How the Democrats can Win in the Fall

It is really quite simple, although it is seemingly impossible for the party of Andrew Jackson to come to grips with. All they need to do to beat Trump and the GOP is to convince the average American they care about this nation more than he does. They should show the average American they have a plan to return the nation to a prospering economy where unemployment is low, wages are going up because the supply of labor is limited, and more Americans can stand on their own without having to worry about whether the Government will decide to take all their wealth from themselves and their families away from them.

They can do this by putting together a plan that stops the US versus THEM dialogue they began with the election of Richard Nixon.

They can do this by ignoring the daily attacks from the President. Instead, they should offer the middle class a hope they will limit the power of a central government.

They can show the average American and legal immigrant they will make sure there are jobs for them instead of allowing a flood of cheap labor into the country to make the poorest class poorer.  This would mean they challenge the current waiver process that lets the high-tech companies hire foreign workers under a visa waiver program as well as supporting limits on immigration.

They can abandon name-calling and personality politics to show how they will manage the debt and return the government to a balanced budget like we last had with Bill Clinton.  This would actually mean they would do what they said they would do in 2016 when the mantra was “They go low, we go high.”  I know in these days of personality politics this is probably just wishful thinking, but for many of us, this would make all the difference in the world.

Finally, and most importantly, they would need to nominate a centrist candidate who is not obviously carrying the baggage of diminished mental capacity and sexual assault that makes their claims of supporting the #metoo movement so hypocritical.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the political activists that make up the extremes of the party will come to grips with these relatively simple choices. So this election, like most previous elections, will be a simple battle of mudslinging and name-calling.  A campaign Donald Trump will excel at and Biden, and his surrogates, will fail at because Trump is now accepted as doing a pretty good job by those who voted for him last time and they will turn out, while the radical young probably won’t.

Robert Mueller and His Political Theater

Apparently, Robert Mueller is the only person who has read less of the Special Prosecutor's report on Russian hacking and Trump's collusion in the 2016 election then me.   This creates somewhat of a problem for the politicians as they should really talk to the people who actually wrote the report so they can get them to testify about all the evil stuff they actually know about.  

But at the end of the day, facts don't really matter.  At this point in time, it is all about the Political Theater.  Those who want to impeach the President made up their collective minds shortly after November 8, 2016.

If they were hoping Robert Mueller would somehow come down from the mountain with the impeachment indictments etched into stone tablets they must be hugely disappointed.

Life will go on, and as far as I can tell, the democratic candidates will continue to drive away all the moderate independent voters in numbers unseen since the 1972  primaries when the party faithful were asked to choose between 15 different candidates.  Eventually, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Edmund Muskie, and Shirly Chisholm secured primary wins.  In that campaign, McGovern became the party's candidate but lost the general election to Richard Nixon.  It wasn't even close.

The electoral vote totals were 512 for Nixon, 17 for McGovern.  The popular vote was 46,740323 for Nixon, and 28,901,598 for McGovern.

Of course, we are a lot more polarized these days, but I don't see, in the current field and with the current agandas, any move to solicit those who are looking for a strong middle of the road choice.  At the rate the DNC is moving I'd be surprised if they are even close in the popular vote, but we have a year for them to turn things around and who knows, one of them may find a real issue, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992 when he beat George Bush who had just won a war.

The Cost of Democratic Campaign Promises.

Let’s review the promises to Americans (and non-American visitors) made by the Democratic candidates this campaign season.

Top of the list, Universal Healthcare:  According to Bernie Sanders (in a Washington Post interview 31 July 2018), he projects government cost to be $30 to 40 Trillion (over 10 years).  Of course, he goes on to say it would really save $2 trillion by translating private costs into government costs.  Color me skeptical – I’ve zero (nada, zilch, zip) experience where a government cost is ever really less than a private cost.

Student debt forgiveness:  According to Student Loan Hero, published Feb 4, 2019, the current balance of student loans tops out at over $1.56 Trillion with about 45 million Americans carrying debt from their schooling.  There are currently a number of debt forgiveness programs and according to Forbes (2016), we are spending about $170 billion over 10 years on those programs.  So far, all the candidates have voiced some sort of plan that would just wipe some or all the debt off the books, with plans for increased taxation of the ultrarich to pay for it.  Of course, eliminating student debt sounds good, but the real benefactors of this approach are the colleges and universities who can now charge whatever they want and expect students to flock to them in anticipation of a free four, six or maybe ten years of relaxed intellectual/politically sensitive indoctrination.  

Elimination of border security:  On the surface, this promise should save the government about $44 billion a year when we eliminate Homeland Security.  Of course, this $44 billion would be reduced when we can’t just fire federal employees and the Democrats would probably want to keep things like FEMA, and maybe the U.S. Coast Guard, but I have to ask why we would keep the Coast Guard, if we’ve decided anyone and anything can come into the country and there was no need for walls and approved ports of entry.  The real question is how to transition the federal employees from work to welfare, so again that $44 billion would be reduced as the welfare programs are expanded in direct proportion to this new-found government “wealth.”  My guess is we would still spend the $44 billion, just not on things that would impede the mass migration of others into America.

Green New Deal:  All the candidates have jumped on the “Green New Deal” train, although the Senators in the mix refused to vote for it when push came to shove.  This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY 14) signature legislation publicly intended to save humanity from extinction in 14 years and privately intended to eliminate the threat of capitalism.  Estimates on the cost for the GND range from $51-93 trillion (2020-2029), but factcheck.org questions those values saying the proposal is too vague to put a real price tag on.  From my personal experience, I’ve not seen where the Congress or the President have really ever come in under original cost estimates so for the sake of argument lets split the difference and call GND a $72 trillion home improvement project.   

Well, those are just the Big-Ticket items I’ve noticed so let’s stop there.  Of course, existing programs like Social Security, Welfare, and Defense will continue their expansions through the normal budget cycle, but those will happen regardless of who is in the White House.  The only question that really remains unanswered is what happens when we have more debt than we can pay and the rest of the world stops believing in the dollar as a basis for international trade?  I’m sure there is a Nobel Laureate Economist somewhere who would have a theory on that, but Paul Krugman’s pronouncements on the economy have routinely been wrong so who should I trust?  The same MIT dude who admitted they had to lie to the American people to get the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (AKA Obamacare) passed?  Sorry, no he is an admitted liar.

The Party of Free

The Democratic Party’s Presidential candidates are almost tripping over themselves with promises of free stuff for the people.  This week Bernie has come up with a plan to tax investors (individuals and investment fund managers both large and small) so they can offer “free” education to those who want it, eliminating the problem of student debt.  Of course, Bernie doesn’t frame the tax as something paid by the average person, it will be paid by all those “greedy guys” on Wall Street.

To support him, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has weighed in to show how someone was accepted to her “dream college” but actually had to pay for it herself, and now has about $240,000 in student debt.

These two positions by prominent advocates for socialism raise two questions for me.  The first, why should someone go to college and incur debt with no plan to repay it?  The second, what happens to individual incentive when everything is free?

President Eisenhower, in his Fair Well address to the nation, warned of the Military-Industrial complex we had created with World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War and how their growing power was influencing government spending.  I think the same could be said for the Education is Mandatory Complex.  The cost of secondary education in the US has far outpaced the inflation rate due to the growth of colleges into mega-institutions of political indoctrination.   

When I graduated from high school, my mother had conditioned me that I would go to college for the better life it offered.  I wanted to be a flyer in the Air Force and to get to that point I needed a college degree, so both Mom and I had mutually supported goals.  At the time I went, there were tens of thousands of young men who were going for other reasons, many young men went to avoid the draft and the likelihood of war in Vietnam, others went to find themselves, still, others just to get away from home.  All were promised a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.  The colleges offered the opportunity for good jobs and career advancement over peers who had not gone.  That was pretty much a lie then, and it remains so now.  What the right colleges offered was tremendous networking opportunities, and an entryway to further education if you chose.

Fortunately for me, when I went to school the cost of even a private college like I attended was still within the realm of affordability.  I chose a path that got me through and commissioned into the Air Force so I guess you could say I was a success.  But I know several friends who spent four to six years hiding from the draft only to leave and find work as machinists, landscapers, and woodworkers.  Was college really that important to what they wanted for their careers?  By the way, does everyone have a career or do most just have jobs?

Today we have a bloated industry full of self-righteous professionals making six-figure salaries while telling us they are invaluable and we, the rest of the nation, should pay our fair share so they can continue to grow their mega-universities.  Are their arguments all that different than the televangelists who promise God’s salvation if we would just send them a monthly donation of say $50?

Should I feel bad that a girl went to her “dream university” when her parents couldn’t afford it, and her performance didn’t warrant any scholarship offers?  Sorry, I don’t.  The reality: there is a cost to making bad choices, outrageous student debt seems to be one of those costs.

Now let’s talk about what happens to human incentive when everything is free.  First and foremost, who can point out a successful human endeavor that was accomplished without a cost?  Go ahead, I’ll wait.

While I’m waiting I’ll just point out that free housing to the homeless has not solved homelessness.  Free money to the poor has not, for the most part, brought them out of poverty.  Free K-12 education has not eliminated illiteracy.  All the social safety nets we’ve built in this country has not eliminated crime.  Grand (free) mental institutions to house the insane has not made the problems of insanity less problematic.  Oh yes, none of these free things were actually free.  Someone had to pay for them, who was that again?

A story from my childhood education seems relevant here.

There once was a poor immigrant who arrived in America virtually penniless.  He got a job rowing boat in New York City.  He scrimped and saved his meager salary until he could buy his own rowboat to carry people between Manhattan and Staten Island.  It’s a rather long story but it ends with his becoming one of the richest men in the world.  To me, that is the American Dream.  Not the idea that people with money should give it to people who don’t so they can have free stuff.

The Art of Messaging, Real or Imagined.

Is the Democratic Party run by real people or just some amalgamated artificial intelligence?  That is my question today. 

For the past 20-years or so we’ve routinely seen the politicians and their media support use common talking points that seem to magically appear out of nowhere.  This weekend we saw another example as at least three prominent Democrats tweeted out their “personal” reaction to the bombings of Christian Churches and Western hotels in Sri Lanka.  In all three cases, the Christians were referred to as “Easter Worshippers”

Of course, this fired up their political opposition with comparisons of the language used to condemn the killings in the Mosque in New Zealand where the shooter was condemned for killing Muslim worshippers. 

It is now a fairly common assumption by the conservative right the DNC is moving away from any support for Christians, while apparently strengthening its support of the Islamic faith. For those outraged twitterites, the use of “Easter Worshipper” is just another in a long line of examples of how far and how fast the Democratic party is moving away from caring about people who hold Jewish and/or Christian beliefs.

As for me, I am left wondering how the brain trust/communication command post of the DNC can so quickly put out the right talking points so spokesman like Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Julián Castro can align their messaging with the current politically approved talking points.

Republicans, on the other hand, seem to have just the opposite problem.  Some idiot State Senator will say something stupid about nurses while talking about a proposed state law, which would affect a few thousand people in her state, and the whole of worldwide social media will explode in condemnation and a campaign of vilification will take off like an out of control fireworks display.

So much for a peaceful Easter. 

Countering the Sanctuary City Gambit

As a direct result of HRC’s loss and President Trump’s election, a fair number of cities controlled by Democratic politicians have climbed on the “sanctuary city” train.  They’ve come online to resist the deportation of non-citizens who’ve entered the country without permission, and have offered their protection in the sense kingdoms of old would offer sanctuary to monks, and other travelers who sought their protection.  The difference this time is purely political rather than humanitarian motives of the Lords and Ladies of these cities.

This week, like almost every other week, President Trump created a firestorm on Twitter®, when he suggested he would acquiesce to the Dem’s position and instead of deporting illegals caught in border crossings he would ship them to the cities that had offered them sanctuary. 

Oh, the humanity!  Oh, the outrage! Oh, the immorality!

It is always amusing when politicians and Hollywood actors claim the proposed Presidential actions are immoral.  The same people who have voted to deny human rights to viable human fetuses, who’ve demonstrated their own personal greed, and encourage rape (of the right people), think they have the moral high ground and can define the common morality?  Give me a break.

If you don’t really want these migrating humans in your back yard, then why did you make the offer?  Oh, that’s right, it was really just something you did to make you appear to be more virtuous and appeal to the illegal voters you seek to gain. 

Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, noted the suggestion by the President wasn’t really something he could actually pull off because of the logistics of moving all those people, but his tweet was really a brilliant way to highlight the hypocrisy of the left and perhaps move the discussion of immigration off the current topics of border walls and cages.

Governing in the Age of Outrage

This week’s outrage seems to focus on two freshman Representatives in the House.  Individuals who’ve made it quite clear they believe their faith is superior to all others and another faith is to be vilified and eliminated, if possible, from our political system as a good first step to its total elimination from the world.  They are supported by a third media savvy Representative and backed in a kind of “kid gloves” approach by their party leaders who choose to condemn anti-tolerance, but not really THEIR anti-tolerance.

Of course, those who recognize the hate speech as hate speech are all over this, many going so far as to question why we are even allowing “their religion” and “their views” to be a part of “our government.”

I guess the real question is how far will identify politics go, or how long will it take before we achieve the ultimate end of a representative government able to work for a common good, rather than vilification of all the various groups who are a foundation of what was once a homogeneous nation?

I use the term "homogeneous" for that is what I was taught as a boy.  “E Pluribus Unum” is found on our coinage, and it was put there intentionally to remind us that we are “Out of many, one.”

It should be obvious to anyone who cares to actually look at the issue of identity politics – it is all about the gaining of power and position in society.  There is no real secondary reason.  It is justified by saying we need to seek all the social buzz words like “tolerance,” “equality,” or “justice” but at the end of the day the groups who make these claims have shown no real evidence they want to stop at recognition or equality, they all want to dominate and destroy their opponents, just as the tycoons of the industrial age sought to dominate and destroy their rivals.  I think I can safely conclude this is a human standard, which would carry back to almost all human societies throughout written history.

As we embrace the new standards of identity politics and its major components of victimhood and intolerance it seems inevitable the two major parties, who’ve more or less guided this nation since the mid-1800s, will fracture and divide and perhaps become a multitude of parties with a need for coalition building – as is common in most parliamentary governments.  Unfortunately, most coalition building requires acceptance of mutual common ground, and in the age of Twitter^© common respect and acceptance seems increasingly unlikely in the public forums.

Just my two cents.

It's All Theater...

        I refused to watch the political theater yesterday, but catching small snippets was impossible to avoid when I came in from whatever I was doing.

        I understand Professor Ford’s testimony was sympathy invoking, without much corroboration to substantiate her allegation of inappropriate behavior some 36-years ago.  The Republican’s deferred their questioning to a woman prosecutor (to avoid the appearance of old white men being mean to a victim), while the Democrat’s spent their time praising her courage for coming forward in such a public setting.  A setting forced on her by the political strategists who are more intent on destroying a Trump nominee than in protecting Ms. Ford.

        Judge Kavanaugh’s opening was filled with anger at the obvious smear campaign the progressive movement is now committed to.  If I understand correctly the Republican plan was to let the prosecutor question him as well, but that didn’t last too long as the Republicans were now about seeking to unload on their colleagues who were attempting to vilify the Judge as unfit and a liar because of some double entre words in his high school yearbook.  I see this morning even James Comey, who views himself as a pillar of moral courage, has come out to accuse the Judge of lying.

        Today the committee will vote and it will move to the full Senate, where it will almost certainly be a straight party-line vote, with maybe one or two defections on either side.

        Those on the left will justify their choices based on the need to listen to the victim of sexual assault.  Implying to all that listening = believing, and the victims will never have a motive other than to seek justice for themselves.  They will vilify the right as uncaring and evil people because they question the motives of the political left who bring forth a person claiming to be victimized at the 11^th hour when all their other strategies have failed to slow down or stop the confirmation hearings.  There are those who suggest we could save a lot of time and money if we just did away with trials and public hearings and just put all the issues on Twitter^© where those with the most followers would render judgment.

        I would like to take this opportunity to thank the late Senator from Massachusetts who set the stage for yesterday’s performance, and who must now be smiling down (or maybe up) on the DNC as a proud father would.

It’s A Real Conundrum

The news this week is interesting in how it comes across in the various outlets and how the counter programming and social media depict the stories of interest.  Let’s start with Paul Manafort.

Paul Manafort, the former Campaign Chairman for the Trump campaign, is either guilty of 8-counts, or innocent of 10-counts, depending on your point of view.  He is either an outrageous crook or a sly businessman/lawyer/lobbyist who is only on trial because he is associated with President Trump.  While I suspect if there wasn’t a special prosecutor Manafort might have skated on the fraud issues, the fact he was found guilty is bad for him, but as far as I can tell has nothing to do with Russian interference of the 2016 election.  An election I would point out Candidate Trump said was rigged and all the Dems poo-pooed as impossible (at least until they lost).

Michael Cohen, (I assume now former) lawyer/fixer for Donald Trump, has pled guilty of bank and tax fraud and campaign finance violations for paying off President Trump's paramours in an attempt to minimize the public outcries for his messing around on his wife (# 3 I think).  The charges on the bank and tax fraud issues cover a period of 5-years and I believe are also irrelevant with regards to Russians hacking into the election to change the course of U.S. history.  The money he paid the women constituted an illegal “in-kind” campaign contribution and was allegedly made with the knowledge and approval of the candidate. 

The left would have us believe these are “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore are impeachable offenses.  Looking rationally at it, if the Dems were in charge of the House they might make their case, but I’m hard-pressed to understand how a campaign violation by a candidate rises to an impeachable offense when impeachment has historically been used to attempt to remove a President for something he did while holding the office.  (Cases on point.  Andrew Johnson was accused of violating the “Tenure of Office Act” as President. In this case one of the cabinet members got the Congress to act because he was fired and had friends who could protect him.  Richard Nixon resigned before articles of impeachment were approved but it would most likely have been related to the criminal activity of spying on the DNC in the 1972 election.  Finally, Bill Clinton was impeached for his role in attempting to cover up his affair with Lewinsky and mislead the Kenneth Star investigation on Whitewater, both of which occurred while he was a sitting President.) 

That said, in today’s world precedent has little to do with the seemingly irrational choices politicians make in an effort to impress their friends and supporters.  Realistically, does anyone really think if his affairs had come out it would have made that much of a difference in the general election or that the Russians prevented the DNC from finding out about them and using them against Mr. Trump?  As much as one side now claims marriage fidelity is important for a President, that ship sailed in the 1990s.

Of course, we have a number of politicians being indicted on a variety of criminal charges like fraud.  I think there is probably an equal number of Rs and Ds but without a scorecard, it is hard to keep track.  So, I fall back on an old truth (or joke) – when do you know a politician (or lawyer) is lying to you?  When their lips are moving.

Next, we have the discovery of Molly Tibbets a young woman who went missing in mid-July whose body was discovered Tuesday and almost immediately someone was charged with her murder.  The man charged is a 24-year old illegal (undocumented if you prefer) immigrant from Mexico.  Those on the left have risen up to dismiss the nature of her killer and his illegal status as unimportant, with Dr. Christina Greer of Fordham University going so far as to dismiss it entirely since it didn’t fit the narrative she wanted to discuss.  According to Dr. Greer, the news should focus entirely on how the Republican Party is not standing up to Donald Trump.  The fact some “girl in Iowa” was killed just wasn’t that important.  Of course, this was on MSNBC and she was being critical of FOX so it is really okay, isn’t it?  Senator Warren had to weigh in and note that her death wasn’t nearly as important as separating mothers from the children at the border while still others point out the real problem is toxic masculinity.  Of course, some suggested discussing this death and linking it to border security was just pure political theater and the President and his supporters were just crass for doing so.  Not that the previous administration ever did such a thing.

So where is the conundrum?  Each time the Republicans do something to suggest I really should consider dropping my affiliation with them (like having candidates who are indicted or horribly obnoxious) the Democratic party and their spokespeople show me the alternative party is far worse.  Despite its warts and imperfections, at least the Republicans want to keep what appears to be at least a semi-viable government.  The other side really seems to be approaching a level of insanity I can’t understand as they focus almost exclusively on the evil they call Trump and would have us just turn over government to the UN, at least until they figure out the UN only loves us for our cash.  For the socialists among them, they propose the same unsupportable concepts that have made Cuba and Venezuela the economic juggernauts they are today.  It is simply a matter of greed on the part of the haves, and if the government would just step in and make the haves give all their wealth to the have-nots then everything would be great.  All we need to do is nationalize everything and let everyone work for the government.

With this logic, since fiscal policies are set by the Federal Reserve they are the real evil and we should nationalize it (remove its autonomy), along with all the banks and investment companies, and then everything would be perfect. 

That is my conundrum… I don’t think bigger government is the answer and as imperfect as the RNC is, there still appears to be a sliver of sanity within it, while on the other side of the aisle – not so much (e.g. Antifa beating a fellow liberal protestor senseless because he had an American Flag).

So Here We Are

-->

As the walrus said, “The time has come to talk of other things.”  I expect that shall not happen for quite a while, if ever, but before I do I’d like to share this interesting article from the Washington Post on the decline of the Democratic Party.

Phillip Bump, writing on November 10^th laid out the direction the party has moved since the historic election of 2008.  It is only funny when compared to the proclamations of the party’s propaganda arm, ABCNNBCBS and MSNBC, that a Trump election campaign might well signal the end of the opposition Republicans.  

There is an expression in political campaigning about a candidate’s “coattails,” a rather quaint term referring back to 19^th century men's apparel where a child could latch on to someone's coat and get pulled along.  We saw it in this election.   Republicans were first enthused and then repulsed by the candidate, but those who stuck with Mr. Trump were pulled along while those who abandoned him were more likely to lose.

From the data in the Post, it is obvious President Obama’s personal and policy popularity has done little, or nothing, to bolster support of the Democrats among the average middle class American.  So, in terms of coattails, it appears Mr. Obama is wearing a wind breaker.  Yet the true elites within the party, (the top politicians and the rich who pay for them), do not seem to care.  This became obvious with their coronation of Ms. Clinton.  For them it seems to be more about making sure their views are the only one within the party.

After this election perhaps it is time to ask, have we seen the end of the Democratic Party?

Altered Meanings, the Evolution of Terms

-->

The global communication network of today is an interesting place.  Everyone who has a point to make uses language in different ways, sometime twisting meanings, facts, and myths in such a way as the words coming out the back-end are almost unrecognizable from the words that went in.  I’d like to borrow a couple of quotes from Marshall McLuhan, social philosopher and author of Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, to frame this post.

“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us,” and “A point of view can be dangerous luxury, when substituted for insight and understanding.”

What I observe in the social media that engulfs and bombards us each day and night seems akin the raucous debates that must have taken place in all gatherings of people from the beginning of man’s move from small family groups into tribes, villages, and ultimately nations.  In the beginnings exchange of information was personal with face to face communication, where the words were supplemented with the physical support of expressions, gestures, and inflection.  As we see in today’s global exchanges we’ve moved far beyond those days, and we are rapidly losing the ability to convey our thoughts and gain understanding through direct human interaction.  With this loss of direct interaction; the nuance in meaning and opportunity for direct exchange for clarification is becoming rarer each day.

For most who will read these thoughts you will have been directed here through a Facebook link.  So let’s talk about Facebook as a social tool and how its has altered the way we think and act.  This now global phenomenon has opened the door to global communication to anyone with a processor and access to the internet.  You would think with this access would come greater communication and social understanding.  Unfortunately, what I’ve observed is just the opposite.  We come into the town square with our insular points of view and dogmatically shout them for all the world to hear.  Many of us display a rudeness and vulgarity that society has not previously tolerated, yet within the public square we stand there hurling insults and disparagement at those who hold differing views.  We here in the United States are now seeing this translated into the typical television broadcasts and even our political dialogue.

There was a YouTube video I watched a few days ago that reinforces my point that the human dynamic is critical.  It does it without really intending, but it also provides solid food for thought about how and why we are moving towards divergent beliefs.  The “Smarter Every Day” host Destin Sandlin was chosen by the White House to interview the President, and he created this video to document his experience.  I think it is worth a look.

What I learned from President Obama - Smarter Every Day 151

I was most fascinated with his discussion of the loss of a two-channel feedback loop and how that affects the normalization of data. What seems to be swept aside by even the President is how he contributes to the loss of this second channel through the personal choices he makes in communicating to the nation.

So all of this is preamble to talk about how are we moving further apart as the party faithful are now taking common words and twisting their meanings to fit their particular agendas.  Let’s start with the latest political ideology in the forefront of the news, “Democratic Socialist.”  This is not a new term, and I think it can easily be traced back to the end of the 19^th century.  The fundamental position of a democratic socialist is the political process remains democratic, while at the end of the day all economic production is controlled by the state, in theory through gradual incorporation.  In other words, private ownership is ultimately replaced by social ownership.  This is different from Marxist-Leninist socialism (Communism) in that the political process remains democratic rather than authoritarian. The driving premise behind democratic socialism is to theoretically address those issues perceived as problems caused by capitalism.

I find it a bit humorous that those who don’t like the socialism concept throw around examples of how the Nazi’s were the “Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party” and for those who do like Mr. Sanders they bring up the fact that Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” lays out an anti-communist (socialist) manifesto.  In both cases it is a purely emotional appeal with little or no logic to support its use as a counter to what socialism would or would not do for the nation.

The idea of state ownership was not something discussed in any detail in either the US Constitution, or the Federalist Papers used to education the country on the concepts of the new nation.

Everything I read suggests the founding fathers, coming from a principally agrarian society did not see a significant role for the government in the creation and control of the economy, but rather an enabler of commerce. That said, we see in today’s America a deep governmental involvement in the total economic infrastructure, whether it be from the simple taxation of interstate commerce, the regulation and compliance of various industries, or to the complete control and sell off of something like the electro-magnetic spectrum. 

Each of our steps towards socialism have been small and gradual, with each administration and congress inching ever closer to control.  We saw a huge movement with the election of FDR in 1932, where the Federal Government effectively closed down the banks and took dramatic action to control the banking system.  Since then the government has passed law after law to build up or regulate industry.  We have tax benefits to encourage home ownership for the housing industry, we have energy credits to encourage the sale of hybrid and electric vehicles, the food and drug industries have regulation after regulation governing them, and still we are surprised with unscrupulous business leaders find loopholes to increase their profits.

     Although there are countries where socialism has worked there are serious questions about how effective those approaches would be in a country as large and socially varied as the United States, where the population is, to use the modern term “diverse” and the self-interests of the individual divergent.  Where socialism has worked the populations are fairly uniform and united in their support of the underlying premise that all money belongs to the government and it will disperse that money based on its determination of need.  This is reflected in the various taxing schemes of the countries that identify with socialism.  A question I’ve not seen addressed in a socialist approach is how will innovation and creativity be incentivized and rewarded, or how will costs be controlled?  Our history has shown when government bureaucrats are left to their own devices spending other people’s money – cost is not a primary consideration.  A review of recent events has shown greed, graft, deceit and misappropriation occur routinely in government organization (just as they do in private industry).  The only difference is we have built protection after protection for the bureaucrats (e.g. VA scandals).
--> 
     For those who would support a declared socialist, democratic or otherwise, ask yourself how much of your individual freedom of choice you are willing to surrender for a promise the government will take care of all your needs.  Think about that each time there is a rant about the government cutting Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, or any other non-discretionary spending program. 
 

At the same time for those who would support the Republicans ask yourselves if when they promise to do all the things they promise, aren’t they actually advocating for more government control of the economy, or greater socialism?  It seems to me to be a fine line regardless of what they call themselves between all those seeking the power of the Presidency on either side.

Random Political Thoughts

     Here we are sixteen months from the next Presidential election and the press is all ready to pick the contestants and start the general campaigning.  This is only encouraged by a President who doesn't do much besides campaign.

President Obama and Former Representative Anthony Wiener D-NY

     I found it laughable that he was raffling, auctioning, or otherwise not soliciting $10, $5, and in the end $3 donations for an opportunity to go to the White House and have lunch with himself and the Vice President.  He couldn't really be raffling, or auctioning or having a lottery with the donations because that would violate state and interstate gaming laws.  So really you didn't need to send any money because it wouldn't improve your chances of winning, but who knew?

     On the Republican side we have numerous candidates running.  Several really haven't stopped since they lost their last try, and at least a couple appear to be in it to boost their book sales.   But it is early and the MainStream Media (The new code words for those pinko liberal news networks i.e. anyone but Fox (unless they ask stupid questions like "Are you a flake" and then they too are pinko-liberal MSM)), hasn't really picked who they want to win so they can tear them apart.

      So here we are with all these candidates having debates that no one really cares about talking about those important issues like how the President and Democrats have screwed up everything and they are just the man or woman to fix it.
     Then we have the negotiations on the National Debt and what has to represent the biggest "I'm just here for the free food," pass the buck, statement of this administration.  After a hard day of talking he comes out and says those leaders in the House and Senate have to lead, leaders lead and those guys in the House and Senate have to roll up their sleeves and get it done (on raising the debt ceiling).  So essentially his leadership style is based on Larry the Cable Guy!  Way to go Mr. President!  So exactly what is your role in Government?  Oh ya, you got UBL...
     Finally on a high note, while the Vice President, Mr. Biden, was out in Las Vegas telling the union leadership that the President and he were there men, and soliciting their support.  The rumors start about his being replaced by Andrew Cuomo.  What's a VP supposed to do?  He leaves town for one little trip to Sin City (a city the President said we should stop visiting) and all the sudden they want to replace him?  The injustice of it all!

Presidential Power

With the possible exception of George Washington every President of the United States has, at one time or another, pressed against the constitution to expand his power and authority.  Why would we expect President Obama to be different?

My concern is his lack of vision or understanding on the use of the tools available to him.  He leaves us to wonder if he knows what is critical to our nation and where or how to reflect leadership?  I guess that should not be surprising for someone who has really never been in a leadership role, but was brought to office more because he wasn't something than what he was.

Why are Political Commentators so Mean?

My simple question this evening is why do you have to be mean if you are a talking head talking about politics?

This has been a question I've had for some time.  At the 2008 elections I had wondered if the vast Democratic majority would learn the lesson's from the past and move to govern in the center and would they return to civility in the way the left and right dealt with issues?  We know from the experiences of the last two years they did not (for the sake of fairness the Republicans didn't make much effort either).  We also know from this past election they paid a price for their decisions to remain completely partisan.

(C) Art@BrokenTeapot

I really think John Stewart nailed it when he critiqued the left and right wing commentators as fanning the flames of hate that are leading to the inability of the government to govern.  It was amusing to watch Mr. Olbermann and Ms. Maddow take such great issue with being cast in the same light as Messrs. O'Reilly and Beck.  The "clearly we are not as bad as the other guys" defense struck me as, at best, childish in its approach.

I follow a couple of conservative blogs, and will from time to time drop in on a couple of liberal or progressive blogs to see what they are saying.  What I find is, for the most part, a waste of time.  The Blog owner will write about some perceived crime against his or her view, (both sides do the same thing) and everyone will pile on with a sentence or two of righteous indignation.  There isn't any real discussion of a pressing issue, analysis of options available, and second or third order affects from the decision.  It is such a pity, we have become a population that can only think in sound bites.

In entertainment (AKA Television and Radio News), I think Mr. Limbaugh has set the standard that all must follow.  His attack style of commentary now means that everyone must attack, or they will not have the ratings to continue.  I guess therein lies the problem.  We drive this kind of virulence because we watch or listen.

As our Representatives struggle for television air time, and national recognition so they may further their individual ambitions they have learned the way to get it is to make outrageous statements and establish unsupportable positions.  When that happens one side jumps to attack, and the other is forced to defend.  It is even better if we can make the argument personal.  I really think TV did this when they started to segregate the country by color.  Are you a Red or a Blue?  Are you with us or against us?

Maybe... rather than attacking an opinion we disagree with we should listen.  There must be some value in the position or the proponent wouldn't have it.  What is that value?  Is there any other way we can find the same value?  Debate and compromise used to be a good thing.  To bad it isn't still.