As a white man with a Master’s Degree in Organizational Behavior, I’ve served the nation as an Air Force officer and civilian for almost 40 years. Along the way I’ve come to believe capitalism is the most successful economic system, smaller government is better than bigger government, unless specifically assigned to the Federal government most decisions should be left to state and local authorities, our future independence requires fiscal responsibility at all levels of government, we can no longer solve all the world’s problems by intervening militarily and economically when it is not critical to our security, and finally government policies cannot set the moral standard for a population rather they only reflect them.I also believe, for example, welfare serves a purpose, but when it becomes a generational expectation it no longer meets that purpose. Not everyone needs a college degree, and meaningful work has a reward beyond just the paycheck, providing the individual with a sense of self-worth and confidence to provide for their family. Lastly, while we are a nation of immigrants we are a nation first because the immigrants came and adapted to the new expectations, not because they came to make it a copy of their homeland. From what I gather from the enlightened broadcasters and pundits of ABCNNBCBS, outraged social media liberals, and the internet I am, by my mere being: a racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, and in general just an asshole. So, let’s talk about the past year or so, and what I think the future holds for us.
First we came to the Presidential election of 2016 where about everyone who lived comfortably in major metropolitan areas thought of themselves as academically gifted, good looking, witty, morally superior, and well above average, while everyone who lived everywhere else wasn’t. Over the past twenty years or so the party of these urbane socialites had evolved to fit their gifted, good looking, witty, superior life styles and in the process, moved away from its original base of hardworking, average educated, union organized laborers as well as the poor of the inner cities. Completing this evolution was the leadership of a President who encouraged the development of race conflict, and anarchist groups to further his party’s agenda.
On the opposite side of the political spectrum the Republican party was struggling to identify someone who could compete against the urbane superiority of the Democrats. The elections of 2008 and 2012 had shown that traditional party leadership was no match when up against someone who could energize the black vote as President Obama did. Although it is true they continued to pick up seats in the House and the Senate as the average citizen became disillusioned with the role of government, there was not a traditional candidate who stood out as significantly different than the rest. For the most part all the Republican candidates looked a lot alike, with the only thing separating them the color of their ties or some socially vague claim of minority status.
True to its social agenda the Democrats nominated their next great leader, a woman to lead the nation, because we had not elected a woman and what could be better than that? Unfortunately for them, the only woman they had sitting around waiting to be crowned carried a history of corruption, conflict of interest, and self-aggrandizement. To actually have a primary season they found an aging white independent Senator who would claim Democratic party membership as an outside voice. I can only imagine the shock of the Central Committee when Senator Sanders began to make a real contest out of it. Looking back, that should have been a clue for the party faithful and their media arm. Thankfully, the power brokers were able to stem the tide of grassroots activism and managed to get Ms. Clinton as their candidate. They knew what America needed even if the average American didn’t really like her.
For the Republicans, a relative political neophyte emerged with a style and manner that laid waste to the traditional loyalties of the GOP. True -- his style and approach was viewed as abhorrent by the professional politicians and social elites, but resonated with those the two parties had abandoned. Running against 13 other candidates he took them down, one and two at a time. The news media, doing their part, clamored all over themselves to give him almost unlimited air time, suffocating the more traditional messages of his opposition. What was lost to almost all the political “experts” was the low cost (compared to everyone else) campaign that resonated with all the voters both parties had come to view as unimportant, the middle class of middle-America. This was true of both parties initially, and I believe it was ultimately responsible for the resounding defeat of the new (Socialist) Democratic Party in November.
During the actual campaign, where America was presented with a choice of two extremely flawed individuals, the Democrats attempted to exploit the personal flaws of Mr. Trump while somehow holding that Ms. Clinton was the better choice. The remarkable lack of self-awareness on the part of the party and its supporting news media (themselves viewed as untrustworthy by the people) meant that what they pointed out as flaws were, in fact, viewed as strengths by a significant majority of middle class middle-Americans. The fact Ms. Clinton ran a campaign as if she were the Queen of England who would only occasionally sally forth to wave to “her people” strengthened Mr. Trump’s alignment with the men and women the Democratic Party had chosen to cast aside.
Then came November 6, 2016, a day that will live alongside December 7, 1941 in infamy, at least for the new (Socialist) Democratic Party.
What we have seen since that day has only served to reinforce a premise the new (Socialist) Democratic Party has abandoned the idea of a two-party system and would choose anarchy over the present administration. We see this in almost every action of the party loyalists. Whether it is the post-election temper tantrums, the casting of doubt on the validity of the election and legitimacy of the President, the maniacal ravings of celebrities and college professors in NYC and California, the violent riots against conservative speakers in UC Berkley or the challenges of the Executive Order on Immigration. The idea of the two parties working together to form a more perfect union is long gone, perhaps never to return.
How long will this hysteria go on? I suspect until the administration ends, or the nation becomes a group of individual states, like the breakup of the Soviet Union. The new (Socialist) Democratic Party does not seem willing to rethink its basic principles and figure out how to regain its middle class, middle-Americans. So violent rhetoric and action would seem all that is available to it as it fights to overthrow the regime in power. It took the Roman Empire 400 years to collapse, but we live in an age of instant communication and America has a history of wanting everything right now, so I am guessing this period won’t last 400 years.