I have been pondering what I could say about Donald Trump's speech on foreign policy. On the surface to anyone who hasn't thought about foreign policy as something that needs a coherent core, many things he said sounded reasonable. But then again, his whole instinct is insulting and demeaning people. Foreign policy is the art of getting people, whom you have little to no power over, to do things that you want them to; with whatever persuasive arguments you have to show what you want is in their best interest.
And as an individual from the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) pointed out, Trump was promising to make nice with Putin while arguing and insulting our friends in NATO and our southern neighbor, Mexico. And lest you think the Wall is going to be a productive infrastructure project, I will point out that the criminal elements already favor digging tunnels under what is already there and using submarines to get the really high priced contraband around whatever impediments we try to put into place.
My mental logjam was broken by reading today's insightful columns covering old ground. Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman discuss the fact that a substantial set of white voters are angry at what they perceive as the government not working for them. On the Democratic side that comes out in the form of populism and support for things that stick it to the wealthy and help the poor/young. On the Republican side, that comes out in a dislike for anything to do with the GOP establishment that promised Supply Side Economics would benefit everyone and wants to dismantle the safety net that helps people when they reach retirement age.
Paul Krugman analyzes why Clinton could successfully manage this anger. His theory is that Democratic leaders have sufficiently delivered on their promises and the base is sufficiently satisfied with their leadership to support them. GOP leaders, instead have focuses on anger and shutting down the government and not offering solutions to issues that their supporters, like the Democratic's supporters, are having to deal with in their everyday lives. When globalization has been causing your community problems for 30 years, you perceive a problem with political process. And that is why they are supporting Trump, even though he is also a supporter of tax cuts for the rich. What Trump doesn't support is paying for those tax cuts by cutting services to the people. I don't know how he will balance the budget? Perhaps he plans to get China to give the U.S.A. foreign aid to pay for it all.
David Brooks acknowledges that he doesn't have an answer to problems that he probably doesn't completely understand because he lives in the high income bubble. But he recognizes that the anger driving this election needs to be understood and policies developed to address it. I am sure that Brooks as a card carrying Republican wants balanced policies that do not disrupt things that are working broadly for the benefit of society. I would have to agree with that. In his mind, there are places in the U.S. where balanced policies have worked to address the problems and they need to be studied so ideas on how to spread them broadly across the landscape can be discussed.
I would start with health insurance. Paul Ryan wants to help fix the main problem with Obamacare which is that the cost of health insurance for all is being driven up by insuring those with pre-existing conditions. If the 5% or 10% of the population with pre-exisitng conditions had access to high risk pools subsidized by someone unidentified (why not put them into Medicare?), then the other 90% to 95% could enjoy the cost of health insurance for the relatively healthy. Of course, he still needs to address the working poor who cannot afford health insurance without assistance even if the cost does come down.
It seems to be there are many points that can generate they type of anger we see in this election cycle. That is David Brooks desire to identify them and see what can be done to address them. It is his belief that if people can have hope restored to their psychology they will be more rational and less radical voters.
I have long recognized that rural areas have been suffering economically for a long time. What is interesting in this long primary cycle, is that is where Bernie Sanders and Trump/Cruz run up their largest voting percentages. The U.S. rural areas are fired up with anger with no good solutions for their most fervent desires.
Link to Brook's column
Link to Kurgman column
Showing posts with label Clinton2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton2016. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
The Problems With All the Candidates for President
I watched the Democratic Debate last night. Funny, how an election that you can participate in focuses the mind on watching these intense people work to convince us that we should vote for them. I would not want to have a beer with any of them, I don't think any of them drink. How could you pop a few back and then go out and campaign? Raise money? Think about critical issues?
Anyway, I came away with an understanding of every candidates weakness as a candidate.
Hillary can be attacked from the left and the right because (i) she has a long track record of centrist policies and (ii) decisions which might have been better than the alternative, but are still open to attack because things did not work out well. And she has been on the national scene for 24 years and many people are tired of her. The national attention span does not tolerate anyone being acceptable for 24 years, except for possibly a rock star or a movie star, but they get to disappear when not touring or promoting a film, unlike politics which is 24/7.
Bernie does not do details. He is a big picture guy with some knowledge of things he is interested in. But he does not understand the complexity of the economy and his economic policies cannot be implemented because even centrist Democrats would not support some of his proposals, let alone the GOP. And how is he going to pay for public college education for all? He is going to have the states pay 1/3 of it. I have no idea how states which are cutting spending for k-12 education because they prefer to cut taxes or at least contain taxes (even NY is doing that) are going to find the funds to pay for all this free college. This stuff fires up the young voters, but it is not practical. And I cannot believe how pro-palestinian Bernie was in the debate. I may think Israel has to go down a different path which includes a two state solution because a one state solution is not a peaceful solution, but I disagree strongly with Bernie that only Israel did bad things in Gaza. Hamas started the whole thing and is a terrorist supporting government. And that is the beauty of a two state solution, even terrorist governments have to govern well if they want a happy population and they can be held accountable for their terrorist actions which deny's the population happiness, and, hopefully, they hold their government responsible changing that government's behavior. That is my pipe dream. But Bernie would be a failed President because he does not do details.
John Kasich does not have a coherent plan for health insurance, but he might if he were running as a Democrat. Unfortunately for him, he is what passes for a centrist Republican now, which is a RINO to some and he is part of the establishment GOP which has lied to so many of the GOP rank and file that everyone, whether they did that or not, is subject to the anger that the GOP rank and file feel.
What is amazing is Ted Cruz has promulgated many of those positions that lead to the lying that has disillusioned the rank and file, and even formulated some of his own original positions (shutting down the government as a strategy when you cannot get what you want the normal way) that feed that disillusioning. And some 65% of the population does not like him. He did 2 days in NY and then fled to California where I doubt he is spending much time in L.A. or S.F. And I doubt we will see him in NY again. If he won the Presidency, would he even come to speak at the U.N.? Does anyone else find his voice grating? Ted Cruz is very scary.
There are many problems with Donald Trump and it all rolls up into 70% of the population not liking him. Donald Trump is HUGELY SCAREY.
And I cannot remember, whether it is Trump or Cruz, but one of them is feuding with the Drudge Report. Maybe the conservative spin Dr's are consuming themselves. That would be a positive.
Well that runs through all the candidates, and I will be voting for Hillary Tuesday because she is qualified and 4 years of Hillary will absolutely have the Talk Radio Right and Pundit Class fuming at the GOP's ineptitude.
Anyway, I came away with an understanding of every candidates weakness as a candidate.
Hillary can be attacked from the left and the right because (i) she has a long track record of centrist policies and (ii) decisions which might have been better than the alternative, but are still open to attack because things did not work out well. And she has been on the national scene for 24 years and many people are tired of her. The national attention span does not tolerate anyone being acceptable for 24 years, except for possibly a rock star or a movie star, but they get to disappear when not touring or promoting a film, unlike politics which is 24/7.
Bernie does not do details. He is a big picture guy with some knowledge of things he is interested in. But he does not understand the complexity of the economy and his economic policies cannot be implemented because even centrist Democrats would not support some of his proposals, let alone the GOP. And how is he going to pay for public college education for all? He is going to have the states pay 1/3 of it. I have no idea how states which are cutting spending for k-12 education because they prefer to cut taxes or at least contain taxes (even NY is doing that) are going to find the funds to pay for all this free college. This stuff fires up the young voters, but it is not practical. And I cannot believe how pro-palestinian Bernie was in the debate. I may think Israel has to go down a different path which includes a two state solution because a one state solution is not a peaceful solution, but I disagree strongly with Bernie that only Israel did bad things in Gaza. Hamas started the whole thing and is a terrorist supporting government. And that is the beauty of a two state solution, even terrorist governments have to govern well if they want a happy population and they can be held accountable for their terrorist actions which deny's the population happiness, and, hopefully, they hold their government responsible changing that government's behavior. That is my pipe dream. But Bernie would be a failed President because he does not do details.
John Kasich does not have a coherent plan for health insurance, but he might if he were running as a Democrat. Unfortunately for him, he is what passes for a centrist Republican now, which is a RINO to some and he is part of the establishment GOP which has lied to so many of the GOP rank and file that everyone, whether they did that or not, is subject to the anger that the GOP rank and file feel.
What is amazing is Ted Cruz has promulgated many of those positions that lead to the lying that has disillusioned the rank and file, and even formulated some of his own original positions (shutting down the government as a strategy when you cannot get what you want the normal way) that feed that disillusioning. And some 65% of the population does not like him. He did 2 days in NY and then fled to California where I doubt he is spending much time in L.A. or S.F. And I doubt we will see him in NY again. If he won the Presidency, would he even come to speak at the U.N.? Does anyone else find his voice grating? Ted Cruz is very scary.
There are many problems with Donald Trump and it all rolls up into 70% of the population not liking him. Donald Trump is HUGELY SCAREY.
And I cannot remember, whether it is Trump or Cruz, but one of them is feuding with the Drudge Report. Maybe the conservative spin Dr's are consuming themselves. That would be a positive.
Well that runs through all the candidates, and I will be voting for Hillary Tuesday because she is qualified and 4 years of Hillary will absolutely have the Talk Radio Right and Pundit Class fuming at the GOP's ineptitude.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sunday Musing 2/28/2016
Ah, Leap Year. We get one more day of February and an extra day of this mindless endless campaign to be the next President, which of course happens every Presidential election. You think the founding fathers intentionally wanted an extra day of campaigning for the Presidency or it just happened that way with the timing of the founding of the nation?
Did you know Donald Duke endorsed Donald Trump? So the KKK supports Trump. What does that make Trump supporters and endorsers like Chris Christie and Sarah Palin?
There is a movie named "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" coming out in March based upon a book written by a journalist who was in Afghanistan and Pakistan for several years in the late 2000's. The one pertinent comment she made about the whole Western approach to the issues with the Taliban and ISIS is her hope for her movie. "Maybe more people will start talking about a holistic approach to the region rather than the Whack-a-terrorist game we seem to be playing." But we won't expect any of the GOP candidates to understand the need to explore that.
Meanwhile, with Hillary's big win and her obvious qualifications to understand the issues of the Presidency, I am still troubled by her baggage and will fill in the dot for her name because the alternatives are so awful. Bernie Sanders cannot achieve his dreams and he will be as ineffective as Barack Obama has been. How can President Obama win so decisively and not have longer coat tails? And there is no need for me to go on at any length about how the GOP candidates refuse to propose policies that will actually help people. If they would discuss how they would replace Obamacare while not allowing insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions, balance the budget and keep the government operating to protect the public safety, I would consider voting for a GOP candidates.
On that last point, the Zika Virus certainly shows the need for a public health system and the CDC.
At least Hillary is qualified to be President. But I understand the American desire to have someone new in the Presidency. Newness brings hope and a possibility of change. When someone has been part of the national political scene for 24 years and counting, while that brings qualifications, it also means many voters just simply want to move on.
And Ross Douthat went on a rant today about how Obama is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. While Douthat does acknowledge some Republican responsibility for the support of Donald Trump by Reagan Democrats (I would point out that I was Reagan Democrat, but I became a RINO and then returned to the Democrats), he then goes on to lay the blame on the Imperial Obama Presidency. I am virtually speechless in my political rage at this. Does Mitch McConnell and the let's ruin this Presidency deserve no blame for the "Imperial Presidency". What about the absolute need for the government to operate and protect the people? What about GOP punditry that did not rail against the GOP for failing to negotiate and compromise? As I wrote yesterday, Democracy requires compromise.
And Obama asked the Congress to authorize the activities in Syria against ISIS and the Congress refused. So when Douthat says "The current President has expanded executive authority along almost every dimension: Launching wars without Congressional Authorization, claiming the power to assassinate American citizens", he is going against the grain of actual GOP support for all this and a GOP desire to actually do more of the same.
So my only takeaway on Dothan's column is that he has gone off the rail in his angst about Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio dominating the GOP.
link to Douthat column
Did you know Donald Duke endorsed Donald Trump? So the KKK supports Trump. What does that make Trump supporters and endorsers like Chris Christie and Sarah Palin?
There is a movie named "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" coming out in March based upon a book written by a journalist who was in Afghanistan and Pakistan for several years in the late 2000's. The one pertinent comment she made about the whole Western approach to the issues with the Taliban and ISIS is her hope for her movie. "Maybe more people will start talking about a holistic approach to the region rather than the Whack-a-terrorist game we seem to be playing." But we won't expect any of the GOP candidates to understand the need to explore that.
Meanwhile, with Hillary's big win and her obvious qualifications to understand the issues of the Presidency, I am still troubled by her baggage and will fill in the dot for her name because the alternatives are so awful. Bernie Sanders cannot achieve his dreams and he will be as ineffective as Barack Obama has been. How can President Obama win so decisively and not have longer coat tails? And there is no need for me to go on at any length about how the GOP candidates refuse to propose policies that will actually help people. If they would discuss how they would replace Obamacare while not allowing insurance companies to charge more for pre-existing conditions, balance the budget and keep the government operating to protect the public safety, I would consider voting for a GOP candidates.
On that last point, the Zika Virus certainly shows the need for a public health system and the CDC.
At least Hillary is qualified to be President. But I understand the American desire to have someone new in the Presidency. Newness brings hope and a possibility of change. When someone has been part of the national political scene for 24 years and counting, while that brings qualifications, it also means many voters just simply want to move on.
And Ross Douthat went on a rant today about how Obama is responsible for the rise of Donald Trump. While Douthat does acknowledge some Republican responsibility for the support of Donald Trump by Reagan Democrats (I would point out that I was Reagan Democrat, but I became a RINO and then returned to the Democrats), he then goes on to lay the blame on the Imperial Obama Presidency. I am virtually speechless in my political rage at this. Does Mitch McConnell and the let's ruin this Presidency deserve no blame for the "Imperial Presidency". What about the absolute need for the government to operate and protect the people? What about GOP punditry that did not rail against the GOP for failing to negotiate and compromise? As I wrote yesterday, Democracy requires compromise.
And Obama asked the Congress to authorize the activities in Syria against ISIS and the Congress refused. So when Douthat says "The current President has expanded executive authority along almost every dimension: Launching wars without Congressional Authorization, claiming the power to assassinate American citizens", he is going against the grain of actual GOP support for all this and a GOP desire to actually do more of the same.
So my only takeaway on Dothan's column is that he has gone off the rail in his angst about Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio dominating the GOP.
link to Douthat column
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Sunday Musings on a Saturday 2/20/16
Some people are bemoaning the collapse in support for Jeb Bush and the rise of Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton. Regular readers know I have had reservations about both "entitled" candidates since the beginning of the campaign. It is not that they are not qualified to be President, they most certainly are from the standpoint of having the temperament for the job and the knowledge to handle the myriad issues thrown at them every day. But they have been on the scene for over 20 years through their family situations.
Many voters are apparently not doing what I have done, which is reluctantly acknowledge that they are the best choice for putting a responsible person in charge, and instead are rejecting them in the primary preferring to reach for the allure of extremely partisan positions that don't have a chance in hell of getting implemented if the Senate is split within the 55- 45 range as it is almost certainly to be.
This is a very high risk position for both parties, but then the consequences of the next election when it comes to the Supreme Court are very significant so it will be important to rile up the bases and get them to turn out for the election. But you have to have a candidate who can win the middle while turning out the bases. I have no idea how the middle of the swing states will split with a 75 year old liberal and a Right Wing Nut Case running to restore the 18th century as our primary reference point for governance.
All I know is the election for the Senate will determine how we are actually governed on most issues and I expect it will not be pretty for the next two to four years, not that this year is going to be any better.
It is enough to make me angry enough to vote for Bernie in a general election and wish Joe Biden had run. But then he is 73. Oy Vey!!!!
Many voters are apparently not doing what I have done, which is reluctantly acknowledge that they are the best choice for putting a responsible person in charge, and instead are rejecting them in the primary preferring to reach for the allure of extremely partisan positions that don't have a chance in hell of getting implemented if the Senate is split within the 55- 45 range as it is almost certainly to be.
This is a very high risk position for both parties, but then the consequences of the next election when it comes to the Supreme Court are very significant so it will be important to rile up the bases and get them to turn out for the election. But you have to have a candidate who can win the middle while turning out the bases. I have no idea how the middle of the swing states will split with a 75 year old liberal and a Right Wing Nut Case running to restore the 18th century as our primary reference point for governance.
All I know is the election for the Senate will determine how we are actually governed on most issues and I expect it will not be pretty for the next two to four years, not that this year is going to be any better.
It is enough to make me angry enough to vote for Bernie in a general election and wish Joe Biden had run. But then he is 73. Oy Vey!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)