To impeach, or not to impeach, that was the question

As of early December, it looks like the Democratic controlled House will impeach the President, and that the Senate will vote to acquit him.  Our country is so polarized, that no GOP Senator would risk being "primaried" because s/he voted to convict him of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  We're seeing a political hypocrisy that we haven't seen since the Clinton impeachment. And it's so sad....  

Donald Trump is a narcisist. He will revel in the House presenting the impeachment to the Senate for a trial.  At that time, political hell will break loose.  The GOP will put their wagons in a circle and defend a president that most elected officials dislike, but our powerless to control.  (Shades of 1930's Central Europe....)   But there are ways that sane men and women from both parties could prevail if they gave the process some out of the box thought.

Many in the mainstream press report that most of the GOP Senators would vote to convict if their ballots were cast in secret.  There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the Senate from making rules to allow this to happen.  Since politicians are in the business of lying to their constituents at times, saying that they were one of the handful of GOP Senators who voted to acquit should be easy for them.  Will Mitch McConnell take this way out of trouble?

An option that involves the House would be to impeach the president, but not send the articles over to the Senate until they are complete.  The house can approve a subset of articles based on current investigatory evidence, and hold off delivering the indictments until a full investigation is complete - sometime in late 2020.  This would prevent the president from getting the Senate acquittal he wants and allow the House to continue presenting public evidence through election season.  An added benefit for the Democrats would be to allow their presidential candidate Senators to continue their campaigns without having to be in Washington, DC for the Senate trial.

This nation has a serious problem.  Adding "Democracy" to the presidential nominating process has encouraged the bases of each party to grow more and more extreme.  When I was young, there wasn't that much that separated the left and right wings of American politics.  The party leaders would allow the base to voice its opinion, and prevent "extremists" like Lester Maddox and George Wallace (who later moderated his views) from getting on a nationwide ballot.  It is no coincidence that politicians pander to the base before the primaries, and move to the center afterwards. Over time, this process served to cull the centrists from both parties and leave people who want a winner take all process - and we all lose out because of that.

Given the polarized bases, might a middle road be chosen?  The majority of people polled want our president removed from power.  But this doesn't apply to his base.  It will accept no evidence that he has gone past tolerable political limits.  Do we have still have leaders in government who know how to finesse the system to deny the narcissist in chief what he wants - an acquittal?  The jury is still out on that verdict, but I hope they figure out something, as it doesn't bode well for people who have faith in the 2020 elections.

Disgust!

Yes, we are in danger.  Years ago, the GOP nominated David Duke for governor of Louisiana, because of the fouled up politics of that state.  And then, almost all of the GOP elite (including the sitting president, George Bush #41) rejected Duke, and many encouraged Louisianans to vote for a Democrat (who happened to be a crook).

Sadly, today's GOP will not disavow racists - because it sends a signal that there are democrats who are better qualified for office than anyone nominated by the GOP.  Why is this sad?  Well, it means that tribal loyalty now is valued more than national loyalty, or loyalty to any principle.

What would happen if Hillary Clinton wins in the fall?  Not much. The dysfunctional elite who have been running the this country into ruin for the past 50+ years would stay in power for another 4 years.  But what happens if Donald Trump wins?  Chaos. The financial markets already worry about Trump defaulting on the national debt. Whereas, I worry about things such as ignoring the Geneva Conventions on War, and saying that anything goes.  I wonder what our military thinks of that?

I am totally disgusted by today's GOP, as it no longer stands for true market based economic conservatism, and social restraint. One writer sees the Goldwater nomination as the root of today's GOP insanity - and I can't argue against him.  Today's GOP is willing to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich (it makes sense economically, but creates great social unrest), and radically affecting the freedoms most Americans love - all in the name of security and a "Forever War".

Does the Democratic party have much more to offer?  I doubt it.  As Will Rogers once put it, 

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Because they are less organized than the GOP, the Democrats usually cause much less trouble than the GOP does. Sometimes, they can do a lot of good - as in the case of setting up Obamacare. Obamacare with its flaws, is meant to be tinkered with.  So the GOP does have the ability to fix what's broken - but won't do so.  Will the Democrats fix Obamacare? No, because they keep playing defense to preserve it.  It will take a leader beholden to none of today's political factions to repair what's broken without removing access to affordable health care from people who currently have it.  (For this discussion, let's ignore the GOP states NOT accepting Medicaid expansion funds which would have kept health care affordable for the upper tier of the working poor.)  Are we better because of the GOP?  No. It took the Democrats to make it possible to tinker with America's health care system.

So who do I support?  I'm not sure, but I'm thinking that it might be good to see the Libertarians win a few electoral votes to force the presidential election to the House of Representatives, and see if the GOP blinks.  No one I know likes Trump or Hillary, but yet will hold their noses and vote for one or the other (unlike Jeb Bush - a worthless, spineless, gutless Republican who can't keep his promises).  But I do see people liking the Libertarians or the Greens - and I wouldn't mind either forcing the election into the House for the first time in over 200 years....


PS: On the evening this post was published, Donald Trump made a veiled statement regarding the assassination of the democratic nominee (assuming she were elected president) to prevent her from nominating leftist judges.  Many in the GOP still defend Trump, saying he was misunderstood. There is no excuse anymore for anyone in the GOP to support Trump in the general election, or in the House, if this unlikely scenario were to occur. If this threat doesn't turn people away from Trump and all of his apologists, then I feel very afraid for this country - very, very afraid..

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.....

Now that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, now what?

If the lunatics were in charge of the above asylum, I'm not too sure of how bad things would get. However, the lunatics are now in charge of the asylum below, and there's no limit to how much damage they can do....

Here's the problem - the wingnuts from the GOP's extreme right wing have taken over the party, and people like Ronald Reagan would be considered a leftist if his actions were listed without his name being attached to them.

Why is this important?

There is a lot of damage that can be done when one party is in charge of the legislative branch. There is even more damage that can be done when the same party is in charge of both legislative and executive branches of government. Regardless of what one thinks of today's Democratic party (and I don't think much of them), I am very upset at the rhetoric coming from the party in power.

- - - - - -

I'm a person who believes that as much power in society as possible should be left in the hands of the individual, and not the big corporation or big government. So my philosophy had led me to support a "pro choice" position on abortion, as well as a "pro 2nd amendment" position on gun control. The opponents of my viewpoints have valid reasons to disagree with me, and I respect their positions as important enough to discuss. In a healthy society, this discussion would lead to policies that would minimize the negative effects of preserving these individual rights. Sadly, in our society, both parties (and their supporters) are shouting past each other, saying nothing that the other side finds worthwhile to listen to.

This post will not be one that attempts to justify my position on these controversial issues. I could almost as easily justify the opposite positions on these issues - save that I don't want big government, big business, or some moral zealot telling me what I can do (or not do) with my body, and another moral zealot telling me what I can (or can't) use to protect myself (and my rights).

- - - - - -

When one party gains too much power, it can implement laws without the consent of a significant number from the opposition party. We live in a society where important decisions are being made with a public that is split 50/50 down the middle on most issues. Sometimes, this is needed. Other times, the opposite (no action) would be the best course of action to take.

Our founding fathers designed the American system to slow down the pace of decision making. The House of Representatives was designed for hot heads to vent their steam, while the Senate was designed to let bad bills go and languish in committee until they are dead and buried. This is very different from a unicameral parliamentary system as used in most of the British commonwealth - where one party can act very quickly. and get voted out (a vote of no confidence) at a moment's notice.

We suffer from a system which has become sclerotic. But should we be in a rush to change our system?  I doubt that major changes are needed. Instead, I think we need "small" changes such as term limits and non-partisan (or bipartisan) drawing of congressional district maps. We might also consider laws that break up the two party monopoly, mandating the governmental support for a third party in the same way that the Democrats and Republicans are supported in most states' laws today. Another avenue to help third parties would be laws to allow third party cross-endorsement of major party candidates. No matter what, we need to do something to destabilize the two major parties, as to help facilitate new ideas in the "public debate"....

- - - - - -

I find it amazing that both the Tea Party (on the right) and many leftists believe that the big banks are out of control. Yet they haven't bothered to look across the aisle to find that common ground needed to design meaningful regulation of the financial services industry, to rebuild checks and balances (like the Glass-Steagall act which once separated Commercial Banks from Investment Banks) needed for a sound economy.

In 2008, we almost saw a complete systemic collapse of the banking industry. I was in a bank that was reasonably well capitalized (I can't say anything about it now, as I no longer follow it in detail), while other "too big to fail" banks could have collapsed had the Federal Government not stepped in to save them.  (The HBO movie, "Too Big To Fail" gives a good idea of what was happening behind the scenes, and shows how close we were to the collapse I still fear so much.)

Recently, in the latest "Must Pass" bill, designed to keep the Federal Government running, we saw a relaxation of the "Dodd-Frank" rules that were designed to help prevent another systemic collapse of the financial system. Sadly, this bill was signed into law.

Right now, the lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Will they continue to act irresponsibly, now that they have the power to govern? I'm not sure. But I hope things will change for the better....