Understanding our problems from a historical perspective

In order to understand what is going on with this year's election, one has to understand history. In short, one has to understand what led up to the Great Depression, what led up to Iraq War #1, the Bill Clinton presidency, the George Bush (#43) presidency (especially the response to 9/11), and the Obama presidency.  In the light of history, everything going on makes sense, and I'm still surprised that only the Libertarians have emerged to be a potential disruptor for this election.

Let's look at the Bush #43 presidency first.  He was elected with the mantra of "Compassionate Conservatism" infusing his campaign.  One would have expected him to be a president who focused on domestic affairs.  He did push a reactionary conservative agenda to appease the hard liners of the GOP base, and did appoint many conservatives to the courts. But 9/11 threw him and the rest of the country for a loop.  Politically, he couldn't allow another terrorist attack to occur without an appropriate amount of security theater - so we built up much of our dysfunctional security infrastructure in his reign.  But he also had to get us into a never-ending war, where we disrupted the power structure in Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.

Next, we have to look back at the Bill Clinton presidency.  Bill was a sex addict (no surprise, FDR and JFK also "suffered" from this affliction).  But Bill succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, leaving the US with a treasury that was spending less than it was taking in. Yet, his presidency was marred with scandals (something common in politics), and his wife was tarred with the same brush that tarred him.

Bush had a choice - should he borrow to pay America's bills for a war in Afghanistan, or should he raise taxes to pay for the war?  He chose to borrow AND decided to cut taxes - leaving whoever would following him with very tough choices - do we cut the military or social spending budgets, and which line items are sacred?  Luckily these tax cuts were temporary, and would expire after he left office.  They were designed to make a Democratic president look bad, as no Democrat would touch social spending - so he would have to let the tax cuts expire, allowing the GOP to claim he raised taxes.

The GOP has a mantra of "Less regulation brings on greater prosperity."  When the economy collapsed in 2008, a smart GOP candidate would have to ask the question: "What happens if we continue our dysfunctional policies?  Could we have another Great Depression?"  And I'll bet that John McClain realized this in 2008.  Could he tell his party's loyalists that they needed to pump money into the economy AND impose new regulations on the banking sector of the economy?  Of course not.  So he made a decision that he'll never admit making - to trash his chances of being elected President by nominating Sarah Palin for the office of Vice President.  (But he had to play dumb.  Any hint that he threw the election would damage his stature in the GOP - and he hasn't admitted that he did this yet, and I doubt he ever will....)  John McCain was very aware of what happened to Herbert Hoover.  His administration was blamed for the Great Depression, and the Democrats held the office of the President for 20 years under FDR and Truman.  I'm pretty sure that McCain figured that the GOP could brush Bush #43 under the rug, and possibly tarnish the Democrat (Obama) so the GOP could win in 2012.

Obama is elected in 2008.  We know from recent history that the GOP opposed everything he tried to do to prevent a Great Depression.  But both Bush #43's advisors and Obama's advisors were working to script legislation to prevent the worst from happening. And Obama was more successful than expected, in spite of the GOP.  He knew not to shred the social safety net while things were getting worse, and then to take away the extra support when things got better.  No matter what people did to find scandal in his administration, his was the cleanest we've had in decades.

During Obama's administration, the GOP regained control of congress.  And repealing Obamacare became a new mantra.  Hillary Clinton takes on the job of Secretary of State, dealing with many of the foreign policy decisions that Obama doesn't have the time to make, being involved in the domestic economy and its problems.  But this places her back in the cross hairs of the GOP's attacks on her.  If they could have convicted her of anything, they probably would have done so.  But the most they could do is to tarnish the reputation of a woman because she was married to a president of the opposition party who was very successful and very flawed.

The GOP congress was ineffectual in delivering on its many problems, and many in the base stopped believing in the lies told by its elite. So, Donald Trump became a great disruptor.  Voting for Trump was a vote against the GOP elite.  Sadly, Trump is a person who leaves anyone and anything he touches poorer for knowing him.  But one would have to know his history to think he's anything other than a successful entrepreneur.  

At the same time, the Democratic elite was also shown to be worthless, leaving fertile ground for Bernie Sanders' candidacy.  If it weren't for Bernie NOT realizing how powerful his message and candidacy would become, and how the Democratic party's elite structured things for Hillary to win, he might have just pulled up the upset of the century.

Now we have Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our presumptive nominees.  They have the lowest approval ratings in decades.  And the Libertarian, Gary Johnson is polling in the double digit range.  Will he be able to keep polling this high and get into the debates?  I'm not sure, but he is another disruptor. If Johnson were to win any electoral votes, and if neither Trump or Clinton win a majority of electoral votes, the presidential election could go to the House of Representatives.  Would the majority GOP states vote for Trump, or would they do something embarrassing like voting for Clinton?  I suspect that neither candidate would be acceptable, and this would leave the Libertarian (who is, I believe, a former GOP governor) as the only palatable choice. 

Could this scenario happen?  It's highly unlikely, but we've seen the strangest things happen this year, and I'm not ruling out even stranger things from happening.....

Sold American!

Years ago, one tobacco company advertised its wares with the phrase "Sold American!" Well, I am reminded of that phrase today, when major GOP leaders such as Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are calling Trump's statements totally irresponsible and offensive, and yet will still vote for him in the general election. 

President Obama joked about Trump being a candidate that the Democrats could love (because he is so bad). And then he talked about the dysfunction in the GOP and about the need for a healthy "right-center" political party to give meaningful, loyal opposition to ideas from his "left-center" party. Again, our president surprises me - he's saying something serious and meaningful, and not lowering himself to the level of his opponents.

Sadly, tribal loyalty is trumping (pardon the word) benign self interest.  There were other more reasonable choices throughout recent years, but the GOP has allowed itself to shift to the extreme right. The loyal GOP followers have only themselves to blame for Trump - they voted in liars who never delivered on their promises to the base, and now are voting for Trump because he will upset the elite. If these people had only said - the GOP's policies do not reflect my needs, and then voted in their self interest, none of the clowns who steered the GOP to the hard right would have ever gotten power. And, as a result, moderates would have worked with Democrats and dealt with serious problems.  This has not been the case....

Until the GOP base says - let's elect a truth telling moderate, the party will head towards its own destruction.  We've see what happened the last time a major American political party fell apart - and I'm afraid history will repeat itself.

Are people seeing what is going on?

The GOP has chosen the image of our destruction, and it is Donald Trump. For me, I'd support the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, but it's easy when you know how to use high power flame throwers. I can't support Trump, though I can still respect people who support him. My problem is his rise to power looks too much like Germany in the early 1930's for me to be comfortable.
With that being said, what is happening here?

Scott Adams has nailed it when he notes that Trump's lies and flip flopping has given his opposition nothing they can challenge - in the eyes of Trump supporters. Trump's labeling of his opponents: "Cheating Hillary", "Crazy Bernie", "Lying Ted", "Little Marco", et.al. has been a great way to create subconscious associations in peoples' minds that these candidates are defective.

The question is: How to beat Trump?

Hillary suffers from a double standard because she's a woman. She will look terrible trying to shout over Donald - and he will do so in any debate. So she should use props such as Whistles to interrupt Trump when he rants at a debate, then scold him like a stern mother. (Take advantage of being female for a change.)
But this doesn't address times not debating.

For these cases, her surrogates (ALL MALE) must use Trump's tactics against him. He gave a great opening with his comment about his daughter - if she weren't his daughter, he'd consider dating her..... Hmmm. Incest is one of our strongest taboos. So is child abuse. I'm pretty sure with the label of abuse, he'd look very bad among his unthinking supporters.

Then what about the rest of the voters?

Trump is an abusive businessman, as he makes money off the suffering of others. (Look at the Golf Course being built in Dubai for a good example of this.) He makes money while his partners take all the risks and get few of the rewards. (Look at his casino deals.) Then, he is just a lousy businessman. (Look at the "success" of Trump steaks, Trump Air, and the Trump clothing lines.) And would you even consider going to an uncredentialed "Trump University?" I'm pretty sure that a smart group of people can label Trump as a failure, use one word to describe him, and have Hillary use it in every speech.....

In short, to beat Trump, People have to play his game - but not let him play the Trump card.... I hope they pick up on this very soon.



PS: It looks like the Democrats have found another voice and tactic since I wrote this, while Trump is self destructing.  Elizabeth Warren is playing a stern schoolmarm disciplining an unruly child - and it is working!

Would you trust him with his finger on the button?

It's a little unfair to be using the image of Hitler.  But it's easy to understand Germany's acceptance of this man, given the humiliation that Germany endured after World War One. With riots in the streets, the German people could be easily seduced by any demagogue promising peace, order, and good government - none of which were delivered to the people of the Reich.

Today, we know more about how people choose authoritarians, and why people choose them.  An article in Vox describes how the Trump phenomenon came about, and why he is attracting support. Sadly, all the signs of another authoritarian government coming to power are there - people who value order above freedom, people who sacrifice liberty for security, in short - people who are afraid of the future, and want to restore the glory days of the past. It is no accident that Trump's motto is "Make America Great Again."  But when did it stop being great?  

Trump is known for making deals that benefit only himself.  Is there any evidence that his MO has changed?  A Trump administration is likely to be one of the most corrupt administrations America will have ever endured, as he has used questionable business practices to build his empire.  He is a con man, someone only interested in making his deal, and has no interest in seeing that the I's are dotted and T's are crossed.  

Recently, on Vice TV, they documented about the squalid working conditions that "guest workers" (read, defacto slaves) live in while building the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai.  Trump ignores laws that require we try to hire domestically first, and has staffed his exclusive resort, Mar-a-Lago mostly with imported labor. The man is a hypocrite and a total liar.  Yet, none of his supporters give a damn.

What frightens me is that this man is so fickle.  He has no consistency in pattern. He threatens to blow up any nation that doesn't bow to the power of a Trump America.  Can we trust him with "the Button?"  I doubt it.  I'm afraid that America will make the same mistake in the 2010's that Germany made in the 1930's - with the same disastrous results.  

How will we know this is happening?  Let's look at what happened in Germany.  In the 1930's they first rounded up the Homosexuals and Political Dissidents. Of course, we can not forget how many Jews were persecuted. Within 2 years of Hitler taking power, these people were persecuted.  If we change the nation to America, go after Homosexuals, Transgenders, Socialists, and Muslims, we'd have the same situation as Germany had roughly 80 years before.  We have already herded Indians onto reservations, and put Japanese Americans into internment camps, and lynched Blacks.  It's not such a big step, given the size of our prison system (which incarcerates over 1.25% of our population, the highest percentage in the world) to expand it further to hold "undesirables". And it would not be inconceivable to make the new prisoners engage in hard labor.  Does "Arbeit Macht Frei?"  I doubt it.

If you think that going to Canada will make you any safer, please remember that Canadians are also under attack from their own authoritarian politicians.  Could you imagine an "Anschluss" between the two countries?  Heck, we were once both part of a larger British North America.  I could see this happening.

Do I fear too much?  Maybe.  But stranger things have happened, and I am not comfortable (nor should you be) that Trump is running neck and neck with Hillary.  I once said that I want America to be scared shitless with Trump.  Sadly, I think that wish may just come true - and that Hillary may win a victory even closer than that won by Bush in November, 2000.

TSA - Your Government Dollars hard at work.

In the years since 9/11, we have grown used to the security procedures at our nation's airports. But there is a problem. As long as the government runs the security environment, and doesn't respond to the needs of business or the public at large, we will suffer each time we need to fly somewhere.

Years ago, President Bush said that we'd only get the best people to run Airport Security. Could any intelligent person believe that malarkey?  Other than earning a paycheck, would any intelligent person want the job?  Some TSA workers get off on hassling people.  Others are lazy.  And still many others are diligent hard workers who are doing this job until they find better work elsewhere.  How much of a career can it be for a person, when politics dictates what opportunities would be available to the average person holding the job?

One of my friends used to work for the TSA, and he couldn't hack it.  I don't know how I'd feel if I had to scan thousands of people each day for contraband, and then deal with people and their feelings.  And many people are very unhappy - especially when the TSA does not staff up to meet peak periods, and causes people to wait for up to 3 hours to get through a security checkpoint.

Are we any safer now, than when private industry put its "rent a cops" on the front lines?  I doubt it.  But the TSA agents now have better benefits than when they were employed by the private firms.  And I find that this is important to me.  Yet, I think that private industry could do a better job - with the right supervision by government.

Years ago, our military designed weapons, and handed off production to private industry. The government kept the arms makers honest by inspecting one crate out of each hundred shipped.  If any item in the crate was not up to snuff, everything shipped (in those 100 crates) was destroyed, so that the private firm couldn't ship any of the other crates.  In short, it was crude quality control, but it provides a model for what we could do with our airports.

What would happen if we had the equivalent of "ethical hackers" testing security?  (I know they must exist.  But I'm examining a philosophy here.)  If a private firm failed a test, it would be ineligible for the next round of bidding for that airport.  If no one could bid, the government would provide security as last resort.  Business could also put in requirements of minimum staffing levels for time of day and day of week - and policies to maintain both quality of service and speed of service could be established.  The airport security fee of $2.50 (?) per flight segment might need to go up.  But no one wants to risk another 9/11, and why should we....?

PS: The TSA's director was just fired by the Obama administration.