Is the enemy of my enemy really my friend?

Recently, an open letter signed by 50 Republican national security experts has warned that nominee Donald Trump "would be the most reckless president" in US history. Trump dismissed the GOP "experts" as they were part of a "failed Washington elite" looking to hold on to power

The big question is: What should Hillary Clinton do with this GOP "gift"?

All of the people on this document were associated with Bush #43's Iraq war and the resulting destabilization of the Middle East.  Should Hillary be grateful to them, when they made some of the biggest mistakes in history?  They are just as incompetent as Trump is, but from the opposite direction.  Should Hillary use their statement as a weapon?  I doubt it, as Trump could use it against her.

Instead, she should say something that Trump wouldn't expect - agree with him.  They may be part of a failed Washington elite, but no elite should be destroyed without capable people ready to take on the reins of government.   She should be saying that just throwing the bums out isn't enough.  The people who replace the bums should know what to do when in office.  Just saying that we'll "Make America Great Again" isn't enough.  She should note that his so-called plans are mere slogans, and not backed up with thought.

Trump has gotten where he is, by pandering to peoples' baser nature.  He is a bully.  And weak people like bullies, as they can vicariously experience power by supporting a bully from their tribe.  This is dangerous, as this is the existential threat to any democracy or republic - the cult of. of personality.

We've seen this cult of personality many times in history.  We've seen it in the 1930's in Central Europe.  We've seen it in the 1960's with the Chinese Cultural Revolution.  And we can see it in North Korea - the only documented country where a dead person still is in charge of the government.  And now, America has a choice between Trump and Clinton.

Am I afraid?  I'd be a fool not to be a little bit scared. But I still have faith in America.  And given that the GOP seems to be falling apart at the seams, I feel in the end that America will learn to worry about cults of personality - and that is a good thing....

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.....

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.  

He kept us safe....

I have to admit - Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air, mixed with the usual smog of politics. And recently, he opened up a conversation that mainstream Republicans wanted to avoid - was George W. Bush's presidency a great failure?

In an interview, Trump opened up a pissing match with Jeb Bush, noting that Bush #43 was president on 9/11, and we went down the wrong path by destabilizing the Middle East.  Jeb responded that his brother "Kept America Safe".  Does any sane person really believe that Bush #43 actually kept us safe - even though it might be unfair to hold him accountable for 9/11?

This idea "he kept us safe" is the one thing that many Republicans hold on to which prevent themselves from massive "transformative learning". It's hard to admit that one's leadership got it totally wrong to such a large degree as Bush #43 did.  And Jeb is making the mistake of saying his brother did the right thing, while the majority of Americans (including a growing minority in his own party) believe that his brother was a total failure as president.

- - - - - -

If we go back to 2003, Bush #43's administration made a decision to remove Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq, setting the stage for a "forever war" the minute a power vacuum was allowed to exist in Iraq.  Obama, giving the American public what it wanted, pulled troops out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to form.  This was a two-stage clusterfuck. We either had to stay in Iraq, with thousands of Americans coming home in body bags - or, we could pull out, and take a risk of radical Islam gaining power.  There was no good choice - and this was Bush #43's legacy.

Did he keep us safe?  No.  But he did create great political theater to make us feel this way. When you look at the TSA and their continued screw ups, one wonders how more incidents haven't happened.  They can spy on our high tech communications.  But they can't spy on low tech (paper) in the same way.  Each time there is a failure in keeping us safe, the TSA tightens things up until the public complains, then eases off a bit.  There is no way to preserve absolute safety - but the public is being treated like a bunch of children and is not being told the truth - life, itself, is a bunch of risks.

- - - - - -

There is a growing list of politicians who are willing to discuss the mistakes this country made in the wake of 9/11.  And this is a good thing.  The GOP can not govern unless it is willing to look at itself honestly and say what they got wrong, and what they got right.  If they build on the things they do right (and we're not talking pandering to ignorant, dogmatic parts of the base), they have a chance to sell America on a market based economy, with all of the risks markets entail.  But this will include safety nets for whom the market can not serve.  If the party fails to address these points adequately, it will shrink in importance as its base shrinks as a part of the general population.

It starts and ends with a Pariah

About a year ago, I was talking with one of my friends, and she told me of an experience her sister had with a famous TV personality. At that time, I said that I would be waiting for more evidence to come out - and it did.

- - - - - -

This week, if Bill Cosby's reputation isn't shot, it soon will be, given everything being published in the media.  Oh, how the mighty hath fallen!  When the talk about Cosby mentions him giving pills to women, and the President (in no uncertain terms) defines what rape is, I do not expect that this man will be able to rescue his reputation.  But stranger things have happened before.

Years ago, 3 term Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC was convicted on drug charges, and after serving his time, was elected to a 4th term as mayor. It is amazing how many people with criminal records have been elected to public office - in the United States, and elsewhere. It's as if we expect our politicians to be criminals, and don't demand much more from them.

In many ways, we get what we deserve - we often vote out of tribal loyalty, and then complain when things don't change.  I will never vote a straight party line ticket. But I will vote against a party line.  Let's say that I am pro choice.  In this case, I would not automatically rule out a GOP candidate who has shown himself to be pro-choice.  And if I were pro-life, I'd consider a Democrat who is pro-life.  In short, I don't let the two-party system define me, and I hope that it defines the choices of fewer people in the long run.

- - - - - -

Why is it that the two party has worked so well for so long, and then failed so miserably in recent times?  In the past, both major parties had an equal balance between conservatives and liberals - in regard to social agenda.  There was only a mild bias towards or against business in each party, and one that wouldn't stop people like Theodore Roosevelt from acting against the worst of business excesses.   Today, as a result of Nixon's GOP "Southern Strategy", there are fewer social liberals in the GOP , as well as fewer social conservatives in the Democratic party. This has forced the Supreme Court to be the arbiter of major social decisions - much more so today, than in the past.

In a way, the Supreme Court's role as an arbiter is a good thing.  The two political parties reflect two extremes in our society which can never be reconciled. One side believes that the social order must be maintained, no matter how unjust it is to any one individual or group.  And the other side believes that the rights of the individual (when in doubt) trumps that of the larger community.  This divide can be defined in other ways, such a slow/fast lever defining the rate of societal change. And it has been defined as a rural vs. urban divide. But with each of these definitions, very few things bind the two sides of society together.

- - - - - -

If we look at the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations, a casual observer can see the hypocrisy in both tribes.   And it's hard to get anything useful done when the leadership of the country is delegitimized by calling the person a criminal (as int he case of Bush) or an illegal alien (as in the case of Obama). Both tribes are equally responsible for this problem, as they have made anyone who makes an overture to people in the opposing party into pariahs. 

Yet, when we look back at Bush's presidency (I think he was a poor president), one finds someone more than willing to appease his party's base. Did he get much done?  Not as much as it may seem, as we (luckily) had a Democratic congress to check and balance his political instincts. (And now, the GOP can check and balance Obama's excesses.) His legacy, as I see it, will be the unrestrained and unnuanced response to terrorism, and not bothering to finance his wars properly - as we did in all of our country's other wars. (Does anyone remember WW2 war bonds?) To me, it was the Bush administration who was responsible for the unchecked loss of domestic privacy (with unwarranted searches and seizures), the unchecked use of torture (waterboarding, etc.), and the 2008 financial system "almost" collapse.  The public (and much of the GOP) is right to consider him a pariah....

- - - - - -

My question is: Who should be a pariah?  Is it just any person who commits a heinous act for which he/she should be ostracized from polite society?  Or, does tribal loyalty have a part in answering that question.  I feel that Bush was a decent man who was playing in the wrong league - and allowed a lot of bad things to happen.  Should he be a pariah?  One thing I know, I will not be watching any reruns of Bill Cosby's shows anytime soon....

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....