Whether
we are ready for it or not, the political campaign for the 2020 Presidential
race is underway. The Democratic Party
is now laying plans for split debates in June or July to accommodate their
field of candidates that is estimated to be between 15 and 20. Not sure what the Republicans have in mind,
but with a candidate like Trump…just put him up there and let him debate
himself.
Unless
Mueller drops a nuclear device in his imminent final report that obliterates
Trump, it appears that our President will be standing for re-election. That will leave the intrigue in the
Republican Party centered around who will be the Republican Presidential
candidate in 2024. That will indeed be interesting.
If Trump is re-elected, don’t be surprised if sometime shortly after the
mid-term elections in 2022, he replaces Vice-President Pence with the candidate
of his choice. As for the Democrats…if
Trump defeats their eventual candidate in 2020, their Party is going to engage
in a serious soul-searching episode to determine exactly what they stand for
and want to promote. In my humble
opinion, a 2020 defeat for the Democratic Party in the Presidential Race is the
best thing that can happen to
it. They have lost their agenda, their
core principles, and have been splintered and commandeered by an extreme liberal
segment of their party. If they are
going to fulfill their necessary role of being the alternate solution to the Republican Party, they need to once again
find their place that has historically been located somewhere in the proximity
of center left. This country needs for that to happen.
But
returning to the 2020 race for President, who would be the best Democratic
candidate to represent the Democratic Party in opposition to the Republican
Trump? I submit at this early point in
the campaign that the best choice for
America would be Bernie Sanders.
Through all of the noise and near-hysteria that has surrounded AOL, the Green
New Deal, and the other many radical left proposals and ideals being floated by
the extreme liberal elements of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders has
strategically held back in his endorsement of a full-throated shift towards
socialist policies. Don’t get me wrong;
Bernie has always been and remains a socialist-oriented candidate. But as bizarre as the term might sound, I
classify Bernie as a Sober Socialist. I
believe his policies present socialist-leaning ideals in a uniquely American
context. Bernie doesn’t so much want to convert our nation to socialism as much
as he wants to drastically shift our
government philosophy to a very liberal and more social-centric stance. Some
might call me foolish for distinguishing such a fine line between extreme
liberalism and authentic socialism; but I do believe that line does, and should, exist. Within the parameters of our Constitution,
there is room for a more liberal and socially-conscious approach to governing;
that is what I think Bernie Sanders offers.
To me, Bernie stands out in this fashion from his opponents who have
currently (or will have shortly)
announced their status. Biden is a
Frankenstein hybrid of Clinton and Obama and has the substance of slime. Harris, Booker, Warren, etc. are all
creatures of the current political climate that promotes a say anything to anybody at any time and any place in order to promote one’s self. They are all political creatures rising from
political origins. For all of his
shortcomings, Bernie Sanders is faithful to a given set of liberal principles
that he has faithfully adhered to for most of his political life.
On
the other hand and in clear contrast to Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, as much
as we have ever seen by a sitting President, offers dedication to the free
market capitalist principles that have largely dominated our nation for its
historically short existence. Given his
background as a wealthy real estate entrepreneur, this has come with little
surprise. What most people have found surprising is Trump’s dogged
adherence to many conservative principles.
Many people (myself included)
anticipated that much like his children, Trump was a Republican in label only
and harbored a personal affection for many liberal tendencies. Since assuming the Presidency, Trump has
exhibited as much devotion to conservative principles as any Republican
President I can recall since Reagan. He
is a mercurial man with a chameleon talent for shifting policy positions, but
if he continues the governing principles pattern he has shown over the last two
years, Donald Trump represents a clear leadership choice for conservative-leaning
voters in this nation. It is true that viewing
him in this light requires one to separate the President’s personality from his
performance and some might find that difficult at best and unacceptable at
worst. But if we are going to be
pragmatic about how our government is run from a standpoint of efficiency and
effectiveness, then the separation is necessary.
Don’t miss the next
post! Follow on Twitter
@centerlineright. If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your
friends.
Bottom
line: I believe the Presidential election in our country should offer the
voters a clear and realistic choice between two philosophies of how to
govern. And in addition to that clear
choice, each philosophy should be grounded in principles that, even though they
are clearly distinct from the alternative candidate’s, nonetheless retain a
realistic possibility of implementation.
In other words, a voter should be able to look at two different ideals that could clearly be envisioned
in practice and then proceed to make a choice for their preference. Given the rising influence of the radical
left in the Democratic Party, this
Presidential election, more than any other recent Presidential election, should
present a clear choice to the American voters between the principles of the
left and the principles of the right.
Divided
government is an infuriating and maddening environment. As we are witnessing now, the unbridled
Democratic investigations in the House are nothing more than attempts to damage
and hinder President Trump to the greatest extent possible. This is not unlike what the Republican Senate
did to Obama when he was flailing about the White House.
As
much as I disliked the policies of President George W. Bush, I have always
liked his phrase compassionate
conservatism. Utilizing labels is a
dangerous adventure and political
labels in particular can trip emotional wires that lead to extreme rhetoric and
reaction; but we must occasionally use labels to form some type of context for
civil discussion. And when we do so, we
must all take into account that labels are generally broad and expansive
descriptors that can be interpreted different ways by different people. For this reason, the deceitful and
irresponsible use of labels for partisan purposes is disingenuous at its best,
absolutely disgraceful at its worst.
Within
the framework of the Constitution, our nation’s blueprint set forth by the
founding fathers, there is plenty of room for civil discourse between those who
promote conservatism and those who promote liberalism. Compassionate conservatism, a minimalist
approach to government finance and regulation with an appropriate concern for
those among us with limited resources, is a valid position to assume. Equally legitimate is a sober liberal agenda
that considers a broader government reach, a greater emphasis on real social
problems, and a discussion of tax equity among our vastly disparate income
groups in America. The key element to
the co-existence of these two philosophies is the necessity for each side to
engage in a respectful, sincere, and reasonable approach to negotiation and
governing. The winner take all attitudes that both national parties have exhibited
over the last couple of decades have dramatically discredited the Republicans
and the Democrats and have poorly served our government, our citizens, and the
politicians themselves.
I
realize how naïve it sounds to make this statement, but a civil and meritorious
debate between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would be a great development for
the United States. The clearly defined
policy ideals of each could establish a framework for a debate on America’s
real problems and the possible solutions to those problems. Keeping it real will obviously be the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment