Tragic Comedy.

Tragic Comedy.  I awoke this morning to the dueling stories of Russian hacking and the fall of Aleppo.  There are so many levels of hypocrisy going on with Obama and his band of idiots that one is puzzled when considering where to begin with this bunch.  I was going to wait until January 20 to write my farewell blog to Obama; but this latest escapade on his part has accelerated my timeline.  Juxtapositioning Obama with his Russian hacking nonsense and the horrors occurring in Aleppo is such a clarifying moment, such a perfect illustration of his presidency, that I moved his goodbye up on the schedule. 

While events in Syria continue to spiral out of control and are just small steps away from genocide; while people worldwide stare aghast at the tragic pictures of suffering in this war-torn country; while the viscous and despotic Assad continues his reign of terror; what do we find our president is indignant about…This man who is the Commander in Chief of the planet’s most powerful military force and whose ineptitude bears major blame for the Syrian tragedy?  The Russians have hacked our government!  What?  They did what?  You mean this stuff that all nations, including America, have been dabbling with for the last ten years or so and that has been pointed out to you, Mr. president, for about two years by various U.S. intelligence departments and agencies?  Are you talking about this high-tech issue that you have repeatedly referred to as minor and not worthy of action because it might upset the Russians and Iranians?  Is this another of your red lines that cannot be crossed…Well, maybe you can cross them if you sit down at the table and promise not to do it again, at least not too many times again?  Not only has Obama proven to be a spineless leader for human rights and freedom, but he is a toothless tiger with no guiding or fundamental philosophy of right and wrong.  With no resolve and with his credibility destroyed by prior acts (or lack thereof), he rhetorically parades around like an end-zone celebration, playing the tough guy when everyone knows he has no stones.  It is so bleeding pathetic for him to be suddenly outraged by Russian/Chinese/(fill in the blank) tech-mischief, while real-life tragedies are exploding in the Middle East, that one has to wonder…When was the last time this man actually got out of the house?  Look…Should Russia or any other country be hacking into our government’s or citizenry’s records?  Of course not.  But that is an issue best addressed by Congress and the intelligence agencies under whose authority it falls; not by a spur of the moment tantrum of the chief executive.  Does any rational person actually believe that Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential Election because the Russians wanted him to?  Really?  Putin and his band of thugs seems to have done pretty well since Hillary presented them years ago with her little red reset button. Why...why would Putin want to gamble on a wildcard like Trump?

I understand loyalty to a political party.  I understand allegiance to principles of governing and the fight to see them instituted.  If you sincerely believe in something, you should fight to defend it.  I can even understand how so many Clinton supporters remain in denial about losing the election to Trump; it hurts to lose.  It especially hurts to lose when you are so cocksure that you were going to win, you had an overwhelming advantage and lost because you played it safe, and you were beaten by an obviously flawed candidate that never should be President.  But any objective person, any logical thinking human being, must face the reality that when considering: The human tragedies in the Middle East, the ever-increasing global boldness of China and North Korea, the bald-faced aggression of Russia towards its neighbors and the world in general, the domino-effect failures of South American socialist governments, the Middle Eastern refugee disaster that is occurring in Western Europe, the colossal failure that is Obamacare, the rapidly diminishing usefulness of the zero-rate interest fed policy that has artificially propped up our economy, the exploding national debt that has doubled over the last eight years, the hateful divisions that have seeped into our culture between races/classes/genders, the huge numbers of people who have dropped out of the workforce and turned instead to government support, the surrendering of long-held principles of freedom upon which this country was founded in exchange for politically-correct pabulum, the continuing dysfunction of our infantile government which is setting new highs for inefficiency and ineffectiveness, the politicizing of what should be independent government agencies being used for partisan agenda purposes, the obvious disdain for our nation’s military accomplishments since its birth and the human sacrifices that made those victories possible, the constant probing and prodding into the private lives  and liberties of U.S. citizens, the disregard for our nation’s border integrity and the security threat that disregard poses for our populace…There is only one word that can adequately describe the two-term reign of Obama as president.  Cluster*&#@! 

A specious, narcissistic, shallow, unprincipled community organizer who was elevated to an office for which he was clearly unqualified and unprepared for… Obama became president.  He was acclaimed for genius when there was only ego; he was heralded as a great orator when he was only adept at reading words from a teleprompter and simply stuttered, paused, and stammered when required to speak extemporaneously; he was hoisted up to the leadership of the Democratic Party, only to shepherd its decimation over his terms to its lowest point of influence since the Depression years; he presided over a lessening of the dignity and integrity of the office to which he was elected, instead prancing around with his nose in the air, on the balls of his feet, and donning an air of imperial majesty; he filled his administrations with ideologues and unqualified, sophomoric yuppies who believed they were infallible and that the ends always justified the means; he cluelessly ran about the globe thinking himself to be grand when foreign nations and leaders were finding him comical, and even laughing at him behind his back.  He leaves office thinking himself to be a legend in his own mind, when most sensible people see him as the emperor bereft of clothing.  And now, at the end of his little play, when the curtain begins to lower on this tragedy in American politics, he engages in a vigorous effort to rewrite history; urging people to ignore what is on the video and transcript, cherry-picking various factoids to build flimsy arguments of success and accomplishment, desperately announcing last-minute initiatives and appointments that are apparently results of last minute and miraculous epiphanies, and throwing snarky shade towards his successor.

There is only one appropriate assessment to make of this president, this small man, who I find to be the absolute worst Chief Executive in my lifetime of sixty-four years; that being…Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

After the Thrill is Gone.

After The Thrill is Gone.  Everyone knew it would be entertaining if Donald Trump ran for President; but I don’t believe anyone realized just how truly entertaining it would turn out to be.  I’m not as enthralled with the Donald as many, but I must admit to the guilty pleasure of relishing the liberals’ gnashing of teeth and tearing of flesh.  After spending decades constructing a politiosphere inside the WDC bubble where their liberal bureaucracy could flourish, they are now faced with the potential of having it systematically dismantled.  Even worse, the dismantling will be performed a man they have dismissed with the ultimate display of condescension and contempt.  Sweet!

Now…back to the reality of having to govern once you win the election.  The giddiness of the right, the thrill of a conservative-filled cabinet, and the opportunities presented by simultaneous control of Congress and the White House has led many to overlook the fact that the Donald is still the Donald.  The character flaws and arrogant bluster that led many Republicans to criticize him during the primary season still remain and if you look closely, there is no indication that they have been mitigated.  If anything, the electoral success that Trump has realized will magnify many of the less desirable traits of his persona.  The Republican’s new trophy President may turn out to be rather high maintenance, awkward company at social gatherings, and rather capricious in his fidelity. 

Based on his cabinet selections, Trump is apparently laying the groundwork to follow through on his promise to take a new, business-like approach to government.  Whether we are examining domestic policy or foreign policy, a change in approach must be welcomed; the recent past policies from both parties have been dismal failures.  The larger questions remain: Are we draining the swamp only to replace it with a different type of polluted water?...While we have certainly reached our tolerance limit regarding career politicians, how can we manage to separate full time office holders from their vested business interests?...Can a corporate mogul season his business management with a necessary sprinkling of civics reality?  A break with failed policies is a good thing; but only if the break is deliberate, thoughtful, and results in improved policy.  Trump likes to talk about winning; I do believe it is his favorite word (other than Trump).  Can Trump accept the fact that even though he heads up a party with clear control on the levers of political power; it is nonetheless necessary in a government such as ours that a certain amount of consideration be given to the opposition party and an occasional compromise on practice (not principle) will be necessary.

When the time comes that the Donald Way is not the accepted way, either by Republicans, Democrats, or both, how will Trump deal with this new concept?  Having lived a life of privilege, having had full and ultimate control of Trump Universe; how will this egomaniac of a man react when he is told….No?  Will he react as a child, blow up the process, and expose himself to be the self-centered opportunist that many suspect him to be?  Or will he exhibit a new-found maturity late in his life, fully grasp the enormity of the Office, and engage in honest and productive discussions about governmental policies and practices? 

Can you imagine the frustration one must experience when they lead their whole life having things strictly their way, only to find that once they achieve perhaps their greatest accomplishment, things can no longer be just their way?  There will ultimately be those moments when President Trump sits in the oval office, looks back at the good old days when his world waited with anxious anticipation for his (and only his) direction, and thinks to himself… Why am I doing this?  Why can’t I just tell France to go screw themselves?  Why can’t I take profit from a National Park system that is more than adequate for recreational purposes?  Why can’t we just eliminate this social program and replace it with that one?  Why do I have to subjugate myself…MYSELF…to these infantile fools in the House and Senate? 

How the Donald reacts when these inevitable moments arrive will define his Presidency.  And based on the victory dance understandably being executed by the Right, which vests them intrinsically with Trump, conservative government will significantly rise and fall with his success or failure.  A hard lesson we have all learned from our youth is that sometimes, it is difficult to dance with the one that brung ya.  As difficult as it is for some in the Republican establishment to admit, Trump is the one who has brought their party to this position of opportunity.  It will either become a marriage of evolving maturity and accomplishment or it will be a deteriorating dissolution of an ill-advised union.  "What can you do when your dreams come true and it's not quite like you had planned.  You're not quite lovers and you're not quite friends...After the thrill is gone."  Only one thing is for certain…it will be interesting.

Amidst the Bluster and the Angst.

Amidst the Bluster and the Angst.  Donald Trump has commenced his Victory/Thank You Tour and the Democrats have continued their Bitching and Moaning Tour; both are equally absurd.   For a good, historical perspective on just how decisive this past presidential race was, check this great piece by Andrew C. McCarthy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442718/donald-trump-no-landslide-electoral-college-popular-vote-opportunity-bill-clinton

Trump has every right to crow about his improbable win; it is always so much sweeter to come out on top when most everyone has discounted your chances.  On the other hand, as McCarthy points out, his margin of victory is far from historic in scope.  A victory nonetheless, it is certainly not a mandate.  However, what does constitute a mandate is the undeniable move to Republican by state governments, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. 

The fact that our government is bitterly divided on a partisan basis is not lost on the American voter.  Nor is it a mystery that when we have a Congress and a White House split between the parties,  our government has proven itself to be incapable of functioning.  While much is to be said about “government is best that governs least”, there is no doubt that most Americans are absolutely fed up with the childish and sophomoric gridlock that has possessed WDC over the last several presidential administrations.  It seems that the greatest opportunity for our political parties to misbehave and show their worst side is when they are simultaneously in the Senate minority and out of power in the presidency.  Oftentimes, there is a very thin line between principle and obstructionism; it is most often defined by your perspective.

While Trump’s victory was certainly no landslide, it was a win.  The inability of much of the Democratic faithful to accept their defeat at the hands of this…amateur politician...is unsavory and reflects poorly upon their party.   As McCarthy aptly points out, the Democrats lost the presidential race more than Trump winning it.  A strong argument can be made than there were many Democratic candidates that could have easily beaten Trump; just as there were many Republican candidates that could have likely beaten Clinton.  But if we enlarge the picture and look at what happened to the partisan balance in the Senate, the House, and in Governors’ seats and state legislatures across the nation, we can see a truth that has consistently escaped the grasp of Democratic leadership and president Obama.  The electoral failure of the Democratic Party in 2016, and in the recent past non-presidential races, is not the tactics and strategies of the campaigns; it is the MESSAGE. 

The fact that America has put Republicans politically in charge of much of this country is basically grounded in the fact that they are fed up with the liberal mantra that calls for an ever-larger and more intrusive government.  The electorate has come to understand that in order for real, fundamental change to occur; one party must be put into the proper positions to implement that change.  THAT is why Trump won; THAT is why the Republicans remain in control of the House and Senate; THAT is why the numbers of Republican state Governors and Legislators is growing.  But the key point here is for Republicans to understand that they have been put in this position of authority not because of their glowing credentials and a high degree of faith in their integrity.  The bottom line is that the liberal policies, both domestic and foreign, of the Democratic Party have failed this country and people yearn for a change.  The change agent is the Republican Party.  Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and all the other Republicans in positions of authority make a huge and tragic mistake if they see the 2016 elections as a validation of themselves as great candidates.  This past election was a perfect storm of frustration and anger that has resulted in giving the Republican Party an opportunity to change the way this nation does business.  There is now nowhere to run and nowhere to hide for the Republican Party.   The only measuring device that matters for the next few years will be how much positive change they can create for our government.  If they get lost in their own importance; if they get enthralled by absolute power of all three branches of government; if they get blinded by greed and ambition and the fever to hold on to the power…they too will face a political apocalypse in the not too distant future. 

Republicans were not elected because they are so good; they were elected mainly because the Democrats have been so bad.  If the Democratic Party can somehow get past their angst of defeat, pull their heads out of the nether regions of their bodies, and face the reality of their failed agenda, they will reassume the position of the loyal opposition in our political process and be perfectly placed to re-assume the spot of “the lesser of two evils” once the Republicans ultimately succumb to the corrupting enchantment of majority control.  Let me say this once again differently in an attempt to be perfectly clear: Republicans were not elected because of who they are; they were elected because of what they represent.  If Republicans wish to continue their 2016 electoral success into the foreseeable future, they damn well better make good (substantive, not subjective) things happen.

Do not mistake Trump for a conservative warrior who has arrived on a magnificent steed to slay the liberal dragon.  His whole lifetime, Trump has been only a breath or two from the Democratic mantra.  His victory will not somehow transform him into a bedrock conservative practitioner.  The policy differences between the Donald and Republicans in Congress will periodically be deep and wide.  No matter how much we all yearn for our government to be run more like a business, the fact is that it is NOT a business.  The President does not have the autonomy that a CEO has.  The taxpayer is not the equivalent of a shareholder.  Business law does not include conflicts of interest protections such as the Hatch Act.  Trump can inject business practices and principles into government that might very well improve its efficiency and effectiveness; but he cannot run the government with an iron fist the way he ran his business.  If he tries to go down that road, the end result will be disastrous for his administration and will fritter away a wonderful opportunity for positive changes in the way America does business.   There are good reasons for a governmental balance of power and people want to see that balance maintained.  As impatient as they are for some positive progress, they feel that government should work the way it was designed.  The President should lead the nation, the House should conjure up legislation, the Senate should refine that legislation, Congress should send legislation to the President for his approval, and the SCOTUS should sit in judgment regarding the constitutionality of said legislation.  It will be interesting indeed to see what comes after the Trump Bluster and the Democratic Angst recedes...assuming, of course, that it does recede.

Keep up with new posts by following on twitter at #centerlineright.

Sanctuary Cities: Testing the Balance

Sanctuary Cities: Testing the Balance.  There is a common theme in the administration of government that runs through all departments and agencies.  When a law, regulation, or procedure flows from the top echelon of government downward towards the people who execute the action, it will inevitably be modified or adjusted to reflect the very real concerns of the ultimate site of impact.  This is as it should be, because it is oftentimes clear in the administration of government that one size does not fit all and local concerns should be factored into the application of the rules.  However, it is typically understood that while the changes may occur as the downward flow commences, the changes shall be more restrictive, but not less restrictive.  This a fundamental premise that recognizes that the supreme lawmakers in our culture are those who reside in Congress, elected by the people.  When a law is passed by Congress and signed by the President, it is subject to the review of the Judiciary; and when it passes that muster, it is considered the will of the people…ALL of the people.  The occasional allowance by government to allow more localized authorities to make the law even more restrictive is recognition that we are a nation of individual states and localities where each has their own set of unique challenges and concerns.  It is also recognition that even though these individual states and localities have their own set of problems, we are nonetheless a nation united and there must be one set of universal, federal laws that supersede all others in order to preserve the union.   The federal government should not attempt to micro-manage the lives of people; at the same time, local states and municipalities must respect the right of the federal government to promulgate restrictive laws that protect the citizenry.

To me, this is the issue at hand when dealing with the sanctuary city question.  Certain parts of the country must deal more directly and intimately with immigration than others based simply on their physical location.  Other areas have, for various reasons, become magnets or settling regions for certain groups of immigrants.  These are natural occurrences that should be expected and must be addressed in any immigration discussion.  However, the ability of an individual state or locality to thumb its nose at federal law in pursuit of its own interests or beliefs is a luxury that cannot be afforded and must be addressed with a high degree of immediacy and diligence.  If federal law can be countered by localized law, does that not endanger the very fiber that holds our diverse nation of states and peoples together? 

States and municipalities clearly need the liberty to fashion their culture and society to suit the citizens who choose to reside there.  This is the quality that helps to make our country great and makes us stronger as a nation.  Through this method, American citizens are presented with options in choosing how they live their everyday lives and how they might live in sync with their beliefs and desires.  But people in San Francisco, California do not need to be telling people in Lexington, Kentucky how they should be living their lives.  Nor should the legal actions taken by Chicago, Illinois, in an effort to reflect the personal philosophies of their citizens and leaders, endanger the health and well-being of Americans who live outside the Chicago city limits but certainly within the same geographical region.  Individual states and municipalities do not exist in a vacuum and do not enjoy the privilege of an independent nation.  At some point in the process of balancing national interests with local concerns, a line must be drawn ceding ultimate authority to the greater entity.

Within the framework of federal immigration law, states and municipalities can and should fashion immigrant policies that reflect the views of those that live and work there.  They can use their own resources, their own tax revenues, to pursue additional services and outreach to immigrants that go above and beyond those offered by the federal government.  For instance, Chicago could set up municipal offices that can assist immigrants with necessary documentation and other types of support and assistance.  If that is what Chicago wants, let the people of Chicago pay for that.  However, when they choose to disregard established federal laws; they must adjust their actions to that area reserved to them for localized input.  There is much that Chicago can do to make itself a desirable place for immigrants, both legal and illegal, to gravitate towards.  This range of options is broad and can be creative to the point of reflecting Chicago’s unique set of beliefs and principles.  But Chicago should not, and does not, have the right to ignore and supersede federal laws that were put on the book to protect this nation and all of the people that live in it. 

The Intolerant, Invalid, and Irrelevant Snowflakes.

The Intolerant, Invalid, and Irrelevant Snowflakes.  The “win at all costs” philosophy that has become very popular in our culture is not a very attractive trait; especially when exhibited by youth.  However, the fruits of victory are so very sweet when those defeated fail to accept their demise with any semblance of grace or honor.  Such is the case with the pathetic, whining Hillary Clinton supporters who are proving incapable of accepting Donald Trump’s presidential election victory.  From the pampered brats on college campuses to the anarchical protestors in the city streets to the disconsolate media personnel who behave as if the apocalypse has arrived, Clinton’s supporters are really having a hard time accepting the reality that ClintonWorld is passé and TrumpWorld has arrived.   And though it is an exercise in an admittedly guilty pleasure, the behavior of these people is amusing when viewed through the prism of an inevitable Trump presidency.   I love the popular term “snowflakes” being applied to these folks; it is a stroke of genius.  Why should we discount these snowflakes as the fragile element they have so obviously become?

First off, for a group that screams the mantra of tolerance, they are pretty damn intolerant.   Merriam-Webster defines tolerant as: 

1: willing to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.   

  

How can you claim the mantle of tolerance when you scream and demand that your feelings and beliefs be addressed while you summarily dismiss the feelings and beliefs of those who disagree with you?  These snowflakes are walking oxymorons (yeah…go ahead and play with that one!) who are demonstrating to anyone paying attention that they are nothing but a bunch of stark raving hypocrites.  They vocalize messages and creeds that they perceive to be transcending while exhibiting just the opposite message with their very real behavior.  They parade about and want to be perceived as idealists with a laissez faire attitude, when the reality is that they eschew the principles of live and let live tolerance while adopting a let them eat cake mantle of privileged existence.

Secondly, in order to be considered valid, there must be a certain degree of logic or common sense to your position.  There is absolutely no question that the election of Donald Trump as President is open to criticism and questionable on its face; but that is not what the snowflakes are saying.  What was their alternative to Trump? They do not parade in the streets or occupy the campus commons with the message that Trump’s election was wrong.  Instead, they are devastated by the fact that their candidate…Clinton…did not win.   It is not so much that the electorate did things the wrong way and made a poor choice; it is that the electorate did not do things their way and make their choice…Big difference.  In order to be taken seriously, there is a certain amount of legitimacy that must accrue to your preferred alternative as compared to the terrible reality you are protesting.  The fact that these people put Hillary Clinton the Crook up against Donald Trump the Pig kinda weakens their credibility.  Once again, we find that if events do not unfold in their preconceived sequence, then they have no choice but to be infuriated.  It is their way or the highway.  You know…Trump was a sorry candidate and certainly has many flaws as a President-elect, but criticism of his election is best framed as dissembling his policies in a democratic exercise rather than complaining that your candidate did not win.   The pompous and entitled attitude of the snowflakes when they exclaim… “You beat Hillary with HIM!!!... paints them much more as sore losers rather than principled voters with substantive policy differences.

And finally, the element that makes the snowflakes amusing and tolerable rather than serious and concerning is the fact that they are irrelevant.  Due to the very attitude exhibited by these malcontents, many traditional Democratic and liberal voters crossed over and voted Republican in this election cycle; note Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  If you have a legitimate beef with Republican policy, you had best be off the street and in the backroom figuring out a strategy of combat because you are now at a distinct, political disadvantage.  As depressing as it is to lose and face the reality that all of your dreams and ideals will amount to naught, it is equally exhilarating to imagine the possibilities of accomplishment when simultaneously possessing Congressional majorities and the White House.   The Democrats and their snowflakes will be nursing at the rear portion of the mammary gland for the foreseeable future and that is obviously a very, traumatic experience for them.

Could This Be Trump's Waterloo?

Could This Be Trump’s Waterloo?    In my lifetime, I do not believe there has been a President enter into the office with more bipartisan and popular support than did Obama.  Democrats were united behind their candidate in a spectacular fashion; the public at large had pretty much bought into his “hope and change” mantra; and most all Americans were enthused that this nation had finally elected a person of color as President.  He had a colossal amount of political capital.    And what did Obama choose to do with his political capital?  Did he go for the low-hanging fruit where bipartisan support could be achieved?  Did he seize the opportunity to tackle some of the nagging issues that were confronting this nation and were begging for reform?  Did he decide to take advantage of his position and negotiate from a position of strength, handing out an olive branch or two to the opposition in the course of events?  No.  He chose to adhere to his rigid ideology and shove Obamacare down the throat of this country without a single Republican vote.  His desire for a single payer health care program blinded him to the fact that three-fourths of Obamacare could have been passed in a bipartisan way if some degree of respect and negotiation had occurred.  This choice to go “all or nothing” on Obamacare poisoned the partisan well in WDC and Obama never recovered from it.

I believe there were two watershed moments for Obama in his tenure.  The first was his ill-fated decision to jam Obamacare through Congress using extraordinary means.  The second was his last mid-term election battle with the Republicans.  Obama ran all over this nation preaching that even though he was not on the ballot, his policies were.  The American electorate soundly repudiated those policies by giving the Republican Party a majority in the House and the Senate.  Rather than accepting this unequivocal response from the people, Obama instead began his executive action orgy by announcing he would govern with his “pen and his phone”.   Americans do not elect kings; they elect chief executives.  They expect for the three branches of our government to work together, but independently.  Not only was Obama’s abuse of executive power a rebuke to the constitution, it was a foundation built upon the sand.   President Trump will now have the ability, and the apparent inclination, to easily dispose of Obama’s executive actions with his own pen.  Obama could have done what President Bill Clinton did before him: Understand the message from the voters and find a middle ground with the opposition party.  He chose otherwise.

If you think about it, there is one very significant parallel between Obama’s entry into the Presidency and that of Donald Trump.  Much like healthcare presented as a complex and emotional issue at the beginning of Obama’s first term, immigration reform is on the list of most people’s legislative agendas.  Both are extremely important issues that touch the lives of so many people and there are clearly at least two sides to every aspect of these issues.  There are many valid, sincere, and conflicting opinions about immigration reform.  If Trump is wise, he will slice off the border security section of immigration reform and focus his efforts on that particular area.  It is certainly possible that bi-partisan support combined with an incoming President’s honeymoon political capital should be sufficient to get an effective piece of border security legislation passed and approved.  The more complicated and divisive immigration reform can be studied, discussed, debated, and put off until a later date; a more deliberate approach.

If President Trump insists upon shoving immigration reform to the front his legislative agenda, he runs the very real risk of poisoning the partisan well much like Obama did with Obamacare.  Let us hope that he is student of history and chooses to instead focus on meaningful and practical legislative efforts upon which he can begin to build some degree of bipartisan chemistry.  It would be a tragedy in so many ways if immigration reform ends being Trump’s Waterloo, just as Obamacare was to Obama.

What Just Happened?

What Just Happened?  Our nation dodged a bullet yesterday (November 8) and chose not to make a terrible mistake by electing Hillary Clinton as our next President.  We can all hope and pray that a mistake was not made in choosing Donald Trump to be our next President.  Although it is clear he was not elected entirely on merit, it is hoped that he will prove worthy of the faith and trust that so many Americans have placed in him to lead our country.

This…..http://centerlineright.blogspot.com/2016/10/darkness-on-edge-of-town.html….is why Donald Trump was elected.  A large, diverse, and heretofore disorganized group of working Americans came together to send a message that they are sick and tired of the way things are and that they…want…change.  We can only hope that Trump has the wisdom, courage, and character to achieve the positive change that so many yearn for and that this nation so desperately needs. 

To loosely quote Michelle Obama…for the first time in my life, I am proud of the American voter.  People who have been financing the opulent lifestyles and swollen egos of the political class in WDC for generations finally stood up and said…ENOUGH.  In rust belt counties where Republicans had become extinct, Donald Trump found support.  In small but significant numbers of minorities, Donald Trump was the hope for a better way.  In large numbers of active voters, Donald Trump was viewed as the lesser of two evils and is being given a chance to deliver on his promises.  With the exception of 2012, many of our last several presidential elections have been “change” elections.  But somehow, someway, and following those elections, the change message got lost in the entrenched power structure of WDC and was quickly forgotten. 

I see two significant differences between those change elections and this one in 2016.  Be he good or be he bad, Donald Trump is certainly different.  He is the consummate political outsider and should come into office with the least amount of political baggage conceivable.  Trump should be able to truly operate with a high degree of independence, from both parties, and although his election win was the product of a clearly divided electorate, he will have the benefit of a Republican House and Senate to further his agenda.  Secondly, Trump will undoubtedly bring a new perspective to the White House.  He is a product of the business and corporate universe and will view the operation of our government as a CEO might view his or her company.  This does not mean that he will automatically improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our government; it simply means he is likely to bring a fresh approach to how government operations are assessed.   These two factors will make the Trump presidency a unique chapter in recent political history and will test the broadly held assumption that WDC is corrupted by Beltway Insiders and needs an Outsider to shake things up. 

Shaking things up, or as Trump likes to call it…draining the swamp…is not necessarily synonymous with successful government.  Clearly a new and more pragmatic approach to government would be welcomed, but the reality is that the powers of the President (no matter how much we tend to over-blame or over-credit him) are limited.  In order to be successful, a President must work with Congress in order to implement policy.   We are getting ready to see a quick demonstration of the frailty that Executive Actions possess.  No doubt, Trump will move quickly to simply eliminate many of Obama’s executive orders with a stroke of his pen.  They were purchased on the cheap and they will end on the cheap.  The temptation will be great for Trump to seize upon the Democrat’s newfound affection for the executive order and begin his own string of autocratic rulings.  This would be a huge mistake and an abandonment of trust with the people who put him in office.  The American people want to see our President and our Congress work together to implement fair and practical policy in the fashion our Constitution envisioned.  And even though the Congress will be controlled by Republicans, the Senate will not be filibuster-proof.  It will be necessary, and proper, for the President and Republican Congressional leaders to deal with the Senate minority leadership in order to facilitate effective legislative function.  And while we do not demand that our leaders compromise on principle, we can expect them to compromise on practice.  While the election clearly put Republicans in charge of our government, people will legitimately expect the concerns of both parties to be reflected in the policies of our government.  The degree of that concern and how it is divvied up will be the game.  One can only hope that Trump’s business experience in the free market will lead him to a pragmatic and reasonable approach in legislating.  Trump has a great opportunity to fill his administration with some of the best and brightest minds among us. Who and how he selects these people will speak volumes to his competence as a President.  What he does not need is a cast of the same old Republicans and Democrats who have been living off the WDC political complex for decades.  It is time for fresh faces, fresh approaches, and bold actions.  Blending these new attitudes with a sufficient amount of experience  to keep the trains running while rerouting the tracks will be quite the challenge.

Donald Trump comes into the White House as a change agent.  He is terribly flawed and has not enjoyed the popular and enthusiastic support that many of his predecessors have.  He has some convincing to do in demonstrating that he has both the character and temperament to be a good President.  He must somehow bridge the chasm between the two political parties in this country.  Once again, American citizens have voted for change.  What…will…that…change…entail?