Sanders Land, Clinton Castle.
Issue:
Forget the Republicans. The 2016 election race for the office of United States President is between the two Democratic Party contenders, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
A brief synopsis of the Republican field follows this essay.
Deception:
Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that she is the most qualified candidate for President but she is not. She has serious and fundamental flaws in her approach to governance that stand in stark contrast to the inclusionist approach of Bernie Sanders.
Reality:
A fundamental difference defines the two candidates and their philosophies, their approach to governance and their probable success at leading the country to a better life. While amply reflected by their policies, which many claim to be very similar, the true difference is illustrated in their use of language and campaign styles.
Bernie Sanders speaks consistently of "we", understanding that the body politic of a democracy is best served if empowered to participate in governing the country with as much responsibility as elected representatives. Indeed, it is essential that political and governing action include the people whose lives are so defined and styled by government and who, through direct participation, can make their voices clearly heard and foster favorable action by government agencies.
Contrast Bernie Sanders' approach with that of Hillary Clinton, who consistently speaks of "I". As in, "Give me your vote and I will take care of you." Ostentatious, yes, but more critically her use of this language betrays her immense ego. Hillary has so many of the "right" credentials: attorney, first spouse of a governor and president, Senator, Secretary of State etc. Yet credentials do not translate into wisdom or intelligence even as they do prove one's ability to play the game with a measure of success. She lacks any real commitment to the inclusion of others in her approach to governance.
Hillary Clinton's emphasis on her experience and credentials blinds her to the realities of voters who are no longer impressed by the power of institutions and their progeny. Voters are increasingly looking for inspiration and new approaches and possibilities, not a continuation of failed initiatives by the nation's entrenched forces of big business and its representatives who cycle through the governing boards of our country and corporations as through the proverbial revolving door. Her reliance on her ability to "play the game" led her to believe that she was far more worthy of leading the country than Barack Obama in 2008, an assumption that proved wildly out-of-touch with voters. Yet she has made the same erroneous presumption in 2016 as she campaigns against the powerful appeal of a self-described Democratic Socialist who inspires voters to think differently.
Bernie Sanders not only inspires, he recognizes that Hillary Clinton's ironclad belief in her invincibility as the presumptive nominee is a profound weakness of her campaign. It is an easy flaw to expose because it is an empty, vacuous argument for obtaining power.
Bernie Sanders, by way of contrast, does not cast himself as our savior or even as the central figure in his campaign. He believes firmly in the power and capacity for government to do great good for its citizens, yet recognizes that it is not sufficient for the electorate to do little more than cast votes to choose who will supposedly represent them, especially in a populous nation that cannot possibly manage a Congressional population large enough to bring representatives close to their constituents.
(The average number of constituents per representative (House of Representives) today is approximately 700,000 - this in a political system originally designed for a ratio closer to 40,000 constituents per representive. The ration of constituents to representatives in Canada is far smaller than in the United States, with the average parliamentary representative overseeing the interests of just 35,000 - 125,000 constituents. In which country do you suppose the people feel closer to their government?)
Bernie Sanders knows that the best leadership sees to it that the population is empowered through direct participation. He knows that an effective leader encourages his or her constituents to assume a share of responsibility for governance through participation. He understands that the more voices that are heard the more responsive governrnent can be to the needs and desires of its people and therefore be more successful in their pursuit of happiness, prosperity and peace.
Bernie Sanders also recognizes that this country has always been built upon a foundation that is as much socialism as democracy or capitalism. As noted in other essays, capitalism is not democracy, it is an economic philosophy that a democracy often adopts. He also recognizes that socialism is not democracy per se, but a socio-economic philosophy that is an essential part of any democratic society, for what is socialism if not government itself? Please read the essay "Socialism" for a deeper analysis.
Hillary Clinton acts largely alone. She rolled over for George W. Bush and his team of storm troopers when they asked for support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, two utterly disastrous wars that virtually bankrupted this country, both financially and morally, and led directly to the current implosion of society in much of the Middle East. Rather than stand for what was right at a most critical turning point in United States foreign policy, Hillary Clinton chose what she saw as the most politically expedient way for her to curry favor with a terrified electorate. This is not leadership nor is is effective governance. It is abject self-interest in political survival, the cost of which is measured not just in financial and moral ruin in the U.S. but unimaginable death and destruction throughout the Levant that eventually spread across the Miiddle East.
Ironically, these votes have returned to haunt her, yet she wants us to believe that we all thought these wars were necessary. Not true; all one need do is refer back to a brief broadside put out by Global Exchange of San Francisco in the lead-up to the war against Iraq to see that many people saw very clearly the end result the war would bring. One of countless documents foretelling the eventual disaster of this war, you can view the broadside here (PDF file) and at the end of this essay.
As if these actions were not enough to demonstrate her self-interest overriding effective national leadership, as a prominent Senator with great power in both her party and Congress Hillary Clinton refused to even discuss or debate her decision with colleagues. It was enough that she was Hillary Clinton, the powerful and influential Senator we should all trust to make the correct decision without the benefit of our viewpoints.
This kingly attitude has been demonstrated again adnd again, and again. Examples:
• Health care reform:
Beginning with the ascendency of her husband Bill Clinton to the U.S. Presidency in 1993, Hillary Clinton took on the task of leading the U.S. into a sea-change in health care with the aim of creating a universal (as opposed to more desirable and effective single-payer) system. At first blush a noble goal (see the essay "Health Insurance") but one that failed miserably, in large part because her approach was not one of collaboration but dictitorial demand and a secretive approach, aided and abetted with fatal results by the inexperience of the plan's lead point person, Ira Magaziner, a plan that was impossibly complex and relied on excessive government involvement in managing health care without removing the expensive irresponsibility of either the for-profit health insurance companies or the nation's employers. She managed to alienate too many people with her dogged insistence that she and her inexperienced team knew best, and the for-profit insurance industry fought her tooth-and-nail with a well-financed propaganda campaign. This set back health reform by a measure of oh, twenty years. That is a very long time for the sick and dying to endure.
• Welfare reform:
One of the most mean-spirited legislative acts to come out of even a rabidly conservative Congress and Presidential administration, this capitulation by the Democrats to the crazed and selfish ravings of the political right-wing factions ruined lives, inflicting particularly harsh and punitive restrictions on the healthy development and happiness of children across our land. Hillary Clinton stood with her weak-willed husband Bill as he signed the legislation against the advice of many others in his administration, goaded on by the tobacco heir vice-president, Al Gore. Today she weakly attempts to hope we will all forget her sorry involvement in that cruel mess.
• Wall Street and auto-industry bailouts:
Enough has been said of Hillary Clinton's open pandering to the wishes of Wall Street, that venerable U.S. institution that managed to take us so far down the rabbit hole of financial Wonderland that its rescue was made possible only by the largest bailout in U.S. history, one which pulled the big banks and financial firms from the dark abyss but left the rest of us to wander through the hell of the Red Queen's world of misery, inequality and desperation. Yet to this day Hillary Clinton refuses to share with us the pearls of wisdom she cast upon the bankers and financial brokers who paid so much for the privilege of receiving her stellar financial advice and support in speeches for which she obtained princely sums of cash. Say what you want about her support for the auto-industry bailout, which was attached to the Wall Street bailout legislation; whatever your own viewpoint we must acknowledge that to this day she is untruthful about that vote. To wit: Hillary Clinton claims that Bernie Sanders voted against the auto-industry bailout legislation. This is a lie; Bernie Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout when it had been forcibly appended with the auto-industry bailout, but he supported the auto-industry bailout as a stand-alone issue. This is a fundamental trick Hillary repeated plays in her campaign against Bernie Sanders - misrepresenting the messy process of legislation to make him look irresponsible.
• The war against Libya:
Hillary Clinton's advice to President Obama to invade Libya resulted in the complete destruction of Libyan society and caused further destabilization in North Africa. This is serving no good purpose for anyone, but further demonstrates her extremely hawkish approach to dealing with nations that don't comport to U.S. expectations.
• International Trade Deals:
World trade can be a positive, contributing factor to a nation's prosperity, standard of living and peaceful cooperation with other nations but must not be at the expense of well paying jobs and sensible safety and environmental regulations at home. Hillary Clinton has been a staunch supporter of several international trade agreements that have, unfortunately, been very destructive to the U.S. on each of these counts. Only under pressure from the rise of support for Bernie Sanders' more pragmatic approach to trade has she backed off some of her commitments to these highly flawed agreements.
Hillary Clinton's campaign style is all about "me" and "I". It demonstrates little regard for the inclusionary participation of the populace in governance. In opposition to the approach of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton wants us to trust her with the decision-making required to run our government yet wants us to forget her more egregious errors in judgment and action.
Bernie wants us to be part of the entire process; Hillary wants us to simply hand her the power.
Resolution:
I do not want to live and toil in the infertile fields outside the ramparts of Clinton Castle. I want to live within the welcoming embrace of Sanders Land, a place where my direct connection to the land of peace, prosperity and participation is a welcome addition. I do not want to be told what is best for me; I want a role in defining that and bringing it to fruition. This is not the promise of Hillary Clinton but the goal of Bernie Sanders.
Ask yourself who you trust most to lead your country: one whose approach to leadership relies on secret meetings on issues of vital public interest or one who believes we must all be part of the process? One who would just as soon invade another country with armaments as opposed to negotiating with diplomats, or one who favors constructive collaboration with even the most intransigent of foreign powers as a means for obtaining mutual benefit and peace? One whose faith in themselves is paramount or one whose faith in us is a fundamental element of their leadership style?
Bernie Sanders can lead us into Sanders Land if elected, and that possibility is still strong. Whether due to his continued success at the polls, at least enough to lead to an open convention, or due to a major mis-step by the Clinton campaign or an indictment of Hillary Clinton either before or following the convention in one of the three federal investigations currently examining her actions, or due to a greater realization by the party of these fundamental differences between the candidates, Bernie Sanders cannot be written off. And woe to Hillary Clinton should she pull off the election but fail to include Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the governance of our nation. Hillary Clinton cannot do it alone from her castle. She must include the people of Sanders Land.
Essay published April 1, 2016
Forget the Republicans. The 2016 election race for the office of United States President is between the two Democratic Party contenders, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
A brief synopsis of the Republican field follows this essay.
Deception:
Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that she is the most qualified candidate for President but she is not. She has serious and fundamental flaws in her approach to governance that stand in stark contrast to the inclusionist approach of Bernie Sanders.
Reality:
A fundamental difference defines the two candidates and their philosophies, their approach to governance and their probable success at leading the country to a better life. While amply reflected by their policies, which many claim to be very similar, the true difference is illustrated in their use of language and campaign styles.
Bernie Sanders speaks consistently of "we", understanding that the body politic of a democracy is best served if empowered to participate in governing the country with as much responsibility as elected representatives. Indeed, it is essential that political and governing action include the people whose lives are so defined and styled by government and who, through direct participation, can make their voices clearly heard and foster favorable action by government agencies.
Contrast Bernie Sanders' approach with that of Hillary Clinton, who consistently speaks of "I". As in, "Give me your vote and I will take care of you." Ostentatious, yes, but more critically her use of this language betrays her immense ego. Hillary has so many of the "right" credentials: attorney, first spouse of a governor and president, Senator, Secretary of State etc. Yet credentials do not translate into wisdom or intelligence even as they do prove one's ability to play the game with a measure of success. She lacks any real commitment to the inclusion of others in her approach to governance.
Hillary Clinton's emphasis on her experience and credentials blinds her to the realities of voters who are no longer impressed by the power of institutions and their progeny. Voters are increasingly looking for inspiration and new approaches and possibilities, not a continuation of failed initiatives by the nation's entrenched forces of big business and its representatives who cycle through the governing boards of our country and corporations as through the proverbial revolving door. Her reliance on her ability to "play the game" led her to believe that she was far more worthy of leading the country than Barack Obama in 2008, an assumption that proved wildly out-of-touch with voters. Yet she has made the same erroneous presumption in 2016 as she campaigns against the powerful appeal of a self-described Democratic Socialist who inspires voters to think differently.
Bernie Sanders not only inspires, he recognizes that Hillary Clinton's ironclad belief in her invincibility as the presumptive nominee is a profound weakness of her campaign. It is an easy flaw to expose because it is an empty, vacuous argument for obtaining power.
Bernie Sanders, by way of contrast, does not cast himself as our savior or even as the central figure in his campaign. He believes firmly in the power and capacity for government to do great good for its citizens, yet recognizes that it is not sufficient for the electorate to do little more than cast votes to choose who will supposedly represent them, especially in a populous nation that cannot possibly manage a Congressional population large enough to bring representatives close to their constituents.
(The average number of constituents per representative (House of Representives) today is approximately 700,000 - this in a political system originally designed for a ratio closer to 40,000 constituents per representive. The ration of constituents to representatives in Canada is far smaller than in the United States, with the average parliamentary representative overseeing the interests of just 35,000 - 125,000 constituents. In which country do you suppose the people feel closer to their government?)
Bernie Sanders knows that the best leadership sees to it that the population is empowered through direct participation. He knows that an effective leader encourages his or her constituents to assume a share of responsibility for governance through participation. He understands that the more voices that are heard the more responsive governrnent can be to the needs and desires of its people and therefore be more successful in their pursuit of happiness, prosperity and peace.
Bernie Sanders also recognizes that this country has always been built upon a foundation that is as much socialism as democracy or capitalism. As noted in other essays, capitalism is not democracy, it is an economic philosophy that a democracy often adopts. He also recognizes that socialism is not democracy per se, but a socio-economic philosophy that is an essential part of any democratic society, for what is socialism if not government itself? Please read the essay "Socialism" for a deeper analysis.
Hillary Clinton acts largely alone. She rolled over for George W. Bush and his team of storm troopers when they asked for support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, two utterly disastrous wars that virtually bankrupted this country, both financially and morally, and led directly to the current implosion of society in much of the Middle East. Rather than stand for what was right at a most critical turning point in United States foreign policy, Hillary Clinton chose what she saw as the most politically expedient way for her to curry favor with a terrified electorate. This is not leadership nor is is effective governance. It is abject self-interest in political survival, the cost of which is measured not just in financial and moral ruin in the U.S. but unimaginable death and destruction throughout the Levant that eventually spread across the Miiddle East.
Ironically, these votes have returned to haunt her, yet she wants us to believe that we all thought these wars were necessary. Not true; all one need do is refer back to a brief broadside put out by Global Exchange of San Francisco in the lead-up to the war against Iraq to see that many people saw very clearly the end result the war would bring. One of countless documents foretelling the eventual disaster of this war, you can view the broadside here (PDF file) and at the end of this essay.
As if these actions were not enough to demonstrate her self-interest overriding effective national leadership, as a prominent Senator with great power in both her party and Congress Hillary Clinton refused to even discuss or debate her decision with colleagues. It was enough that she was Hillary Clinton, the powerful and influential Senator we should all trust to make the correct decision without the benefit of our viewpoints.
This kingly attitude has been demonstrated again adnd again, and again. Examples:
• Health care reform:
Beginning with the ascendency of her husband Bill Clinton to the U.S. Presidency in 1993, Hillary Clinton took on the task of leading the U.S. into a sea-change in health care with the aim of creating a universal (as opposed to more desirable and effective single-payer) system. At first blush a noble goal (see the essay "Health Insurance") but one that failed miserably, in large part because her approach was not one of collaboration but dictitorial demand and a secretive approach, aided and abetted with fatal results by the inexperience of the plan's lead point person, Ira Magaziner, a plan that was impossibly complex and relied on excessive government involvement in managing health care without removing the expensive irresponsibility of either the for-profit health insurance companies or the nation's employers. She managed to alienate too many people with her dogged insistence that she and her inexperienced team knew best, and the for-profit insurance industry fought her tooth-and-nail with a well-financed propaganda campaign. This set back health reform by a measure of oh, twenty years. That is a very long time for the sick and dying to endure.
• Welfare reform:
One of the most mean-spirited legislative acts to come out of even a rabidly conservative Congress and Presidential administration, this capitulation by the Democrats to the crazed and selfish ravings of the political right-wing factions ruined lives, inflicting particularly harsh and punitive restrictions on the healthy development and happiness of children across our land. Hillary Clinton stood with her weak-willed husband Bill as he signed the legislation against the advice of many others in his administration, goaded on by the tobacco heir vice-president, Al Gore. Today she weakly attempts to hope we will all forget her sorry involvement in that cruel mess.
• Wall Street and auto-industry bailouts:
Enough has been said of Hillary Clinton's open pandering to the wishes of Wall Street, that venerable U.S. institution that managed to take us so far down the rabbit hole of financial Wonderland that its rescue was made possible only by the largest bailout in U.S. history, one which pulled the big banks and financial firms from the dark abyss but left the rest of us to wander through the hell of the Red Queen's world of misery, inequality and desperation. Yet to this day Hillary Clinton refuses to share with us the pearls of wisdom she cast upon the bankers and financial brokers who paid so much for the privilege of receiving her stellar financial advice and support in speeches for which she obtained princely sums of cash. Say what you want about her support for the auto-industry bailout, which was attached to the Wall Street bailout legislation; whatever your own viewpoint we must acknowledge that to this day she is untruthful about that vote. To wit: Hillary Clinton claims that Bernie Sanders voted against the auto-industry bailout legislation. This is a lie; Bernie Sanders voted against the Wall Street bailout when it had been forcibly appended with the auto-industry bailout, but he supported the auto-industry bailout as a stand-alone issue. This is a fundamental trick Hillary repeated plays in her campaign against Bernie Sanders - misrepresenting the messy process of legislation to make him look irresponsible.
• The war against Libya:
Hillary Clinton's advice to President Obama to invade Libya resulted in the complete destruction of Libyan society and caused further destabilization in North Africa. This is serving no good purpose for anyone, but further demonstrates her extremely hawkish approach to dealing with nations that don't comport to U.S. expectations.
• International Trade Deals:
World trade can be a positive, contributing factor to a nation's prosperity, standard of living and peaceful cooperation with other nations but must not be at the expense of well paying jobs and sensible safety and environmental regulations at home. Hillary Clinton has been a staunch supporter of several international trade agreements that have, unfortunately, been very destructive to the U.S. on each of these counts. Only under pressure from the rise of support for Bernie Sanders' more pragmatic approach to trade has she backed off some of her commitments to these highly flawed agreements.
Hillary Clinton's campaign style is all about "me" and "I". It demonstrates little regard for the inclusionary participation of the populace in governance. In opposition to the approach of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton wants us to trust her with the decision-making required to run our government yet wants us to forget her more egregious errors in judgment and action.
Bernie wants us to be part of the entire process; Hillary wants us to simply hand her the power.
Resolution:
I do not want to live and toil in the infertile fields outside the ramparts of Clinton Castle. I want to live within the welcoming embrace of Sanders Land, a place where my direct connection to the land of peace, prosperity and participation is a welcome addition. I do not want to be told what is best for me; I want a role in defining that and bringing it to fruition. This is not the promise of Hillary Clinton but the goal of Bernie Sanders.
Ask yourself who you trust most to lead your country: one whose approach to leadership relies on secret meetings on issues of vital public interest or one who believes we must all be part of the process? One who would just as soon invade another country with armaments as opposed to negotiating with diplomats, or one who favors constructive collaboration with even the most intransigent of foreign powers as a means for obtaining mutual benefit and peace? One whose faith in themselves is paramount or one whose faith in us is a fundamental element of their leadership style?
Bernie Sanders can lead us into Sanders Land if elected, and that possibility is still strong. Whether due to his continued success at the polls, at least enough to lead to an open convention, or due to a major mis-step by the Clinton campaign or an indictment of Hillary Clinton either before or following the convention in one of the three federal investigations currently examining her actions, or due to a greater realization by the party of these fundamental differences between the candidates, Bernie Sanders cannot be written off. And woe to Hillary Clinton should she pull off the election but fail to include Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the governance of our nation. Hillary Clinton cannot do it alone from her castle. She must include the people of Sanders Land.
Essay published April 1, 2016
Addendums:
Sky-High Pie:
The Hillary Clinton campaign and others are making numerous arguments as to why it's not "smart" to vote for Bernie Sanders. This aside dispenses with these quickly. They can all be labeled "Sky-High Pie": like a meringue topping, they may be tasty but they are all fluff, no substance.
• Bernie Sanders' proposals are "Pie In The Sky":
Hillary Clinton claims that his single-payer health care plan will never make it through Congress, for example. She is operating from the viewpoint of her own unfortunate experience of more than twenty years ago when she tried to cobble together an impossibly complex system that failed to remove the for-profit insurance industry from our health care system. This is covered in more detail in the main essay above. Times have changed, and Bernie Sanders has committed to true health care reform and already has significant support for his proposal. Single-payer can work every bit as well as Social Security, which has been a phenomenal success in the more than 70 years of its existence. Please read the essay "Social Security Solvency" for greater depth on this issue.
• A vote against Hillary Clinton is a vote against women (or women's rights):
This is a particularly egregious argument that bears no weight. Yes, there are those who are sexist and will never vote for any woman, just as there are those who are racist and will never vote for an African-American (Barak Obama) or anti-semitic and will never vote for a Jew (Bernie Sanders), but anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton primarily because she is a woman is sexist. Let us all welcome the twenty-first century and vote on policy and human decency, not labels.
• "America" will never elect a socialist:
Sheer poppycock. Bernie Sanders is proving that the U.S. electorate is ready to cast off the age-old fear of socialism, recognizing that it is not a threat but a fundamental element of our society, and has been since the nation's founding. Please read the essay "Socialism" for greater depth on this issue.
• The Undemocratic Bias of the Mainstream Media:
If we learn anything from this election it is that the mainstream media (think CNN, Fox News, The New York Times and most major news channels) is so craven that they would rather provide the lion's share of coverage to the candidate with the most outrageous claims (Donald Trump) to sell news than highlight the accomplishments of the candidate who is doing the most to transform our politics into a more humane and sensible endeavor (Bernie Sanders). Their failure to give the Bernie Sanders campaign any credence until very recently is testament to their bias against those who seek truly positive change.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and others are making numerous arguments as to why it's not "smart" to vote for Bernie Sanders. This aside dispenses with these quickly. They can all be labeled "Sky-High Pie": like a meringue topping, they may be tasty but they are all fluff, no substance.
• Bernie Sanders' proposals are "Pie In The Sky":
Hillary Clinton claims that his single-payer health care plan will never make it through Congress, for example. She is operating from the viewpoint of her own unfortunate experience of more than twenty years ago when she tried to cobble together an impossibly complex system that failed to remove the for-profit insurance industry from our health care system. This is covered in more detail in the main essay above. Times have changed, and Bernie Sanders has committed to true health care reform and already has significant support for his proposal. Single-payer can work every bit as well as Social Security, which has been a phenomenal success in the more than 70 years of its existence. Please read the essay "Social Security Solvency" for greater depth on this issue.
• A vote against Hillary Clinton is a vote against women (or women's rights):
This is a particularly egregious argument that bears no weight. Yes, there are those who are sexist and will never vote for any woman, just as there are those who are racist and will never vote for an African-American (Barak Obama) or anti-semitic and will never vote for a Jew (Bernie Sanders), but anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton primarily because she is a woman is sexist. Let us all welcome the twenty-first century and vote on policy and human decency, not labels.
• "America" will never elect a socialist:
Sheer poppycock. Bernie Sanders is proving that the U.S. electorate is ready to cast off the age-old fear of socialism, recognizing that it is not a threat but a fundamental element of our society, and has been since the nation's founding. Please read the essay "Socialism" for greater depth on this issue.
• The Undemocratic Bias of the Mainstream Media:
If we learn anything from this election it is that the mainstream media (think CNN, Fox News, The New York Times and most major news channels) is so craven that they would rather provide the lion's share of coverage to the candidate with the most outrageous claims (Donald Trump) to sell news than highlight the accomplishments of the candidate who is doing the most to transform our politics into a more humane and sensible endeavor (Bernie Sanders). Their failure to give the Bernie Sanders campaign any credence until very recently is testament to their bias against those who seek truly positive change.
The Republican Field:
The Republican field for U.S. President is, by any measure, a hapless lot. The three remaining contenders out of the original field of 16 is comprised of three men who have nary a clue regarding effective governance:
• John Kasich:
Though arguably the most civil and experienced of the three, he cannot manage to get out of the single digits in the polls and has won just one state, that of Ohio, of which he is governor. Perhaps this speaks less to his effectiveness than to the short-sighted and myopic views of the average Republican primary voter, or to the steamrolling if inexplicable support for Donald Trump. Regardless, his chance of garnering the nomination rests solely on his acceptability to delegates at a wide-open convention, but it is just as likely that a brokered convention will instead pull in a dark horse candidate such as Mitt Romney or someone more obscure and even more milktoast. As for the general election, John Kasich's views are too conservative for the larger electorate and he is less charismatic or inspiring than either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• Ted Cruz:
Widely disliked by even his own party, infamous for the contempt he demonstrates for almost everyone in the country and for the contempt in which he is held by most Republican congressional representatives and senators, and roundly criticized for his wildly right-wing policies, any success in pulling off the Republican nomination will be all but neutralized in the general election by a public that will prefer either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• Donald Trump:
A bona-fide clown who is nothing more than a tinpot dictator putting on a grand if disgusting vaudeville show. Entertaining to some, he lacks any coherent policies, favoring instead a shock and awe shtick that strikes a chord with a strong but very narrow range of voters. In the general election he would be roundly trounced by either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• A "Dark Horse" candidate:
One not yet revealed stands perhaps the best chance of obtaining the Republican nomination in an open convention. Yet the party has consistently exhibited a stubborn inability to change course in the face of impending doom and is unlikely to take this risk. Even if it does, it is hard to imagine any Republican who could muster the popularity this late in the election process to defeat Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Yes, anything is possible. But the most probable outcome is continued inability of the Republican Party to coalesce behind a truly capable and electable member who can outshine either Democrat.
The Republican field for U.S. President is, by any measure, a hapless lot. The three remaining contenders out of the original field of 16 is comprised of three men who have nary a clue regarding effective governance:
• John Kasich:
Though arguably the most civil and experienced of the three, he cannot manage to get out of the single digits in the polls and has won just one state, that of Ohio, of which he is governor. Perhaps this speaks less to his effectiveness than to the short-sighted and myopic views of the average Republican primary voter, or to the steamrolling if inexplicable support for Donald Trump. Regardless, his chance of garnering the nomination rests solely on his acceptability to delegates at a wide-open convention, but it is just as likely that a brokered convention will instead pull in a dark horse candidate such as Mitt Romney or someone more obscure and even more milktoast. As for the general election, John Kasich's views are too conservative for the larger electorate and he is less charismatic or inspiring than either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• Ted Cruz:
Widely disliked by even his own party, infamous for the contempt he demonstrates for almost everyone in the country and for the contempt in which he is held by most Republican congressional representatives and senators, and roundly criticized for his wildly right-wing policies, any success in pulling off the Republican nomination will be all but neutralized in the general election by a public that will prefer either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• Donald Trump:
A bona-fide clown who is nothing more than a tinpot dictator putting on a grand if disgusting vaudeville show. Entertaining to some, he lacks any coherent policies, favoring instead a shock and awe shtick that strikes a chord with a strong but very narrow range of voters. In the general election he would be roundly trounced by either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.
• A "Dark Horse" candidate:
One not yet revealed stands perhaps the best chance of obtaining the Republican nomination in an open convention. Yet the party has consistently exhibited a stubborn inability to change course in the face of impending doom and is unlikely to take this risk. Even if it does, it is hard to imagine any Republican who could muster the popularity this late in the election process to defeat Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Yes, anything is possible. But the most probable outcome is continued inability of the Republican Party to coalesce behind a truly capable and electable member who can outshine either Democrat.
The Global Exchange prediction for the ultimate failure of the U.S. invasion of Iraq (published in 2002):
• PDF File (click here to open).
• Full Text (click here to open in separate browser window).
• PDF File (click here to open).
• Full Text (click here to open in separate browser window).