The Birth of a New Party in America?

We live in surreal times.  Who would have thought Donald Trump would win the presidency?  Before you Trump supporters get self righteous, just keep in mind that only 19.7% of Americans voted for him.  Go ahead and check the numbers.  Anyway, Trump won the election process.  Full stop.

Now what?

He evidently meant what he said.  About everything.  A border wall.  Obamacare.  Abortion.  Fair trade.  Taxes.  Infrastructure.  Global warming.  Nukes.  And what he didn't "say" is just as important.  Like, about misogyny.  Inequality.  Drugs.  Bernie Sanders.  Taxes.  Real estate.  Obama.  Nukes.

Donald Trump does not handily fit into the mold of a Republican.  In fact, he's probably more of a Democrat.  The Republican party stands for fiscal conservatism, wild-west freedom, small government, small taxes.  Democrats stand for redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, controlled capitalism and fiscally stimulative polices, such as free education for all.  Those are two polar opposites.  Is it any wonder why they cannot agree on new legislation?

Donald Trump falls somewhere in between.  So do a few other legislators.  Isn't it time for the emergence of a third political party?  Wouldn't it be nice if such a party gained enough power to be able to attract enough "moderate" Republicans and Democrats to pass meaningful legislation?

All countries are constantly undergoing metamorphoses.  The U.S. is no different.  Perhaps the 2016 election of Donald Trump, when viewed twenty years hence, will be heralded as the point when moderates started to come together to agree on stuff again.  Perhaps the election of a radical president who didn't really herald from either political party will be seen as the obvious signal from the people that what they wanted was something neither of the established parties were really offering.

Perhaps 2016 will be seen as the first evidence of fertile ground for the germination of a third political party.  Call them the "Progressive Conservatives".

Making History

John Dickerson, of CBS's Face the Nation, asked a focus group a great question yesterday. He asked, "We're in a library and let's imagine we're here twenty years from now, and there's a book on the shelf about 2016. How does this story end?".

The "story" he was referring to was the current U.S. presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The question was a good one because it provoked thought and reflection about the current times and what we're going through.

I saw an article a few days ago that reported the results of a recent U.S. financial survey. Startlingly, about 70% of survey respondents indicated that they had less than a thousand dollars in their savings account. Now, consider this article by respected economist Larry Summers, which suggests that the global economy is hitting stall speed.  That means that even though the world population is growing, the global economy is not.  That, in turn, means that people are faring worse than before. That's not a good thing. What's worse, as Summers points out in his article, governments and central banks aren't sure what to do about it.

I believe the answer to Dickerson's thoughtful question to his focus group is that the United States is a country of growing inequality between the top 10% and the rest of the population, a process that started in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and one that has accelerated since the new millennium with the election of another Republican, George W. Bush.  I believe that it's this rising inequality of income and wealth which is creating a sense of inequity in society, and which is causing voters to crave a great disruptor-in-chief, like Donald Trump.

In this election year, while showing that he can indeed be the human Molotov cocktail the masses want tossed into 2016 society, Donald Trump has also frightened and offended enough people to prevent them from electing him president.

Returning once again to Dickerson's question then, what will that history book about 2016 say about the era we are proceeding through? I believe it will read that, while Hillary Clinton went on to become president and steady the ship that is the United States of America, that 2016 was a preview of a new era when, years later, a younger, pragmatic version of Bernie Sanders and, perhaps, a nobler version of Donald Trump, would emerge to become the 46th president of the United States, to lead the citizens on a journey toward a more compassionate society. He/she would do it not just because it was the right path to lead them on but because it was a necessary one to strengthen the union and, some would say, indeed, to preserve it.

Trump Bows Out

The momentum is with Hillary Clinton.  Take a look at these two apps, 538 and NYT poll that report, more or less in real time, which way the winds are blowing.  Right now they're suggesting it's going to be a Hillary Clinton blowout and a Donald Trump blowup.

If Florida swings Democrat (as it appears to be doing) and if Texas becomes a contest, watch for Trump to bow out of the race, claiming the election's rigged.  Then watch Mike Pence come within a whisker of defeating Hillary.  But it'll be too little too late for the GOP.  And it'll be Hillary Living History all over again.

You heard it here first.

Could we extinguish the war in Syria if we took away their arms?

Here's a thought: Why don't we take away the armaments we've supplied the warring factions in Syria and then see what happens?  Would the fire of war be extinguished or would the tribes resort to IUD's, hand-to-hand combat, blades and pitchforks?

The United States and Russia are responsible for arming, and in Russia's case, supporting their side in the Syrian war.  A burning fire is being sustained and a growing number of innocent people are being displaced or killed.

What would happen if the United Nations agreed to a weapons non-proliferation treaty of sorts, one where they could not be bought, sold or otherwise conveyed to third-parties beyond their country of manufacture?  It would be akin to choking off the blood supply to cancerous tumors.

What would the warring tribes around the world do, with no one to give them weapons?  Where would they turn, but to their own ingenuity?

This U.N. resolution could incorporate a pledge to protect all nations, in the same way that N.A.T.O. countries are obligated to protect one another, or the way the United States protects its allies.

With an absence of all arms, including rifles and hand guns, warring tribes would have to resort to sticks and stones or, at most, their own brains to make weapons.  In time, either the smartest tribes would come out ahead, or, if found to be committing crimes against humanity, aggressors would be beaten back by the military superiority of one of the few, agreed protector nations, like the United States.

The only losers in the armament-free world would be the private defense contractors, who would no longer enjoy a thriving market for their products, and terrorists.

What's not to like?

Hillary to Win By a Landslide in November

Recent polling suggests that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by 6-10 points in the swing states.  I am surprised they are not showing a wider lead.

I predict Hillary will get two thirds of the popular vote.  Here's how I come up with that:

Trump has alienated all non-whites and other minorities, as well as women.  The only group he hasn't offended (so far) is white men.

America's racial profile is roughly 13% black, 17% Latino, 6% Asian, 62% white and 2% "other".  Assuming Hillary Clinton wins all the non-white voters plus the traditional 30% of the white vote that the Democrats win, she will win the election.  But wait, of the 70% of white voters that vote Republican, normally, half are women and I assume half of those women will also vote for Hillary because they don't like Trump.

My math yields 67% for Hillary, 33% for Trump.  Go ahead and check it.

Now, admittedly, this is a crude estimate based on very broad assumptions.  Obviously, some non-whites will vote Republican and perhaps more white women will vote for Trump but, on the other hand, some white men who normally support Republican candidates may in fact vote for Hillary this time for whatever personal reason (maybe they are war vets who feel Trump has betrayed them).

In summary, I believe Donald Trump will lose very badly in this election and the GOP will be doing much soul-searching afterward.  As they should.

What Americans Want

If there is are any pattern emerging from the American primaries, it's this: economic inequality sucks and Establishment politicians are gonna pay for it.  That's why Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are doing so well.  Of course, Hillary Clinton, considered part of the Establishment, also has the most credibility when it comes to being able to close the gap between the rich and poor, which is why she's faring so well.  But don't dismiss the possibility that this election, come November 8, will be a huge protest vote from the American electorate, and that Donald Trump will be the next president.

Their Just Not Getting It

I love The New York Times but they're just not getting it.  This article seeks to explain how Trump's policies may backfire against workers but, after reading half way through, it feels like they're baffling me with bullshit.

In contrast, Trump's message that he'll 'slap a 45% tax on Chinese goods and that'll stop 'em from stealing our jobs' is straightforward, easy to understand and seems to makes sense.

If you're gonna argue against a simple argument, make sure your argument is just as simple and straightforward.  Otherwise, you're gonna lose the Donald Trump voter.  Heck, you lost me, and I'm not even voting for Trump.