Does anything said make a difference at this point?

By this point in the campaign, I'd expect that in a normal Presidential Race, we'd have more undecided voters. This year, we have people from both parties who are sick of the choices given to us by the two major parties, and want another choice.  Given the above chart (issued on 10/16/2016), it looks like 9% of the public wants to vote "NO" to both Trump and Clinton, leaving 6% of the public in the "Undecided" category.

If we factor out the two minor parties, the chart looks like this:

This chart implies that 8% of the vote is up for grabs, making it highly likely that Hillary will win.  Although anything can change up to election day, the above two charts do not look good for Trump.

- - - - - -

The big problem with elections is showing the public that they have not been rigged.  It is much harder to falsify votes once cast. Instead, the two parties fight to keep people loyal to the opposition from getting to vote.  But what happens when a vote is as close as it was in Florida's  Bush v. Gore battle?  One could legitimately say that the election was stolen by Bush and his friends. Yet, Gore had the grace to concede, knowing that he could have destroyed America's faith in this most important of citizen rights and duties.

In some states, the incidents of election fraud are not myths.  Elections can and are being rigged by corrupt politicians who manipulate vote casting machines.  In other states, even the dead have voted. Yet, for the most part, our elections are reasonably honest and can be counted on to accurately reflect the will of voters in the territory covered by the ballot.

Unfortunately, Trump is now putting the electoral process into question.  He is accusing unnamed "others" of trying to rig the election. He is taking legitimacy away from the process in the eyes of his supporters, and this is dangerous. Assuming that Trump loses, his followers will not believe the results of the election.  (Gore's supporters had a better claim that the election was stolen from them, but the need to hold the electoral college election for POTUS may have been more important than the accuracy of Florida's vote.) Can you imagine what could happen if a bunch of disaffected, armed Trump followers don't hear an honest concession speech from Trump on November 8th?  I shudder at the thought.

- - - - - -

If one studies German history of the 1920's and early 1930's, one sees eerie parallels to what is happening in the United States.  In Germany, hyperinflation destroyed the financial power of Germany's middle class. In the United States, the effects of globalization did the same to many in the middle class, as there was no safety net or shock absorber for these people.  No wonder why they both sought out a "messiah" to deliver them from their suffering. Sadly, neither group could articulate its problem, nor could they come up with a leader from their own ranks who could challenge a corrupt elite.  As a result, the Germans put Hitler into power, and we risk putting Trump into power.  

In America, we have systemic unemployment, and no one dares to speak those words. People in rural areas do not have access to the opportunities of the city, and they couldn't even afford to move to the cities if they could leave their homes. The one factory, mill, or mine has closed down, leaving people with no way to escape poverty.  A similar situation exists for those in the inner cities, as we have neglected the needs of the poor, and avoided addressing both social and educational needs that would help them break the cycle of poverty.  We warehouse those who break laws in prison, permanently tainting them with a scarlet letter of a criminal record, and then expect that they compete for the few jobs left for those with "checkered backgrounds".  The prison-industrial complex is hurting both rural and urban areas equally, and is helping to keep the poor in both areas from advocating for their own interests.

- - - - - - 

Globalization has hit America hard, and both rural and urban areas have suffered because of it.  No job is safe any longer.  Yet, no one is proposing the form of safety net or shock absorber we need for our labor force.  We do not provide for workers to retool themselves for the future.  We do not limit the export of jobs that can be done anywhere, so that Americans are only serviced by American workers,  Why is it that we place call centers in India, when this work can be just as easily done by people in rural West Texas, a Lakota Sioux reservation, and Chicago's South Side?   There is no reason that we don't reserve most of these jobs for Americans, and pay the higher product prices needed to bring this labor back home.  

Our elites are the problem, and they must be replaced.  However, we must be careful to make sure we know how to operate the levers of power as we throw the bums out - or we will make things worse with a rebellion that is not thought out.  Years ago, General Patton recognized the need to keep some ex-Nazis in charge of operations in occupied Germany. Contrast this with George Bush and the occupation of Iraq - he threw all ex-Baath party members out of power, and they had chaos.  

For those who still want to vote for Trump, I have one question:  Are you ready for the chaos that his election or defeat will likely cause?

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.

Armistice Day

Armistice Day.  We now call it Veteran's Day, as a way to honor those who served.  But, in America, we've lost the true meaning of the holiday.

There are many cemeteries in Europe in which are buried the bodies of soldiers who died in World War One.  This was the first global war in our world's history, although most of the killing was done by the European powers and their proxies.  It was considered "the war to end all wars", and yet, there was another world war within a generation.

What is it about humanity that leads us into war?  Could it be the nature of the Alpha Male is getting out of hand when large populations are involved?  I have no idea. But one would think that as a species, we'd have learned how to dampen this tendency in humans.  Sadly, we haven't yet learned how to do this.

- - - - - -

We have one political party which has had a collective myopia, being hawkish about getting into war, but with no clear plan of what to gain from making that war.  Have they learned anything from the lessons of 11/11/1918?  I doubt it.  They were responsible for us squandering billions of dollars in Iraq, claiming that we needed to make that nation "Safe for Democracy".  Does anyone think that Iraq became better off because of our involvement? And then, this party wanted us to invade Syria and remove another dictator.  Do they want to keep getting us involved in areas of the world, where a potential removal of our troops (once there) would create worse problems than had we not invaded in the first place?  Do they want "Forever Wars" only to keep the Military-Industrial Complex profitable?

- - - - - -

Wars should be rare things, not forever things.  America has made the big mistake of empire - we're using war to get our way in the world, and this is a tool that becomes much more expensive over time.  In addition, history has shown us that a propensity towards war is the sign of a dying empire.  Instead, we should be using diplomatic and economic power to get our way, to keep this empire.  It's one of the better ones that have existed, as it did help people become free and prosper around the globe.  But we can't make all the world safe or prosperous - the people and their cultures in areas that we have influence must want what we want for this to happen.  That's why Iraq and Syria were failures for us.

- - - - - -

The fields of Europe hold many a cemetery from both world wars.  Can we afford to add fuel to a fire which may result in another world war?

Making America Great Again

In a recent issue of "The Economist" there were 4 separate mentions of Trump's candidacy for POTUS.  One of them was an editorial piece where the magazine states that it doesn't want Trump for a candidate, because of his offensive nature.  The problem here is that they do not address the root of the problem - the political elite in much of the Western world (I should say its "democracies") has done little to address the need of the average citizen in these countries.  The rich are getting richer (especially in the USA), and everyone else is losing ground.  In short, the "Trickle Down" policies that the GOP has promoted has been shown not to work - on a worldwide basis.

Normally, I'd agree with The Economist.  But in this case, the "Angry White Men" supporting the Trump candidacy may be on to something.  Trump is financing his candidacy with his own money, showing virtually everyone else (save maybe, Bernie Sanders) to be political whores of the financial elite. Even the Bushes can't prostitute themselves enough to raise enough campaign funds to compete with Trump.  There may be only two or three Republicans who stand a remote chance for the long term: Cruz, Carson, and Fiorina. And Cruz is trying to stay in Trump's shadow, hoping that Trump will self destruct after cleaning out most of the opposition, so that he can grab a ready made base.

The same forces at work that benefit Trump are also benefiting Bernie Sanders.  He is the true "Anti Wall Street" person (read: "Not Hillary Clinton") running in this election, and he is getting the Liberal equivalent to Trump's base - save Sanders' base is more educated and more aware of what is going on.  Hillary's performance is so lackluster, that an unannounced Joe Biden beats her in the polls against all GOP candidates.  (And Biden is being floated as a candidate for POTUS, because the people who fund the Democrats are just as afraid of Sanders as the GOP funders are afraid of Trump.)

Now, let's look at this in the context of world affairs.  Moderate Muslims are being pushed out of Syria and Iraq due to the growth of ISIS.  It is interesting to note that the wealthiest Muslim nations of the Middle East are doing nothing to help these refugees - it is the nominally Christian countries of Europe who are being forced to absorb these people.  And the problem is that most people may change their nationality and customs easy, but they do not follow a reworked adage: "When in Rome, Worship as the Romans do."  So many people become isolated, and tend to live in ghettos instead of being assimilated into the larger society.  

There is push-back coming from the "Angry White Men" of Europe.  In places like Denmark, the far right party runs the country, and says that no Muslims need enter. Even though Europe has a below zero population replenishment rate, the hard right rightfully worries about the changes to their societies that these uninvited immigrants bring.  No one from the traditional political elite is discussing the drawbacks to social change - so the "common" person is taking affairs in his own right, and voting a non functional elite out of office, replacing with people who may listen to their concerns.

A while back, Mark Steyn wrote a book called America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It.  One review of this book notes:


Why has Mark Steyn's book "America Alone" been labeled "alarmist" by his opponents? Look at the title: America Alone. Its meaning is obvious, but concerning what? When the Soviet Union fell, America was left standing as the sole super power in the world. But that is not the meaning of America Alone. However, do you remember what Nikita Kruschchev said? America would fall from within, without one shot fired. America would destroy herself through societal softness and the Soviets would walk in and take over.

Steyn states that Muslims have adopted this concept of a country falling from within, beginning in Europe. Through immigration, Muslims are establishing themselves as a stronghold. Belgium, Sweden, England, Denmark, the Netherlands, and France are on their way to becoming majority Muslim and geo-political. In fact, he says, Eurotopia is fast becoming "Eurabia."

Three events are rapidly leading to Eurabia:
1. Demographic decline
2. The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state
3. Civilizational exhaustion

Do you remember years ago forecasters urged population control? Europe heeded this warning and now faces two factors that will change it drastically: its population is aging and couples are not reproducing themselves.

...

With an aging population and declining birthrate and a swelling benefits package supplied by the government, who will pay for this social welfare? Answer: incoming immigrants with high birthrates.

Therein, Steyn says, lies the problem. While people of Europe have abandoned their churches and religious beliefs, Islam immigrants bring with them "a religion, and an explicitly political one." In fact, if a European wants to marry a Muslim, he must convert, or as they call it, revert. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim--he/she must find that calling. And no one may leave the religion.

How pervasive are Islam and Muslims in Europe? "Go to any children's store in Amsterdam or Marseilles or Vienna or Stockholm. Look at women in headscarves or full abaya. That's the future"

...

In France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden, riots over equal rights have disturbed traditional peace. Women feel safer walking neighborhoods in Muslim garb in order to be left alone by Muslim men. When Muslims take over, they take the land and distribute it to Muslims, creating reverts out of the native people. Because the United States doesn't take land, Muslims consider the US weak and defeatable. As Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of Singapore said in 2004, " The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail".

Steyn concludes in outlining America's exceptional nature and how it can prevent Muslim reversion of an entire country.

Sadly, there are many of us (including myself) who believe that Steyn is correct.  Although I have nothing against Islam, I do have something against the cultures of the Middle East where Islam has flourished - their core nature prevents people from looking at themselves and their culture critically, and stands in the way of progress.  (Please note that this is not an indictment of Islam as it is of tendencies in the Muslim world in the Middle East to enforce rigid conformity among the masses and subjugate those masses.)

So we go back to Trump's candidacy.  What do we do about it?  For me, I prefer to see Trump win the GOP nomination, as he is more "Liberal" than many of the wingnuts in his party.  (For example, some of his ideas about healthcare make sense - when he isn't pandering to the official GOP party line.) If Trump wins the nomination, it is possible that the GOP may undo its "Southern Strategy" and become a more moderate political party. And if both Trump and Sanders get their parties' POTUS nominations, meaningful campaign finance reform could take place, as the political whores may find that it is better to be freelancers than to be pimped out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.

Am I sure of this?  No.  But I see the signs of world turmoil, and we ignore the needs of the common person at our own peril....