The United States Lost Republic to Democracy

 

While a complete democracy is neither desirable nor practical, yet the United States has irrevocably moved steadily closer and closer to outright democracy since the first days of her founding under the present Constitution. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments which were debated and selected from an original thirteen and sliced down to a nice round number, ten, gave the first step in that direction by delineating the rights which were included in those guaranteed the people as they were gifts from the creator mentioned so specifically in the Declaration of Independence which many of the Founding Fathers believed was a part of the founding documents which defined the society and its governance just as much as the Constitution. As time progressed the Federal Government gathered unto itself more and more powers stealing them either from the States respectively, or from the people. This was from the government which supposedly was restricted by Amendment X which read, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founding Fathers were divided into two groups, the Federalists and, of course, the anti-Federalists with one group desiring to balance the governance in favor of the most local governance as possible while the others believed that centralized powers were required in order for the governance to rule the entire nation. The first attempt to fashion a weak central governance over the newly liberated English colonies, the Federated States of America, was a dismal failure as without any powers to raise money and left at the mercies of the charity of the individual States the government very soon ran aground and became high, dry and out of funds. So, the United States of America’s Constitution was America 2.0 and made with powers given the central government unconscionable the first time around. Had the Federal Government continued to be restrained and restricted to its original powers then the United States would probably be in better shape and the European powers would still have militaries of sufficient size and capabilities that they would not be dependent upon the United States to be the sole determining force of NATO and the European Union would have died long before the Euro became the bane of Greece and the lucrative coinage for Germany. But the changes that put the final knife into the Constitution slashing it and tearing it and signaling the end of that Amendment X and the State’s rights it presumably protected came in along with the end of many individual rights for the individual American just before World War I began on July 28, 1914.

 

Earlier in that fateful year Amendment XVI established the income tax with the promise from the politicians that it would only tax the most wealthy one percent of the population and would never be permitted to become a burden on the average person and on that promise likely being the clinching argument allowed it to be ratified into law on February 3, 1913. As any American will attest, the income tax became far more than burdensome on the average person but also grew to such a point and the IRS which it founded gathered such information that the government through provisions and added regulations eventually could tell the average person their expenditures throughout the year and was rumored jokingly that the IRS could look up the color of the guest towels hanging in your bathroom. Now the Federal Government can tell you a whole lot more than the colors of items you have purchased, the extent and particulars of your every investment and virtually anything anyone might care to know about your life, your purchasing habits, your diet where you go on weekends for fun, where you vacationed the last ten years, the make and mileage on your vehicles and just about any other detail imaginable, and people worry about their privacy. Privacy in this world died a long time ago somewhere right before data mining and agreements between governments arranging for each to spy on the other’s citizens and then provide the information upon anybody that the other requested which eventually led to the decisions to forget the middle-man and simply for each nation to spy on their own citizens making everything so much easier and less complicated.

 

A short time later the Amendment XVII was ratified on April 8, 1913 establishing for the direct election of each State’s Senators instead of allowing each State to decide the methods their Senators were chosen. Previous to this Amendment to the Constitution most States chose their Senators in a various number of procedures with the two most used being the Governor choosing the Senator as each came up for election and possibly having to present them to the State’s legislature or higher branch of the legislative branches to have them approve the selection with some States requiring a larger vote for approval than a simple majority. The other method was for the Senator to be selected by the legislative branch of the State government and in most cases have them approved by the Governor under the same rules as legislation was passed or vetoed by the Governor. This Amendment took away the individual State’s ability to have their voices heard in the Federal Government making the Senate simply a less populous House of Representatives having both wings of the bicameral legislative governance chosen directly by the people. The reasoning presented was that the people were more knowledgeable as a group or mass intelligence than any combination of State Governors or legislatures in choosing the Senators. There was also the claim that State level politicians were too corrupt which was laughable as the majority of Federal legislative politicians were simply the most competent of the people in State governance. This was amidst the populace movement where the average citizen was presumed to have better sense when the whole was allowed to speak as through elections. What was completely ignored was that the Founding Fathers had planned for the Senate to be the legislative branch representing the States’ governance such that the Senate would guard over State’s rights and protect the powers of the State and limit the influence the Federal Government could have over them. This change brought on the slaughtering of the States individually and collectively such that they have long ago seen their powers slowly but inexorably misappropriated, stolen even, by the Federal Government which now faced no opposition from the individual States. This also allowed the Federal Government to control the individual States by demanding that the State acquiesce to the demands and whims of the Federal Government in order to receive funding such as requiring that the States meet caloric and vitamin requirements and curtail the choices offered the children otherwise not receive a large amount of Federal school funding which is earmarked for the lunch and other food programs. Further, the Federal Government has come up with this wonderful manner in which to place onerous demands on the States through unfunded mandates. These are programs that each and every State is required to carry out according to Federal regulations or even actual laws but for which the Federal Government no longer funds the program dumping the entire mess upon the States to finance. The numbers of these programs increases every year and this is partially due to the Federal government attempting to release itself from onerous financial obligations which were laid out in legislation for some program every State is required to carry out and funds were set aside for the first so many number of years and were presumed to be funded further by the Federal Government but somehow down the road the Federal funding ceased but the mandate continued and the States found themselves on the hook to finance program after program as the Federal Government cut off the flow but did not cut out the requirements.

 

Both of these Amendments to the United States Constitution were ratified but under suspicions of fraud. One was found to have received the final ratification a few weeks or a couple of months beyond the set time allotted for ratification to be permitted, Congress claimed that somehow this had been covered by some extension despite no such allowance stipulated as possible by the Constitution and the other was not ratified by sufficient States falling a couple short. Well, World War I struck on July 28, 1914 and the RMS Lusitania on May 7, 1915 was sunk by a German U-boat and American lives were lost as a result. There has been debate ever since the sinking as to whether the RMS Lusitania carried weapons or explosives for use in the war which was vehemently denied by Britain and the United States as well as the other allied powers and the debate has persisted and apparently will continue forward. Meanwhile, President Wilson argued against joining the war while simultaneously demanding that the U-boat attacks not target indiscriminately and especially avoid any further attacks upon civilian craft like the RMS Lusitania. Wilson was already stoking the public to allow an American effort join the efforts while also campaigning on a platform that he kept the United States out of the war. United States President Woodrow Wilson finally demanded a Declaration of War and the Congress responded giving him his desired declaration of war on April 6, 1917. As the initial Declaration of War identified only Germany as the nation the United States had declared war upon, this proved to be untenable; so after President Wilson again requested a Declaration of War and Congress did comply as they declared war on Austria-Hungary on December 17, 1917. The United States never actually declared war against all of the forces fighting against the allies who also consisted of the Central Powers, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. World War I came to an end on November 11, 1918 and by this date the horrific pandemic known as the Spanish Flu had broken out and some of the troops brought the virus home with them which caused the pandemic to break out and spread across the United States. By this time the two Constitutional Amendments numbers sixteen and seventeen were faint memories pretty much lost in the fog of the decade which followed them with the war and the flu who had time to be concerned about the potential of inconvenience of two little Amendments. Unfortunately, as was learned many years later these two little Amendments proved to be anything but minor little legislative additions to the Constitution but rather major changes in the breadth of Government powers and the depth of their effect to be felt years later. These two Amendments may have been the most influential pair of legislative action ever passed and ratified since the Bill of Rights was passed. These Amendments laid the framework by which power became centralized in the Federal Government and provided the funding through direct taxation of the people and stripping the States of choosing their own representatives within the central government thus liberating the Federal Government from any limitations by the States nor could they protest directly the absorption of the powers which had previously been within the control of the individual States and subjugating the States beneath the Federal Government’s heel without recourse.

 

The change in how Senators were to be elected directly by the people simply made the Senators nothing more than super representatives with two permitted per state. Now the United States had entered the point of no return sliding almost completely into democracy and definitively no longer a republic. Benjamin Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, “Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” and Benjamin Franklin answered bluntly and directly to the heart of the query stating, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Never in the history of founding of nations has the situation been so accurately assessed nor has the problem been predicted as how the Governance will be altered eventually unraveling the delicate balance between the individual States and the Federal Government. It is said that one can assess any Governance by a simple measure; just determine which side is the more fearful of the other and should the Government be more fearful of the people than are they of the Government, then you have freedom but if the people are fearful of their government than the government is of them, then you have tyranny. With all the branches which are appointed to make the general rules and stipulations and requirements from the people now directly elected with the exception of the President, the United States is teetering on the edge and about to fall beyond the cusp and into the electing of the President directly ending any vestige of a republic. The direct election of Presidents has been proposed and one of the most dangerous legislative suggestions which recently was rejected for yet another time by the Oklahoma Legislature which would have demanded that the Electoral representatives for the State vote for the winner of the popular vote by the entire nation while ignoring the will and votes of the citizens in their own state. Should that legislative effort win in sufficient states which would provide an electoral victory then all any candidate would need do is campaign in the cities and areas with the greatest concentration of people to assure himself victory in the popular vote and completely ignore the less populated areas such as Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Maine and all of the rural areas in every state. This idea is simply the latest manner to circumvent the Constitution and make the Electoral College an abstract and ancient methodology to be forgotten except by those few who major in ancient manners for electing leaders in city-states and nations; a major just slightly more useful than Indo-Chinese Love Sonnets of the Ming Dynasty.

 

So, as we can see the United States has slowly but inescapably moved towards a total democracy. There have been calls in the last couple of decades as computers have made this possible for the United States government, as a final act, provide everybody over the age of eighteen a voting tablet which is dedicated to one function and only one function, listing the legislative issues and bills currently up for voting and tallying every citizen’s vote. Each citizen of voting age would be permitted to cast their vote on anything plus they could present legislation they desired to see placed before the people and seek a qualifying number within a reasonable time to continue to be eligible to remain on the list of proposed legislation. This number would slowly rise over at most two months and at that predetermined time, if the proposed legislation has attained the highest level of approvals it would qualify as a piece of general interest and the suggestion would be listed as a Bill and then have two weeks for everyone to vote. Should a Bill be passed it wound be passed on to the President much as things work today. Do not expect such to occur soon as it would require career politicians to vote such into law and thus make their chosen profession obsolete.

 

Still, the United States today is much closer to being a democracy than it is to the republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers and once those populists on the extreme left or the Federalists on the extreme right get their way, then even the President will be selected by straight majority voting. All it would probably take is for a popular candidate which one side felt was undeniably the best choice to win the popular vote but lose the election. Then another ridiculous exhibition of populist insanity would boil over and press through some version of directly electing the President and the United States will have completely been transformed into a democracy. Nothing happens in a bubble and everything has its originating source. The movement to a democracy rather than a republic is that with a democracy it is possible and made more likely for government to become a case for mob rule in which the mob would be the more populous states which is those with the most cities, the most megalopolises. When the cities are given the rule, then what happens to the needs of rural America? We are seeing the effect of cities ruling as the most dominant force in government in California where the water allotments were made over the years to favor the cities over the farmers. Now there are stretches of farmlands which are just acre upon acre of brown dusty soil with dead crops which simply were not provided with the necessary irrigation water at the most critical growing part of the season and these crops and lands are now almost worthless. The family farms will cease to exist due to not being able to pay for their last seeds which never had a chance to grow and will be forced fiscally to sell their lands to the mega-farm industry. This all because the people in the city pressed their allotment of water over that of the less populous farmers were able to and the farmers simply lost their last crop and now are finished. This was a sad example of how straight democracies can destroy an entire segment of the population simply by pressing the mob’s desire for green lawns, full swimming pools, green parks and water amusement parks and a myriad of other needs for water in the big city. The farmers had a similar need but lacked the muscle to lobby the government either at the State or Federal levels and thus lost their crops and many will lose their farms. Once the industrial farm corporations gain ownership of enough of the farmlands, then they will have the lobbyists and they will have the clout to get the irrigations water turned back on and limit the lawn watering city dweller to only be permitted to water their precious lawns on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. They may scream bloody murder but at least the farms will return to producing food and not just dusty soil. This entire water battle has and will play out across the United States over time and perhaps teach some of us the values of indirect governance over straight mob rule democracy.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Political Styles of Fancy, Function, Fantasy, and Far Futures

 

In case you just awoke with a ringing headache and returned from the woods to find your sleepy little town had grown exponentially and your house replaced by a strip mall and everyone when you told them your name queries where have you been, you were reported missing years ago and your tail includes dwarves bowling in the woodlands, the Republican money machine just won the midterm elections again. If such news is distressing, simply remember back to the last Presidential elections when it was rumored that the Democrat machine and money bought another Presidency for Barack Obama. Simply put, whichever side wins the election was the one which was bought by their big money contributors and political machinery. Have you ever bothered to stop and wonder what happened to the other side’s machine and money when they lost the latest round of elections? Do you really think that one side spent all the money one election cycle and in return allowed the other side to spend in the next election, something that an alien watching elections news coverage might be honestly trying to figure out. The truth is that they both spend about the same every election and the sore losers have to find some small factoid on which to blame their loss; as anybody who is, thinks, in the know, or however one defined reasoned and rational, which makes their political views the sole and superior choice, would most certainly have voted for their candidate allowing them to have won except for the illegal money spent by the other side, thanks to some loophole which must be closed immediately, and paid them to vote against their better knowledge or whatever. What is remarkable is that this line of thought is universal wherever people are fortunate enough to actually have governments chosen through proper elections where one’s votes are capable of affecting change in the government through legal elections; so be glad if after every election cycle there are those complaining that the other side bought the elections.

 

But what do we really mean when we claim the elections were bought? The phrase originates in times when buying an election actually meant buying an election by paying people to vote for a particular candidate. This was not a regular occurrence and was only feasible before there was the existence of a freestanding media which was not dependent upon the whims of the local governments. This slowly became the reality as the media started merging and coverages reached beyond a single city or borough thus beyond being owned by an interesting party or collection who were capable of owning the media in the same manner as they owned the politics as represented in old westerns where the people finally found an honest sheriff or entity who ended the evil cattle baron and his ranch hands who were all second rate gunslingers, most of which ended up dead by the end of the movie or left town after the Lone Ranger and Tonto road into town. There are stories whose validity is often questionable of elections where political bosses, whatever or whoever those amorphous entities might be, would give people a hundred dollars to vote for their candidate. There may even be people claiming such in elections today though such would be even more difficult to believe as even the most politically driven media would expose such. The truth is that even if you believe that FOX or SKY news is biased or that CNN or BBC are biased in the opposite direction, both sides are held to task and kept honest as whichever side which employed such boorish tactics would be revealed by the other side’s media thus the free press has ended any possibility of money for votes frauds. Despite this there are still claims that elections are bought, be it by the Koch brothers, George Soros or Sheldon Adelson. How is it possible for such claims to still exist?

 

Elections are bought the same exact way that everyday products sell their wares, an attractive advertising campaign. Basically the golden nugget in any campaign, political or otherwise, is a catchy phrase or concept which captivates the attentions of the public. In the 1950s the golden political nugget in Presidential campaigns was a catchy little slogan of “I Like Ike.” Call it the “Where’s the Beef” or the “Pause that Refreshes” of the political era. Of course it did also help that Eisenhower was also the man who defeated Hitler. Still, had General Douglas MacArthur run for political office, something feared by those thinking he might run on the other party’s ticket, there would have been a need for a different slogan though it would have fell to minds more inventive than mine to concoct such a slogan. Basically politics is the ability to influence people to support your candidate by making them appear to be the person of the hour or the solution to all society’s ills. In the United States the slogan of “Hope and Change” titillated the minds of the American public, especially the younger voters who turned out like never before. This was despite the fact that very few actually understood what the Hope was and what Changes it would incur. The secret was that “Hope and Change” allowed each individual to substitute whatever they desired for hope and thus define what the hope would change. If many of candidate Obama’s speeches are analyzed his definitions for hopes and changes were often amorphous and undefined allowing for those listening to still be able to define these terms to fit their desired outcome. Eventually such undefined terms become defined, and when they are defined through the actions and policies enacted by the politician who gets elected by such terminology, that becomes history which makes them rather difficult to alter going forward, something President Obama’s opposition is finding out as time passes in the United States.

 

Sometimes the election revolves around the personality where the candidate becomes the definition of the campaign and thus causing a cult of personality. This situation often results in a warping of the electoral processes and even an end to the electoral processes altogether. One example of such would have been Hitler who once he became Chancellor of Germany proceeded to consolidate all political power and became a dictatorial ruler ending the necessity for future elections. Another example of a cult of personality has been Russian leader Putin who has been Prime Minister or President of Russia where the real power of governance followed him from one office to the other and back again without anybody challenging his absorbing the right to rule no matter the office he held. With Russia hitting some difficult periods economically his future holding of power may hit a crucial test. It will remain to be seen how long Putin will remain in power and exactly how far he might be willing to go to retain power no matter the consequences.

 

Then there are the different forms of elected governments, the forms of democratic governance. There are Presidential systems where the President is chosen directly and the parliament or congress is elected separately. There are Parliamentary systems where the parliament is directly elected by voting for parties which present lists of candidates in lists to fill the slots depending on the numbers of positions they are awarded as their percentage of votes received and then the parliament has some system by which the Prime Minister is chosen to lead the coalition. There are also different forms of the elected house or houses of power. The United States has the House of Representatives and the Senate where the House of Representatives are elected with each state given their share of the four-hundred-thirty-five seats according to their population and the Senate is comprised of two positions per state. Then there is the parliament in many nations where the entire nation elects representation by voting for parties or there may be parliamentarian seats assigned to districts where individuals are elected. Parliaments can be unicameral, bicameral or possibility of any numbers of entities. Some parliamentary systems have two houses, one elected by individuals and the other by party lists. As for which form of democratic representation is superior is probably still being determined. The only thing we have established is a truth best put into words by Winston Churchill, a somewhat common situation here, where Winnie said, “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Who can argue with that?

 

Actually, that is where mankind has shown the prerogative to constantly believe that their new idea has to be better than the previous as it comes reflecting on all the errors and difficulties previous attempts by man had failed with their efforts. But the latest is not always the greatest and the old tried and true may prove to have been false in all manners except that as the old and true it was what had become comforting as it was known and accepted. The British once thought they had attained the ultimate in governance with the enacting of the Magna Carta as now the King’s power was no longer absolute and deigned as coming from G0d but to be bent by the advisings by the other men of position and stature, the barons from whence the power of the military was formed when the crown required defending against foreign foe. The United States believes they have struck the perfect balance between popularist governance and select governance of a wise body of the chosen; and they may have been correct but that will never be known as they perverted their governance with the passing of the Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution and established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. This removed the representation of the States themselves who had previously chosen their Senators through appointment by their elected bodies, some appointed by the governor and approved by the legislators while others were elected by the legislators. What was unnecessary about the Seventeenth Amendment was that the states were already empowered to choose their Senators by whatever means they saw as preferable which did not rule out their using direct elections had they believed such was to their advantage. But instead the Federal Government instigated the new requirement for Senators to be elected in a similar method as were the Representatives in the House. Some historians have posited that the Seventeenth Amendment was not properly ratified by sufficient numbers of states but was rushed and enacted despite this small problem as eventually sufficient states did ratify the amendment, just not within the time period set forth in the Constitution. Whatever the best form of governance, perhaps someday it will be found and when it is, my bet is the United Nations will be left to be wanting and hopefully dissolved and replaced with a body noble enough to realize its power should be wielded only responding to lengthy and tempered debate which has exhausted all avenues of investigation of alternatives and ramifications and then allowed for adjustments inspired by admissions of former inadequate thought which had seemed prudent at the initial time.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

What Should Americans Expect from 2014 and 2016 Elections?

It is understood and natural that all the stops will be removed for the 2016 elections by both parties as there will be no incumbent running for the Presidency and thus far there is no definitively obvious candidate for either the Democrats or the Republicans and the third party situation is currently fluid as the Tea Party block of mostly conservative and Constitutionally supportive group is currently being pushed aside by some in the Republican Party and could either form a third party with a fairly large base for such a venture or take the helm of one of the existent third parties such as the Libertarians or the Constitution Party, the latter not all that concerned with just the Constitution and more bent towards the Christian right lately. Before we get to the 2016 elections there will be the small matter of the 2014 election coming up in the coming year, so let us start with that.

 

If the political landscape continues on its current trajectory, it will be difficult deciding which of the two major parties will enter the 2014 midterm election more damaged as both are taking a beating at their own hands. The Democrats have what has become a ball and chain attached to them called Barack Hussein Obama. Where the President’s coattails may not have reached all that far but they had the effect by the Democrat Party out in full force with the additional troops and organizational tools, information, voter lists and campaign cash at the party level which may have made the difference in some of the tighter races. With the disastrous rollout and diving popularity of both Obamacare and its main supporter, the President, the Democrats will enter the start of the races at the end of the summer limping rather than running, but do not expect that deficit to continue long enough to make a huge difference if the press reverts to its default cheerleading for the Democrats as if they were part of the actual campaigns. Granted that the new media does provide some additional possibilities for other voices to be heard but thus far the Democrats have proven more adept at using the Internet than the Republicans. Likely the most important influence over the midterm election will be whether the Republican Party has reached some degree of accommodations in accepting the Tea Party segment of their base and have found some common ground and allowed for Tea Party candidates to run with the full support of the entire machinery and facilities available to the “mainstream” candidates on the slate of ballots. If the Republican Party elite continue with their denunciation and demonizing of the Tea Party they may find out that far more of their base is sympathetic and allied with the positions and candidates from Tea Party influence such as Senators Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe and Mike Lee and Representatives Louie Gohmert, Paul Broun, Cynthia Lummis, Tom McClintock, Pete Sessions and Jim Bridenstine than to the establishment Republicans such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and the like. But if the Republican Party establishment continue to threaten the Tea Party membership of the party they may chase away the support of not only the Tea Party members but many among the more conservative Republicans who might see such attacks as against their beliefs as well.

 

As far as what the results from the 2014 midterm are concerned, should the Republicans hold on or increase their majority in the House of Representatives then nothing will really change as far as legislation getting passed and such obsessions from President Obama such as Cap and Trade similar to the plan put forth by Vice President Al Gore which would place stringent caps on pollution and especially greenhouse gasses giving cleaner companies credits which they could then market to other companies who were exceeding their allotted quotas so as to incentivize companies to clean up their environmental side. The system, where workable in theory, would necessarily be abused and used to punish certain industries especially those using coal and promote favored industries such as biofuels. The Cap and Trade system would give the biofuel companies massive numbers of credits which they could in turn sell to those companies using carbon based fuels such as oil and coal and by selling their Cap and Trade credits they would be made economically viable and would spend most of their efforts into selling their credits for the highest possible rate and mostly end up ignoring the production of useable energy. The end result of such a system inevitably makes for higher, even skyrocketing, prices for energy making, as President Obama said during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Under my plan, of a Cap and Trade System, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, even, (and) regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal fired plants, (you know) natural gas, you name it whatever the plant were, whatever the industry was, they would have to (ah) retrofit their operations, that will cost money, they will pass that money on to the consumers.” The only matter then would be whether or not the Democrats retained their majority in the Senate. Should the Democrats retain their majority, it would be expected that the Cloture Rule would remain changed as was done with the so-called nuclear option which would mean that the Senate would act more like a rubber stamp for the President’s appointments other than for the Supreme Court than it would an advise and consent body as intended and defined by the Constitution. That is not to say that the nuclear option was un-Constitutional as the Senate may pass any rules it feels necessary by a simple majority vote and all would be as the Constitution lays out the rules of the Senate being established by that body. There will only be a change if the Republicans can take control of the Senate but even then they might choose to allow the rule change to stand in anticipation of winning the Presidency in 2016, which brings us to that election.

 

The 2016 election for the Congress will pretty much follow the same patterns as described for 2014 with the only modifiers being whether the Presidential elections drive any measurable excitement in one party more than the other giving that party a useable advantage in funds and strong base turnout or if the Presidential race appears to be closely contested and there is a visceral, obvious and real difference between the two major party candidates and not just the cosmetic difference as we have seen in the past elections over the past twenty years. Once again for the Republican Party much will depend on whether or not they have come to some mutually acceptable agreement joining the centrists and the Tea Party and other staunch conservatives, which make up a goodly proportion of their base, or if these voters feel disenfranchised and their causes which they feel strongly about ignored or even opposed by those responsible for making party policy and the Republican platform. Currently the Democrats in theory have what is normally considered a leg up as they hold the White House and thus if they run the Vice President he will have the advantage, presumably, of the former President’s support and good name recognition and early platform as the White House can make sure he gets a fair amount of face time with the Press and before television cameras and radio microphones. The Democrats may have a second candidate with former Presidential support should Hillary Rodham Clinton run, her husband Bill Clinton would be a great asset during the campaign as he probably would have higher approval numbers than his wife. Many have claimed that the nomination is Hillary Clinton’s for the asking, but we have all heard that song before and it did not play to completion last time around when President Obama won out over Hillary Clinton in the primary elections. Still, before Hillary Clinton would decide to run again, she would definitely have to address her strong negative resulting from the mishandling of a number of items from the last time she ran and her time as Secretary of State. Her mishandling at the State Department include, but are not limited to, her inability to negotiate a continuation of forces treaty with Iraq which many blame for the current devolution into violence in that nation and its sliding into Iranian orbit without an American presence and the need for support by the Shiite government and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as well as Benghazi and the death of four Americans including the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, as well as an aide and two former Navy SEALS. Meanwhile the Republican Party will need to first and foremost figure out who they are. Their big-tent approach has appeared to possibly be a major factor in their recent losses both in Presidential election and in some Congressional races. There are those who claim that the Republicans need to move placing a large difference between their platform and policies and those of the Democrats while others claim that in order to defeat the Democrats the Republicans must entice the middle of the road voters and even some more conservative Democrats to vote for their candidate as the polls and voter registration rolls show the Republicans at a deficit compared to the Democrat voter numbers. What would need to be considered as an outside condition that might make a huge difference in tactics, choice of candidates and planks in their platform is what is the makeup of the unaligned and independent voters. There are as many theories as to the makeup of these groups as there are pundits with each having their own slant and percentages. The consensus here at BTC is that the Republicans have misjudged not only the weight of the conservative numbers among the unaligned and independent voters, but have also misjudged the number of voters among their own party who are definitely conservative. We feel that the Republican Party’s sliding to the left to be as similar as they possibly can to the Democrats is simply a recipe for disaster and as long as that is their policy, they are doomed and may as well pack it in and go to the country club and play a round of golf, at least then they will have had some fun and have something worth talking about.

 

The results of the 2016 Presidential elections will only be of importance if a true conservative wins the election. Should one of the “Compassionate Conservatives” win as the Republican candidate then all the American people can hope for is a replacement of Obamacare with a softer, gentler government healthcare plan rebranding basically the same horrendous system under a Republican’s name, say like maybe Romneycare? A liberal or progressive, they mean the same thing in American politics as they are simply brands worn and not really defining characteristics as most liberals are not libertarian and most progressives are not selling new ideas or progress but reselling the same old ideas that have been their stock and trade for the past century or more. Even an honest conservative might not make much of a difference unless they have a solid base of same-minded support in both houses of Congress, otherwise very little will change as the ideologues will block any true reforms which scale back the powers and intrusions into every corner of American life and society which the Federal Government has usurped over the past two centuries. What would be a saving grace for the United States would take a near miracle and at least a decade but it has been America’s charmed existence that she has gotten just those miracles at the time she needed them the most, and she could use one very soon. The last miracle was the election of President Ronald Reagan to follow and clean up after President Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a very large supply of such communicators who are both conservative and a Constitutionalist on the horizon, and no they do not have to be Republicans, though such a Democrat would really be a pleasant and unexpected surprise as they would still get the vast majority of the people who vote for the Democrat because my family has always been Democrat. Even with a Congress and President that are true and stringent Constitutionalists who have the energy and desire to scale back the Federal Government within the boundaries placed in the Constitution, we suggest they begin with applying the Amendment X to the overwhelming piles of regulations and simply repeal Amendment XVII and return at least some of the power which was intended to remain with the States through their legislatures and governor deciding how their US Senators were to be chosen. Those stats which desire to continue to allow the direct election of their Senators are free to choose such a method and those who wish to retain that power to the state’s governance can choose that manner. Then there is the other branch of government which is the slowest to change, the courts and, in particular, the Supreme Court. That is the reason this is a challenge that will persist and take longer than any one man is permitted the White House as President. The courts have been a difficult problem to rectify as the appointments are for life or until the particular judge wishes to resign or is making such a mockery of his position that the Congress invited him to step down though impeachment is not an easy procedure purposely. The challenges currently facing the United States will be difficult to rectify as they require a dedication and persistence in their efforts by the American electorate and the ability to keep their eye on the end goal and pass the importance of their effort on to the younger Americans to continue the effort. Anything short of restraining the government and placing it on a budgetary crash diet and soon will result in the United States falling prey to the same economic difficulties as are currently plaguing the European Union except instead of failing countries as in the European Union the United States will have bankrupted states, cities, municipalities and counties and a Federal Government wallowing in too much of its own debt to be of any avail. The Chinese curse that wishes for one, “to live in interesting times,” may apply to the next decade or two more than anybody will have cared for after the times have passed.

 

Beyond the Cusp