

But this leads to the question about what happens when authoritarianism does prevail. As we have seen in history, ideas are shunned, difference of opinion is not allowed and conformity is pushed ahead of curiosity. That's not a field in which writers can flourish, of course.

Yet while I would believe many writers would openly reject authoritarianism, I wonder how many have those deep-rooted fears the article discusses. It's possible that even those who present conflicts such as those I've described may be prone to letting deep-rooted fears dictate the type of leader they wish to follow.

I don't necessarily believe it's reflected in writing, either. It's possible for a writer who doesn't embrace authoritarianism, or doesn't allow their fears and worries to cause them to accept certain positions, would consider making an authoritarian a protagonist. And a writer who may allow that could still write a story in which the authoritarian is the antagonist.

One thing is certain, though: Authoritarianism presents a natural conflict for a writer to explore. I imagine we'll see more of it in books, movies, TV shows and other media.

In the meantime, it's worth asking how much we want to embrace authoritarianism or let our fears lead us to decide who we want to support for elected office. After all, no writer wants the exchange of ideas to go away any time soon.

Think About Issues Like You Think About Your Writing

My experiences with novel writing have helped me in more than just writing but with how I examine real-life issues. In fact, I've seen similarities between what writing a novel is all about and what most real-life issues are really like.

The politicians, pundits and meme creators want most issues to be boiled down to as if it were "us vs. them." That sounds like the basic plot for every novel that's out there, doesn't it? But when one falls into the trap of "us vs. them" when it comes to a major issue, one starts thinking about the issue as if it were like flipping a coin and whether or not they believe in the saying "tails never fails."

Imagine if we writers started thinking of every novel we wrote in those terms. It's true the plot is part of every novel, but the advice many writers share is not to focus too much on the plot because then you lose sight of everything else. It's the same way with facing any major issue in life: Focus too much on the opposing sides and you're losing sight on many other elements that matter.

Instead of thinking about an issue like the decision on a coin toss, thinking about an issue like a jigsaw puzzle is a better approach. A typical jigsaw puzzle is rectangular, meaning it has four corners. Such a puzzle has four corner pieces and no more than that. These are the pieces that are the easiest to determine where they belong. Those pieces are closer to the "opposing sides" on an issue and the plot in any novel.

Then you have a number of pieces that belong on the edges, but it may take some time to figure out where they go. When it comes to an issue, the equivalent of the edge pieces are factors that can be observed pretty easily, although it may take time to figure out what effect they have. When it comes to novel writing, those elements would be the characters, the setting, the conflict and any other element that helps drive the plot and helps the reader understand the plot.

And then comes the remaining pieces, which all go somewhere in the middle. These are the pieces that take the longest time to sort out and determine where they go. When it comes to an issue, these are the factors that aren't apparent at first and require digging deeper, sometimes where you have to question whether what you believe to be true or the best method turns out otherwise. It's not an easy task, no matter how much we wish it were, but we must do this if we are going to complete the picture.

How does this apply to a novel? It's how we find out what our characters are really like, how do they react to situations, and what we find out makes sense from their perspective. Sometimes when we write, we think a character will go one direction, but we find out that what we wrote doesn't make sense for that character. We review what we write and believe that it's better if the character went this direction or reacted differently. We question whether the situation makes sense and how it can be adjusted if it doesn't.

That's the difficult part of writing a novel. Sometimes we may find the characters don't react the way we think they should, but we better be prepared to adjust our thinking if we want the novel to work. Otherwise, we won't have a completed work.

The more pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, the longer it can take to put it together. That is true with the more complex issues we struggle with. Regarding novels, it's not just the length that comes into play, but the complexity of our characters and situations.

It's easy to fall into the trap of "us vs. them," because that's how writers will often start their ideas. But once they start writing and thinking more about what they have in mind, they find that it's more than just "us vs. them." So I would hope writers would think the same way about real life.

Sanders, Trump And American Voter Frustration

The 2016 Presidential race has begun and if it wasn't evident earlier that a lot of people were frustrated with the way things were going in Washington D.C. and how the leaders of both major political parties were conducting themselves, it should be evident now.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have leadership that seem to be less interested in thinking outside the box and more interested in being upset that things didn't go their way in 2008. Top GOP folks continue to believe there was nothing wrong with how things were run under George W. Bush with a GOP majority in Congress, while certain Democratic leaders give the impression that they still can't believe Hillary Clinton didn't win the nomination in 2008. Neither side wishes to acknowledge what the real problems are and the roots of voter frustration.

Regarding Sanders, it's true that a lot of the solutions he has proposed aren't workable, but that doesn't mean we need to look the other way and pretend everything is OK. This seems to be what the Democratic leadership wants to do, though, where a common line preached is that Clinton is "more electable" and that if the Democrats are divided, the GOP takes the Presidency. These are lines, though, that the frustrated portion of the Democratic party, or those who left the party, are tired of hearing. They want somebody who will at least offer alternative suggestions, even if they aren't all realistic and some won't stand a chance of passing.

Furthermore, there's a large perception that the segment of the Democratic leadership who wasn't happy that Clinton didn't win the nomination in 2008 had their minds set on ensuring that it happened in 2016. All you have to do is look at how few Democrats announced they would seek the nomination, how few debates were scheduled and how those who entered the race were quick to pull out. Democratic party leadership cannot shatter this perception by simply declaring that if the members don't unite behind Hillary, the GOP wins the election.

As for the Republicans, the rank-and-file would love nothing more than to get Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio into the White House because neither will attempt to rock the boat. Ted Cruz is not like that, although his appeal is somewhat limited. Cruz draws interest from the deeply religious in the GOP, but that group is a small minority with a loud voice. And like with other GOP candidates that group backed, Cruz will get a few wins but not enough to win the nomination.

The real threat to GOP leadership is the man with a legitimate chance at winning the nomination, Donald Trump. As with Sanders, many of his proposed solutions aren't workable, and unlike Sanders, Trump seems less interested in eloquence and more interested in playing up to the crowds. But at the heart of the support for Trump's candidacy is GOP voter frustration. More members of the GOP are realizing how many mistakes were made in the George W. Bush years and are tired of seeing the same old rhetoric from leadership.

And yet the more I read, the more I find that leadership in both parties are clueless to what voters are really frustrated about. To put this into perspective, there's something I saw a few years back about how one concern of the Tea Party and one concern of Occupy Wall Street are actually linked together. It goes like this:

* The Tea Party believes that the government is too powerful.
* Occupy Wall Street believes that corporations are too powerful.
* The heart of the matter: Corporations influence government leaders to form legislation that's favorable to corporations in exchange for financing the campaigns of said government leaders.

The third point is a major reason for the real problems facing the United States and leaders in both parties may not be oblivious to that, but they sure act that way.

If the leaders of both parties are going to take an honest approach to addressing voter frustration, it needs to be realizing that Corporate America cannot continue to run the show. That doesn't mean you take the exact opposite approach of milking Corporate America for all it's worth, but it does mean you need to take a deeper look at issues of taxation, wages, immigration, social welfare, health care and foreign policy and figure out a different approach to them, rather than party leadership continuing to roll out its version of "we have always done it this way."

Most of all, the favorites of both party leadership need to pay closer attention to that frustration and start thinking outside the box for themselves. They especially need to realize that the issues are not like flipping a coin and calling heads or tails, but they are like a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle that will create one big picture, but has many pieces that form that picture.

But as long as the leadership of both major political parties continues to portray legitimate voter frustration as just a phase people are going through, and that candidates like Sanders and Trump are only destined to tear the parties apart, nothing is going to get solved, voter frustration will worsen and it's far more likely that the parties will get torn apart for good.