With the 2016 election cycle, we may be seeing a seismic change in American politics as we know it. America saw it happen on the brink of the Civil War, when the Whig party collapsed, and the Republicans took their place. In 1912, something similar almost happened, where the Reform (better known as "Bull Moose" party) under Teddy Roosevelt had a shot at disrupting the two party system. And now, we had two major disruptors in the name of Trump and Sanders who almost emasculated the power of the political elites to control elections.
- - - - - -
Over the past 50 years or so, we've seen great cultural change. Bill Maher commented "If you liked the 50's, you're a Republican. If you liked the 60's, you're a Democrat." In so many ways it is true - the cultural divide we have now comes from the conflict from that era. If you were a white male, the 1950's were the apex of White privilege in America. If you were a white male, you had virtually everything handed to you - as there were no challengers from other backgrounds, nor did any females pose a threat. People of color (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) had yet to demand political inclusion, and women were expected to be at home. This started to change with the protest movements of the 1960's, and the extension of civil rights to most people upset those who formerly held all the power in our society.
During LBJ's presidency (1963-1969), the Democratic party sowed the seeds that would cause it to lose the American South as a voting bloc. LBJ was forced to carry out JFK's promises (always meant to be hollow ones) to deliver civil rights to people of color and to women. This did not go well in the South. As a result, in the late 1960's / early 1970's, Richard Nixon developed a strategy to wrest the American South from the Democratic party. The "Party of Lincoln" sold its soul to gain these votes by putting every roadblock it could in the way of helping the groups LBJ helped, so urban dwellers who once voted for the GOP started to vote Democratic for the first time. This tendency continued through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, where the South and rural areas of the country became solidly Republican, while the North and urban areas of the country became solidly Democrat.
- - - - - -
America became a culturally divided country from its beginning. Rural areas of any country tend to be the most conservative in nature. In the United States, this meant that few people took chances to unionize their work forces in these areas, unless the work had become extremely dangerous (such as mine work). For the most part, jobs were few, and people took work at whatever terms were offered by their employers. It was only one step above slavery, save that the mill owner did not have to care for his employees once fired. Contrast this with what happened in urban areas. Jobs were plenty, and employees had greater bargaining power. Unions formed both to provide better working conditions and to provide better pay. Corporate socialism evolved here, and prospered when America was the unchallenged economic power in the world.
With technological change, the globalization of world markets, and a greater concern for the environment, the old orders became threatened by pressures they could not control. As technology eliminated many jobs, nothing was done for the displaced workers. As competitors from abroad forced American manufacturing to cut costs, many American workers lost good jobs and had nothing to fall back on. And as we slowly learned to stop polluting our local environment, we put local workers out of work as we shipped dirty businesses to places where they didn't care about their people and their land. In short, the promises made by both business and government to the public at large were broken. The elites didn't care what happened to the common person, as long as they stayed in power.
- - - - - -
The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is an indication that the public is tired of an elite that makes promises every election cycle, and that never delivers on its promises. Trump lies in every speech that he is making, and his supporters don't give a damn. He appeals to these voters on a more primitive level of thought. The same might be said about Bernie Sanders, except that he is not peppering his speeches with falsehoods. Instead, Bernie told the truth as he saw it - America hasn't been run for the benefit of "the people" for years, and made both an intellectual and emotional appeal to his base. Bernie's supporters are young, and see that there is no way the elites can or will do anything for them. So they gave the system a vote of no confidence by supporting Bernie. In short, the insurgents from both extremes realized the same truth - it's time to replace the ruling elites.
Trump's nomination and Bernie's failure to be nominated pose a question that America has to answer. Do we want to overthrow the elites and deal with the risks of the amateurs being in charge? Or, do we want to allow them to stay in power (with a big warning) as long as they change their tune and start looking out for the people as a whole? This question gets complicated when rumors fly about Jeb Bush looking to support the Libertarian Party's candidate for the presidency. Could the GOP establishment be looking to flee their old party, clean up its mess, and find a path to becoming a center-right party again? If so, I see the old GOP becoming a populist party for a generation or two. And I would also see the Libertarians becoming like the GOP of the 1950's. Could this be a harbinger of a potential three-party system? Who knows? But I'm looking forward to the ascendancy of the Libertarians the the collapse of the GOP.
- - - - - -
If the Libertarians become a political force to be reckoned with, the democrats will face attacks on two fronts - one social, and the other, economic. In a way, this will be good for the Democratic party. It has been around almost since the founding of the republic, and it has been good at adapting to change. Will it adapt again? Who knows? But all I can say is that I think we're seeing a political shift like we haven't seen in 150 years....
The FBI results are in. And Hillary has been shown to be a total liar regarding her server and emails. She has not been indicted. Yet, the FBI director has hinted that her actions were one step short of being indictable. Is there one law that affects the common people, and another for the elite?
I've never felt any warmth towards Hillary Clinton. Her recklessness in handling her State Department email was inexcusable, and should have resulted in her having charges brought against her. Sadly, this did not happen. It appears that the FBI investigation may have been partially defanged because the political infrastructure is afraid of a President Trump.
Both Trump and Clinton are liars. Neither speaks a truth based on facts. Yet, Trump speaks an emotional truth to people who have been neglected by the political infrastructure supporting Clinton. Trump's language is emotional, and he connects with people on a level that resonates with the more primitive sections of the brain, and not that of the prefrontal cortex. To me, this is much more dangerous, as the last politician this successful who resonated this way came from Central Europe in the 1930's.
I was rooting for the FBI to force the Attorney General to bring charges against Hillary. This would have triggered a series of actions which would have removed Hillary from the position of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and would have installed Bernie Sanders in her place. Trump could not win against him. Bernie knows how to speak the truth and gain power from doing so. Hillary does not, and her presence at the top of the ticket will make it a 50/50 chance that Trump will become president.
So the question becomes - who do we vote for? If one leans Republican and hates Trump, vote for the Libertarian party's candidate, Gary Johnson. If one leans Democrat and hates Hillary, vote for the Green party's candidate, Jill Stein. We're getting screwed either way, and the only thing we can do about it is to help a third party get the votes that could disrupt the political system.
The more Elizabeth Warren speaks in favor of Hillary, the more that it is apparent that she, not Hillary, should be the woman running for the highest office in this country. Hillary Clinton, fairly or not, has been tarred for years with the brush of dishonesty. Her detractors have said that she's a liar long enough for the fiction to become an apparent truth. People believe the slander, and Hillary has no way to show that she is an honest person. Warren, however, is a fresh face, and someone more in tune with the people - and it shows!
Warren has the charisma that Hillary doesn't have, as well as the integrity that Trump lacks. She understands the economy better than many people on Wall Street, and yet, she sides with the common person. This is a rarity...
As much as I wanted to have a Bernie Sanders led ticket, I can accept a Clinton-Warren ticket. Only one problem - Hillary would be overshadowed by Warren, and this is unacceptable for any person wanting to become president - especially a woman. So it is highly unlikely we'll see Elizabeth Warren run for anything other than her Senate seat.
- - - - - -
Warren would be smart NOT to take the offer of the vice presidential slot on the ballot. She is one of the most influential people in the Senate, and would have great power when the Democrats eventually regain control of the chamber. More importantly, her resignation from the Senate would allow a Republican governor to appoint a conservative to take her place.
Does it make sense for Warren to leave the Senate? No. But she may get caught up in this year's crazy presidential campaign. And I'm afraid of that. We need people like her in the Senate until America regains its sanity - and I don't see that happening anytime this year....
Nobody really believed it would happen. But the "Brexit" vote proved eveyone on Wall Street wrong. Once the vote count was announced, the stock market dropped over 600 points. Wall Street hates uncertainty, and the "Brexit" creates great uncertainty for all of us.
- - - - - -
The initial analysis of Britain's vote found that older people tended to vote to leave the EU, while the younger set voted to stay in the EU. The old folks will not have to live with the results of their decision as long as their children and grandchildren. But this is the last gasp of a generation who has been betrayed by its political elites, and who doesn't much care what happens after they cast their vote of "No Confidence" in the system.
Will Brexit really happen? Although it looks like it will, this was a non-binding referendum. Once the costs for leaving the EU are known, I'm not sure if the Brits won't be given a second chance to vote on this issue - as a way of asking: "Do you really want this divorce? Your husband may have had an outside lover, but he has always been there for you when you needed him - and you needed him a lot."
- - - - - -
The same forces that have affected Britain are affecting the United States (and many other Western countries). Old folk are feeling betrayed by their elites, and no one is addressing structural unemployment. The West is being tasked to absorb millions of immigrants from failed countries, and are facing serious challenges in preserving its cultures in the face of poorly educated people who have different cultural values, and who are not easily absorbed into the work force.
Donald Trump is using this issue as a springboard to gain power. However, he is not a trustworthy person. When the Brexit vote result was announced, Trump took this to be an opportunity to promote one of his golf courses there. Do you think he wouldn't use the presidency to line his pickets? I wouldn't trust him to give me the correct time!
- - - - - -
To beat Trump, Hillary has to play to her strengths. But she has to pay attention to Bernie Sanders' platform. Why? She needs the votes of America's youth. She may have to lie to them (as she has done to many people in the past), but she has to get their votes, lest they get totally screwed by a Trump presidency.
There is one problem with the above approach - No one trusts Hillary. So she will need to pick someone who can be believed. But she can't pick Bernie - it would destroy his reputation and not help hers. But Elizabeth Warren may be a good choice, if she feels she should risk Wall Street's wrath to get elected.
Is Hillary able to work with Bernie for the greater good? Can Bernie accept that his base must be lied to convincingly to get them to choose the lesser of evils and vote for Hillary? Does Bernie have enough smarts to be a smart loser, and extract as much from Hillary as possible for him to be a leader in one of the opposition wings against Trump? One thing I know. I don't want my dad's generation making decisions that will harm my children's generation - and a vote for Trump will harm my children and grandchildren's generations, and maybe more after that....
