To some observers
U.S. national politics may seem like a soap opera named The
Dumb and the Wrong.
So then, over the years, before the Federal Reserve started giving
billions and billions of zero interest loans and buying up T-bills to
finance the federal budget of annual vast deficits ($20 trillion and
counting), what went wrong?
When President Obama
got Harry Reed to use the nuclear option to pass Obamacare with a
bare majority, and when he was the primary cheerleader making Bush II
tax cuts for the rich permanent, he effectively neutered the Democrat
party’s power as a minority in the future. With the election of
Republican Donald Trump taking office with a full majority in the
House and Senate the Democrats will be effectively powerless to
resist whatever legislation the Republican party chooses. Donald Trump will be the most powerful President since F.D.R.
It is a fact that
Republicans and Democrats have run wet firecracker candidates for the
White House following the end of the cold war. Bush II, McCain and
Romney are not regarded as mainstream ecological economist,
nationalist candidates at all, for that matter neither was the
venerable Bob Dole whom would have been a far better alternative to
the Oxford attorney Bill Clinton.
Considering the
economic decline of the United States since the cold war one may
wonder if better Presidential leadership might have made a difference
in modernizing and upgrading the post-cold war economic environment
of the United States. I suppose a Democrat Party that had the
economic priorities of the 1960s was in order where it was still a
tough economic negotiator with Republicans and the difference between
the most rich and poor was not so great. Following the Jimmy Carter
administration the Democrat Party lost its bearings and forsook tight
fiscal responsible for the poor and middle class in negotiations in
Congress. What apparently occurred was the takeover of the Democrat
Party by former anti-war activists, many of whom were not poor at
all, that had far more concern for sundry social issues than prior
generations, and that further were inured with counter-cultural
values. A celebrity driven, rather spaced and even vague principle of
identity, Leninist ‘and no religion too’ greased politics where
money didn’t matter as much as power, dope, homosexuality and
feminism party emerged. For a time Democrats drew in
environmentalists only to discover their interests were given just
nominal regard as the party continued.
The Clinton
administration presented an Oxford-Arkansas synthesis of
counter-culture values for-the-establishment with
smoking-yet-not-inhaling /depends on what the meaning of is, is,
disingenuity and admiration for Wall Street. Democrat Party
yuppification would take homosexuals and feminists to the top. Lost
was an interest in good paying jobs for those unemployed and
underemployed at the bottom and lower middle class. It is doubtful
that President Obama used the word ‘poor’ more than a handful of
times over the course of two administrations.
In the absence of
Democrat party economic sobriety, nothing would keep Wall Street in
check. The Clinton administration brought sweeping deregulation to
the market with all the problems brought to light in the 2008
mortgage and derivatives/finance crash. With the Clinton foundation’s
solicitations of contributions from the rich and speaking fees from
Wall Street for both Bill and Hillary the Democrat party became a
loud race and sexuality advocate for the special interest groups of
the party with little concern for ecological economic reform that
would be in fundamental conflict if poorly applied with the street.
Instead, the Democrat Party and Republican insiders like the Bushes
moved toward a unified corporate-government synthetic one-party
fusion.
The 2010 Battle
of Seattle
with protesters confronting a World Trade Organization meeting there
showed the fundamental loss of bearings by Democrat Party leadership
and special interests with a schism between nationalists with
economic concerns (shared in many nations) and high-flying globalist
Clintonista-Obamanites. That schism remains and will so long as the
Democrat Party remains aloof from objective class and social economic
statistical facts such as who and how many earn the least and the way
it goes right to the top and the 1% and works to flood the nation
with cheap foreign labour instead of repairing the environment while
stimulating economic positive change for U.S. citizens of the lower
50% income bracket.
The Trump
administration would be wise to realize that fuel cell, wind and
solar power are part of the energy sector and in fact the better
place to stimulate investment with tax credits and federal support.
High tech energy generation and storage is the way of the future. Is
it not better to train people in emergent high-tech fields for
economic progress than to retard national energy education and become
coal extraction industry recidivists decreasing the human prospects
for survival on Earth? Need the U.S.A. follow Chinese solar panel
leadership in the future and be thought of as an energy Neanderthal
yippee nation of air and environment CO2 emitters? The failure of
Republican leadership after the Nixon administration to address
national environmental concerns with competence is a great wound
Democrat apparatchiks exploit tirelessly each election cycle. There
is no need, for example, to quit the Paris agreement since it is a
toothless dog of legislation that won’t trouble polluters much if
it bites. To quit the agreement will freshen the wound for the next
election cycle unless a newer, more effective piece of CO2 reduction
work takes its place. Opposition to global warming reduction
politically is the equivalent of doing swan dives from a high board
into two feet of water...if environmental crimes against humanity
trials ever take place the Republican Party may have a few top ten
finishers in the docket.
