The Implications of Macro versus Micro.

The Implications of Macro versus Micro.  I take comfort in the fact that, at least in my own mind, I am everyman.  While it is true that my personal philosophy tends to old-school and conservative beliefs; there are many, many times when I cross over the political line and take a stance on an issue that can be considered  moderate and on rare occasions, somewhat liberal.  I think that my unremarkable life is a good example of what many Americans experience in their own spheres of existence.  This particular blog reflects that assumption.

At some point in the last few years, our society has changed its attitude towards current events, the media, and most things political.   Meanwhile, the mainstream media has taken on an attitude of micro coverage when a President’s policies do not align with their own liberal philosophies.  More specifically, they parse every action or phrase and every policy or initiative in an effort to find any possible error in fact or theory.  Oftentimes, in lieu of factual errors, they cast a shadow upon their subject by simply presenting a side of the story that suits their agenda.  As Orwell famously said: Propaganda is as much a matter of what is left out, as of what is actually said.  They might report a true story; it just isn’t the entire story.  This micro coverage has been most apparent when we have as subjects Republican Presidents or conservative representatives.  In other words, the media representations of “the news” are colored by their personal beliefs.  However, when we have a President that apparently holds the same political philosophy as the mainstream media (i.e. Democrat; more specifically Obama), we see that the media coverage takes a macro approach.  They focus on the bigger, broader, longer range perspective of the action or phrase and, in turn, forgive the occasional misrepresentation or outright distortion of the facts.  They are much more forgiving.  The obvious problem with this media approach is not in the selection of style they choose to employ, micro versus macro; both are legitimate approaches to news coverage.  The problem is in their selectivity of application and the arbitrary nature of how they decide when and where to apply a certain style.  Through this selectivity process, they have exposed their bias and compromised their journalistic integrity.  They have forfeited much, if not most, of the respect that most citizens once held for the media community.  While the public still holds a high regard and loyalty to the necessity of a free press in our society; they have pretty much lost all respect and confidence in the free press we currently have.  

This loss of trust in the media has led the public to adopt a macro approach to the world.  Rather than being manipulated and controlled by the daily headline or the 24-hour news cycle, the American voter now considers a broader and longer picture of events.  Aided by the internet and cable/satellite television, most informed citizens now consider multiple sources and tend to form their judgments over a period of days or weeks, as opposed to minutes or hours.  They have become more sophisticated in their ability to detect bullshit and they are no longer simply pliable victims of a biased mainstream media.

The Trump Administration seems to understand this; but I cannot imagine a more difficult job than that held by Sean Spicer.  President Trump goes around throwing rhetorical bombs and Spicer is left with the chore of coming in to clean up the damage; but here is what I find most amusing.  A pattern seems to be developing where Trump will toss out a particular bomb that will have a flaw or two in a micro sense.  Parts of his statements or tweets are simply wrong.  The media leap upon those flaws with glee and unbound enthusiasm.  As they are wont to do, they overreach and happily go over the top when they find a narrative in which they perceive an opening.  They cannot see the forest (macro) for the trees (micro).  But as we are beginning to realize, many of Trump’s bombs that have micro flaws are quite correct and spot on when we consider them in a macro sense.  At some point, either the press will learn to restrain themselves when micro errors are exposed and wait for the macro picture to accurately unfold or they will continue to be the infantile puppets that are continually having their strings pulled by an amused Trump Administration.  As the old saying goes…If you can’t identify the mark at the poker table, the mark is you.  The mainstream media apparently does not realize it yet as they flounder about to ensnare the Trump Presidency in micro errors, but right now…the mark is them.  What we might be seeing is President Trump’s willingness to lose a micro battle in order win a macro war.  That is pretty shrewd strategy and it will be quite interesting to see how it develops.  Some examples of micro versus micro follow.

Conway and Spicer have been roundly ridiculed in media circles for their phrase alternative facts.  In a micro sense, there is no such thing as alternative facts.  A fact, by its definition, is a single version of a truth.  However, the facts you choose to employ in your argument or presentation makes all the difference in the world.  It is natural that we each choose the selected facts that support our personal beliefs.  Therefore, in the macro sense, there are certainly alternative facts; a different set of facts that another person might choose to present a different version of an event or a position.  The public gets this.  But the press still believes they are the masters of information and can manipulate public sentiment by juxtapositioning their use of micro and macro news coverage. 

Trump pops off about his inaugural crowd size.  His ego pushes him to state that his WDC crowd was as big as or bigger than Obama’s (size does matter…at least to Trump).  The reality is that WDC and the surrounding multi-state region is overwhelmingly Democratic and common sense tells you that it is far easier to gather a crowd from a short distance than from a long distance.  When we couple that with the fact that Obama was the first black President and it was an historical marker that we all celebrated as a nation, it should not be surprising that Obama’s crowd was larger…on the ground…in a micro sense.  However, the overall attendance of Trump’s inauguration, including television/radio/internet, was undoubtedly larger than Obama’s.  Many Americans, like my wife and me, eschewed an expensive trip to WDC by plane or train or car; bypassed the aggravation of dealing with troublesome and perhaps threatening protesters; and saved ourselves the unreasonable expense of accommodations in the WDC area.  We simply watched the inauguration in our sunroom with a cup of coffee.  Point being: in a macro sense, Trump’s crowd was larger.

There will be a Supreme Court nomination next week.  In a micro sense, it will be highly contentious and controversial.  Some are predicting nothing short of world war between conservatives and liberals in Congress when the confirmation process begins in earnest.  However, if we look at this particular nomination in a macro sense, it is entirely likely that the sound and fury will not match the actual conflict on the Senate floor.  This nominee will replace Scalia; one of the most conservative members of the Court.  With Scalia, the Court tended towards a 5-4 conservative tilt; Kennedy and Roberts pleasantly surprising liberals on occasion with their opinions and votes.  This current Trump nominee will simply restore the balance to what it was before Scalia’s death.  I imagine the Democrats will rail and whine, scream and shout, and oppose Trump’s nominee with the requisite liberal blood in their eyes; but they will keep their powder dry and reserve their main artillery for the next nominee that Trump will likely make.  That will be to replace a clearly liberal member with a clearly conservative member and could actually tilt the balance of the court to the right.  That is the macro sense.

Immigration policy is a literal onion of complication and layers and will no doubt expose raw emotion and conflict not only between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Parties themselves.  This is the macro discussion that will require some type of practical disposition about how to deal with the millions of non-criminal illegal aliens currently residing in this country.  But in the micro sense, it is a fact that until we secure our borders and assess the status of immigration laws and policies that currently exist, no meaningful progress can be made on the broad subject of immigration reform.  Trump’s focus on “the wall” and “criminal illegal aliens” addresses this macro problem with a micro approach and the public understands that. 

You waste your time, and sometimes risk your personal safety, preaching to an unemployed man or woman about climate change or white privilege when their main focus is paying for food and utilities, providing shelter for their families, and trying to get their kids raised in a proper fashion.  Trump gets this.  His business-centric background puts a premium on efficiency, effectiveness, and profit.  How this translates to the art of government is yet to be determined; but in the public’s mind, it is clear that the time has come to try out this new approach.  Obama took a macro approach to the world that sought to re-frame our planet and nation in his vision; he was an ideologue.  In his mind, the end justified the means.  Trump takes a micro, pragmatic approach to the Presidency that focuses on jobs, security and the daily concerns of citizen survival.  While preservation of natural resources is important, we must first address providing a decent quality of life for our people.  It is a matter of priorities and the public gets this.

President Trump has been roundly ballyhooed for claiming up to 3 million fraudulent votes kept him from winning the popular vote in the election.  There seems to be little, if any, hard evidence to support a number this large.  However, it is also undeniable that when considering America among the world’s democracies, we have some of the most lax voter identification policies on the planet.  There can be little, if any, doubt that voter fraud does exist and that on certain occasions (I’m looking at you, Senator Franken), it might very well have decided contests that were razor-thin in their margins.  In a micro sense, Trump’s 3 million claim sounds ludicrous and the media is doing their happy dance of ridicule all around it.  In a macro sense, this might be the opening to finally take a serious look at the true extent of voter fraud in this country and the results of that examination might not be what the Democrats would like to expose. 

NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN….no one holds an exclusive franchise on reporting the facts in today’s world.  They are all having an extremely difficult time adjusting to this new reality.  President Trump and the Republicans hold a hard and fast grasp on the raw power numbers that translate into leverage in WDC.  If they have the discipline and backbone to embrace that power and use it effectively, the mainstream media is going to have to grow up and come to grips with their new place in the pecking order.  They are going to have to return to the traditional roles and principles of journalism and compete on the basis of who best reports the factual story in a timely and concise fashion.  They are going to have to understand that the public wants to think for themselves and not be told how they should behave.  The mainstream media is going to have to understand that cannot play their micro versus macro games any longer and try to use them to manipulate the news in a fashion that suits their personal beliefs.  A message to the mainstream media: Let the checkout-lane tabloids and TMZ cover the chickenshit stories that you are so obsessed with these days.  Use your experience, your intelligence, and your resources to cover the important news in today’s world in an honest, balanced, and concise fashion.

It's Not the Man; It's the Message.

It’s Not the Man; It’s the Message.  The arrogance and bluster of President Trump will not serve him well over the balance of his term.  Even though he rhetorically avoided the narcissistic over-usage of self-pronouns ala Obama during his inaugural speech, he nonetheless comes across as eerily similar to Obama in his certitude and air of self importance.  It is unlikely that this is going to change.  Trump has exhibited the same personal style from the day he announced for the Republican nomination to the day he addressed the nation on January 20.  The commendations he will get for consistency and messaging will be severely discounted by his presentation.  The impact of these discounts will be realized in three main areas.

In today’s polarized society, anyone (and I do mean anyone…Attila the Hun, Saul Alinsky, Triple H, Jimmy Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal…) could garner 30-35 percent support if they were perceived as the sole representative of the radical-left or the radical-right in some type of political contest.  The fact is that 35-45 percent of the American public will be opposed to President Trump because he is a Republican; because he defeated Hillary Clinton; because he succeeded Obama; and because his policies will tend to be moderate to conservative.  His critics do not need any rational or pragmatic reason to oppose this man; these reasons in and of themselves prove to be quite sufficient.  So when President Trump begins to infuse his messaging with hubris, overt sarcasm, over-the-top tweets, and a huge ego; it only serves to give those who oppose him on irrational grounds excuses to continue their excitable criticisms.  Rather than pushing them to compete with his policies on a practical and rational basis, it allows them to continue their sophomoric behavior in direct response to his sophomoric behavior.  This, in turn, will give the liberal media all the license it needs to cover his dissenters as though they were Solomonic in their wisdom and demeanor.  Put simply: It gives people that don’t like him and don’t want him to be successful an opening to work against him in ways they wish too.  This they will do with enthusiasm and unless we see the unlikely event of a presidential change in presentation, it will make for an extremely contentious Trump administration.

For those who think Trump is the answer to their long-whispered prayers for a conservative political savior, Trump’s bloviations will only be a distraction from what they consider to be the announcement of a long-awaited and critically-necessary conservative agenda.  His arbitrary and impromptu announcements of broad policy initiatives will open the door for specific policy disagreements within the Republican Party itself.  His tendency to latch onto the phrase that is best turned in a political sense will, at times, be at odds with the phrase that best describes, in a practical sense, what exactly is being proposed.  I could not help noting that from the moment Donald Trump became our next President, all the way back to election day and night, Paul Ryan has been wearing a grin that two gallons of Goop and a case of Brillo pads could not remove.  It is easy to understand why he is happy.  A House majority leader must live for the moment when his or her party controls both Congress and the White House, and they can also 0look forward to a moderate-to-conservative tilt at the Supreme Court.  For quite possibly the first time in his political career, he can sense the prospect of actually generating legislation that will become law.  Once he begins dealing with President Trump’s extemporaneous utterances and tweets on a daily basis, it will be interesting to see how long that grin will last. 

Donald Trump was elected President for many reasons; Russian hacking not being one of them.  In my opinion, foremost among these reasons is the fact that Americans are sick and tired of politics as usual and want to see a change in the way our government conducts its business.  There was a critical moment in the Presidential Race that enabled Trump to win.  That moment was when a sufficient number of people in essential states were convinced not that Trump was the most qualified candidate to be President; not that Trump was the most knowledgeable candidate to be President; not that Trump could be that rare and inspirational leader that would bring our divided nation together…No.  That moment was when these voters were convinced that Trump was not a loose cannon that would incite war, destroy our economy, and allow the train of government to run completely off the rails.  They reached the conclusion that for all of his faults, he was a preferable choice to the corrupt candidacy of Hillary Clinton and was worth a risk.  That risk involves the mandate to employ a new, business-oriented approach to government; an approach that will be devoid-as-possible of politics and will be guided by practical and pragmatic principles; an approach that eschews posturing for performance; an approach that should exhibit results and not rhetoric.  People were, and are, ready for an outsider approach to government administration; Donald Trump was in the right place at the right time to be that outsider.   If he allows himself to confuse his election as a choice of the man instead of a choice of the mission, then he will be doomed to failure.  And that failure, if it occurs, will be monumental in its impact.  Donald Trump represents the first President in my lifetime of 64 years that can truly be characterized as an outsider.  I have witnessed, from inside and outside, the burgeoning and bureaucratic explosion of our government under both Democratic and Republican rule.  Nether national party has demonstrated either the will or the desire to reign in the ever-expanding monstrosity that is the U.S. government.  If Trump fails, the nation’s voters will inevitably turn back to a Democrat or a Republican that will be guided by and possess allegiance to the same old establishment-first, government knows best, all things are good in the name of government philosophy that both national political parties have used to gain and retain political control of this nation for past generations.  Not only will these political vampires regain their foothold on this nation, the electorate that took a chance on Trump will be so disillusioned and dismayed that they will likely give up on seeking an efficient, effective, honest, transparent, and accountable government and simply turn this nation over to the designated politicians from each party and return to leading their lives in a zombie-like fashion.  The chance to recapture the long-lost American dream may be lost for generations and the opportunity to truly make…America Great Again...will disappear down the rabbit hole with Donald Trump.

I hope Democrats can rise above the obstructionist tendencies that they are exhibiting at the present and become true partners in legislation.  I hope that Republicans can resist the temptations that will come with full control of Congress and the White House and understand that they only represent, at best, perhaps two-thirds of this nation.  And I hope that our new President Trump can learn to tone down his over-charged rhetoric and understand the fact that he was not elected because he is The Donald.  He was elected because he represents a new approach to government; a hope for returning government to the service of the people; and a hope for replacing liberal with liberty and conservative with compromise.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  Middle of the road, baby…ain’t nobody perfect.

The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.

The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.  One of the things I have learned from my 30-plus years as a federal employee is that in government, nothing ever really goes away.  As Congress turns over, as Committee leadership and membership rotates from member to member and party to party, old ideas are resurrected.  Programs that once existed are once again introduced; new acronyms and terms dress them up like a premier gown, but the basic principles remain intact.  Every single Senator or Representative that travels to WDC from the great American landscape comes with the notion that they, and they alone, have the solution to all of the current ills in our nation and no one that came before them accomplished anything of substance.  Because of this flaw in our form of government (yes…our government is not perfect!), we are oftentimes condemned to repeat the same legislative and policy mistakes over and over, never learning from our past misadventures.  And unfortunately, in spite of far-too-long tenures of many career politicians, by the time our Congressional Members realize their errors in judgment, their terms expire and the new cast of saviors rolls in, ready to reinvent the wheel and save us from ourselves…once again.

The only solution to this problem that I can imagine is the implementation of term limits; not likely, but more possible perhaps than ever before.  In lieu of term limits, we must rely on the good old process of debate and compromise by the national parties. 

…I pause here for a moment to allow you to roll on the floor in uncontrollable laughter…

Acknowledging that our nation is divided down the middle; knowing that the liberals detest the conservatives just as much as the conservatives detest the liberals; why has our Government persisted in and exacerbated the current dysfunction?  There are many, many reasons for this condition and if there were a simple and central cause, it would be far easier to identify and remedy.  However, due to the complex and arbitrary nature of American politics, the enigma of our Congress persists.  Two of the drivers for this calamity are the failure to negotiate in good faith and the erosion of civility in the debate process.  These are the two items I want to highlight in this blog. 

Although the straw man argument is ageless, no politician in memory has exercised it quite like our current president.  When framing the subject of a debate or negotiation, there are always at least two different perspectives; which is the proper position to assume is entirely a matter of perspective and personal inclination.   But in order to have a meaningful and honest debate, each side must be given the opportunity to espouse its position in its own terms.  Whether or not you agree with a position, the person or entity proposing that position must be granted the chance to persuade you that they are right.  WDC political discourse has thrown this principle overboard in the last decade or two and we now have the age of the straw man (No…this is not the most recent Marvel superhero).  Using this technique, one side will depict their opponent’s position in the most extreme terms, oftentimes beyond any reasonable stretch of reason and resulting in a caricature of the stand they argue against.  They unethically distort the position of those they debate and on occasion, actually use the straw man technique to silence those who do not accept their philosophy hook, line, and sinker.  This is basically a “my way or the highway” philosophy.  Given the divided and partisan nature of our electorate, this strategy finds a friendly and accepting audience on either side of the aisle and has grown both in application and effectiveness.  It is a dishonest and irresponsible way to debate public policy and flies in the face of every democratic (small d) tenet.   If we are going to get back to any semblance of a functioning Legislative and Executive Branch in our government, we must get back to a point where each party has ample opportunity to set forth their positions and those statements are accurately recorded, respected, and repeated.  Each side must stop trying to define their opponent’s position for them in an attempt to distort the discussion and silence those who do not agree with their arguments.  Speak your piece; then shut up and allow the other side to speak.  Do not presume to tell people what to think; tell them what to think about.  It is rare indeed that we do not find merit in both sides of an argument; a fair and honest recognition of that merit, regardless of its quantity, is the key to civility.

And now, let us talk about compromise.  Merriam-Webster defines compromise thusly: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.  Compromise is one of those terms that each of us has to live with on a daily base; life is full of compromise.  Each of us might define compromise in a somewhat different fashion; but we all know what it is in reality and we recognize it when confronted by it.  In WDC, much like the straw man phenomenon, the art of compromise has been distorted beyond practical application.  What we now see as compromise goes pretty much along these lines:  if you want to sit down and discuss with me how we can apply my ideas, then that would be a good compromise. It is no longer a compromise to start from two different points on the continuum and settle on a point somewhere in between.  Now, if either side refuses to throw its own principles aside and simply discuss how the principles of its opponent might be implemented, they are framed as being uncompromising and obstinate.  This is madness.  Compromise is defined by the term “mutual concessions” and that term requires that each opposing side give a little bit towards the other’s position.  Yes, there will be rare occasions when the subject of the debate is sufficiently well-defined and pronounced that an immoveable stand on principle is necessary; but the reality is that those times should be few and far between.  The overwhelming needs for compromise on Capitol Hill fall in the arena of practice, not principle.   Given the partisan nature of our people and the oftentimes unbridgeable gulf that lies between them; it is more imperative than ever that a piece of legislation contain some input from both political parties.   Now I will readily acknowledge that old adage about leading the horse to water remains true.  If your debate opponent simply refuses to participate in good faith and remains inexcusably obstinate; at some point, the process must be concluded and it is accepted that the obstructionist party has foregone their opportunity for meaningful participation.  However, every…single…effort…possible should be expended in a quest to gain some semblance of bipartisan support for legislative initiatives.  It is essential for laws and programs to have credibility if they are going to be accepted and supported by the American people.  It all comes back to each political party accepting the fact that they are not infallible; their judgment is not bullet-proof; they have not cornered the market on wisdom and knowledge; and most important of all…they do represent the views and opinions of every single American citizen.  Compromise is not abject surrender; compromise is “meetin’ in the middle”.  Case in point: Obamacare (ACA) was doomed to failure because of its illegitimate and extraordinary legislative creation.  If, as expected, the current Republican Congress and incoming Republican President repeal Obamacare, then its successor must be a product, at some meaningful level, of bipartisan debate and compromise.  If not, it will likely experience the same fate as Obamacare.

The very essence of our American government is liberty for its citizens and honest representation of those citizens by their elected officials.  This nation is currently built on two-party rule and both those parties must be heard.  If you expect to be heard, you must be civil.  If you expect to remain the party in power, you must allow your opponent to be heard.  The straw men must be burned and the insurmountable compromises must be overcome.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  Middle of the road, baby…ain’t nobody perfect.

College Football Foolishness.

College Football Foolishness.  Any NASCAR fan has noticed a significant happening over the last few years…the crowds are shrinking.  All professional sports are contending with the newfound competition of affordable home viewing of sporting events.  High def televisions are easily affordable and when paired up with cable or satellite packages, watching the big game from home has become (for many) preferable to the stadium experience.  Even though the game-day experience is a unique and exciting process, the fact is that it has become very expensive and logistically more challenging.  There is a reason that new stadium and arena projects are focusing more on the individual fan experience rather than the number of fans the structure can accommodate.  Consistently selling out seating capacity is far preferable to impressive, but less than capacity, crowds. 

Enter the college football post-season carnival.  What is the NCAA’s response to this new viewer challenge from the world of high tech?  In all of their wisdom, how have they decided to expand and improve their area of college athletics?  Why, of course…we will expand the college bowl landscape!  And because there will not be enough teams with winning records (such a pathetically low bar to clear) to populate the ever-increasing number of bowls, we will annually allow select teams with .500 winning percentages to complete in bowl games.  Pure genius!  And now, having created this master stroke of marketing, NCAA football is right there with NASCAR; the television cameras never show the stands because they are most times sparsely occupied.  I love college football, but post-season play should return to the traditional value of representing an award for outstanding season play; not an excuse for X number of additional practices and corporate sponsor wallowing in salary and expense excesses. 

This brings us inevitably to the NCAA college football playoff.  Perhaps I see things far too simply in black and white shades, but I continue to be astounded at the NCAA’s refusal to conduct an expanded college football playoff that will crown an annual champion, that is determined by actual plays made on the field, will return the true excitement of the college football games to the campus where it best exists, and will once again make a conference championship something worth obtaining.  As long as a committee, or a computer program, or a combination thereof selects who is and who is not qualified to complete for the annual college football championship, there will be injustice in the process.  We need only look at the NCAA basketball tournaments for guidance.  Undeniably one of the most exciting events in sports, the NCAA basketball tournaments showcase the best of college basketball and effectively integrate the players, the students, the fans, and the media in an effective and mesmerizing blend of broadcast coverage.  Do the big name schools from the Power Five conferences usually win the tournament?  Yes, they do; but that is no reason to discount the occasional Cinderella that goes deep into the tournament with upsets and, on that rare and truly special occasion, wins the tournament outright. 

There are many who say that NCAA college football cannot logistically accomplish a tournament similar to the basketball model.  That is bull.  Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports long ago put forth the best blueprint I have seen for NCAA football championship playoff; here is your link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/college-football-playoff-plan-132100316--ncaaf.html .  In his proposal, Wetzel shatters all of the shallow and self-serving arguments put up by the vested interests (including the NCAA) that control college athletics.  THIS is how a college football champion should be decided and crowned.  With this system in place, every single regular season game will be meaningful because it will lead to the conference championship.  With this system in place, the treasure trove of dollars that postseason college football generates will go largely back to the universities that create the game; not the corporate carpetbaggers who profit from it.  With this system in place, every NCAA school that competes in football will have a real opportunity to compete for a championship on the field of play (not be arbitrarily eliminated by a committee of “chosen” men/women).  And with this system, the excitement and participation in the NCAA college football playoff will reach levels never before dreamed of and will be well-positioned to address the evolving landscape of college athletics going into the future.

Let’s put the fans back in the stands.  Let’s put the dollars back in the university budgets.  Let’s give every team a fair chance to compete for the top prize in their sport.  And most important of all, let’s get a true champion that is determined on the field of play and not as the result of NCAA Committee wrangling, dealing, and compromise.

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.