Some
time back, I wrote a post about the ultimate national Party candidates for
President in 2020. You can read that
here: http://centerlineright.blogspot.com/search?q=sober+socialist
. Whether or not you agree with his
policy ideals, Bernie Sanders is truly sincere.
He walks the walk. I don’t believe you can say that about any of
his Democratic rivals.
A
thoughtful reading of the facts leads one to believe that it is not an
overstatement to say the Democratic National Committee rigged the 2016
Presidential primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. While it is impossible to say that the degree
of this shading was sufficient in and of itself to defeat Sanders and deliver
the nomination to Clinton; it is easily indisputable that it had a very
significant impact on the final outcome.
Bernie got cheated. The Democratic Party owes Bernie. They don’t
owe him the nomination; but they darn
sure owe him a clear and unobstructed shot at obtaining it (CNN obviously did not get the memo).
After
watching portions of the Democratic candidates’ debate last night (January 14), I remain as convinced as ever that every
candidate on that stage with the exception of Sanders was saying what they thought voters wanted to hear. The disingenuous shallowness and transparency
of Elizabeth Warren is breath-taking.
Just as the Republicans pander to the far right in their primary and
then tend towards the middle once the nomination is settled; so do the
Democrats pander to their far left during the nomination process and then swing
to the middle for the general election.
The Presidential candidates selected by either Party typically reflect
this tendency by saying whatever they
think is appropriate to whomever they may be addressing at that time. Whatever else they may be, Donald Trump and
Bernie Sanders don’t follow this pattern; they are authentic.
I
believe that Bernie’s longer tenure in national politics has given his policy positions a more settled tone than those of Trump; whose
late entry into competitive politics has given his policies a semblance of still being in the sorting out process. But in
both cases, these candidates are nearer to being true to their innermost
instincts than any of the candidates we have seen in recent memory. Trump has proven to be far more conservative,
in his fashion, than many people ever thought possible. While not a classic form of conservatism, his
policy initiatives as a whole are much more right than center. Bernie continues to consistently exhibit the
socialist-influenced fire in his belly
to reform this nation in a far more progressive manner than any Democratic presidential
nominee has ever dared to espouse. Collectively,
these two represent a clear and rather
pure choice between limited government coupled with economic opportunity versus
a larger government with an expanded role in social policy.
And
now that Bernie has once again achieved the position of standing strong at this
early stage of the nominating process, it is somewhat amusing to see the Democratic
panic that is slowly spreading due to that success. After groveling at the feet of their
progressive and liberal wing, confident they could tune them out after the primary
season concluded, the Democratic Party now shudders at the thought of Bernie
Sanders actually carrying their Party’s banner into the November Presidential
election. It must be thinking…What do these left-wing, liberal Democrats
expect from the Party leadership? After
all, Pelosi did give the Squad their impeachment fantasy; shouldn’t that be sufficient? CNN and the Times give a modicum of equal
coverage to Sanders and Warren; isn’t that enough to call it fair? The sobering reality is that it’s one thing to
talk in fiery rhetorical terms about
liberal policies and ideals; it’s another thing entirely to acknowledge the implementation of such policies in
America and contemplate the impact they would have on our lives.
Both
National Parties have been chastened by past experiences of giving in to their
more extreme elements when selecting candidates. The colossal failures of the Goldwater and
McGovern campaigns still haunt many Party officials who now know better than to actually tip their hand regarding what they
truly believe. They must tread cautiously lest they be too honest with the voters. What may be different this time around is the
degree of influence that the Left has acquired in the Democratic Party. Not only have those with an extreme liberal
bent demonstrated the major portion of enthusiasm and excitement in the
Democratic Party; they have been the source of essentially all of the policy ideals coming from the Party. While the mainstream media has no trouble shifting
its convictions on a dime, is it really conceivable that the Squad could get
excited about a Joe Biden candidacy for President? Can we really envision the Bernie and Liz
troops getting jacked up about old Slow Joe?
And
now, with the deep partisan division that exists in our voting citizenry; it is
more essential than ever for a Party to reach beyond its core constituency to
the moderates of the other side and, more to the point, to the invaluable Independents
in the center. The elusive formula
necessary to win a national election in today’s environment makes it risky
indeed to speak truth to what you might actually
believe…for fear of alienating those critical folks in the middle who
decide presidential elections. Blatant
and professional hypocrisy has become a staple in today’s political arena and
unfortunately, we have all become quite desensitized to its serpent-like enchantment.
Just
as Pelosi painted herself in a corner by gifting Trump’s impeachment farce to
her left wing; the Democratic Party may have painted itself in a corner in its
over-eagerness to take full benefit of the far left’s anti-Trump sentiments. Having revved up this political beast and
given it free reign to roam the halls of WDC and the airwaves of the mainstream
media; will they now be able to harness its energy in support of a milquetoast
candidate such as Biden? Can they
simultaneously embrace and ignore the
Green New Deal, Medicare for All, Open Borders, and Higher Taxes…or…will those
devices used to obtain cheap allegiance come back to haunt the final Democrat
seeking the Presidency in 2020? Will the
Democratic Party, having taken full benefit of the Liberal Energizer Bunny be able to put it back in the box when the
primary season concludes? It will be
very interesting to see how this plays out.
Don’t
miss the next post!
Follow on Twitter @
centerlineright or Find on Facebook @ Jimmy Thomason or Just Google
centerlineright.
California
and, to a lesser degree, New York and Illinois, continue to spiral down the
rabbit hole of extremely progressive governmental policy choices. California in particular is becoming a land
of stark contrasts; a binary population largely composed of either the
privileged elites with sufficient power and wealth to support their grand and
imperial lifestyles…or…the resource-challenged folks at the lower end of the
income ladder whose very existence depends on the purse of the government. Put in more succinct terms; California is
becoming a textbook example of the haves
and the have nots.
With
high taxes and Liberal government policies driving California’s middle class to
other states, the citizenry of that once-great
state has become a stark contrast in living standards. The influx of illegal immigrants from the
south combined with those seeking a life-sustaining subsidy from the government
mother has abruptly thrown California into a bizarre and dysfunctional environment. Gated communities and mansions with walls and
razor wire are standing side-by-side with scores of homeless souls whose very existence
consists of wandering the streets day in and day out, desperately seeking out
the necessities of life. While the
natural resource blessings of California tease us with the idyllic images put
forth by the Eagles in Hotel California; the stark pictures of homeless tents
on city sidewalks and public defecation shock us into dismay. How in the world did this happen so quickly? How has a shining city devolved into such
squalor? California has truly morphed
from the land of opportunity into the land of the government nanny state. That is exactly the root cause of this
stark degradation of society that we are witnessing in that state. Who can look at this tragedy and not see the
seeds of anarchy being sown?
The
legitimate role of government in our lives is a necessary and critical topic
that should be constantly debated in the halls of government at all
levels. But lest we get lost in the
weeds of government benefits, regulations, and social programs; let us consider
common decency for one moment. Whether
you are an agnostic individual who tries to look at our world through compassionate
and responsible eyes or a person of faith who believes in the living principles
set forth in the scriptures; the situation we are witnessing in California is a
concern. It occurs to me that one of the
greatest impediments to a practical solution might very well be the lack of
agreement on this fundamental
problem: We are having difficulty solving the reality because we cannot agree on the cause.
Just
as there are two elements to the abortion issue, the period of pregnancy and
the period of postpartum; so there are two elements to the homeless situation
we are witnessing in California. Once a
child is delivered into this world, a time has come when expediency demands
that we address the very real concerns of that child’s survival and environment
rather than dwell on the circumstances that led to that child’s birth. The mixing of the two distinct periods oftentimes
leads to distraction and a failure to make real progress in either area; in
effect preventing any remedy to the immediate crisis at hand…the well being of
the child. Such is the case with
homelessness. We can debate the
circumstances that lead to widespread homelessness until the cows come home;
but will that get us any closer to effectively dealing with the current issue of the tents on the
sidewalks and people freezing to death in the cold nights of WDC, New York, and
Chicago? At the end of the day, basic
human decency demands that we provide
some type of assistance to those who are homeless and in dire need of basic human
necessities. Liberal and Conservative policy
debate aside; we cannot as a people stand by and watch human beings wither away
to death while we hold in our hands the ability to preserve their lives.
Perhaps
if we can somehow focus more intently on the specific problems created by the present state of homelessness and set
aside our differences on exactly what led
us to those problems, we might then be able to create some space that would
allow a more meaningful approach to reducing the magnitude of the tragedy. One of the fundamental positions that gives
me pause is the desire on the part of many from the Left to grant those who are
homeless and resource-challenged government subsidies that go well beyond what
is required for basic survival. To me,
those promoting this policy fail to grasp the importance of differentiating
between subsidies and opportunities. We as a people do have a basic obligation to assist those in real need. We as a people do not have an obligation to instill in those same people the basic
principles of character such as ambition, pride, accountability, and
independence (unless they are our
children). This is something
government cannot do. Government policy
might influence this issue in a peripheral sense; but it is a personal choice
that resides within the affected individual.
They must ultimately deal with
the consequences of that choice.
Rather
than building apartment buildings for the homeless and giving them health care
that exceeds the level possessed by many working class families; we need to
redefine exactly what our obligations are to those among us who are less
fortunate. As a fiscal conservative and
social moderate, I find no objection to the government financing (through the largess of tax dollars) facilities
that can feed, provide environmental safety, and even extend basic health care
to individuals who have fallen on hard times.
But it must be understood up front that this aid is designed to be a hand up and not a hand out.
State
and local governments in California could use their general funds to construct
and maintain simple and efficient barracks-style shelters where an indigent
person might find a clean and warm cot on a freezing cold night. Extending that care into the areas of
nutritional and health care necessities provides a wealth of opportunity for
the public sector to partner with the private sector in an effort to address
these needs. Doctors, nurses,
restaurants, private volunteers, faith-based organizations, wealthy and
benevolent individuals…all of these could utilize a mechanism structured by the
state to provide limited and fundamental support in conjunction with these
shelters. Many times, our government
works best when it shapes policy and acts as a conduit to funnel private sector
assets into public sector remedies; when it creates a mechanism or structure
where both sectors can mutually
leverage their resources to maximize both efficiency and results. It is a tremendous challenge; but hey…that’s what government is for.
The
key is achieving an understanding and remaining cognizant of the fact that
these acts of support should be restricted to a specified time of need and
limited in scope to an amount simply necessary to address the immediate and critical concerns. The people receiving this assistance should
not be elevated to a level that exceeds what we might see many working
Americans experiencing every day of their lives. Government is established to perform the
functions in our society that no one else or nothing else can accomplish; tasks
that are uniquely governmental in
nature. When we expand beyond that
point, we not only dilute the efficiency and effectiveness of our government in
its pursuit of its critical
functions; but we also erode the basic premise of encouraging and assisting our
neighbors to become productive and responsible citizens.
There
is a reason why history has shown us that one of the greatest predictors in
Presidential contests is the state of the economy. It is undeniable that a large part of the
support for President Trump stems from the booming economy that has occurred
under his Administration and all of the many opportunities that have
accompanied it. At the end of the day,
the best form of assistance and compassion that we can deliver for many of
those among us who are resource-challenged is the opportunity to obtain a good job, establish a reliable income from
steady employment that can provide a sustainable existence, embrace the challenge and possibility of
actually improving that existence through ambition and perseverance, and
possibly succeed at actually achieving whatever their personal dreams might be
for themselves and their families. If
the robust economy we are now experiencing in America can be maintained; perhaps we have a unique opportunity at this
time and place to address the realities of the resource-challenged that live
among us. We can table the debate about
what exactly caused the problems and
put our full focus on addressing the consequences
of the problems. Once folks can get back
on their feet and have a place to walk towards;
we can examine what brought them down to begin with.
Let’s
get one thing clear; the world will not come to an end if Bernie Sanders were
to win the 2020 Presidential Election.
The same can be said for any other Democrat that might acquire the
Democratic nomination. Further, it is
obvious to any person that is paying attention that America is doing just fine
under the Donald Trump Administration and will perk along nicely for another
four years in the event of his re-election. Notwithstanding the fact that each Party
claims an exclusive possession of the silver bullet that guarantees our
nation’s survival and constantly blares the devastating consequences of placing
the other Party in control; neither
one is perfectly ideal nor despicable. So
in spite of all the apocalyptic rhetoric that both national political parties will be flinging over the next few
months; America will go on and the
world will continue to spin. It is the nature of that spin that is in
question. Our nation is stronger and more durable than
the flawed politicians we select to administer its business.
The
naïve ideals of President George W. Bush often came to abrupt collisions with
reality; the democratization of Iraq being a prime example. But his broader concept of compassionate conservatism is a concept
that has always appealed to me. This
term aptly describes someone who can see the role of government extending into
programs that exhibit a social consciousness, but also expects reasonable limits
to be placed on the extent and reach of those programs. At the end of the day, much of this boils
down to how one defines the role of government in American society. And that, my friends, brings me back to my
original point. What presentation of that
political question is clearer than the differing philosophies of Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders?
