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....
If anyone thinks that this election is about anything other than money, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Both major party candidates are in it for the money, and both represent what is wrong about the system.
- - - - - -
Let's start with Donald Trump. He represents what is most objectionable about the current GOP. He acknowledges that he has bought and sold politicians in the past. Reputable news sources state that his business deals have served to make himself rich at the expense of others - including his business partners. And he suffers no embarrassment from making almost everything he says a lie - appealing to potential voters' more primitive brain functions, instead of their intellect. When he says that he loves ignorant people - he means it!
We have a large number of people who have been lied to for years. The political elite from the GOP has ignored the needs of the common people. They have told us that cutting taxes will result in greater tax revenue as well as more jobs available to the common person - and we know this to be false (anecdotally) from recent experience. (I'm not saying this can not be true, but we had no proof of where we were on the Laffer Curve, and whether our tax rates were high enough to slow down the economy.) The GOP has not changed its tune, and the public has seen work move overseas or get automated out of existence. To the GOP elite, the common people are serfs for whom they have no responsibility, and we have suffered because of this attitude.
- - - - - -
Before one gets to thinking that Hillary Clinton is that great, one has to examine her record. Even though she has advocated some good things (such as healthcare reform), she is equally corrupt. For example, in this election cycle, she has changed her tune on TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership - a trade deal which could negatively affect American employment) from being for it to being against it, only to get the votes that might be cast by Bernie Sanders supporters. Most people believe that once she is elected, she will change her tune on TPP without any significant changes being made to the deal. In short, she will betray her supporters in order to get power.
What would Hillary do when she gets power? Well, she has sucked on the teat of Wall Street for years. It is no coincidence that the Clinton Family wealth has gone from a book value of almost zero (when Bill Clinton left office, as noted by the deal that gave him a mortgage on their Chappaqua, NY house) to over $100 million today (as estimated by the news outlets). Does anyone think that she would support policies that benefit the common person over the lords of Wall Street? I think not.
- - - - - -
So where does this leave us? Do we vote for a revolution led by one of the people who gained the most from exploiting a corrupt system, and has never had to run a system of any size by himself? Or, do we vote to put a competent, but corrupt leader in charge - and defer the revolution to another day. In the end, it's all about "the Benjamins" (slang for $100 bills). Do we want to run the economic risk posed by putting a potentially incompetent leader in charge? Or, do we accept the corruption we know from a competent leader? Either way we're screwed. The only difference is - how bad it may be for us.
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..
This is a real photo!!! And Trump's disrespect for our judiciary and of our constitution is a big potential problem. Why is it that "Conservatives are the ones most wanting to change the constitution instead of achieving their goals within it? Aren't they smart enough to show that their goals are in the best interest of the American people? My guess is that they don't really want the rule of law, but instead want the rule of and by their tribe. There is a clear and present danger to our society, and the Washington Post articulates that threat much better than I can do.
- - - - - -
I find it interesting that Ted Cruz (at the time of writing this entry) has not yet endorsed Donald Trump. He may actually have a small amount of principles he can stand on. (Although he has not enough principles for me to show him any respect.) But what's most interesting is how many of the GOP elite stayed away from the convention, using the flimsiest of excuses to stay away. Normally, I find political conventions unwatchable, as they are only meant to stir the passions of their associated tribe. But this year is even worse than usual, because the quality of "entertainers" (yes, this is political entertainment - the serious stuff is still being done outside the public view) is so totally amateur.
Next week (at the time I started to write this entry), it will be Hillary's turn to entertain the public, and the Democrats will throw their quadrennial party. And, like the GOP, their entertainers will take the stage, make a lot of contentless speeches, and stir up the passions of their tribe. Unlike the GOP's convention, I expect the entertainment to be much better than what is on the TV now.
- - - - - -
It is eerie to many that Trump has the same kind of charisma that a certain Central European had 85 years ago. People respond to him in a more primitive way. He appeals to people's feelings and not their minds. And they are being led like sheep. I'm not saying bad things about these people - many want a real change, and are disgusted with the political elite of both parties.
Hillary represents the "Nomenklatura" of America's political elite. Leaders of both parties have their lists of people who are in power, and those being groomed for power. Like the Mafia, people have to pay dues to the system before the system takes care of them. And I am just as disgusted with this group of people as most of the public is. But at least, much of the system functions, albeit poorly.
Trump, on the other hand, buys and sells Apparatchiks. Even though he hob nobs with the high and mighty, he knows which low level palms to grease to get things done. Yet, whatever business he touches turns to lead, while his bank account turns to gold. He has no idea of how to run a business for the long tern, nor does he have an idea of how to manage a large bureaucracy. If he were to do even a small fraction of what he proposes to do, he will likely cause the whole system to collapse. (Imagine what would happen if he were to start trying to expel illegal immigrants - how many legal residents and citizens would get caught up in the INS sweeps? It's bad enough now that many American citizens fear the INS. But what would happen if this part of the bureaucracy were given extra power?) But then, he speaks to the fears of the public, and not to their aspirations.
- - - - - -
In short, this is an election that indicates whether America is a nation who fears the world, or whether America is a nation who stands up to the world. America can be a beacon that inspires the world or one that terrifies the world. Acting out of fear will create terror for everyone. Acting out of courage will embolden others to be more like us. We have a choice, and I hope America can make one in line with its better qualities.....
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....
