Two weeks ago, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton appeared poised on the edge of inevitability. The hoped-for certainty was delayed and possibly even eliminated by equivocal results on Super Tuesday. Primary results since then have done nothing to vault either candidate into their respective parties's thrones.
Clinton has been surprisingly challenged by Bernie Sanders, who made a good showing on March 1st but not enough to convince any public observers that he had a long-term chance. Nevertheless, he has continued to win primaries alongside Clinton. She leads only marginally in pledged delegates and her aura of inevitability is sustained only by a horde of super delegates whose loyalty is not guaranteed.
More importantly, as some observers have noted, she continues to win states that the GOP will most likely win in the Fall, while Sanders wins states that will be more likely to vote Democrat or sit on the fence. And Sanders has the following and the energy to turn out a lot of young new voters to secure those states for the Democratic party.
Trump's own ascent has been frustrated. Indeed, the only reason he may win out in the end is because his opponents have failed to unite. Should they do so after tomorrow, it will probably be too late. He appears likely to win all but one of the winner-take-all states, with Ohio still a possibility. Should he lose Ohio to Kasich, it will make little difference because Kasich trails him more significantly than Cruz. Trumps lead will grow despite such a loss. He will continue to approach the minimum needed for an uncontested nomination in July.
However, the ugliness of the GOP primary circus has not been alleviated. Violence has erupted in and around Trump rallies. While this has preoccupied many observers, there is no sign yet that it has turned off any of Trump's supporters.
Tomorrow may very well be the day that March 1st promised to be for Trump. As for Clinton, she desperately needs some quality wins tomorrow to prove once and for all that Sanders is not a viable candidate, giving her the opportunity to turn her political weaponry against the GOP early as her nomination becomes a fait accompli.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2016
Saturday, December 5, 2015
GOP Candidates Slogging Their Way Into Winter
As much of the Midwest, a hotbed for Republican politics, was snowed in or iced over this last week, the slightly less numerous candidates for the GOP presidential nomination reached the end of the beginning in their election campaigns. Just two months to go until the Iowa caucus voices America's first decision with regard to each candidate's legitimacy.
There are not quite so many of them now and the dynamics have changed somewhat. Donald Trump is still a leader among them but his primary rival of just a few weeks ago, Ben Carson, has seen his star decline a little. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have gained significant support in the polls. Jeb Bush has remained hobbled with single-digit poll numbers while some others, such as Bobby Jindal, have given up in the face of nearly non-existent support. Unbelievably, George Fucking Pataki is still officially in this race.
Here are the candidates that remain believably in this race. While Jeb Bush's numbers suggest he should possibly bow out, I will continue to include him. As I have stated before, his money can keep him in this race while he waits for one disaster or another to overtake his less-milquetoast competitors so that his blandness can finally shine.
There are not quite so many of them now and the dynamics have changed somewhat. Donald Trump is still a leader among them but his primary rival of just a few weeks ago, Ben Carson, has seen his star decline a little. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have gained significant support in the polls. Jeb Bush has remained hobbled with single-digit poll numbers while some others, such as Bobby Jindal, have given up in the face of nearly non-existent support. Unbelievably, George Fucking Pataki is still officially in this race.
Here are the candidates that remain believably in this race. While Jeb Bush's numbers suggest he should possibly bow out, I will continue to include him. As I have stated before, his money can keep him in this race while he waits for one disaster or another to overtake his less-milquetoast competitors so that his blandness can finally shine.
- Donald Trump continues to lead the pack with percentage of support somewhere in the mid-twenties. It depends on where and when you poll. Some polls have shown him briefly as high as the low 40s but these gains seem to be ephemeral. Furthermore, the Donald continues to say things that alienate, at least for a time, his less entrenched supporters. For example, he has come out in support of waterboarding and apparently made fun of a handicapped reporter's disabilities during a press conference.
- Ben Carson has been brought down a few notches, particularly as a result of various statements he has made with regard to religious topics. He has said openly that Muslims should be prevented form holding the Presidency and he was ridiculed for speculating that the pyramids of Egypt were for holding grain rather than the corpses of deceased Pharaohs. In general, someone has made a point of degrading Carson's intelligence. I suspect that this was Trump, who has frequently bullied people with regard to their intelligence. Just look at the way that he hounded Perry out of the race.
- Marco Rubio has certainly made a run for Golden Boy if not for the presidency. Some competent work in the debates has brought the spotlight to this young senator for Florida. In addition, his willingness to take on his former mentor, Jeb Bush, has earned him kudos from some voters.
- It has been said in some circles that Trump is really running interference for Ted Cruz. The idea, apparently, is that Trump will eventually drop out and his supporters will have nowhere else to go but the Cruz camp. By then, Rand Paul and other potential recipients of Trumps support will have all dropped out. Whether or not such a conspiracy exists, things may play out that way. Cruz rivals Rubio now for 3rd place.
There is still a pack of others but there viability is lessening. Carly Fiorina has not made any headlines recently. Jeb Bush is still a gelding among stallions at this point. Chris Christie has managed to stir the pot with regard to certain statements made by Donald Trump but he has repeatedly replied that he is getting sick of being asked about Trump. He should be wary of getting what he wished for. The Donald is the only issue that gets him in the news.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
The Democratic Debate: Tag Teaming Hillary Clinton
The Democratic debate rolled around again and it was a little more interesting this time because there were only three candidates on stage, the other likely contenders having resigned from the race. While this potentially created the opportunity to just increase the focus on the two ongoing leaders, Clinton and Sanders, it probably provided much more attention for Martin O'Malley, who was practically invisible prior to last night.
Diverse They Ain't
I have mentioned before that the Republican field of candidates is much more diverse than the Democrats' round up of the usual suspects this time around. A picture of the three contenders looks more like a klan rally than anything else.
OK, maybe that's a little unfair. After all, these three are only "white" in the very loose definition of race that exists today. Sanders is, after all, Jewish and O'Malley is Irish. The Irish were not really considered white even a century ago. Remember who was building the railroads alongside blacks and the Chinese in the 19th century?
Nevertheless, the GOP does come off with more points for diversity this time around. They've got multiple hispanics, a very viable black candidate and a woman.
I am not a Democrat but I can say that the democratic race is finally starting to look exciting. It seemed like Clinton was locking up the race when Sanders asked everyone to ignore her email dilemma. She may still run away with this one but there is at least the appearance of a real race at the moment. That will probably improve the ratings and, after all, that is all American culture really has any more: Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags.
Diverse They Ain't
I have mentioned before that the Republican field of candidates is much more diverse than the Democrats' round up of the usual suspects this time around. A picture of the three contenders looks more like a klan rally than anything else.
OK, maybe that's a little unfair. After all, these three are only "white" in the very loose definition of race that exists today. Sanders is, after all, Jewish and O'Malley is Irish. The Irish were not really considered white even a century ago. Remember who was building the railroads alongside blacks and the Chinese in the 19th century?
Nevertheless, the GOP does come off with more points for diversity this time around. They've got multiple hispanics, a very viable black candidate and a woman.
How They Did
Hillary Clinton
- The other Democrats finally took off the gloves and lashed out at Hillary. Many analysts have stated previously that Hillary was going to run away with this nomination unless somebody manned up and started criticizing her.
- Both Sanders and O'Malley were able to take the high ground diplomatically because neither of them can be tied to voting for the Middle East debacle. Clinton joined with other Democrats to vote for the controversial invasion of Iraq which undeniably led to the present chaos in that region and in Europe.
- They were also not afraid to bring up her ties to Wall Street. However, most seem to agree that her defense was adequate. Still, it was a defense and it shows that Clinton is no longer untouchable. She is going to have to defend herself if she is going to get this nomination.
Bernie Sanders
- The biggest advance for Sanders came simply with his willingness to attack Clinton's record. Providing this contrast will undoubtedly improve his long-range chances of taking an electoral lead.
- He failed to utilize the email issue, though, and that is perhaps Clinton's greatest weakness. This sort of cooperation among the candidates stinks and leads me to wonder if the race isn't simply an opportunity for Clinton to air out a lot of issues publicly and make voters bored of them before her cakewalk to the national election.
- Sanders also did not look good when Clinton ridiculed his idea of free college for everybody. She pointed out that this policy would use taxpayer money to pay for Donald Trump's kids to go to school. Hopefully that is the end of that piece of idiocy,
Martin O'Malley
- Martin O'Malley wins big simply for having a lot of face time with the public. This was a great opportunity for voters to hear an option to Sanders and Clinton. He presents a major threat to these other two simply by showing up and potentially leeching off undecided or less fervent voters.
- He also joined in the attacks on Clinton. He called her a flip-flopper on gun control.
- In particular, he benefits by having had nothing to do with her war record and her participation in regime changes, such as that in Libya which has obviously destabilized the country.
I am not a Democrat but I can say that the democratic race is finally starting to look exciting. It seemed like Clinton was locking up the race when Sanders asked everyone to ignore her email dilemma. She may still run away with this one but there is at least the appearance of a real race at the moment. That will probably improve the ratings and, after all, that is all American culture really has any more: Facebook likes and Twitter hashtags.
Monday, October 19, 2015
The Democratic Debates: Clinton Uber Alles
While the Republicans have been stealing the show for months, thanks to the antics of Donald Trump, the Democrats are finally getting some limelight now that their own debates have begun. Before now, the democratic race certainly stirred interest among democrats themselves but their intrigues did not cross party lines in terms of excitement. Most republicans were entertained enough by their own party's three-ring circus.
The first democratic debate did not get nearly as much press and public attention as the republican debates but that may be due to predictability. In an interesting turn of events, it is the GOP that now holds more diverse views than the Democratic Party. With the exception of the largely-ignored Jim Webb, all democratic contenders hate guns and religion, love illegal immigration, higher taxes and homosexuality and are happy printing money for entitlement programs. Nevertheless, millions of liberal Americans tuned in to watch other people largely agree with them.
And the Winner Is...
I am sure many low-information viewers were confused as to the identities of the people on stage. The competitors really boil down to the First Two and the Other Three. While the latter group showed up, no one was really listening to anything but the presentations of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
In the aftermath, opinions vary as to who won the debate, though the MSM would have you believe that everyone agrees with them in thinking that Hillary Clinton won. Some polls, such as a Facebook vote, gave the victory to Sanders before being erased. The same happened with an early CNN poll. I am not sure why the Founders bothered to put safeguards such as the US Senate in the government to protect against fickle public opinion when they could have just relied on the media to do so.
Essentially, however, I agree with Clinton's victory for one simple reason. No matter how she and Sanders may weigh in the balances, Clinton wins because Sanders is such a hopeless beta-male that he cannot promote himself effectively.
During the debate, he exclaimed how sick he was of hearing about Clinton's emails and basically turned attention away from potential criticisms of her work as Secretary of State. With that possibility eliminated, the other candidates did not have any way to distinguish themselves positively. Remember, none of them have any real distinct ideas about domestic and foreign policy unless they are able to point out Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq and her questionable work as Secretary of State.
This move was classic Sanders. Several weeks ago, he allowed himself to be pushed off the stage by two Black Lives Matters representatives who insulted him and the entire crowd. He was unable to do anything but pump his fist for Black Power like the effete 60's radical that he is. One wonders what Sanders would do on the world stage when Putin or Xi tried to push him around.
The Other Three and the Shadow of Joe
Mention should at least be made of Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee and Martin O.Malley. They are really running for vice-president by now and their chances even for that scrap are slim. Maybe by now they are starting to get realistic and fix their sights on cabinet posts.
The real question at this point regards the possible entrance of Joe Biden. A lot of commentators think that Clinton's showing was strong enough to convince Biden to stay out. Of course, funding and Biden's proclivity for gaffes of all sorts may push him into the race anyway. Now that would make the debates worth watching!
The first democratic debate did not get nearly as much press and public attention as the republican debates but that may be due to predictability. In an interesting turn of events, it is the GOP that now holds more diverse views than the Democratic Party. With the exception of the largely-ignored Jim Webb, all democratic contenders hate guns and religion, love illegal immigration, higher taxes and homosexuality and are happy printing money for entitlement programs. Nevertheless, millions of liberal Americans tuned in to watch other people largely agree with them.
And the Winner Is...
I am sure many low-information viewers were confused as to the identities of the people on stage. The competitors really boil down to the First Two and the Other Three. While the latter group showed up, no one was really listening to anything but the presentations of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
In the aftermath, opinions vary as to who won the debate, though the MSM would have you believe that everyone agrees with them in thinking that Hillary Clinton won. Some polls, such as a Facebook vote, gave the victory to Sanders before being erased. The same happened with an early CNN poll. I am not sure why the Founders bothered to put safeguards such as the US Senate in the government to protect against fickle public opinion when they could have just relied on the media to do so.
Essentially, however, I agree with Clinton's victory for one simple reason. No matter how she and Sanders may weigh in the balances, Clinton wins because Sanders is such a hopeless beta-male that he cannot promote himself effectively.
During the debate, he exclaimed how sick he was of hearing about Clinton's emails and basically turned attention away from potential criticisms of her work as Secretary of State. With that possibility eliminated, the other candidates did not have any way to distinguish themselves positively. Remember, none of them have any real distinct ideas about domestic and foreign policy unless they are able to point out Clinton's vote for the war in Iraq and her questionable work as Secretary of State.
This move was classic Sanders. Several weeks ago, he allowed himself to be pushed off the stage by two Black Lives Matters representatives who insulted him and the entire crowd. He was unable to do anything but pump his fist for Black Power like the effete 60's radical that he is. One wonders what Sanders would do on the world stage when Putin or Xi tried to push him around.
The Other Three and the Shadow of Joe
Mention should at least be made of Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee and Martin O.Malley. They are really running for vice-president by now and their chances even for that scrap are slim. Maybe by now they are starting to get realistic and fix their sights on cabinet posts.
The real question at this point regards the possible entrance of Joe Biden. A lot of commentators think that Clinton's showing was strong enough to convince Biden to stay out. Of course, funding and Biden's proclivity for gaffes of all sorts may push him into the race anyway. Now that would make the debates worth watching!
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Two Conflicting Sentiments in American Politics
A few years ago, something occurred during a biology class that I was taking which illuminated the modern political and social landscape of America. With just one comment made by a classmate, it was as if someone just turned on the light in a dark room and, suddenly, everything was clear. I knew right where I and everybody else was in that room with regard to political ideals.
A Biology Lesson
I own much of this illumination to the identities of the people involved. I am a middle-aged man who, at the time, was taking a pre-requisite course to get into nursing school ( I graduated a few months ago). The conversation which I was witnessing took place between my instructor, perhaps 5-10 years younger than me, and a young girl taking the class. She was probably 20 years old.
The professor was explaining the nucleotides that compose the very basic elements of our genetic structure. He remarked that errors in the layouts of these nucleotides were responsible for many diseases. In fact, he said, it was known that UVA radiation could cause thymine nucleotides to bind into units called thymine dimers. These mutations were the primary cause of skin cancer.
Then he said that it always pained him to hear about people using tanning beds. They were just increasing the chances that their thymine would mutate and cause cancer.
The young girl in the class spoke up. "That's awful. If I were president, I would outlaw those places."
The professor, God bless him, replied that there was something called the US Constitution and we were all still free to make decisions for ourselves, even if those decisions were not good for us.
The girl later went on to comment that she just didn't feel safe in a country where it was permitted to endanger yourself. As I recall, the professor turned us back to the lesson and the moment was left behind, only to live in my memory.
Safety versus Freedom
It occurred to me, as I tried to comprehend why I found the girl's comments so repulsive, that she represented one side of a dichotomy in American mindsets. It also revealed to me an explanation for the differences between the general nature of American and European political divides.
This country was founded and colonized by a wide variety of people. The Puritans were not the only ones to come over from the Old World. Yet those early Americans shared one quality or drive in life. They wanted to be free to live as they pleased. Their great common desire was to be left alone to pursue their destinies. They wanted to be free to create their own worlds and manage their own protection from the elements and from their fellow human beings.
Even later immigrants, on whom descendants of the earliest Americans looked down, shared a similar drive. They were escaping poverty or limitations of some sort in Europe in order to come here and find their own way.
In the early 20th century, the much-reviled Southern European immigrants were not coming to America to be on the dole. There was no welfare system. They fully expected to be left to their own devices when they hit the shore. As long as they had a chance to fight for their own prosperity in a land that seemed to have endless real estate and resources, they were content with the opportunity.
There is another social desire active in the world. This is the desire to be safe, to be protected. The semi-mythical contract that occurred between post-Roman Empire Europeans and the feudal knights demonstrates the centrality of this desire in the human psyche.
Allegedly, the feudal transformation of Europe occurred when villages of common people agreed to provide economic support for soldiers, typically led by the horsemen we would call knights now. in exchange for protection from the increasingly chaotic environment left as Rome's influence ebbed in Europe. I doubt any such exchange occurred as cleanly as that but I am also sure that there is a kernel of truth in it all. With banditry on the rise and the roads becoming home to crime rather than commerce, I am sure many people gave up their freedom to be safe.
Sound familiar?
As time passed, the boundlessness of US resources became somewhat less boundless. While this nation still retains an immense amount of open land, times changed during the 20th century. Urbanization increased, especially after the world wars. We became a people primarily living in cities, cities in which we were protected by police forces rather than a village posse or our own arms. Also, the generations that had come here seeking freedom passed away and were replaced by descendants who did not necessarily share their desire for freedom.
Instead, they wanted what those medieval Europeans wanted: protection from crime. These new Americans were increasingly less armed than their forefathers. They wanted to enjoy urban prosperity, learn new trades and even go to school to study the liberal arts rather than forge a new life in the wilderness or build a business from scratch. In order to do these things, they wanted government to take on the job of keeping them safe while they pursued these new goals.
They were willing to give up certain things, such as the right to bear arms, in order to create a protected environment in which they could pursue these goals. In short, they valued safety more than freedom.
That doesn't sound so awful. However, I think that this new desire for safety rather than freedom has again morphed with the latest generation into something that does, in fact, sicken me,
That girl in my biology class did not simply want to make a calculated decision to sacrifice a specific freedom in exchange for another social good. She wanted to live in an environment in which she no longer had the ability to make bad choices at all. Rather, she wanted someone else making those decisions for her. In essence, she wanted to be a perpetual child and she wanted her political leaders to act as pseudo-parents. She wanted Barack Obama to be her father and simply refuse to permit unsafe things in her home environment.
Women's Suffrage and the Infantilization of America
Something else occurred in America during this last century which I believe had a huge impact on its political and social transformation. Women became full-fledged citizens with the right to vote.
Now, the move to give women the vote was ostensibly done by forces which might be characterized as conservative today. There had long been a liberal movement to give women the vote in the Anglo Saxon world. However, the granting of voting rights was really done in Western states in order to hurry the process ending in statehood. These territories suddenly had many more voters and possessed more "statelike" populations in terms of size.
I posit that this had a big effect on the increasing concern with safety in this country. Prior to this, I am sure that most American men wanted, more than anything else, the space and opportunity to live out their lives.
Women, though, come into the world with completely different mindsets. Contrary to pseudo-lesbian feminist beliefs, women are born with family on their minds. I am not one of those who believes that women are naturally more nurturing or more gentle than men. Anyone who has been married knows that this is simply not true,
However, by force of millions of years of biology, women do tend to think in terms of family and children. They are more naturally comfortable with children. To their credit, we probably owe much of our rise from the animal kingdom to women's incessant chattering with children, which helped develop those children's minds with regard to language.
I think that this sudden preponderance of women in the voting bloc (they are over 50% of the population) explains much of the recent past politically.
How much of our political conversation, especially since the onset of the Cold War, has been dedicated to the cause of protection? We wanted to be protected from the Nazis. the Soviets, the terrorists and now,increasingly, people who say "mean" things. Women have been all too happy to throw out freedom of speech in order to prevent feelings from being hurt. This reminds me of a mother forbidding her children to broach certain topics just because she doesn't want to deal with another familial eruption.
Of course, it is not just women who engage in this kind of thinking. Men do it, too. That is, they think this way until they become men. Boy children want to be protected from harm as much as girl children until they begin to develop. Then they begin to fight, explore, seek their own way in the world,
I think an additional phenomenon explaining this conflict in American politics is not just the addition of women to the voting bloc but also the pacification, feminization and infantilization of many men. Or, rather, it is that many men never really develop into men but remain in a stage of early adolescence which leaves them all too ready to seek safety rather than freedom in life.
Other Groups in America and in Europe
This thinking has helped me to understand why conservatives in Europe often have distinctly different views on social and economic issues when compared to American conservatives. Many conservatives in Europe consider a certain amount of socialism to be natural and even desirable.
This makes sense when you remember that they are the descendants of those peasants who chose to stay in the Old World and embraced the idea of being protected by government. The democratic governments have simply replaced the knights and nobility of centuries past.
It also explains to me why other groups in American politics never seem to embrace "American ideals". Africans did not immigrate to this country seeking freedom to live as they please. They were abducted, sold and transported here against their will. It makes sense that they do not have any genetic impulse to seek freedom over safety since their ancestors had no desire to cross the ocean to be here in the first place.
How this applies to Latino immigrants might be a good topic for another essay. This article is already too long.
However, in closing, I think that this concept helps to explain a lot that is going on in American politics now and even applies to the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Again, this is a topic for another article.
A Biology Lesson
I own much of this illumination to the identities of the people involved. I am a middle-aged man who, at the time, was taking a pre-requisite course to get into nursing school ( I graduated a few months ago). The conversation which I was witnessing took place between my instructor, perhaps 5-10 years younger than me, and a young girl taking the class. She was probably 20 years old.
The professor was explaining the nucleotides that compose the very basic elements of our genetic structure. He remarked that errors in the layouts of these nucleotides were responsible for many diseases. In fact, he said, it was known that UVA radiation could cause thymine nucleotides to bind into units called thymine dimers. These mutations were the primary cause of skin cancer.
Then he said that it always pained him to hear about people using tanning beds. They were just increasing the chances that their thymine would mutate and cause cancer.
The young girl in the class spoke up. "That's awful. If I were president, I would outlaw those places."
The professor, God bless him, replied that there was something called the US Constitution and we were all still free to make decisions for ourselves, even if those decisions were not good for us.
The girl later went on to comment that she just didn't feel safe in a country where it was permitted to endanger yourself. As I recall, the professor turned us back to the lesson and the moment was left behind, only to live in my memory.
Safety versus Freedom
It occurred to me, as I tried to comprehend why I found the girl's comments so repulsive, that she represented one side of a dichotomy in American mindsets. It also revealed to me an explanation for the differences between the general nature of American and European political divides.
This country was founded and colonized by a wide variety of people. The Puritans were not the only ones to come over from the Old World. Yet those early Americans shared one quality or drive in life. They wanted to be free to live as they pleased. Their great common desire was to be left alone to pursue their destinies. They wanted to be free to create their own worlds and manage their own protection from the elements and from their fellow human beings.
Even later immigrants, on whom descendants of the earliest Americans looked down, shared a similar drive. They were escaping poverty or limitations of some sort in Europe in order to come here and find their own way.
In the early 20th century, the much-reviled Southern European immigrants were not coming to America to be on the dole. There was no welfare system. They fully expected to be left to their own devices when they hit the shore. As long as they had a chance to fight for their own prosperity in a land that seemed to have endless real estate and resources, they were content with the opportunity.
There is another social desire active in the world. This is the desire to be safe, to be protected. The semi-mythical contract that occurred between post-Roman Empire Europeans and the feudal knights demonstrates the centrality of this desire in the human psyche.
Allegedly, the feudal transformation of Europe occurred when villages of common people agreed to provide economic support for soldiers, typically led by the horsemen we would call knights now. in exchange for protection from the increasingly chaotic environment left as Rome's influence ebbed in Europe. I doubt any such exchange occurred as cleanly as that but I am also sure that there is a kernel of truth in it all. With banditry on the rise and the roads becoming home to crime rather than commerce, I am sure many people gave up their freedom to be safe.
Sound familiar?
As time passed, the boundlessness of US resources became somewhat less boundless. While this nation still retains an immense amount of open land, times changed during the 20th century. Urbanization increased, especially after the world wars. We became a people primarily living in cities, cities in which we were protected by police forces rather than a village posse or our own arms. Also, the generations that had come here seeking freedom passed away and were replaced by descendants who did not necessarily share their desire for freedom.
Instead, they wanted what those medieval Europeans wanted: protection from crime. These new Americans were increasingly less armed than their forefathers. They wanted to enjoy urban prosperity, learn new trades and even go to school to study the liberal arts rather than forge a new life in the wilderness or build a business from scratch. In order to do these things, they wanted government to take on the job of keeping them safe while they pursued these new goals.
They were willing to give up certain things, such as the right to bear arms, in order to create a protected environment in which they could pursue these goals. In short, they valued safety more than freedom.
That doesn't sound so awful. However, I think that this new desire for safety rather than freedom has again morphed with the latest generation into something that does, in fact, sicken me,
That girl in my biology class did not simply want to make a calculated decision to sacrifice a specific freedom in exchange for another social good. She wanted to live in an environment in which she no longer had the ability to make bad choices at all. Rather, she wanted someone else making those decisions for her. In essence, she wanted to be a perpetual child and she wanted her political leaders to act as pseudo-parents. She wanted Barack Obama to be her father and simply refuse to permit unsafe things in her home environment.
Women's Suffrage and the Infantilization of America
Something else occurred in America during this last century which I believe had a huge impact on its political and social transformation. Women became full-fledged citizens with the right to vote.
Now, the move to give women the vote was ostensibly done by forces which might be characterized as conservative today. There had long been a liberal movement to give women the vote in the Anglo Saxon world. However, the granting of voting rights was really done in Western states in order to hurry the process ending in statehood. These territories suddenly had many more voters and possessed more "statelike" populations in terms of size.
I posit that this had a big effect on the increasing concern with safety in this country. Prior to this, I am sure that most American men wanted, more than anything else, the space and opportunity to live out their lives.
Women, though, come into the world with completely different mindsets. Contrary to pseudo-lesbian feminist beliefs, women are born with family on their minds. I am not one of those who believes that women are naturally more nurturing or more gentle than men. Anyone who has been married knows that this is simply not true,
However, by force of millions of years of biology, women do tend to think in terms of family and children. They are more naturally comfortable with children. To their credit, we probably owe much of our rise from the animal kingdom to women's incessant chattering with children, which helped develop those children's minds with regard to language.
I think that this sudden preponderance of women in the voting bloc (they are over 50% of the population) explains much of the recent past politically.
How much of our political conversation, especially since the onset of the Cold War, has been dedicated to the cause of protection? We wanted to be protected from the Nazis. the Soviets, the terrorists and now,increasingly, people who say "mean" things. Women have been all too happy to throw out freedom of speech in order to prevent feelings from being hurt. This reminds me of a mother forbidding her children to broach certain topics just because she doesn't want to deal with another familial eruption.
Of course, it is not just women who engage in this kind of thinking. Men do it, too. That is, they think this way until they become men. Boy children want to be protected from harm as much as girl children until they begin to develop. Then they begin to fight, explore, seek their own way in the world,
I think an additional phenomenon explaining this conflict in American politics is not just the addition of women to the voting bloc but also the pacification, feminization and infantilization of many men. Or, rather, it is that many men never really develop into men but remain in a stage of early adolescence which leaves them all too ready to seek safety rather than freedom in life.
Other Groups in America and in Europe
This thinking has helped me to understand why conservatives in Europe often have distinctly different views on social and economic issues when compared to American conservatives. Many conservatives in Europe consider a certain amount of socialism to be natural and even desirable.
This makes sense when you remember that they are the descendants of those peasants who chose to stay in the Old World and embraced the idea of being protected by government. The democratic governments have simply replaced the knights and nobility of centuries past.
It also explains to me why other groups in American politics never seem to embrace "American ideals". Africans did not immigrate to this country seeking freedom to live as they please. They were abducted, sold and transported here against their will. It makes sense that they do not have any genetic impulse to seek freedom over safety since their ancestors had no desire to cross the ocean to be here in the first place.
How this applies to Latino immigrants might be a good topic for another essay. This article is already too long.
However, in closing, I think that this concept helps to explain a lot that is going on in American politics now and even applies to the ascendancy of Donald Trump. Again, this is a topic for another article.
Labels:
conservative,
Culture,
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
Founding Fathers,
immigration,
nursing,
Philosophy,
Politics,
Tradition,
United States,
Voting,
war,
welfare
Friday, October 2, 2015
Donald Trump: Bullying Opponents Out of the Race
Donald Trump is looking to bully another GOP opponent out of the race. It is becoming obvious that this was and is a major technique for Trump in business. Using pure, masculine aggressiveness to improve your position and drive away weaker contenders. It probably works well for him in the business arena but it remains to be seen if it will work in the long term in politics.
Trump is forecasting that Rand Paul will soon drop out of the race and takes credit for pushing him into this decision.Rand Paul generally garners about 2% of the vote in polls conducted among likely GOP voters. All this after years of hard work and a much bugger percentage gained by his father in GOP races in 2012. In fact, Ron Paul went all the way to the General Convention and still got 190 votes when Romney essentially had the thing locked up.
Trump is probably right. Rand Paul, as well as several others, look poised to bow out of the race. Though there is still a long way to go and anything can happen, with so many contenders it just makes sense for someone with roughly 1% of the vote to step out. What is remarkable about this moment in American politics is how it appears that a leading candidate is actively trying to push people out of the race.
I an not sure that this is a good idea for Donald Trump in the long-term. It may be satisfying and it may appeal to his desire for conflict, but it may also strengthen his more popular opponents. One wonders how many Paul voters are likely to come into Trump's camp rather than throw in their lot with Rubio, Cruz or Fiorina. Paul was known for his libertarian views and it is anyone's guess where his support may go.
The Chink in Trump's Armor
At the same time, Donald Trump seems to have displayed, for the first time, a weakness. He already admits that he has a fallback plan for failure. If his numbers get down to Scott Walker levels, he claims, he will just go back to running his business.
Is this an accidental slip that reveals some psychic weariness of the whole race? Is Trump already thinking about quitting and going back to his natural realm in business? Surely, the few times that his handlers have convinced him to moderate his remarks or apologize must rankle him. Perhaps Trump will make his own exit before anyone expects it.
That certainly won't happen now. Donald Trump still has a loyal core of followers giving him roughly 25% of the support available for GOP candidates. I am not sure that he will make it to the primaries due to his own quirky nature but I am sure that he will continue to entertain us for a few more weeks at least,
![]() |
| You're Fired! |
Trump is forecasting that Rand Paul will soon drop out of the race and takes credit for pushing him into this decision.Rand Paul generally garners about 2% of the vote in polls conducted among likely GOP voters. All this after years of hard work and a much bugger percentage gained by his father in GOP races in 2012. In fact, Ron Paul went all the way to the General Convention and still got 190 votes when Romney essentially had the thing locked up.
Trump is probably right. Rand Paul, as well as several others, look poised to bow out of the race. Though there is still a long way to go and anything can happen, with so many contenders it just makes sense for someone with roughly 1% of the vote to step out. What is remarkable about this moment in American politics is how it appears that a leading candidate is actively trying to push people out of the race.
I an not sure that this is a good idea for Donald Trump in the long-term. It may be satisfying and it may appeal to his desire for conflict, but it may also strengthen his more popular opponents. One wonders how many Paul voters are likely to come into Trump's camp rather than throw in their lot with Rubio, Cruz or Fiorina. Paul was known for his libertarian views and it is anyone's guess where his support may go.
The Chink in Trump's Armor
At the same time, Donald Trump seems to have displayed, for the first time, a weakness. He already admits that he has a fallback plan for failure. If his numbers get down to Scott Walker levels, he claims, he will just go back to running his business.
Is this an accidental slip that reveals some psychic weariness of the whole race? Is Trump already thinking about quitting and going back to his natural realm in business? Surely, the few times that his handlers have convinced him to moderate his remarks or apologize must rankle him. Perhaps Trump will make his own exit before anyone expects it.
That certainly won't happen now. Donald Trump still has a loyal core of followers giving him roughly 25% of the support available for GOP candidates. I am not sure that he will make it to the primaries due to his own quirky nature but I am sure that he will continue to entertain us for a few more weeks at least,
Monday, September 28, 2015
Election 2016: What Is Wrong with This Country?
The answer to this question depends on who you ask. More than one social commentator has spoken about the growing divide between Americans with regard to political views. Even someone like me, just in his 40s, can remember a time when liberals and conservatives found common ground on numerous issues. More importantly, we all went to social gatherings and managed to get along in public. As Election 2016 nears, the issues that divide us became ever more clear.
Now, the tone has changed significantly. I was saddened to see a Facebook friend proudly proclaim that she would immediately block anyone who ever posted anything that she felt was sexist. There would be no discussion and no appeal. The person would simply be gone. Leaving aside all the comments I could make about the hubris of actually thinking that banning people from your friend list was some sort of significant threat, I thought how awful this person must be inside to be so eager to cut off relationships based on differing perceptions.
But that is increasingly the way that it is in this country. I find that it is impossible to have a distinct opinion about matters of race, sex, gender etc. without suffering immediate insult.
If I state that I do not think that Bruce Jenner is a woman, and point out simple scientific facts about trillions of cells in his body possessing the Y-chromosome, I should not expect a calm rejoinder about different views of what composes one's gender. Instead, I should be prepared to be outed in violent verbal fashion as a sexist, transphobe or whatever the fuck they call it. I can also expect to lose a friendship, apparently.
If I suggest that we are a country of immigrants and share a great deal in common with Latin Americans when compared to other immigrant waves, I can expect an energetic tirade about Mexican cartels and Latin American welfare queens and remittance schemes.
The distinct answers to this question, then, are really the answer themselves. The problem is this great divide in the perception of present reality. Each side sees completely different things wrong with the country.
What Liberals Think Is Wrong with This Country
When I was young, I definitely thought of myself as a liberal. As a liberal, I had a distinct set of concerns. They were mostly focused on working families and their economic viability. I was afraid that big business would not take care of these people without government interference to ensure their protection and their proper compensation for their work.
One motivation for leaving the Democratic party, to which I briefly belonged in the early 1990s, was the changing focus of the democrats. I do not know any liberals now who really seem to care about poor white men living in trailers and trying to support families. Instead, those men are seen increasingly as the problem by liberals. These uneducated men are likely racist and sexist.
Instead, liberal concerns seem to have turned toward identity politics. It does not seem to matter if you are earning a wage to support a family. Indeed, I believe that many liberals see the family as a unit of oppression. It appears to me that liberals envision a future of individuals who are freed from any kind of bonds on their identities: neither race nor gender nor religion will define a person.
Indeed, religion is an immensely important sub-topic in this discussion. When I was that young man so long ago, both liberals and conservatives went to church on Sunday. If anything, this issue divides liberals and conservatives more distinctly than any other. Liberals, by and large, do not go to church or they go to churches which speak more often about social issues than they do about theological issues.
While some liberals will hold back when discussing religion when they are around people whom they know to be adherents of one faith or another, Internet forums make it quite obvious that they truly despise religion and consider believers to be idiots in whom their can be no sort of trust with regard to the arch-important matters of sexism, racism etc.
What Conservatives Think Is Wrong with This Country
If you are having this conversation with a group of people and suddenly switch from a liberal to a conservative reply, you might think that you are asking questions about two different countries.
To conservatives heading into Election 2016, it appears that liberals are living in some sort of illusory world. This perception is best described by the recent Bruce Jenner event in which he altered his body surgically and declared himself to be a woman. The press immediately began using the feminine pronoun to describe Jenner. It makes conservatives think that liberals use some kind of magical thinking: whatever you think to be true is true, apparently. Conservatives begin to ask, can you make 2+2=5 in that world?
Conservatives see a black man in the presidency and assume that racism is essentially over and everyone can move on. Obviously, race did not keep a black man from reaching the highest office, so how can racism still be impacting black lives?
Conservatives fear the increasing atomization of the family. They see it as responsible for crime and even disease in the long run. Generally, they see the nuclear family as ideal.
You would have to dig deep to find a conservative who did not believe in the essential equality of the races, at least with regard to rights. However, conservatives tend to guard their opinions about the natural abilities and inclinations of each race. Decades ago, it was common for people to speak about the goals and inclinations of each race in distinct ways. Now that this is forbidden, conservatives may pay lip service to the idea of absolute equality but carefully reveal dissidence in guarded conversations.
Conservatives are also still concerned about economic issues form the cold war. They are fearful of a perceived rising socialist threat in the advance of the welfare state.
Immigration has become the biggest conservative concern, possibly because it naturally includes so many of the issues which divide liberals and conservatives. Here you find race and economics together.
Conservatives, in general, treasure the European history which they inherited and the influence of European immigrants on the country in the past. The waves of Latin American immigration which have battered the shores of this country in recent decades concern them greatly for two reasons: they see an eroding of the cultural foundations of the country and they are afraid of the economic impact of so many people living off other people's taxes.
Exceptions to the Rule
There are liberals who are in favor of greater immigration restrictions and conservatives who do not believe in God.
Certainly, the American political landscape is and always has been somewhat kaleidoscopic. My point is that it is much less so now than it was in the previous decades. Reading history, though, I can see that this concentration or crystallization of political viewpoints has happened before. Unfortunately, those periods always did great damage to the country in one way or another.
What Do I Think Is Wrong with This Country?
Most liberals that I know would definitely call me a sexist and a racist, though I am married to a Latin American woman and have experience raising a child in the home while my wife was the breadwinner. That is one of the reasons that I am not a liberal. In my opinion, they do in fact live in an imaginary world in which they can change reality with magical thinking.
Most conservatives would call me a liberal. I speak Spanish and have spent years working as a volunteer to help undocumented workers survive in this country. I like the free market but I have no problem with putting a wrecking ball to the whole health care industry and making government health insurance available to all citizens. I would definitely soak the rich by increasing their taxes.
So what do I think is wrong? The biggest problem is the division of the country into two camps. In the end, it may go back to the whole religion issue. Once liberals stopped going to church, we lost a common ground for meeting. Now liberal ideas were for the most part, cooked up outside the churches and those who remained inside the church walls began to strengthen the defenses.
We are already at war, in a sense. We just haven't started killing anybody. I certainly do not know the best way to resolve this growing divide. I am afraid that the only answer will come from the intensification of the conflict. If you look back at the history of the Civil War, you can see how the country simply came to the point where the only answer was bloodshed. People lost the ability to discuss the issues anymore.
I have good reason for thinking that it will not come to actual physical conflict in the future. I think that our individual lives are so free from the usual concerns of the past that we will not generate the motivation to go to war over these issues. For instance, everyone has more than enough to eat and a secure place to live. It is difficult to work up the ferocity required for war when you are physically comfortable.
But events can always take strange turns. You could have made the case, in the prosperous American colonies of 1770, that revolution against England was an absurd idea. Yet it happened. I hope, for the sake of my children, that we find a way to avoid conflict both before and after Election 2016 while actually working on real resolutions to our differences.
Now, the tone has changed significantly. I was saddened to see a Facebook friend proudly proclaim that she would immediately block anyone who ever posted anything that she felt was sexist. There would be no discussion and no appeal. The person would simply be gone. Leaving aside all the comments I could make about the hubris of actually thinking that banning people from your friend list was some sort of significant threat, I thought how awful this person must be inside to be so eager to cut off relationships based on differing perceptions.
But that is increasingly the way that it is in this country. I find that it is impossible to have a distinct opinion about matters of race, sex, gender etc. without suffering immediate insult.
If I state that I do not think that Bruce Jenner is a woman, and point out simple scientific facts about trillions of cells in his body possessing the Y-chromosome, I should not expect a calm rejoinder about different views of what composes one's gender. Instead, I should be prepared to be outed in violent verbal fashion as a sexist, transphobe or whatever the fuck they call it. I can also expect to lose a friendship, apparently.
If I suggest that we are a country of immigrants and share a great deal in common with Latin Americans when compared to other immigrant waves, I can expect an energetic tirade about Mexican cartels and Latin American welfare queens and remittance schemes.
The distinct answers to this question, then, are really the answer themselves. The problem is this great divide in the perception of present reality. Each side sees completely different things wrong with the country.
What Liberals Think Is Wrong with This Country
When I was young, I definitely thought of myself as a liberal. As a liberal, I had a distinct set of concerns. They were mostly focused on working families and their economic viability. I was afraid that big business would not take care of these people without government interference to ensure their protection and their proper compensation for their work.
One motivation for leaving the Democratic party, to which I briefly belonged in the early 1990s, was the changing focus of the democrats. I do not know any liberals now who really seem to care about poor white men living in trailers and trying to support families. Instead, those men are seen increasingly as the problem by liberals. These uneducated men are likely racist and sexist.
Instead, liberal concerns seem to have turned toward identity politics. It does not seem to matter if you are earning a wage to support a family. Indeed, I believe that many liberals see the family as a unit of oppression. It appears to me that liberals envision a future of individuals who are freed from any kind of bonds on their identities: neither race nor gender nor religion will define a person.
Indeed, religion is an immensely important sub-topic in this discussion. When I was that young man so long ago, both liberals and conservatives went to church on Sunday. If anything, this issue divides liberals and conservatives more distinctly than any other. Liberals, by and large, do not go to church or they go to churches which speak more often about social issues than they do about theological issues.
While some liberals will hold back when discussing religion when they are around people whom they know to be adherents of one faith or another, Internet forums make it quite obvious that they truly despise religion and consider believers to be idiots in whom their can be no sort of trust with regard to the arch-important matters of sexism, racism etc.
What Conservatives Think Is Wrong with This Country
If you are having this conversation with a group of people and suddenly switch from a liberal to a conservative reply, you might think that you are asking questions about two different countries.
To conservatives heading into Election 2016, it appears that liberals are living in some sort of illusory world. This perception is best described by the recent Bruce Jenner event in which he altered his body surgically and declared himself to be a woman. The press immediately began using the feminine pronoun to describe Jenner. It makes conservatives think that liberals use some kind of magical thinking: whatever you think to be true is true, apparently. Conservatives begin to ask, can you make 2+2=5 in that world?
Conservatives see a black man in the presidency and assume that racism is essentially over and everyone can move on. Obviously, race did not keep a black man from reaching the highest office, so how can racism still be impacting black lives?
Conservatives fear the increasing atomization of the family. They see it as responsible for crime and even disease in the long run. Generally, they see the nuclear family as ideal.
You would have to dig deep to find a conservative who did not believe in the essential equality of the races, at least with regard to rights. However, conservatives tend to guard their opinions about the natural abilities and inclinations of each race. Decades ago, it was common for people to speak about the goals and inclinations of each race in distinct ways. Now that this is forbidden, conservatives may pay lip service to the idea of absolute equality but carefully reveal dissidence in guarded conversations.
Conservatives are also still concerned about economic issues form the cold war. They are fearful of a perceived rising socialist threat in the advance of the welfare state.
Immigration has become the biggest conservative concern, possibly because it naturally includes so many of the issues which divide liberals and conservatives. Here you find race and economics together.
Conservatives, in general, treasure the European history which they inherited and the influence of European immigrants on the country in the past. The waves of Latin American immigration which have battered the shores of this country in recent decades concern them greatly for two reasons: they see an eroding of the cultural foundations of the country and they are afraid of the economic impact of so many people living off other people's taxes.
Exceptions to the Rule
There are liberals who are in favor of greater immigration restrictions and conservatives who do not believe in God.
Certainly, the American political landscape is and always has been somewhat kaleidoscopic. My point is that it is much less so now than it was in the previous decades. Reading history, though, I can see that this concentration or crystallization of political viewpoints has happened before. Unfortunately, those periods always did great damage to the country in one way or another.
What Do I Think Is Wrong with This Country?
Most liberals that I know would definitely call me a sexist and a racist, though I am married to a Latin American woman and have experience raising a child in the home while my wife was the breadwinner. That is one of the reasons that I am not a liberal. In my opinion, they do in fact live in an imaginary world in which they can change reality with magical thinking.
Most conservatives would call me a liberal. I speak Spanish and have spent years working as a volunteer to help undocumented workers survive in this country. I like the free market but I have no problem with putting a wrecking ball to the whole health care industry and making government health insurance available to all citizens. I would definitely soak the rich by increasing their taxes.
So what do I think is wrong? The biggest problem is the division of the country into two camps. In the end, it may go back to the whole religion issue. Once liberals stopped going to church, we lost a common ground for meeting. Now liberal ideas were for the most part, cooked up outside the churches and those who remained inside the church walls began to strengthen the defenses.
We are already at war, in a sense. We just haven't started killing anybody. I certainly do not know the best way to resolve this growing divide. I am afraid that the only answer will come from the intensification of the conflict. If you look back at the history of the Civil War, you can see how the country simply came to the point where the only answer was bloodshed. People lost the ability to discuss the issues anymore.
I have good reason for thinking that it will not come to actual physical conflict in the future. I think that our individual lives are so free from the usual concerns of the past that we will not generate the motivation to go to war over these issues. For instance, everyone has more than enough to eat and a secure place to live. It is difficult to work up the ferocity required for war when you are physically comfortable.
But events can always take strange turns. You could have made the case, in the prosperous American colonies of 1770, that revolution against England was an absurd idea. Yet it happened. I hope, for the sake of my children, that we find a way to avoid conflict both before and after Election 2016 while actually working on real resolutions to our differences.
Labels:
conservative,
Culture,
Election 2016,
family,
gays,
homosexuality,
immigration,
jesus,
liberal,
Obama,
Obamacare,
Politics,
Race,
religion,
socialism,
United States,
Voting,
war,
working class
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Who Is Marco Rubio?
After the second GOP debate, three top candidates were reconfirmed in their positions: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson. An additional member of the pack stepped into the foreground: Marco Rubio.
Some Biographical Data
Marco Rubio is one of the younger republicans running for national office this year. As of this writing, he is just 44 years old. If elected, he would be one of the youngest men to ever hold the highest office in the land.
Youth is not the only thing that distinguishes Rubio from past and present GOP candidates. He is a Cuban-American from Florida, one of three serving in the US Senate. His youth and ethnicity single him out at a time when liberals are more likely than ever to depict the Republican Party as a party of old, white men.
Furthermore, Rubio is a Roman Catholic. Only one Roman Catholic, the democrat John Kennedy, has ever served as US President, though the US population is more than 20% Catholic.
Political Background
Marco Rubio won his first election in 1999, when he narrowly defeated an opponent for the Florida State House of Representatives. In just three years, he became the Majority leader in that representative body. By 2009 he was ready for bigger things and ran for the US Senate seat that had been opened by resignation. He defeated the governor of that state, Charlie Crist, in that election.
As junior Senator from Florida, Rubio has represented ideas that have become fairly typical for Republicans today. He won his seat with strong Tea Party support. He has since distinguished himself somewhat from that political group with his stance on immigration reform (rather than enforcement) and his call for strengthening the military.
He takes a strong anti-abortion stance and received a B+ from the NRA on the issue of gun control. He is less republican on climate change, essentially taking an agnostic stance.
It remains to be seen whether Rubio will have the organization behind him to manage this sudden limelight. However, if his past is any indicator, he has been aiming for greater things since the very beginning.
Some Biographical Data
Marco Rubio is one of the younger republicans running for national office this year. As of this writing, he is just 44 years old. If elected, he would be one of the youngest men to ever hold the highest office in the land.
Youth is not the only thing that distinguishes Rubio from past and present GOP candidates. He is a Cuban-American from Florida, one of three serving in the US Senate. His youth and ethnicity single him out at a time when liberals are more likely than ever to depict the Republican Party as a party of old, white men.
Furthermore, Rubio is a Roman Catholic. Only one Roman Catholic, the democrat John Kennedy, has ever served as US President, though the US population is more than 20% Catholic.
Political Background
Marco Rubio won his first election in 1999, when he narrowly defeated an opponent for the Florida State House of Representatives. In just three years, he became the Majority leader in that representative body. By 2009 he was ready for bigger things and ran for the US Senate seat that had been opened by resignation. He defeated the governor of that state, Charlie Crist, in that election.
As junior Senator from Florida, Rubio has represented ideas that have become fairly typical for Republicans today. He won his seat with strong Tea Party support. He has since distinguished himself somewhat from that political group with his stance on immigration reform (rather than enforcement) and his call for strengthening the military.
He takes a strong anti-abortion stance and received a B+ from the NRA on the issue of gun control. He is less republican on climate change, essentially taking an agnostic stance.
It remains to be seen whether Rubio will have the organization behind him to manage this sudden limelight. However, if his past is any indicator, he has been aiming for greater things since the very beginning.
Monday, September 21, 2015
GOP Front Runners
Even though we are far away from the Iowa caucus on February 1, things have really heated up in the Republican presidential race. Out of the crowd of some 15 or 16 remaining candidates, there are four distinct front runners coming out of the second debate.
Trump came away from the debate with fewer adherents apparently.
The latest polls have him at 24% support. Earlier surveys had put him above 30%. Most people seemed to think he either just held his own or did poorly at the forum of ten leading republicans that convened last week. So many posts are devoted to the Donald that I won't waste more space on him here.
Carson appears to be essentially tied with Carly Fiorina for second. Each of them comes in with 15% of the total GOP support. For Carson, this is a letdown because he was a strong second in the week leading up to the second GOP debate. I have already dedicated a lot of space to Carson so I will leave it at that.
The former HP CEO made major gains after this last debate. There was a lot of buzz about her but not much movement in the polls prior to that. The expectations were high after her better-than-expected showing at the non-debate held outside the first GOP debate. She accomplished her mission and rose to vie with arson for second-place in republican hearts,
I'll give Rubio his own column shortly. In the meantime, I am noticing that the party which liberals characterize as old, white and male is supporting black, hispanic and female candidates, one of whom is just 44 years old.
Trump came away from the debate with fewer adherents apparently.
Carson appears to be essentially tied with Carly Fiorina for second. Each of them comes in with 15% of the total GOP support. For Carson, this is a letdown because he was a strong second in the week leading up to the second GOP debate. I have already dedicated a lot of space to Carson so I will leave it at that.
The former HP CEO made major gains after this last debate. There was a lot of buzz about her but not much movement in the polls prior to that. The expectations were high after her better-than-expected showing at the non-debate held outside the first GOP debate. She accomplished her mission and rose to vie with arson for second-place in republican hearts,
- Marco Rubio Someone was destined to rise up out of the remaining pack and make a respectable showing with these three leaders. Marco Rubio finally lifted his head above the rest and stood tall with Trump, Fiorina, and Carson. The junior US Senator from Florida since 2011, he is just 44 years old and notably hispanic.
I'll give Rubio his own column shortly. In the meantime, I am noticing that the party which liberals characterize as old, white and male is supporting black, hispanic and female candidates, one of whom is just 44 years old.
Labels:
Ben Carson,
Carly Fiorina,
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
Marco Rubio,
Politics,
Race,
United States,
Voting
Saturday, September 19, 2015
The Walking Dead: Why the Republican Nominees Don't Give Up
When I see that some of the GOP nominees are still polling somewhere between 0 and 1% of the republican vote, I have a hard time figuring out why they are still in the race when virtually no one has expressed interest in their candidacy so far. Are they just stubborn or are they convinced that they can turn things around if they just hang on long enough?
It actually makes my brain hurt to think that George Pataki is still in this thing. He and some of his fellow nominees remind me of scenes from the Walking Dead where armies of zombies march silently on.
After thinking about it for a while, though, the answer should become obvious to everyone. Give it enough thinking and the answer actually becomes disturbing.
I once jokingly suggested that the nominees were simply running to see who would be Donald Trump's VP. I was only being semi-facetious and I am not that convinced that Trump will be the last one standing. However, there is probably more truth in that statement than I originally thought.
Many of the people up on the stage during the debates are probably thinking that they can secure cabinet positions by hanging in there and demonstrating that a portion of the conservative electorate believes in them. I would guess that Lindsey Graham has his eyes on the Defense Department from all his war-hawking. Christie might have the State Department or even the vice-presidency in mind. One wonders what Mike Huckabee would actually want.
These positions are not just opportunities to stay in the limelight and position themselves for a future run at the presidency again. Federal jobs in the Administrative and in the Legislative branches come with hefty salaries and excellent retirement packages. Once you have been in a federal elected post or in the president's cabinet, you qualify for lasting benefits which vary depending on how much you earned and how long you held your post.
I think that these people are just eyeing potential gigs with the next POTUS. They are planning on putting in hours and credits just like regular people that try to get in enough work time to make meager increases in their social security or their own retirement packages. But at this level, they are guaranteeing themselves some really sweet benefits when compared to what most of us can ever expect.
After I got this idea, I still wondered at the number of would-be candidates. After all, this benefit of federal work has existed for some time. Why the rush now to get into the government? Is it because they are all in a position to understand that guarantees are running out? That the US government would be the last domino to fall during hard economic times? Do they agree with the doomsayers running around and predicting economic collapse?
Maybe of a lot these zombie nominees are really just trying to get last-minute tickets on Noah's Ark because they know that it is already raining. Depressing, I know.
It actually makes my brain hurt to think that George Pataki is still in this thing. He and some of his fellow nominees remind me of scenes from the Walking Dead where armies of zombies march silently on.
![]() |
| Is that Scott Walker in front? |
I once jokingly suggested that the nominees were simply running to see who would be Donald Trump's VP. I was only being semi-facetious and I am not that convinced that Trump will be the last one standing. However, there is probably more truth in that statement than I originally thought.
Many of the people up on the stage during the debates are probably thinking that they can secure cabinet positions by hanging in there and demonstrating that a portion of the conservative electorate believes in them. I would guess that Lindsey Graham has his eyes on the Defense Department from all his war-hawking. Christie might have the State Department or even the vice-presidency in mind. One wonders what Mike Huckabee would actually want.
These positions are not just opportunities to stay in the limelight and position themselves for a future run at the presidency again. Federal jobs in the Administrative and in the Legislative branches come with hefty salaries and excellent retirement packages. Once you have been in a federal elected post or in the president's cabinet, you qualify for lasting benefits which vary depending on how much you earned and how long you held your post.
I think that these people are just eyeing potential gigs with the next POTUS. They are planning on putting in hours and credits just like regular people that try to get in enough work time to make meager increases in their social security or their own retirement packages. But at this level, they are guaranteeing themselves some really sweet benefits when compared to what most of us can ever expect.
After I got this idea, I still wondered at the number of would-be candidates. After all, this benefit of federal work has existed for some time. Why the rush now to get into the government? Is it because they are all in a position to understand that guarantees are running out? That the US government would be the last domino to fall during hard economic times? Do they agree with the doomsayers running around and predicting economic collapse?
Maybe of a lot these zombie nominees are really just trying to get last-minute tickets on Noah's Ark because they know that it is already raining. Depressing, I know.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Who Is Carly Fiorina?
It is hard to stand out in such a large crowd of candidates like the one that the GOP has fielded this year. Carly Fiorina is the only woman running for the republican nomination this year, so she immediately gains a little extra attention just for that. However, she has parlayed her mere position among the nominees into something much more formidable in the last few weeks.
Carly Fiorina was little more than a face in that crowd when the first GOP debate aired. In fact, she was not even allowed into the main circle of 10 front-running nominees but was rather set aside with a half dozen others in a non-debate forum. Each nominee there only had the opportunity to speak his or her piece and be done with it.
She made the most of the moment by coming off as a sober, intelligent candidate. Then she turned that into something more by playing up the idea that she had forgotten her notes and had spoken off the cuff. She earned a more prominent spot in the second GOP debate held earlier this week.
Fiorina's Background
At present, Fiorina is the chairman of a philanthropic organization known as Good 360. She is perhaps most well-known for her time as the CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP). Heading that business from 1999 to 2005, Forbes recognized her as the first woman to manage one of the top-20 companies in the world. She ran for the US Senate in 2010 in California but lost the general election to Barbara Boxer.
Among her more notable political positions are her pro-life stance, her acceptance of climate change theory and her opposition to Obamacare and the Iran nuclear agreement.
What Her Supporters Like
Fiorina's backers proudly point to her business experience as a major qualifier for the presidential role.
Her ideas are moderately conservative. For example, she is only against abortions after 20 weeks though she does state that she would defund Planned Parenthood and seek some route to overturn Roe v Wade. She proclaims support for Proposition 8 in California, which briefly banned same-sex marriage in California but worked to ensure domestic partners benefits for employees while at HP.
What Her Detractors Don't
Conservatives on the hard-right do not like her moderation. However, others have more technical and pointed concerns. For instance, although she has worked extensively in politics, she has never held public office. Furthermore, her business career does not withstand much scrutiny because she was fired from her position as CEO due to falling stock prices and a decline in earnings.
Nevertheless, in polls taken after the second debate, Fiorina appears tied with Doonald Trump. Each of them are now wielding about a quarter of the GOP electorate as the number of weaker candidates begins to decrease.
Carly Fiorina was little more than a face in that crowd when the first GOP debate aired. In fact, she was not even allowed into the main circle of 10 front-running nominees but was rather set aside with a half dozen others in a non-debate forum. Each nominee there only had the opportunity to speak his or her piece and be done with it.
She made the most of the moment by coming off as a sober, intelligent candidate. Then she turned that into something more by playing up the idea that she had forgotten her notes and had spoken off the cuff. She earned a more prominent spot in the second GOP debate held earlier this week.
Fiorina's Background
At present, Fiorina is the chairman of a philanthropic organization known as Good 360. She is perhaps most well-known for her time as the CEO of Hewlett Packard (HP). Heading that business from 1999 to 2005, Forbes recognized her as the first woman to manage one of the top-20 companies in the world. She ran for the US Senate in 2010 in California but lost the general election to Barbara Boxer.
Among her more notable political positions are her pro-life stance, her acceptance of climate change theory and her opposition to Obamacare and the Iran nuclear agreement.
What Her Supporters Like
Fiorina's backers proudly point to her business experience as a major qualifier for the presidential role.
Her ideas are moderately conservative. For example, she is only against abortions after 20 weeks though she does state that she would defund Planned Parenthood and seek some route to overturn Roe v Wade. She proclaims support for Proposition 8 in California, which briefly banned same-sex marriage in California but worked to ensure domestic partners benefits for employees while at HP.
What Her Detractors Don't
Conservatives on the hard-right do not like her moderation. However, others have more technical and pointed concerns. For instance, although she has worked extensively in politics, she has never held public office. Furthermore, her business career does not withstand much scrutiny because she was fired from her position as CEO due to falling stock prices and a decline in earnings.
Nevertheless, in polls taken after the second debate, Fiorina appears tied with Doonald Trump. Each of them are now wielding about a quarter of the GOP electorate as the number of weaker candidates begins to decrease.
Labels:
Carly Fiorina,
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
election polls,
gays,
GOP,
Iran,
Obamacare,
Politics,
United States,
Voting
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Is There Anyone Else Running for President?
While I have ridiculed some of the unlikelier efforts to run for president (I'm talking to you, Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham), I should probably devote at least a little space to the horde of third-party candidates that have gathered once again tilt at windmills. Here are some of the more notable Quixotes under their party banners (source):
American Freedom Party
Robert Whitaker of South Carolina leads the ticket for this party. I am not sure what more to say about this party except that the article posted here on their website proves that they are burdened with some serious mental disorders.
Constitution Party
There are several candidates from this party apparently running for the nomination. They have their seven principles on their website. They look to be, in the contemporary environment, pretty reactionary. It is interesting to note that they would have been very middle of the road or even somewhat liberal viewpoints a century or less ago.
Green Party
The watermelon party: green on the outside and red on the inside. They also have fielded several candidates for the nomination Darryl Cherny of Northern California has his exploratory committee's web presence on Facebook..
Libertarian Party
As always, the Libertarian party has gathered their merry band of misfits for another nomination party. Most notable among them is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. His webpage has some jazzy music and focuses on the examination and redefinition of liberty and freedom.
Party of Socialism and Liberation
This party has the perfect PC ticket. They have already selected their candidates: a hispanic woman for the presidency and a black man for the vice presidency. Gloria LaRiva comes out of California and Eugene Puryear is from DC. There platform appears to be straightforward socialism. They mix a little environmentalism in with their ideas, saying that "for the Earth to live, Capitalism must end!".
I always thought that socialism was meant to save the working class. Looks like those workers can go fuck themselves, 'cause were savin' the planet!
Peace and Freedom Party
Believe it or not, Roseanne Barr is running for president! Along with a few others, she is seeking the nomination for the presidential ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party. What I don't understand is how Gloria LaRiva is also running for this party's ticket. Maybe this is like taking the side bet in blackjack.
Prohibition Party
It may be hard to imagine but there is a Prohibition Party in this country. And when I say Prohibition, I mean the ban-alcohol party from the early 20th century. You might want to laugh at the idea, but the man running for president under this banner has held elected office as the leading member of that party. Most third-party candidates cannot say the same.
Reform Party USA
The Reform Party was started back in the 1990s under Ross Perot. It still exists to day and is still putting forth candidates for the presidency. This year, the sole candidate on the ticket appears to be Ken Cross.
Veterans' Party of America
There is also a party dedicated to viewing politics through the eyes of veterans. More than that, though, they also have a platform with pretty clear statements and a focus on constitutionality and border defense.
American Freedom Party
Robert Whitaker of South Carolina leads the ticket for this party. I am not sure what more to say about this party except that the article posted here on their website proves that they are burdened with some serious mental disorders.
Constitution Party
There are several candidates from this party apparently running for the nomination. They have their seven principles on their website. They look to be, in the contemporary environment, pretty reactionary. It is interesting to note that they would have been very middle of the road or even somewhat liberal viewpoints a century or less ago.
Green Party
The watermelon party: green on the outside and red on the inside. They also have fielded several candidates for the nomination Darryl Cherny of Northern California has his exploratory committee's web presence on Facebook..
Libertarian Party
As always, the Libertarian party has gathered their merry band of misfits for another nomination party. Most notable among them is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. His webpage has some jazzy music and focuses on the examination and redefinition of liberty and freedom.
Party of Socialism and Liberation
This party has the perfect PC ticket. They have already selected their candidates: a hispanic woman for the presidency and a black man for the vice presidency. Gloria LaRiva comes out of California and Eugene Puryear is from DC. There platform appears to be straightforward socialism. They mix a little environmentalism in with their ideas, saying that "for the Earth to live, Capitalism must end!".
I always thought that socialism was meant to save the working class. Looks like those workers can go fuck themselves, 'cause were savin' the planet!
Peace and Freedom Party
Believe it or not, Roseanne Barr is running for president! Along with a few others, she is seeking the nomination for the presidential ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party. What I don't understand is how Gloria LaRiva is also running for this party's ticket. Maybe this is like taking the side bet in blackjack.
Prohibition Party
It may be hard to imagine but there is a Prohibition Party in this country. And when I say Prohibition, I mean the ban-alcohol party from the early 20th century. You might want to laugh at the idea, but the man running for president under this banner has held elected office as the leading member of that party. Most third-party candidates cannot say the same.
Reform Party USA
The Reform Party was started back in the 1990s under Ross Perot. It still exists to day and is still putting forth candidates for the presidency. This year, the sole candidate on the ticket appears to be Ken Cross.
Veterans' Party of America
There is also a party dedicated to viewing politics through the eyes of veterans. More than that, though, they also have a platform with pretty clear statements and a focus on constitutionality and border defense.
Labels:
Election 2016,
election polls,
Politics,
United States,
veterans,
Voting
Saturday, September 12, 2015
And Then There Nine. Or 16. Wait. How Many GOP Candidates Are There?
So Rick Perry dropped out of the race. It looks like bullying tactics are working pretty well for Donald Trump.
Perry was one of the earliest victims of Trump's aggression. Trump hammered down on Perry's alleged intelligence deficit, saying that the ex-governor of Texas should have to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate. Just this humiliating charge was enough to noticeably diminish Perry's standing in the polls.
In Rick Perry's defense, I don't see what makes him so apparently less intelligent than any other political candidate. According to this Gene Expression article from a 2011 edition of Discover magazine, Perry got Cs and Ds in his college courses back in the late 60s and early 70s.
Youths of today, granted Cs practically just for showing up at school, do not understand that a C grade was pretty respectable back before the days when everyone was expected to go to college. I suspect that a review of college grades for many great statesmen would reveal lackluster academic performances. Great men do not tend to fare well in the institutions of docility that pass for schools these days.
The saddest part of the whole debacle is that Perry gave up his job as governor of Texas early this year to run for President. Now, many candidates give up positions in order to run for another office. However, it must hurt to have the whole dream turned to shit so quickly.
If he had at least made it to the primaries, he might have felt justified in the decision to quit. Now he must be missing the security and privilege of his former position.
Nevertheless, Perry is out and the dwindling has begun. Also, the Donald has once again been provided with another headline and indirectly free publicity.
Perry was one of the earliest victims of Trump's aggression. Trump hammered down on Perry's alleged intelligence deficit, saying that the ex-governor of Texas should have to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate. Just this humiliating charge was enough to noticeably diminish Perry's standing in the polls.
In Rick Perry's defense, I don't see what makes him so apparently less intelligent than any other political candidate. According to this Gene Expression article from a 2011 edition of Discover magazine, Perry got Cs and Ds in his college courses back in the late 60s and early 70s.
Youths of today, granted Cs practically just for showing up at school, do not understand that a C grade was pretty respectable back before the days when everyone was expected to go to college. I suspect that a review of college grades for many great statesmen would reveal lackluster academic performances. Great men do not tend to fare well in the institutions of docility that pass for schools these days.
The saddest part of the whole debacle is that Perry gave up his job as governor of Texas early this year to run for President. Now, many candidates give up positions in order to run for another office. However, it must hurt to have the whole dream turned to shit so quickly.
If he had at least made it to the primaries, he might have felt justified in the decision to quit. Now he must be missing the security and privilege of his former position.
Nevertheless, Perry is out and the dwindling has begun. Also, the Donald has once again been provided with another headline and indirectly free publicity.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
Politics,
Rick Perry,
United States,
Voting
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Clear and Present Danger for Donald Trump
If you are a fan of Donald Trump, then it might be easy right now to get carried away with enthusiasm and assume that he cannot be stopped. After all, Jeb Bush is basically imploding with omega male misery and the myriad other contenders are, for the most part, swirling and spinning in the wake of Trump's speedboat.
The only real threat appears to be Ben Carson. But ask yourself, are the other candidates trying to imitate Carson to make up the difference or are they imitating Trump? GOP candidates are trying to fire up the rhetoric and appear as outspoken as the Donald now but this is a pathetic effort doomed to failure. Even the dimmest bulb in the room sees through this effort and, worse, they are going to turn off many of their more traditional supporters.
However, if you have been through a few political cycles, you can see a serious but ambiguous threat to Trump's continued popularity.
Time Destroys All Things
Just think, the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary are still four months away. Once those events occur, leading candidates have headlines to help carry their efforts to the next round of primaries. You can either count on winning a primary or doing better than expected to generate some free publicity and keep people interested.
But we are not in primary season. If you want to be noticed and gather support, you need to create your own stories. Now, so far Trump has had little difficulty doing this. The press has been giving him free publicity for several weeks but he was still considered a sideshow just a couple months ago. Now he has to slog through four months of quiet time.
The other candidates, even those with just a few percentage points of support, can still come back if they manage to hold on. Just like stocks usually bounce back from lows and reward investors who hold on to them, candidates can recover when emotional support for a frontrunner fades away as time passes and nothing new happens. That support has to go somewhere and it can trickle down to these stragglers and make some headlines for them.
I am not saying that Trump cannot do it, only that he has a different game ahead of him now. He has garnered a lot of press and support for being outspoken. Over four months, that will get old. He will probably have to begin producing policies and plans and compete with these others in their own games.
Clinging to a Bush
Jeb Bush has a lot of money. He can hold on. He might begin to look very good to people who tire of Trump's bluster and seek comfort in traditional candidates. Other GOP candidates may share the same hope. Ben Carson can hope to appear as the safe and sensible alternative to "the crazies," as John McCain referred to the earliest supporters of Trump over a month ago.
The only real threat appears to be Ben Carson. But ask yourself, are the other candidates trying to imitate Carson to make up the difference or are they imitating Trump? GOP candidates are trying to fire up the rhetoric and appear as outspoken as the Donald now but this is a pathetic effort doomed to failure. Even the dimmest bulb in the room sees through this effort and, worse, they are going to turn off many of their more traditional supporters.
However, if you have been through a few political cycles, you can see a serious but ambiguous threat to Trump's continued popularity.
Time Destroys All Things
![]() |
| Trump towers someday. But maybe not in 2016! |
But we are not in primary season. If you want to be noticed and gather support, you need to create your own stories. Now, so far Trump has had little difficulty doing this. The press has been giving him free publicity for several weeks but he was still considered a sideshow just a couple months ago. Now he has to slog through four months of quiet time.
The other candidates, even those with just a few percentage points of support, can still come back if they manage to hold on. Just like stocks usually bounce back from lows and reward investors who hold on to them, candidates can recover when emotional support for a frontrunner fades away as time passes and nothing new happens. That support has to go somewhere and it can trickle down to these stragglers and make some headlines for them.
I am not saying that Trump cannot do it, only that he has a different game ahead of him now. He has garnered a lot of press and support for being outspoken. Over four months, that will get old. He will probably have to begin producing policies and plans and compete with these others in their own games.
Clinging to a Bush
Jeb Bush has a lot of money. He can hold on. He might begin to look very good to people who tire of Trump's bluster and seek comfort in traditional candidates. Other GOP candidates may share the same hope. Ben Carson can hope to appear as the safe and sensible alternative to "the crazies," as John McCain referred to the earliest supporters of Trump over a month ago.
Labels:
Ben Carson,
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
GOP,
Jeb Bush,
Politics,
United States,
Voting
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Donald Trump Pledges to Stay in the GOP
I did not think that he would do it but apparently Donald Trump has pledged to support the GOP even in he loses the nomination. Given his stubborn and maverick style, I thought that he would refuse to do so and end up running as an independent if he could not pull off the nomination by next summer. Having thought it over for a couple of days, I think I can see a few good reasons why he would do so.
- He cannot get on the ballot in some states without such a pledge. I think that this is a total bullshit move on part of the GOP but apparently some primaries, such as South Carolina, operate under such rules.
- He is increasingly confident that he will, in fact, be the nominee and refusing the pledge accomplishes nothing.
- Being the Donald, he has no intention of honoring the pledge if it works against him.
There is good reason for Donald Trump to sign it now that the latest poll shows him beating Clinton in a head-to-head election. The Trump avalanche in the GOP appears to be increasingly inevitable.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
GOP,
Hillary Clinton,
Politics,
United States,
Voting
Friday, September 4, 2015
Why Is Hillary Clinton Struggling to Lead in the Polls?
The great surprise of this election cycle is the trouble that Hillary Clinton has had in clinching the nomination. I realize that the primaries are still far away but I assumed that by now she would dominate the polls and have an easy ride to Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of her.
As if the continued neck-and-neck business with Bernie Sanders was not enough to mystify me, Joe Biden is inexplicably pondering entry into the race and being received favorably by many Democrats. At least with the republicans, I understand why their nomination process is a mess, The Dems have completely mystified me this year. I thought this was a done deal.
How Can Bernie Sanders Have Any Appeal Today?
Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination but he is technically an independent. In fact, he describes himself as a socialist but is not apparently a member of the Socialist Party USA (which is a sad little affair with something like one or two thousand members).
Now, the last unabashed socialist to run for president several decades ago got a few thousand total popular votes nationwide. Simply put, it has always been impossible for open socialists to win elections in this country. Even the most liberal locales have been allergic to this form of left-wing politics. Certainly, democrats have been justifiably accused of adhering to specific socialist ideas but their politics have always been to the right of major European socialist parties. In fact, liberal democrats in America are often more right wing than some conservative parties in Europe but that is a topic for another time.
So how has Sanders stayed competitive this time around? He is polling only around 20-30 percent support in head-to-head polls against the other democrats but that is far more than any of the others running against Hillary Clinton. Names like Webb and O'Malley get anywhere from 0% to 2% in such polls. I suspect he gets support for a few reasons:
As if the continued neck-and-neck business with Bernie Sanders was not enough to mystify me, Joe Biden is inexplicably pondering entry into the race and being received favorably by many Democrats. At least with the republicans, I understand why their nomination process is a mess, The Dems have completely mystified me this year. I thought this was a done deal.
How Can Bernie Sanders Have Any Appeal Today?
Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination but he is technically an independent. In fact, he describes himself as a socialist but is not apparently a member of the Socialist Party USA (which is a sad little affair with something like one or two thousand members).
Now, the last unabashed socialist to run for president several decades ago got a few thousand total popular votes nationwide. Simply put, it has always been impossible for open socialists to win elections in this country. Even the most liberal locales have been allergic to this form of left-wing politics. Certainly, democrats have been justifiably accused of adhering to specific socialist ideas but their politics have always been to the right of major European socialist parties. In fact, liberal democrats in America are often more right wing than some conservative parties in Europe but that is a topic for another time.
So how has Sanders stayed competitive this time around? He is polling only around 20-30 percent support in head-to-head polls against the other democrats but that is far more than any of the others running against Hillary Clinton. Names like Webb and O'Malley get anywhere from 0% to 2% in such polls. I suspect he gets support for a few reasons:
- He is from Vermont and is popular with New Englanders. His higher numbers in New Hampshire (there he nearly equals Clinton with 40% of the vote) are probably due to this factor and they help to give him credibility in other polled locales.
- People are really fed up with the way that global capitalism has destroyed their hopes. In a related article on my finance blog, I discussed how the economics of this country have been betraying the working class for decades. Maybe they are ready for extreme solutions to their extreme problems. I tend to think that Donald Trump is getting a lot of support on the other end of the political spectrum for the same reasons.
- Perhaps people just don't like Hillary Clinton enough to dismiss her competition so quickly.
Is Hillary Her Own Worst Enemy?
Maybe the explanation is much more simple than I let on. When I saw how even the mention of a run by Joe Biden was enough to upset Clinton's already rocking boat, I was surprised at how easily disturbed the race was on the Democratic side, Perhaps democrats are more fed up with Clinton than it appears.
It could be that the email scandal and Benghazi do resonate with liberal voters. Or maybe people are just sick of the Clintons and want to move on. Of course, it could also be a more prosaic answer. People might just not be impressed with the content of her political proposals. Wouldn't that be pleasantly traditional?
Saturday, August 29, 2015
The Sarah Palin Interview with Donald Trump
Here the man speaks for himself with regard to many of the issues of the day.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
Election 2016,
immigration,
Politics,
religion,
United States,
veterans,
war
Donald Trump: Reactionary, Liberal or Loose Cannon?
Whenever Trump flirted with the idea of running for president in the past, I was always appalled by the idea. The last thing we needed, I thought, was a rich, political outsider coming in to mess everything up.
How strange, then, that today I see him as the most promising candidate in the field. Maybe that is because there is nothing that I would like more than to see everything in Washington overturned. But I am starting to let my anarchist leanings show and this post is about Trump, not me.
I think that Trump fascinates the public not only with his candor but also with his unusual set of stances on a variety of issues. He at once appears both reactionary and radical to a public brainwashed over the last few decades to only see political issues in terms of conservative republican vs liberal democrat.
Trump the Liberal
Trump confuses modern voters because he glibly promotes opinions and viewpoints which, as a set, Americans have been taught to see as irreconcilable. Here are some of the "traditionally" liberal political stances to which Trump allegedly adheres:
How strange, then, that today I see him as the most promising candidate in the field. Maybe that is because there is nothing that I would like more than to see everything in Washington overturned. But I am starting to let my anarchist leanings show and this post is about Trump, not me.
I think that Trump fascinates the public not only with his candor but also with his unusual set of stances on a variety of issues. He at once appears both reactionary and radical to a public brainwashed over the last few decades to only see political issues in terms of conservative republican vs liberal democrat.
Trump the Liberal
Trump confuses modern voters because he glibly promotes opinions and viewpoints which, as a set, Americans have been taught to see as irreconcilable. Here are some of the "traditionally" liberal political stances to which Trump allegedly adheres:
- He is, essentially, pro-choice. He is not a big fan of it but he does not breathe fire on the issue. He has come out and called himself pro-life in some remarks but he is not really that strong on the issue. In fact. I think that his is a pretty common view among republicans but, in order to win their socially conservative base, they must take a strong pro-life stance in public.
- He is, at least, content with the present progressive tax system applied by the IRS. I am sure that, like most people, he would love for the IRS to be unnecessary but, as long as there is income tax he thinks that it makes sense to take more from the rich. This is anathema to fiscal conservatives.
- Apparently Trump does not want to make cuts to Social Security or Medicare.
- He has expressed open support for the idea of a single-payer health care system.
- Trump promotes the Second Amendment but has stated acceptance of things such as background checks and even bans on certain types of weapons. For Second Amendment republicans, this type of thing is a shibboleth to aid in culling the weak from the electoral herd.
- Trump has a pretty relaxed stance on gays. I would guess that he is essentially a live-and-let live kind of guy. I have not heard , though, how he stands on issues such as the well-known wedding-cake business which got sued out of existence just because it refused to make a gay-themed wedding cake.
More than Trump's political stances, his actions mark him out as a liberal. He doesn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton, for example. I have to think, though, that most men wouldn't mind hanging out with Bill Clinton. It's pretty obvious that guy would be fun at parties.
![]() |
| I think that Donald's wives are actually getting hotter as he gets older. |
Most egregious among his sins, though, are Trump's sexual relationships. Not only has he been married three times but his affairs and his trophy wives could certainly be considered scandalous among conservatives. But, then again, old school feminist liberals would also be appalled by these shenanigans.
Trump Conservative
Simultaneously, Trump loudly proclaims allegiance to many traditionally conservative ideas. In fact, his approach in some cases is so conservative that he makes conservatives blush. Here are a few of his more well-known conservative political themes:
- IMMIGRATION. The all-caps presentation was intentional. On this issue, Trump makes Pat Buchanan look reticent when he talks about immigration. He seems quite serious about building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean while deporting somewhere on the order of 10 or 20 million people.
- ISIS - Trump apparently wants to reinvade Iraq to handle this problem. That is a much bolder stance than any republican has publicly taken, though it may be that many of them incline toward that solution.
- Climate - Trump has publicly stated that the climate change issue is built on a hoax.
- Drugs - Trump's last known stance on the issue is in favor of legalization and taxation.
- Capital Punishment - Trump sees no problem with sending violent monster's to the chair or to the lethal injection gurney, anyway.
Trump Loose Cannon
A number of people believe that Trump is simply a man with no filter. He says what he is thinking at the moment and is not thinking about which source of financial support an errant remark may cost him.
For his detractors, that is a weakness. The 25% to 30% of republican voters who support him, though, seem enamored of his penchant for calling a spade a spade. Either they are showing a willingness to overlook the other issues on which he is less conservative due to this appealing trait or they themselves have never been that devoted to those issues.
What I like about Trump is the possibility that he presents for breaking down the two-party system. I am less interested in his views than I am in the way that many supporters openly admit that he offends them on one or more points but they forgive him for one reason or another. Some excuse his faults because he so fervently supports their favorite issue, which is often immigration. Others are just angry and simply want somebody to kick some ass in Washington.
Anyone my age or older, though, knows that this opportunity has presented itself before. Ross Perot tried something similar in 1992 and there are other examples in American history before him. Some people do not take him seriously simply because those prior efforts failed.
I think though, that hope springs eternal and that the Internet age may make possible a paradigm shift in American politics. Perot made his venture when his access to the public was almost entirely controlled by three television networks. No one can stop an interested public from hearing what Trump has to say between now and election day 2016.
A number of people believe that Trump is simply a man with no filter. He says what he is thinking at the moment and is not thinking about which source of financial support an errant remark may cost him.
For his detractors, that is a weakness. The 25% to 30% of republican voters who support him, though, seem enamored of his penchant for calling a spade a spade. Either they are showing a willingness to overlook the other issues on which he is less conservative due to this appealing trait or they themselves have never been that devoted to those issues.
What I like about Trump is the possibility that he presents for breaking down the two-party system. I am less interested in his views than I am in the way that many supporters openly admit that he offends them on one or more points but they forgive him for one reason or another. Some excuse his faults because he so fervently supports their favorite issue, which is often immigration. Others are just angry and simply want somebody to kick some ass in Washington.
Anyone my age or older, though, knows that this opportunity has presented itself before. Ross Perot tried something similar in 1992 and there are other examples in American history before him. Some people do not take him seriously simply because those prior efforts failed.
I think though, that hope springs eternal and that the Internet age may make possible a paradigm shift in American politics. Perot made his venture when his access to the public was almost entirely controlled by three television networks. No one can stop an interested public from hearing what Trump has to say between now and election day 2016.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
The Founding Fathers and the Welfare State
The Founding Fathers of the United States have been depicted
in several different lights throughout history. Never at any one time has there
been agreement about their composite or specific character. You can find disagreement
over the qualities of these men in literature as early as Irving’s Rip Van Winkle,
in which the protagonist mistakes a portrait of General Washington for that of
King George III.
Nevertheless, we are not what they were. Most Americans, even the red-blooded kind that still go to Church on Sunday and stand for the pledge of allegiance, believe in some kind of welfare state that is clearly distinct from the early Republic. You can only cut so many social programs before even the most libertarian amongst us cries out in pain.
Modern Misconceptions about the Founding Fathers
Misconceptions abound about these men and their views. In
Christian-right circles, these men are sometimes depicted as stalwart and
anachronistically fundamentalist Christians. Leftists like Howard Zinn see them
as one step removed from robber barons. Others assume that they were secretly
anti-slavery because they want to respect these men but can’t get over their
glaring possession of black-skinned human beings.
The most popular misconception about them regards their
purpose in the War for Independence. Many people think that they were rebelling
against monarchy. These men actually appealed to the king to save them from the
pseudo-democratic Parliament.
Like any body of men, each of them was a complex being. As a
whole, they were also complex. Some wanted to separate themselves from monarchy
and create a libertine society that probably would have differed only a little
from that which would be erected in France in the next few decades. Others were
unabashed monarchists who simply wanted to move up the political food chain in
their locale. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, years after the War for
Independence had ended, Alexander Hamilton argued publicly for the institution
of an elected monarchy.
The Cultural Difference
There was one quality of all those men, and the other people
who occupied the newly-developed country, that was undeniably common. Each of
them was self-sufficient. This aspect of their collective character is often
trumpeted by so-called conservatives.
It is an undeniable fact. Virtually all people were, when
compared to the average person today, self-sufficient. Even the large
landowners, such as Washington and Jefferson, had to engage daily in their business
affairs in order to keep things going. The only ones that truly lived off the
labor of others and idled away their lives were the increasingly useless nobles
of Europe and they were far away.
While a pseudo-libertarian like me might adhere to this idea
and proclaim a gospel calling for a return to this self-sufficiency, it would
be disingenuous. After all, self-sufficiency was not a choice. While it might
have been character-building, it undoubtedly also involved a lot of tragedy.
People were self-sufficient because they had to be. It
remains in doubt whether they would have been philosophically against a welfare
state like our own or the kind seen in Europe today. There are certainly some Founding
Fathers who would have been repelled by the state of things today. There is not
a consensus among those cadavers about the issue, though.
Moving Forward
Nevertheless, we are not what they were. Most Americans, even the red-blooded kind that still go to Church on Sunday and stand for the pledge of allegiance, believe in some kind of welfare state that is clearly distinct from the early Republic. You can only cut so many social programs before even the most libertarian amongst us cries out in pain.
Perhaps the best way forward is not to look back at these
complex men who inhabit a region of the space-time continuum which we cannot ever
access. Some have surrendered to the present and simply await the inevitable
downfall of a society which constantly spends more than it earns. They still
face the same problem that pro-welfare individuals will face when it all comes
apart. Each of these people will have to come together again to create the next
state. That political organization will have to be derived from the human
resources of the present and not from the spiritual remains of the Founding
Fathers.
Labels:
Culture,
Founding Fathers,
Politics,
United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




































