Looking Through the Smoke for the Fire.

In life, where there are always at least two sides to every argument, it is often difficult to filter out the extraneous noise and get down to the heart of the matter.  In fact, what one side might call diversionary or unnecessary facts might well be called pertinent and critical elements by the opposing side.  Given the polarized environment we have today, this situation is more prominent than ever and it is so very difficult to weed out the fact from the fiction.  Each political party, the mainstream media, and even society in general has adopted an attitude that distortion, misrepresentations, straw men exaggerations, and downright lies are all perfectly acceptable in the quest for a personal or political agenda.

But as we all experience from living, eventually the smoke will clear.  At some point, the noise will die down and we will be confronted with the bare truth.  And even though historical revisionists have a reached a new level of efficiency, reality has a way of outlasting all of its competition and with varying lengths of time passing; a clear view of the way things were and are will come into view. 

There are several issues swirling around our political world these days that are perfect examples of what I’m talking about.  And although oftentimes the time it takes for the truth to come out seems to be excessive; it is probably true that the length of time required to drill down to the real center is directly related to how thick the smoke is.  Put another way…if there is little substance to the objections, the smoke ends up being a thin veil and drifts away in the short term.  At that point in time, the paramount question should become what, if any, judgment should be made upon the creators of the smoke.  Was the smoke thick enough to constitute valid objections and concerns and once they were addressed, did the accusers get their proper credit for bringing up serious conversation and move on with the process?  Or…were the accusers exposed for creating an environment where the wispy smoke they’d been spreading turns out to be nothing more than clanging cymbals and static; a hypocritical and shallow effort to obscure their lack of legitimate points in opposition?  And, were these accusers who sucked all of the air from the room with their rhetorical nonsense get exposed as the charlatans they are?  Among the many issues cropping up in WDC lately, there are five that fall squarely in this realm.   It will be most interesting, and consequential, to see exactly how thick the smoke was when the room clears.

Did the Donald Trump Campaign collude with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?  For well over a year, a large portion of which Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and government agencies, evidence has been sought to verify that the Trump Campaign was working behind the scenes with Putin to defeat Hillary.  The reality is that nothing…nothing…of substance has been discovered by accusers to prove this illicit relationship; heck, a significant portion of the accusations occurred after the election in November of 2016.  Even more remarkable is the fact even if it had occurred, it is not against the law.  Now don’t get me wrong: It would certainly be unacceptable and unethical and totally reprehensible; but it is not illegal.  The Obama Administration made a clumsy effort to influence the outcome of Israel’s recent elections using taxpayer money (unsuccessfully, BTW).  There can be little doubt that many Presidents before Obama, from both parties, dabbled in the sovereign political affairs of foreign nations.  This does not make it right; it just makes it yesterday’s news and builds a strong foundation for ferreting out hypocrisy.  So we now have Special Counsel Mueller investigating a matter that has no central crime, no evidence of wrongdoing, and is accompanied by a political frenzy that rivals my seven-year old granddaughter’s drama queen act when she doesn’t get her way.  This affair certainly seems to be putting to the test the old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  A huge amount of taxpayer dollars will be spent on a runaway lawyer casually pursuing an ill-defined goal while those in Executive Agencies and Congress, whose official duty it is to monitor the very things the Special Counsel is looking into, can simply pass the buck and perform calculated commentary as the investigation interminably proceeds.  When the smoke clears on this one, there should several dozen egg cartons used up for face painting.

DNC Lawsuit Regarding Clinton Favoritism over Sanders.  One of the side benefits (perhaps sometimes the prime directive) of blowing smoke is obscuring issues other than the one talked about by drowning out all the other talk in  the room.  This would explain why many have heard nothing about the DNC being sued by Bernie Sander’s supporters for their actions during the Democratic Presidential Primary that appeared to unfairly (illegally?) favor Hillary Clinton and helped to insure her ultimate primary victory.  Based on DNC statements, leaks of DNC conversations, and the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair, the smoke surrounding this episode looks pretty thick.  We can look forward to a pretty definitive verdict on this one due to the fact that it is playing out in court and not in the layers of government administration.   Perhaps the oddity of this story lies in the fact that the future relevance applies much more to Sanders, who likely harbors future political aspirations, than it does to Clinton, who needs to simply just…go…away.

The Obama Administration’s Unmasking Practices and Security Leaks.  This one is going to take a while to finalize; if it ever is.  But the implications stemming from this potential scandal go much further than any of the others we discuss today.  If ideologues and amateur professionals like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice are able to arbitrarily (and perhaps illegally) unmask U.S. citizens from the results of intelligence surveillance and then selectively leak them to friendly media for political purposes, then we have a situation that makes Watergate look like a schoolyard marbles game.  As has been stated many times by many people, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If proven to be true, the actions alleged in this abuse of power episode must result in somebody, somewhere, being prosecuted for crimes.  Liberty requires the absence of unwarranted government intrusion into our personal lives.  The retort that the intrusion might have occurred for specific and allegedly justified purposes does not alter the fact that our government must respect the privacy of its citizens.  The inescapable truth is that our government (regardless of majority Party) cannot be trusted to be given the keys to our private lives, no matter what the justification is.  Does this call into question the balance between security and citizen privacy?  Of course it does.  Freedom comes with a price and sometimes that price entails risks.  Those risks are the price we pay for our way of life and the liberties we enjoy.  The mere fact that the Obama Administration may have abused the power of citizen surveillance for purely political purposes makes the dual case that those guilty of this abuse should pay the maximum price and that as stated before, our government simply does not have the credibility or the integrity to enjoy such empowerment.  When the smoke clears on this one, someone should be receiving their meals through the door.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Federal Appeal of Trump Travel Restrictions.  For me personally (given up front that I am a rank amateur legal observer), the bizarre political twisting of the Federal Judiciary began with the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare when they determined that the tax that was passed through Congress as not a tax was in fact a tax.  If words have no meaning in the law itself, how can there be any order to our society?  The most recent example of this political contamination of our Judiciary is the recent Federal Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit in the West, Fourth Circuit in the East) rulings on President Trump’s travel restrictions. Not only are these restrictions remarkably similar to similar restrictions under Obama; not only are they clearly within the legal authority of the Chief Executive; and not only are they clearly warranted in light of recent terrorist activities (i.e. Manchester)…they are simply common sense steps to take in the crazy world that we find ourselves living in these days.  Both Courts split on their travel restriction opinions down party lines with the minority issuing very adamant dissensions.  Specifically, the dissent recently issued by the losing minority in the Fourth Circuit goes a tremendous way towards exploding the idiotic rationale used by the majority in a transparent attempt to further a political agenda through legal means.  Read the dissent here http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448047/whats-stake-court-cases-about-travel-ban .  These cases are no doubt headed to the Supreme Court and whether you are Democrat or Republican, agree or disagree with the travel restrictions; we should all hope that the SCOTUS will restore some semblance of legal order to this most recent adventure in judiciary madness run amuck.

The ultimate decider: Real Results.  Let’s face it: Presidents receive far too much credit when times are good and far too much blame when times are bad.  This is not to say that they can’t on occasion display extraordinary leadership and have a disproportionate influence on certain issues.  But by and large, our lives are far more influenced by the laws that are passed by Congress and the enforcement of those laws by the Judiciary.  I will acknowledge that the overt and growing influence of Executive Actions have been distorting this democratic principle over the last few decades; but our country still remains a nation of laws and compliance with those laws.  Therefore, it is patently fair and proper that the ultimate judge, both historically and politically, of a President is the state of the nation under his tenure.  Life is not always fair, and the same might be said for presidential politics.  Some Presidents get breaks in the makeup of Congress, the ebb and flow of domestic economic cycles, and the arbitrary nature of foreign policy and global events.  Stuff happens and oftentimes stuff takes precedence over the best laid plans. That being said…it is reasonable (and equitable) to assume that Donald Trump’s effectiveness as President will be based on how this country fares under his tutelage.  Should we consider how unfairly the media has treated his early days in office with negativity and the lack of a traditional Presidential honeymoon?  Should we take into account the pitiful state of domestic and foreign policy that was left to him by his predecessor?  Should we factor in that the Federal Judiciary has decided to engage in legal and political jujitsu in an attempt to foil his initiatives? What about the fact that the Republicans, his party, control both Houses of Congress?  What about the fact that federal tax revenues are at an all-time and historical high?  Should he be credited with the advantage of Executive Action latitude being at the highest point in memory; giving him a relatively free hand to act in many areas free of Congressional input?  The simple answer to all these questions is: No.  Oh, we can read about it and talk about it and think about it; as we should.  We can take it all into consideration.  After all, the ingredients have a huge impact on the quality of the cake.  But the final score is what goes in the record books.  How does the cake taste?  You were hired to do a job: do the damn job.

At the end of the day, when the smoke clears entirely, when the debits and credits are tallied and the paycheck lies on the table beside all the bills to be paid…reality and the quality of life will render its verdict on the Trump Presidency.  So, watch and see how the AHCA plays out and how it impacts health care.  Can real tax reform work its way through Congress and free up the economic engine of America?  Will responsible, compassionate, common sense immigration reform begin to be implemented?  Will some type of infrastructure bill create some good paying jobs across our nation and help to restore our transportation system to a better condition?  Will someone…anyone…in Congress find a way to restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility into our federal budget?  These are the issues that will determine the success or failure of Trump.  In the sands of time, the reasons why they did or did not happen will be lost.  Once the air is cleared and the noise dies down, reality will gavel a verdict and all the other distractions will be irrelevant.  Now…just how do you think that will turn out?

Divided We Stand; the Death of Bipartisanship.

It started way back with Nixon and Watergate; it gained momentum during the Clinton years; it flirted with high speed and recklessness during the G.W. Bush Administrations; it reached a crescendo with Obama in the White House; and now it has reached the level of full blown idiocy. 

It has not only become acceptable to simply obstruct the opposing party and never offer anything in response; it has become expected to do so.  And not only are we seeing the two major political parties engaging in hyper-partisanship these days; the mainstream media has thrown aside any pretense of objectivity and gone full bore anti-Trump.  Clapper, Yates, Hillary, Perez, Schumer, Hollywood…all are in full-throated unison to block any initiative proposed by our President.  The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and others are now running fiction as fact, quoting unnamed sources with a multitude of axes to grind, misrepresenting facts when all those present at an event say otherwise, and running front page headlines based on memos they have never seen and which are partially and selectively read to them over the phone by…once again…unnamed sources.  The venom we see from late night television is bracing, even shocking on occasion.  The Judiciary has been politically weaponized, career government employees are choosing sides based on ideological agendas, and holdover employees from previous Administrations are now expected to be undercover agents leaking all manner of propaganda and sowing seeds of dissent at every opportunity. 

Bottom line: When surveying the political landscape of America and realizing that forty-plus percent of the nation sees Republicans as territorial Neanderthals, while forty-plus percent see Democrats as anarchic Socialists; it certainly seems that we have quite possibly gone down the rabbit hole, are in total free fall, and all hope of having any semblance of a bipartisan, functioning government has disappeared.    There is no statesman on either side…no group of patriots who are willing to compromise, sacrifice, or sincerely engage in anything less than total political warfare.  And make no mistake about it:  It is war.  Just as surely as each side hurling missiles and bombs at each other, Republicans and Democrats are fully engaged in a contest to totally destroy and rule over the other.

And while we turn our heads from the constant attack memes in the media, trying to find anything that is politics-free and not driven by political correctness; the elephant in the room is this simple question: What is next?  Now that every player is locked in to a position, now that each party is openly armed and armored, now that all the folks in journalism have thrown aside their standards and selected their side; what are the implications of this unmasked hostility for our nation? 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from a fully polarized government is pretty simple: it is either total victory and dominance or total irrelevance and guerrilla warfare.  If Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, in league with the mainstream media and their other liberal friends, choose to continue their strategy of total opposition to anything Trumpian, then Republicans will have no other choice but to use the power available to the majority party to make the Democrats as irrelevant as possible.  The only logical alternative to this “crush or be crushed” mantra would be complete and total stalemate, gridlock, and spasms of legislative seizures; that status would be intolerable to either party in the long run.  The Democrats detonated the nuclear option on Presidential appointments.  The Republicans detonated the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees.  The next nuclear device to drop will be targeted for simple cloture on routine legislative matters.  Once that threshold is crossed, we have entered into full blown political party autocracy.   And no matter which side of the political fence you stand on, that is not a good prescription for our nation.

If some type of miraculous wind doesn’t sweep across WDC and blow away the partisan seeds of destruction that are being sown, we are heading hell-bent towards a 2018 mid-term election that will set the course for our country either on a continued path of civics-centered chaos or will set the stage for a one-sided Republican transformation of government.   And if the latter turns out to be the case, it is simply a matter of time before the roles are reversed and we flip the script to a Democrat-authored government.  In politics, there are no truer words than “what comes around, goes around”.  Then, as our society and culture springs from one platform to another, the party that plays the minority role will inevitably become more obstinate, more disruptive, and more resentful for not having the pre-eminent position it inhabited not so long ago.  This is not a prescription for long-term success and well being; not a manner of existence that leads to a high quality of life for generation after generation. 

One must ponder the real likelihood that should our government continue to evolve in this fashion, will we not see our everyday lives trend in the same direction?  In so many respects, history has shown us that while it might not actually dictate specific behavior, our government sets an example that inevitably seeps downward into the way its citizens live, work, and play.  If you look around, you can now see that the “win at all costs and take no prisoners” mentality has permeated America.  We are badly fooling ourselves if we make the mistake of thinking that it cannot get any worse.

President Trump and the Democrats with their media allies remind me of a problem I have with my grandson…my six year old grandson.  On our occasional walks through the cattle pastures, I warn him to watch out for the fresh cow piles.  But like some kind of supernatural, organic magnetic force is at play, he’s attracted to the mess and will many times end up poking around with a stick or the toe of his boot.  He simply cannot resist the temptation.  The President and his perpetual critics have the same problem with each other that my grandson has with the cow manure; they simply cannot keep themselves from stirring it up and making it so much worse than they found it.  If there is to be any positive result from a Trump Administration, the President is going to have to talk less, speak softer, and learn to play with a winning hand.  The Democrats and the mainstream media need to crawl out of their sandboxes, shed their perpetual adolescence, realize that the election is over and was legit, and respectively assume their proper and necessary roles as the loyal (to their Country and Party principles) opposition Party and reporters (not Creators) of Facts (not Fiction).

Conservative Euphoria May Lead to Disillusion.

Like any political clique or faction, Republican Conservatives see the world through a glass darkly; they tend to evaluate realities based on their own ideals and never quite see the entire picture clearly.  This is as it should be; but the key to that particular philosophy enduring over time lies in its ability to adhere to non-negotiable principles that don’t totally exclude those who do not agree while compromising on practices that will lead to an overt influence of their thinking on everyday life.  Republican Conservatives were jubilant when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for the Presidency in 2016.  The question is: How much of that joy derived from severing the liberal path that Obama had placed this government on coupled with the defeat of his ideological successor versus the prospect of simply having a Republican President in the person of Donald Trump?  I believe that, unfortunately for those Conservative Republicans, the initial joy came from the latter; but it will be the former that fosters in huge disappointment.

Most people will hold Ronald Reagan out as the iconic Conservative.  He was a converted Democrat.  Closer to the point, he adhered to many conservative strategies, but on occasion would steer towards a moderate position.  George W. Bush looked like a Conservative, talked like a Conservative, reveled in the celebration of Conservatism, but he was a moderate …up to the point of renaming his adopted philosophy as Compassionate Conservatism.  I will always believe that the common trait that made John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan remarkable Presidents was their political courage.  Clearly, both were astute politicians and did a very effective job of reading the partisan tea leaves.  They then parlayed their reads into political successes.  But in both cases, these men were driven by personal convictions that they upheld and practiced at the peril of their political careers.  George W. Bush had a bit of this in him and, to a far lesser degree, Obama showed brief flashes of this behavior.  This form of exposing one’s true inner feelings is the way that most voters decide where to place their allegiance.  They try to read the real person behind the political mask.  Our President does not appear to be a man driven primarily by strong core convictions; but more so by pragmatic calculation seasoned with a strong dose of political consideration. 

Ronald Reagan has been so politically over-analyzed and his Presidency is sufficiently removed so as to limit the benefit of his comparison to Trump.  However, I find a comparison of Trump and Bush 43 beneficial.  Trump is a product of a New York liberal culture and society.  He was raised a Democrat and was, in fact, a practicing Democrat for most of his adult life.  And while his business experience has driven him to embrace many conservative principles in the realm of finance, his upbringing has molded him into a more moderate or even liberal stance in non-fiscal affairs.  Bush 43 is quite the opposite.  Any objective examination of his Presidency will show that he ran the fiscal affairs of our government in a very liberal fashion; spending tax dollars like a drunken sailor and piling on layer after layer of new bureaucracy.  But the way George W. Bush handled social civic matters revealed a truly conservative nature.  In the case of each man, Conservative Republicans found (and will continue to find) much to celebrate and much to disappoint. 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Like many people in this country who voted, Conservative Republicans rejoiced when Hillary Clinton was defeated.  A victory for her would have led this nation down a path of corruption and policy that likely would have dramatically diminished our great nation for generations to come.  If we citizens are forced to choose a President who does not fully represent our individual personal beliefs, I firmly believe that most Independents and Moderates in each party will select the candidate who bends conservative on fiscal matters and moderate on social matters.  I think that the residual conservative animus towards Bush 43 leads back to this type of logic; even though he was a faithful conservative on social issues, he wandered far off the conservative path on fiscal affairs.  So we have in Trump a fiscal agent who should satisfy the spending desires of Conservatives; but find that the motivation for those habits lies in the principles of business and not in the tenants of Conservatism. 

It is yet to be seen what type of President we will have in Donald Trump.  But from a personal standpoint, I see indications in the ongoing health care debate, tax reform discussion, immigration argument, and budget talks that lead me to believe that the moderate-to-liberal influence in President Trump’s character will be more pronounced in social aspects of governing as his Administration progresses.  And as we move further away from the joy of removing the Clintons from their perch of political influence, the reality of a not-so-conservative President Trump is going to cause a lot of heartburn in the circles of Republican Conservatism.  But even more interesting will be watching the dynamic of a growing conservative disenchantment with Trump as his migration towards a moderate social policy evolves, simultaneously enhancing his standing with non-ideological voters.   Trump appears to be heading towards a fiscally-thrift Presidency that takes either a hands-off or state’s rights approach to the hot button social issues of the day.  The very policy positions that are anathema to Conservatives could make him attractive to many Moderates.  A fiscal conservative with a libertarian social bent might disillusion the Republican Right, but that formula might very well suit the majority of American voters to a tee. 

If he can pull off the truly challenging feat of successfully getting legislation through Congress, he could be in for a long and productive tenure in the White House; assuming, of course, that his erratic personal tendencies do not implode his Presidency.  The over-riding and long-term question of consequence for the Republican Party is whether or not a fiscally-conservative President with moderate social tendencies is pure enough to satisfy the true believers?  If the answer is NO, then the Republicans may be condemned to a position of occasional rule with chronic splintering among its various factions.  If the answer is YES, then the Republicans may have found a winning political formula for future elections and Conservatives may begin to deliberately chip away at our bloated and overly intrusive federal government.