The Last Eight Years? (Pt 1)

This next election is really about the last eight years, or is it? Perhaps we need to go further back to understand the choices we’ve made and the choices before us? I doubt this opinion will matter much to anyone but me, but if you choose to read it consider if I am accurate or just full of excrement. Those who know me know my political positions but let me give anyone else a synopsis. First and foremost, I am a FISCAL conservative. By that, I mean spending within our means is what matters most to me, as I see unrestrained growth of debt as a nation-killer. There is a lot of history in this position as we look at the ancient world up through WW II. Socially, I’ve moved from a liberal indifference to a moderate, as the two extremes drag the respective political parties to the extremes. What I see today are two primary parties led by people who no longer understand how to govern, they simply fight for media supremacy. I see an electorate who can’t be bothered holding their politicians to moderate positions as they all clamor for the federal dollars everyone wants. I’m not sure reason and accountability have ever been a key component for a politician, but by all measures, it does not exist today.

            In 2008 this nation faced a real fiscal crisis which many viewed as equivalent to the stock market crash of 1929. The federal government under Bush and a Congress led by John Boehner (R-OH) in the House and Harry Reid (D-NV) in the Senate. The crash came because of lending practices for home mortgages by the Federal Government when home sales stopped and people and bankers speculating with short-term “balloon payment” mortgages could not make their payments and had to declare bankruptcy. There was a decent movie made in 2011 called “Margin Call” that shows the type of crash that happened. As a result of this disaster the American people who had unified in 2001 to fight a terrorist enemy, again united to remove the GOP from power and instill a Democratic Congress and our first Black President.

            That President had almost total control over running the government and chose a path to redefine the role of the government as a social institution. His party passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act. But in their arrogance, the Democratic liberals knew they had to lie to the American people about what this new “socialized medical scheme” would do. The GOP railed against the act and the costs, but with a coopted media they were simply painted as “evil men protecting the big businesses.” At the same time we were pushing into this world the government was attempting to save businesses “too big to fail.” Chrysler, GM, and others. As far as I know, Ford was alone in its choice not to take the federal dollars.  How much of GM, and how many jobs were saved by these efforts?  I know all the executive positions are still there, but how many plants employing thousands of UAW workers are left?

            In his eight years of leadership, did his choices on how to lead the nation make us a stronger and more unified people? He routinely argued against guns, and Americans went out and bought guns in record numbers. He recognized when an African American was killed by violence at the hands of a white man, but seldom when it was at the hands of another African American, or when a white was killed by a black.  Did his efforts reduce violence in the urban areas, or lessen the probability of school violence? In short, did he move us to that dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. where his children will “… one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?” Looking around I don’t see his leadership in achieving Dr. King’s ambition.

            We can speculate as to why that was, the left would say our racism came out, but is that really the result of our institutions, or the agenda of those who would rebuild our nation to spend its time repaying others for the sins of the past? The one truth that seems obvious to me is as long as we make race the central component of every story we will never move beyond racism. It really doesn’t matter if we are speaking about white, Asian, or Brown. If we implement a race-based program of any nature we further the issue of race as a central dividing point amongst the people of our nation.

Fall of the Republic

In the quiet of the morning, I am reading about the Roman Empire.  To understand the empire, you must start with the Republic that proceeded it. Pennsylvania State University has a good posting on the topic here. I was struck by the similarities with the demise of their Republic and our current state of affairs.

In talking about the power of the Roman Senate the article notes that by 30 BC most politicians had abandoned the Roman traditions and the Senate consequently lost its power.

“The fall of the senatorial power in Rome can be described by different specific events; for example, Tiberius Gracchus, elected tribune of the plebs in 133 BC, proposed a law known as Lex Sempronia Agraria, which in essence gave land to those who are poor and have fought in the army and had no land to return to. This is the first of many acts that started to define the different views and wants of the Optimates (the people of power, such as the senate) and the Populares (the roman people as a whole). Knowing that the senate would disagree with his proposal, he bypassed the senate and took his proposal directly to the Popular Assembly; this was considered a major insult to the senate. Tiberius Gracchus’s younger and more persistent brother, Gaius Gracchus, also broke many rules of tradition and was blatantly insulting towards the senate. Gracchus, however, focused much more on the enfranchisement of the Italian allies of Rome (this is seen as a move towards populares). C. Marius began to break tradition and law as well by taking men into his army who did not own any land previously. Marius and Sulla were the first two political figures in Rome who used considerable military force to get what they wanted, and this trend continued all through the fall of the Roman Republic and into the Roman Empire.”[1]

Beginning with President Obama and certainly accelerating with President Trump don’t we see the same thing happening?  Each, in his own way, has chosen to bypass the historical checks and balances of our government, while invoking the will of the people.  There are only two real differences I see in their approach. 

First, and foremost, President Obama has the adoration and support of a friendly press who would turn a blind eye to the dangers of his actions.  This was either purposeful because they believed in the political choices, or through neglect, as they chose not to investigate the true motives for those actions.  The same cannot be said for the current President. 

Starting from the day the American people made their choice the vast majority of the press has been openly hostile and heavy-handed in their reporting.  Unfortunately, their bias has been so obvious to all but the most anti-Trump opposition they have lost credibility in even the most legitimate of issues. 

The second is one of style, rather than substance.  President Obama, supported by a party that was in lockstep with him claimed his actions were to help the poor, to make a government bigger and stronger so the poor would not have to worry about healthcare, savings, or survival, and to bring equality to all.  He did this through vilification of capitalism and obvious preferences in religion and race.  None of these positions or ideas were original to him but were longstanding approaches of the intellectual urban and academic elite.

President Trump plays to a different audience.  President Trump’s strongest supporters are the people President Nixon referred to as “the silent majority.”  The middle class rural and suburban Americans the elites would dismiss in their quest for power.  The people Hillary Clinton labeled as “deplorable” because they do not share the same fluid values as those who rule and make up the upper echelons of government, industry, and wealth in America.

Of course, with the release of the new book “Fire and Fury” our current Caesar should be asking “et tu Bannon?”

---

[1] On Topic: The Roman Empire: The Fall of the Roman Republic, Paragraph 2

Rule By The Pen

During the past eight-years the President and the Democratic Party took measures to by-pass the historical precedents and constitutional limitations of government as they strove to implement their vision of the future on the nation.  The phase President Obama used was “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone”[i] as he talked about implementing those policies he thought were in the best interest of the nation. 

When frustrated by political gamesmanship in getting judges approved by the Senate, Harry Reid and his fellow Democratic senators implemented what has been called the “nuclear option,”[ii] eliminating the historical ability of a Senator to filibuster a Presidential appointment and block its approval until the filibustering Senator is appeased, or the nomination withdrawn.

Both of these actions met some tactical need for the party in power, but brought with them significant strategic risk.  That risk was realized when their candidate failed to secure the necessary electoral votes and fell well short to Mr. Trump who carried with him sufficient Republicans to gain control of the Senate.

As we enter into the new era it does not bode well for the liberal side as Mr. Trump now has the ability to rule by pen and executive order just as Mr. Obama chose to.  As political scientists are fond of saying Democracy is a messy and inefficient form of government.  Control by a single entity (I’ll leave the choice of terms for you) is more efficient in achieving action, but carries with it the potential for loss of our constitutional safeguards.

It strikes me as we move forward in this new era we seem to be moving along the lines of the Roman Republic, as it became the Roman Empire.  Will we shift the office of the President from one of the three equal branches of government to the supreme branch?  That certainly appeared to be the intent under the past administration, and I suspect will be the easiest course of action for the new President.

This has already begun as the news highlights of his first workday in office is his undoing of many of President Obama’s directions (i.e. Executive Orders).

If the news is to be believed – during the next two years the President will be able to nominate at least one Supreme Court Justice, and a significant number of lower court justices (making conservative justices a majority in most courts) with Republican approval. Leaving the Democratic Party powerless to do anything but bluster and condemn in a media that supported their actions in the first place.

The next two years will be interesting, as well as telling to see if we are moving further from the Republic envisioned by our founders, or if the safeguards of our Constitution are able to resist the shift to emperor.

---

[i] CBS, DC, Obama On Executive Actions: 'I've Got a Pen And I've Got a Phone,' January 14, 2014, 1:05 PM

[ii] Paul Kane, Washington Post, Politics, November 21, 2013

---