Tag Archives: politics

Foresight 2020: Get Real

The 2020 election is fifteen months away, and already the Democrats are intent on deciding how best to lose.  There is general agreement among the two dozen or so candidates that any one of them would be a far better president than the one we’ve got now.  Yet, their collective strategy seems to focus on mutual disparagement.

It is painful to watch.  The urge to score a knockout punch is obscene in its irrelevance.  The desire to thump an opponent—preferably an opponent who has higher poll numbers—outweighs the real necessity of focusing on the shortcomings of the presumptive Republican nominee the sooner the better.  The candidates’ other favorite tactic seems to be to bore the public to death by discussing minute policy differences.  The Republicans and their titular leader are gleeful.

How can this be?

The current “president,” who is perhaps the most obnoxious resident of the White House since Andrew Johnson, presides over an administration distinguished by incompetence.  His one notable campaign message from four years ago was the exclusion of immigrants, and he has pursued that theme since his election, recently claiming that the United States is “full.”

The election of 2016 ushered in an era of corruption of our public discourse through so-called “social” media and the subversion of our political process by foreign governments.  The “president” has done nothing about this because, in his view, it is all a hoax.

The central animating principle of this government is self-glorification.  He thrives on adulation of rally-goers.  He exploits division in the body politic and appears indifferent, at best, to the chanting of an adoring mob motivated by core racial hatred.

Essentially a one-trick pony, his signature tactic is to “tweet” whatever outrageous thing comes into his little mind and watch the world react.  It’s a game that he enjoys, and “We’ll see what happens!” is his favorite go-to phrase.  

Unfortunately, a loyal 45 percent of the American electorate is happy to share the joke.

So, why are Democrats losing?

Unlike the lively Republican rallies, the Democratic primary debates suffer from poor production and little entertainment value—unless you happen to enjoy watching a wall of lecterns and hearing people talking over one another.

The much-hyped my-plan-is-better-than-your-plan contest is tedious and uninteresting.  If the candidates believe that this is the way to attract voters, they are delusional.  One can only hope that this is a temporary insanity.  It is high time to get back to what is real.  Having a plan is a fine thing, but to pitch your plan as a future reality is foolish. 

What is real is that none of the candidates’ plans will ever become law without significant modification through the legislative process.  To a large extent, then, the details that the candidates are spending so much time arguing about are a fiction that is all the more fanciful as long as Republicans control the Senate.

To make the primary more interesting and possibly even exciting, the candidates should consider how to outsmart the format that is being foisted on them.  They should work together not only to put one of their number in the White House but also to retain Democratic control of the House and win control of the Senate.

I would like to see the Democratic candidates actually meet with each other every two or three weeks (away from all cameras and microphones) and create a shared vision and a strategy to achieve it.  The debate stage could be used not to compare separate visions but to inspire one shared vision, with all of the candidates on the same page.  The candidate who can best articulate that vision—and most effectively contrast that vision with the present administration—should become the Democrats’ standard-bearer in 2020.

Can the candidates stop attacking each other and figure out how to join forces and support each other?  It’s doubtful, but I would sure like to see them try.

Share This:

Hits: 48

Some other stuff for later,

  • 76
    Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton won the debate last night at Hofstra University in New York, but Clinton gave the better performance. Donald Trump played to his base. He seems incapable of appealing to voters who do not already support him. The same might be said of Hillary Clinton,…
  • 75
    The morning after the drama of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, our local newspaper editorialized that the “key question” was whether anything the president said to him amounted to obstruction of justice. While most of the questions from Republican members of…
  • 73
    The first general election debate will be held tonight. The contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is stubbornly close with the two candidates polling neck and neck, according to today's national averages reported by RealClearPolitics. Tonight, neither candidate will win, but it is difficult to see how Donald Trump…

Health Hazard

I am annoyed with Donald Trump.  Not merely annoyed, I have come to the conclusion that the man is hazardous to my health.  It’s getting so I am apprehensive about waking up in the morning to hear NPR bring me news of the latest atrocity committed by Mr. Trump’s administration.

The “national emergency” that he has just discovered at our southern border is today’s latest example.  If there is such a crisis (which I do not believe actually exists), why did it take him two years to find it?  The “crisis” of course is phony.  It serves only as a ploy to circumvent the normal channels of legislation.  He was unable to get a border wall funding bill through Congress.  The sloppy art of his deal was to wait until a quarter of the government ran out of money and then use that as leverage to get what he wants.

This is not negotiating.  This is taking hostages and making a non-negotiable demand.

Of course, this ploy would not work so well were it not for the collusion of Mitch McConnell (and the majority of Republicans).  Mitch says there is no point in having the Senate consider funding the government unless the president will sign the bill.  I must admit that there is a certain appeal to that argument.  I mean, why bother to legislate?  Never mind the Senate’s Constitutional duty.  But in reality, the only thing Mr. Trump wants to sign is the back of a check from the taxpayers for his Great-Great Wall. 

What Mitch is really saying by refusing to consider anything else is that the Republicans are ready to agree to the ransom demand.

If Mitch had any backbone, he would tell Mr. Trump that the only legislation the Senate will pass is a bill that would immediately re-open the government, provide funding for more immigration judges, provide humanitarian assistance to asylum-seeking families who are stuck at the border, and sure, providing some better electronic and technological surveillance on the border.  Next, Congress should take up comprehensive immigration reform.  (Okay, I can already hear the laughter from the invertebrate Republicans.)

A “physical barrier “at the border is nonsense.  Considering the time it would take to complete a massive federal construction project, it can hardly be called an urgent response to a “national emergency.”  As far as I can see, the only ones to benefit are the contracting outfits who would do the construction at inflated “government work” prices.

And that’s just today’s atrocity!  These are supposed to be my golden years, but how can I enjoy them with Mr. Trump in charge of my country?  It’s like having perpetual acid reflux.  My greatest existential fear is dying while he is still in office.  It will take years to undo the damage that he has already caused.  I can only hope that I should live so long.


Share This:

Hits: 90

Some other stuff for later,

  • 65
    On March 2, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he would recuse himself “from matters with the Trump campaign,” including investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The announcement came after news reports that Sessions had spoken with the Russian ambassador at least twice during the campaign. Sessions…
  • 63
    I am starting into my third year of retirement and the second year of this blog. I have been thinking about both things this week, and there are commonalities. I feel like a beginner, still, at both retirement and blogging. Perhaps the most amazing thing about retirement so far is…
  • 54
    This post follows Immigration Part 1: How Did We Get Here? and Immigration Part 2: Establishing Equity. Part 1 covers United States immigration policy and politics prior to 1965. Part 2 examines three decades of immigration legislation between 1965 and 1996 and the recommendations of two blue-ribbon commissions appointed to…