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!

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.

Cultural Issues: A Broad Outline

For a long time, culture has been the elephant in the room during American political discussions. That is, whenever actual political discussions have been held. I feel sorry for the younger generation today because they seem to have grown up in a period much more sharply divided than I remember. There does not seem to be any room for dissent anymore and therefore political discussion has largely been replaced by shouting matches or, to avoid the shouting match, an unspoken taboo has been attached to all political issues at social gatherings.

Cultural may not be the appropriate word for the substance of this division but it may have to suffice. The matter is simply that people argue about surface political issues when, actually, there are geographic fault lines dividing them which no one is addressing.

Thinking about this division, I initially determined that it goes all the way back to the Roe v Wade decision of 1973. After all, if one side of the discussion thinks that they are discussing murder and the other side doesn't, each is attaching a very distinct level of importance to the topic. Anyone who has been married knows how much damage can occur when one half of the couple does not take a disputed issue as seriously as the other.

Perhaps, though, this issue goes much farther back. I thought, for some time, that there was good reason to believe that the matter had its origin in the Civil War. Now, I am thinking that perhaps we are reaping what we sowed in the American Revolution.

I will speculate more about that issue in later articles. For now, it should be enough to outline the primary matters which are causing such turmoil in today's political forums.

Religion

Has the Sun set on American religion?

Religion has always divided America to some extent. Today, the source of the division is unusual in that having a religion or adhering to one makes you stand out against the general American background in many places.

Before World War II, the US was a staunchly Protestant country. While Catholics had been slowly gaining popular acceptance since the US Civil War (in which thousands of Irish and other immigrants fought for the North), it was really the Second World War which erased some of the cultural division.

During the war, men of all faiths found themselves fighting side by side. They had access to one another's pastors when it was necessary to consult about spiritual matters. After the war, these men went to work in factories together, lived in the suburbs together and so on. There was definitely a sentiment abroad that one should attend the church of his choice so long as you went to church.

It would be foolish to pretend that atheism is entirely new to the US culture. There have been atheist s since the beginning and Jefferson's Bible is certainly proof that the Founding Fathers had different ideas about faith than many continue to think.

However, since the 1960s, the impulse toward atheism has grown. Whereas one once had to be convinced to become an atheist, now one must be convinced to believe in spiritual matters. The default spiritual mindset has now become one of disregard for religion rather than disbelief.

There is no question that this movement away from the ancestral faiths of previous generations has made a huge impact on politics. It is what we are really talking about when we talk about some of the major issues in front of the populace today.

Sexuality

What is really going on in our minds when we talk politics.

The sexuality issue is really almost a sub-category of the religion issue. While acceptance of gay people has grown in the last few decades, the fact of the matter remains that many Americans are just not comfortable with the thought. Furthermore, a growing number of people may have voted for gay marriage and related issues but are increasingly turned off by the activism of many gay groups.

In addition, due to the way that the Internet interface allows people to escape immediate public rebuke or even violence for expressing unpopular opinions, you see many people coming out and declaring their open disgust with homosexuals and homosexuality. I think that a lot of revulsion was apparently dormant during previous decades when communications technology was less developed. People are now able to express their opinions on these matters in public rather than simply stating them at the dinner table.

I am not simply saying that sexuality issues affect how people vote on topics such as gay marriage. I am saying that this matter and others are driving how people vote on a spectrum of issues. People are conflating apparently distinct issues with this one. Your view on gay marriage can probably tell me a lot about your view on the environment, foreign policy, etc.

Race

Each of us feels something different looking at this picture.

As I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s. there was definitely the perceptible sentiment that we were achieving racial equality and that, soon, race would not matter. That dream never really came true. Seven years after electing the first black POTUS, it is almost as if we have decided to review the last 150 years of racial issues and legal decisions with a critical eye.

Certainly, the Internet has made it easier for people with less accepting views on race to express themselves safely. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing and vocal concern that cultural divisions between blacks and whites may be more real than was previously thought. No one can deny that crime rates are distinctly higher among black populations and the excuse of systemic oppression or the legacy of slavery is getting harder for many people to accept.

Again, an opinion on this issue often tells you a lot about the holder of that opinion. You would have to dig deep to find someone willing to say that they do not think that the races are equal these days. But it is not so hard to find someone that thinks that the people in Ferguson are self-destructive thugs or that Trayvon Martin got what he had coming.

Very recent events have stirred the pot even more. While the media glosses over the racial identity of the latest murders related in the press, at the grassroots level people are upset. The Virginia reporter shooting just last week caused an eruption of articles and comments about race. The vitriol unleashed on comment boards beneath news articles online should be enough to disturb anyone.

Other Issues

There are many other issues which the reader could easily associate with these as far as their ability to divide the public into warring factions. Climate change is another issue. Again, your view on climate change is likely to be a guide to your other opinions on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, gun control, the Ferguson riots and so on.

While the media circus ramps up the excitement about the upcoming election, it is important to remember that there is much more than politics at stake here. This is not just about social security or the war on terror. There are issues here at home which Americans have still not decided, though history books may make it seem that such issues were resolved decades ago.

The Immigration Issue and Trump's Solution

For a while, it seemed like Donald Trump was almost a single-issue candidate. Immigration was the only topic he appeared to address. Now he has begun to delve into other issues with a little more depth but this still remains a major dividing line between him and other candidates. That may change over time but there is no question that he has struck a chord that resonates with many Americans.

Some Figures About Immigration

Lest you think that Trump is just eager to bash in the heads of some earnest braceros as they emerge from the Rio Grande onto American soil, you should at least understand the magnitude of the problem which he addresses.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal here that I married an immigrant and that my eldest daughter is an immigrant. Both women are now citizens and were never in the US illegally. Nevertheless, and unlike many liberals who espouse amnesty for the undocumented, I actually know and converse with illegal immigrants on a regular basis. I also worked in shelters on both sides of the border when I was just out of college, helping to feed and house the undocumented from all over Latin America. I have a lot of personal knowledge about this topic and have seen many facets of the issue.

The most reliable research suggests that there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US right now. I am not sure exactly how that number could be determined, only that everyone seems to agree on it. I suspect that the real number might be higher.

That number is enough to offend many people thinking about the problem for the first time. However, the real problem that motivates people to vote one way or another is the impact of these immigrants on the economy and even on culture.

A major issue for many on the conservative side is the number of jobs lost to illegal immigrants. When virtually everyone was employed in the late 1990s, there was little concern about immigration. Later, especially after 2008, it became a huge issue as unemployment surged above 9%.

Though the official unemployment rate is much lower today, those who have lived on the underemployed side of that divide do not have much confidence in it. Many people returned to employment but it was at much lower-paying jobs than we had before.

It is estimated that illegal immigrants make up about 5% of the present labor force. It is pretty obvious that, with those individuals removed, the employment situation for citizens would improve dramatically.

A lot of people will also quickly start arguing around the topic of laziness vs hard work with regard to immigrants. While liberal defenders will often point out that illegal immigrants only come to find work and therefore contribute to the economy, conservative opponents will claim that they all come to get on welfare rolls.

The truth is actually that they are both correct. I know a lot of illegal couples and the usual routine is that the woman goes to sign up as a single mother and get public assistance. The man of the house usually works. No one seems to see this as dishonest. Instead, it just seems like the thing to do. And it really helps them preserve a traditional family structure.

I'm not saying that it is correct but it does seem like people genuinely believe that they are just doing what is normal. They have little understanding or sympathy for the complexities involved in paying your own way because they never have to worry about healthcare and, in many cases, the assistance even pays rent. The immigrant family is free to spend all the man's earnings on consumer goods.

The economic impact of this is a two-edged sword. There is no doubt that this is a significant drain on public resources. I know people with large families raking in thousands of dollars per month in public subsidies. At the same time, though, they make a lot of money working in manual labor and spend most of it locally, contributing to businesses in the community.

A less ambiguous burden on state resources involves the children of illegal immigrants. Around 7% of children in K-12 schools have at least one illegal parent. Given that the states spend anywhere from $5-10,000 per student each year, this drain on the tax base cannot be denied.

One aspect of the outcry about this situation that is often overlooked is the cultural aspect. People are upset not only about the financial cost of illegal immigration but also about the cultural changes brought about by their presence. Ann Coulter, a Trump supporter, has pointed out that many of the immigrants come from countries in which respect for women, children and the environment are virtually non-existent. Having lived in Latin America, I can respect this as a genuine concern.

The Trump Solution

Over the years, many different solutions to this issue have been suggested. In the mid-90s, I was present in El Paso, Texas to see operation Toe-the-Line. This approach was one essentially involving a more coordinated defense of the border, with Border Patrol trucks always within sight of each other along the border. Obviously, this increased efficiency in the local area but just moved crossings into the deserts of New Mexico and Arizona.

Other attempts have had internal focuses, busting businesses that hired large numbers of illegals and corraling them at their workplace. The SSN verification method started some years ago is another example.

Trump has called for a much more direct attempt to handle the issue. His idea is not original (Pat Buchanan spoke about this in the 1990s during his presidential run) but he may be the first one to really take it so far. Trump has called the erection of a wall running all the way from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. This wall would be more than 1,000 miles long and I don't know how high it would have to be.

Some detractors have likened the scope of the project to the pyramids or the journey to the moon. Not only would it be too large a project, it would cost too much and be impossible to maintain. Proponents of the idea generally say that it would be less expensive than the present welfare bill for the illegal immigrants already here.

Trump's solution does not overlook those illegals already in place. The plan, which has no specifics as of yet, is for those illegals already here to be rounded up and deported. Trump has hedged on this promise a little already, saying in some remarks that the ones who behaved well and worked hard might be allowed to stay.

I tend to think that the immigration issue will be an early horse for Trump to ride on but I am not sure it will carry him the whole way. As primaries approach, I think that he will have to address other issues and that immigration will eventually take a backseat to foreign policy and economics. Even if he does win the presidency, I do not think that the wall will ever be built. The immigration problem is here to stay. Prevention may improve but I don't think anybody here illegally is going anywhere anytime soon.