The recent SCOTUS decision overturning the corruption of Rowe vs. Wade showcases the problems facing Democrat Presidential potentials on moral issues; they simply cannot demur on support for what are regarded as immoral choices demanded by Democrat voters, and that loses many independents. Democrats talk about freedom of choice, and that should mean freedom of choice to conceive or not, rather than abort. Many Americans do not want to be accomplices of infanticide by having abortion legal within their jurisdiction. Republicans on the contrary are fairly firm on their moral positions and it is economic and environmental challenges that win or lose elections for them.
I should note right off that Americans seem to prefer conflict and head-on political crashes to subtle maneuvers that allow people traveling in opposite directions to remain alive and happy. If alternative lanes are available Democrats would still want to use the same lame as people driving the opposite direction in their lane. It is possible to run a democracy in ways that will not present nearly equal in number political majorities and minorities with one winner and one very hateful loser.
Republican voters must realize they can achieve their moral agenda with a conservative court so winning the next Presidential election is more that just making the economy work better. President Biden has shown that Democrats aren’t weak on war. Actually Democrats tend to go to war or support foreign wars fairly regularly and often for wrong reasons. President G.W. Bush was a Republican oddity in attacking Iraq, yet their were better reasons for ending the tyranny of the Baathist Party dictator (like 50,000 Iraqi’s dying annually, needlessly under ongoing U.N. sanctions) than Democrats have for escalating the Ukraine-Russia war with copious weapons donations including intermediate range missiles. Democrats labor under the fiction that Ukraine wasn’t a part of Russia before the communist era).
To win the 2024 election against an unliked Democrat President Republicans should remember a forgotten tool for expanding a political base that is known as broadening a platform, not compromising moral planks, to attract more voters. The two largest blocks of new voters Republicans could get fairly easily are environmental votes and the poor; young and old. To attract votes of the poor a Republican platform would need to provide a basic income for all Americans of $10,000 annually. There is no question that with that plank several million votes would go Republican. Voters would know that the Party would get Democrat support for the proposal and could get it down.
The second large group is environmental voters concerned with habitat degradation for humans and wildlife. Specifically reversing global warming economic practices and ending biodiversity would bring in a few million votes to a Republican presidential candidate since voters again would know they could get it done. With the poor and independents voting for a Republican their should be a landslide for the party enabling the next Republican president to select conservatives to replace retiring justices on the high court and that would enable the reversal of homosexual marriage. High court appointees should include black and Hispanic men.
Charisma only goes so far. Good ideas are what make or break a presidency. A President should have five good ideas that could b e accomplished if he is elected. Realistically few candidates have that many or actually get them done. Democrat Presidents tend to trick voters and don’t do what they promise in elections and instead force through things half the country doesn’t want. Tactics to get a 2024 Republican presidential victory are simple. They need a youthful candidate with a good platform; big enough to attract sufficient voters to win 30 or more states. President Biden has proven Democrats talk big about global warming and habitat loss and deliver small. If Republican candidates for president really care about moral concerns they should get one of themselves elected and there is an easy way to get that done; get support from environmental and poor voters. If budget hawks exist Republicans should stay out of foreign wars that aren’t needed (through diplomacy) and raise taxes on the super-rich while slowing the increase of government.
-a note on advantages of basic national income
A basic national income would radically simplify numerous problems of the lower class and increase economic efficiency. Millions could leave food stamp and other social programs like S.S.I. also reducing the number of federal workers needed to administer programs. A basic income probably would keep millions from being arrested after being pressured in unemployment and lacking traction for immediate upward mobility. Incarcerating one individual costs a minimal $50,000 annually. Tens of billions could be saved if several hundred thousand citizens could be kept out of prison each year.
Basic income would increase the ability to afford bus passes in urban areas costing a median $500 annually. Reliable transportation is requisite for employment if not living within walking distance of a job site. Basic income would enable the frugal to have enough capital to start a small business venture from the ground up. A movable feast cart selling lunch to people becomes within reach while living in an old van with nothing besides a home-built microwave toilet and bottles of rubbing alcohol for personal hygiene, a used notebook computer and a 200 watt flexible solar panel on the roof to charge a 12 volt battery and converter to step up to 19.5 volts.
A basic income allows people to leave jobs to look for a better job without concern from corrupt unemployment people in state labor departments blaming the individual when pressured to exit. State governments are very cheap and will readily balance budgets by trimming the poor. State governments are far more likely to direct state funds to special interests at a local level rather than innovate some more efficient, labor saving and cost saving approach to delivering services like education. The federal government alternatively tends to benefit special interests that are wealthy and victimize the poor. Too big to fail banks and auto companies. Tax cuts for billionaires and those with hundreds of millions of dollars and so forth are rewarded by corporate world and special interests even if laundered through time or investing in a politician’s local interests. Basic national income cuts through the red lines and myriad exploitation methods perpetrated by establishments interested primarily in benefiting the rich.
U.S. patents are too expensive for the poor to purchase. The cost formerly was five applications for three thousand dollars. That is too much for most of the poor to afford. Independent and poor inventors might originate new ideas yet be unable to afford to patent them. Patent search cost money too. Even defending a patent can be very costly. If the U.S. government won’t lower the cost for patent applications it should create a basic minimum income for all U.S. citizens so they have the option of applying for a patent. The cost of going to China to find someone to manufacture a patented item is another challenge far easier for the rich to meet than the American poor. With a basic national income a poor inventor might talk with a few other poor people and get them to invest in the new invention. With more inventions someone might build a multi-purpose, adaptable Manufacturing Store franchise located in several large U.S. cities with 3D and 4D printing, some plastics fabrication tools and other elements for putting together new inventions locally for a reasonably low cost that an inventor could walk in to for a quote on the cost per unit to produce.
American government has drowned itself in false logic concerning political theory since the end of the Cold War to the effect of bring hundreds of millions of people to fear looking socialist and forsake reforms needed to let democracy be contemporary and an effective bulwark against evolution to plutocracy and tyranny of the rich minority or all aspects of political economy nationally and globally. Myriad new ways have developed with technology and computing to advantage the rich against the poor and all that are not sycophants of corporatism and concentration of wealth. Politicians should have enough intellect and fortitude to balance and equalize the present state of democracy so that it is not venal, fake and nothing more than a toady organ of the richest.
No comments:
Post a Comment