I have watched, with some morbid fascination, many presidential run ups in the United States. Never, have I seen such an unqualified bunch of fools that pretend to present themselves as qualified to govern the United States of America. An admission: I am probably to the left of the most left US Democrat. That being said I can't imagine that the designation of a candidate from the current bunch could present a "close vote" for the incumbent. From candidates that want Congress to be a part time job, to those who would ship more than 10 million undocumented residents home--or put them into an interment camp, to those who would have the Supreme Court Justices justify a decision in a public forum, to those who would bleed the country dry before they would agree to any tax increase, the current range of candidates go from deranged to ingenious to outright stupid. It might be comical but it is at least likely that one of these jokers could become President of the United States. I have, for the life to me, tried to understand how such a crew could be considered a candidate for such a pivotal job. Here are some thoughts.
From the beginnings of the Obama presidency the Republicans have tried to isolate him. With great success. He had campaigned on the idea of inclusiveness and bipartisanship politics. It was never to be. I would like to think that the Republican response to him had little to do with colour but I am not so sure of that. Obama reached out during the healthcare legislative process and gave up his most prized provision--on the public option where an insured could go to a government agency when all else failed him--and was slapped in the face. The legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Because he believed in inclusiveness President Obama left the business of Congress to Congress. He was not an overly proactive President. In return Congress--even those in his own party--marginalized him. He is seen by the right as a socialist and by the left as having moved too far to the right. So, he is again marginalized. His strength with the uncommitted voter has eroded so much that barely half the electorate see him as having done a good job as President. That is not to say that the uncommitted voter will vote Republican with the current bunch of crazies but it will be an uphill battle for the Obama constituency to win them over. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. The marginalization of the President has had the effect of making him fair game with even the most outlandish of candidates.
The American electorate is thoroughly confused. The President, while giving billions to the banks, is seen as not having helped the man on main street. True, President Obama inherited much of the economic mess he's in but he wanted the job and, as second prize, got it. The job creation part of the job was put on the burner and should have been addressed when he had a majority in both houses. Now the job creation legislation is bound to fail: any job creation legislation will be seen as a "victory" for President Obama. The plight of those who have lost their homes has not been helped by a government that would not let the market decide the value of mortgage investments being held by the bank. Accordingly the banks would not write down their mortgage investments in hope that a government rescue was on their way. Not writing down their investments directly affected the homeowner who could not restructure or write down his loan. It is generally acknowledged that small business creates jobs faster than large business. Small business needs credit for inventory, financing of accounts receivable, etc. The local banks were not lending. Whatever the bailout money did for the banks it did not increase local lending. Therefore local business was not hiring. What should have been apparent was that job creation--not healthcare-was job one. Any government help to create jobs has an immediate return on payroll deductions; the unemployed to not pay taxes. The seemingly abandonment of the man on main street has worked to the benefit of the Republicans. Small government, states rights, low taxes fall on fertile ears when the man on the street is under fire from all sides.
Extremism and stupidity begets more extremism and stupidity. Rather than stand "above the crowd", each candidate is in a race to the bottom. Take the issue of healthcare reform. Mitt Romney instituted healthcare reform in Massachusetts some years ago. The program is still in force and echoes, in many respects, the federal legislation that was to follow. Romney is being tarred with this today. He had to admit that his support of healthcare was a "mistake". The candidates position on foreign policy is laughable. Ron Paul could not identify many of the countries under siege today let alone formulate a policy with respect to them. Given that government is one of the largest employers in the land severe reduction of government will create massive unemployment. No one has attacked the dismal state of education in the US. If Republicans are pro business explain their position on free trade? In short, if the stakes were not so high, the present bunch would be comedic. I could go on.
What we are seeing is an entire failure of government--at least at the federal level. The President has been rendered fairly ineffectual. He squandered his political capital on non essential legislation (when compared to job creation). Congress can't get beyond sound bites. Entrench positions are so deep so that essential legislation is frustrated. The electorate does not know where to turn. So they turn to a bunch of clowns with easy answers. It will be interesting to see who can sound a wake up call to the American electorate. For wake up they will. What they do, as awake, may have some disturbing results. Let's see.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment