Recently, "The New Yorker" published this little satire about Ted Cruz:
A disturbed Canadian man wants to try to get into the White House, according to reports.
The man, who was born in Calgary before drifting to Texas, has been spotted in Washington, D.C. in recent years exhibiting erratic behavior, sources said.
In 2013, he gained entry to the United States Senate and was heard quoting incoherently from a children’s book before he was finally subdued.
More recently, he was heard ranting about a plan to dismantle large components of the federal government, such as the Internal Revenue Service and the nation’s health-care program.
Despite a record of such bizarre episodes and unhinged utterances, observers expressed little concern about his plans to get into the White House, calling them “delusional.”
Although I find this article amusing, it says one important thing - the race to the White House is now on.
Lately, I find myself politically leaning towards the left, only because the right has gone off the rails. In the past, being conservative only meant that one prefers a slower rate of social change, where being liberal meant that one prefers a faster rate of social change. Now, conservatives want to roll back change - in part because many people who label themselves as conservative have been sold on the idea that if we restore the values of the 1950's, everything else will fall into place, and a prosperous America will be restored.
In the case of Ted Cruz, he denies reality to stir up his base. How many of us really think it possible to dismantle the IRS? And if we did so (with the dismantling of the government that would ensue), we'd be left with a government in worse shape than the United States was under the Articles of Confederation. Yet, the base cheers him on. But I wonder - Can any sane person take this person seriously? He is a serious risk to this country, but he's more of a bad joke being played at the expense of his base.
- - - - - -
Cruz is only one of a large field of GOP contenders for the office of POTUS. And each one of them is singing the song so popular among the GOP's base: "Repeal Obamacare." But what do any of them have to replace Obamacare?
Obamacare is not the only issue. We also have "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life". It's hard to believe that at one time, Abortion was not an issue in our society. When "Roe vs. Wade" was being decided, it was the pro-choice side that offered a compromise that the pro-life side didn't accept. And SCOTUS gave the Pro-Choice side more than it ever dreamed of. And now, "Choice" is under siege in many states. Terrorism has been used to intimidate anyone connected with or doing business with an abortion clinic. The authors of Freakonomics have shown with statistics that there is a correlation that links legal abortion to a reduction in teenager crime in urban settings. Are we ready for the potential increase in the crime rate if abortion again is illegal?
Regardless of where one stands on these issues (and I can make good arguments against the positions I support), one should be looking at the degree of honesty between a politician's words and actions, as well as that politician's position before supporting him/her.
- - - - - -
You'll note that I painted the Abortion issue from a mildly leftist viewpoint. In order to understand the Right Wing of American politics, one has to come to it from the Left. And we're seeing a GOP (largely old and white) out of sync with America's long term demographics (largely young and people of color).
The GOP's base has some legitimate complaints. We did not bother enforcing our laws regarding illegal immigration. There are over 12 million (estimated) illegal aliens resident in the USA, almost 30 years after the blanket amnesty given during the Reagan administration. And the base is rightfully upset about successive GOP and Democratic administrations not doing anything these immigrants who (wrongfully) are seen as taking the jobs once held by white males. The reality is different and more damning - neither political party has a F'ing clue about what to do about structural unemployment.
Fear motivates much of the base. There is a very high correlation between being religious and being an active member of the GOP - this being a result of Nixon's successful "Southern Strategy" which flipped the South from Democratic Blue to GOP Red. Many Christian fundamentalists are very fearful of the wrath of God - and internalize that fear. Tradition is extremely important to the base - breaking tradition is as much a cultural crime as it can be a legal crime, when it comes to maintaining the social order. This is why the battle for civil rights is triggering religious lunatics to commit terrorist acts.
When the base chooses news sources, it chooses sources that speak in the words of fear - whether or not this fear is valid. And the base is manipulated by fear. One does not have to go far to see (what should be) a small issue blown way out of proportion by lies that triggers fear in people without cause. For example, take the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM). There is no proof that stable marriages between people of the same sex harms any traditional marriage. Yet, traditionalists are being manipulated: "SSM will lead to marriages between men and livestock", "SSM will cause a complete moral breakdown in America", "God will destroy the world, if we allow SSM." The conservative media chosen by the base repeats the same messages, reinforcing fears, and stirs up hatred. And in fear and the hatred of social dysfunction, the base finds false comfort.
- - - - - -
So, what happens if we elect someone to the office of POTUS who panders to this kind of fearful person? In the past, the political machine would listen to this person (and others like him) and give him lip service. But this person (and others like him) will not be satisfied with the usual broken promises. And here is the point where the left should be concerned.
In the past, there was a ruling clique from both parties which knew how to get things done. People like Goldwater and Kennedy knew how to reach across the aisle and find votes to achieve things that benefited people on both left and right. When Johnson (a former US Senator from Texas) fought "the war on poverty", he changed the focus of bills meant to help poor black people, to laws which helped poor people regardless of color. Johnson knew that the South would never help black people, even though the whites there were directly responsible for the poverty of Blacks. But by refocusing the Southern electorate on poverty (instead of its hatred of Blacks), Johnson was able to make the electorate see that these laws benefited them as well.
Today, things are very different. It is virtually a crime for someone to work across the aisle. The GOP's base will not broach compromise with the left - it is tired of compromises they see as not benefiting them. They want ideological purity at all costs. Only through purity can the results they want be achieved. Sadly, reality differs from that faith....
We are now seeing a lot of "potential" candidates looking to establish funding for the race to the White House. The lunatics are out, because they are stirring up the party base for funds and early primary votes. Thankfully, most are unelectable. But what would happen if one of these candidates actually wins? I doubt the base will get what it wants. Instead, I see something like the Iranian Revolution of 1979 happening here - the powers that be will enforce laws to maintain (or roll back to) a conservative cultural conformity we haven't seen since the 1930's, and will not show any restraint in harming Gays, Transgenders, Political Apostates, and People of Color. "Ozzie and Harriet" would be considered leftist by the new standards of the day.
- - - - - -
I am afraid that the Democrats have (mostly) selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee designate. She will not have to fight for her nomination, and as such, she will not be at the top of her game if an energized GOP candidate opposes her. Like many centrists, I will hold my nose if I have to vote for her, as she is someone I can't trust. There is too much history behind this person for me to feel comfortable with her (or anyone named Clinton). A Machiavel like her would make a good president - but only if the people who "own" her have a desire to benefit this country at their own expense. Otherwise, a person like Hillary will use the office of POTUS for her own gain at our expense.
Let's say that something happens to Hillary. Election day 2016 is still a long time away, and anything (such as a health issue) can take her out of the running. Who do the Democrats have on their back bench that can replace her and win the votes needed to keep 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Blue? I do not have a clue. Jerry Brown of California? Possibly - but he isn't running. But who can speak the "fearful" language of the South and gain its trust? Bill Clinton is no longer available, save as someone who can help Hillary. And Obama deserves the much needed rest that he will be required to have....
- - - - - -
It is a good thing that the office of POTUS has term limits. But I wish we had a better filter to prevent unqualified people from holding the office in the first place....
No comments:
Post a Comment