2004. Bush vs Kerry. I don't think anyone other than Tony Blair still defends the Iraq War, however George W was vilified as a blood thirsty (insert). Nazi, vampire, pick your historical villain. Bill Moyers said there would be a coup if he didn't win. I don't remember anyone lamenting the lack of belief in the democratic process when the left's version of William F Buckley felt a a hostile military takeover would dismantle our democracy.
2008. McCain vs Obama McCain was portrayed as yet again - a blood thirsty war monger because he had the foresight to say we needed to keep troops in Iraq to stabilize the situation (we now know what happened when his advice wasn't heeded). He was a centrist by every single measure. Obama was a long on words and bluster and innuendo and absolutely shallow on experience and demonstrably left wing. The shallow, long on bluster celebrity won, because he was the "change" from outside the system that was necessary. Not a career politician like McCain. Ok then.
2012. Romney vs Obama. Yet another centrist, portrayed by the left as a snarling vulture capitalist. Obama's adds blamed his oversight of Bain capital as responsible for someone's cancer related death. Romney (again, correctly) illustrated that Russia was our biggest foreign policy challenger. He was mocked. Again, see 2016 and our relations with that nation.
Don't worry, I'm not setting you up for a Walking Dead-esque drawn out plot sequence. The point I'm trying to make to all the never Trump-ers is as follows : the DNC is masterful at making the simplest of people look like something between Ultron and the pencil thin mustached villains of early 1920s. Bill Maher recently lamented that liberals should not have cried wolf as often as they have. So if you're never Trump, I completely understand, but lets not forget that the worst thing the DNC has on him is his treatment and regard for women, which last time I checked, when a Clinton was in the white house, was immaterial to good governance. So what was once summarily defensible, is now completely indefensible. This is not a defense of Trump's behavior as you'll see below, but it is a reminder to check those feelings when it comes to quality people running for office.
Now, I have kept my thoughts, and beliefs, and writings on the subject of politics firmly center right. Trump really isn't any of those things. He is anti-trade and pro-tariff, ideas that are antithetical to what has been a bedrock of conservative and GOP foreign policy and economics for the last half century. He is also somewhere between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders on foreign policy. Don't get involved abroad, hell don't even pay attention to it (Aleppo anyone?), focus on the home front, stop acting imperial, but if we are imperialist, make the host countries pay for it. It's uniquely un-Republican, whatever it is.
Hillary, on the other hand, shares far more with every single aforementioned GOP candidate listed above. She is as neo-con as Bush was regarding foreign intervention (she has Charles Krauthammer's tepid endorsement). She's as pro business as Romney, colluding with the big bankers as much as Romney could have ever dreamed, and oh-so-ironically worth more money than he was at this point in their respective campaigns. But then again, that's always been the left wing critique of her as well as Bill : the Clintons talk like Democrats but govern more like Republicans.
So why on Earth at a time when a neo-con is actually needed in the White House, after the 8 years of head bowing, red line drawing and then retreating, indecisive, mealy mouthed, wishy washy, hand wringing, head in the sand cowering while calling it leading from behind, "tell Vladimir after my election I'll have more flexibility" foreign policy of Obama would I consider voting for Trump? The reasons are thus :
1. The Democratic party is dangerously entrenched in too many places in the federal government, namely the law enforcement divisions. In fact, entrenched isn't even the right word, infested is. "Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI" according to the WSJ. Bill Clinton meeting secretly with Loretta Lynch, head of DOJ on a tarmac in Arizona while all the investigation is ongoing as well. This may not be obstruction of justice, but its certainly a bastardized form.
2. The media. Wikileaks has shown that CNN sought out DNC talking points and insight before interviewing trump. Donna Brazille passed along questions from CNN to the Clinton campaign. You can say any and everything you want about Fox News biases, because you'd be right, but between Martha Raddatz debating Trump, the Politburo that is MSNBC, and CNN all but being an active arm of the DNC, there is no honest journalism in America anymore. It needs to proven to be false.
3. Collusion. Points 1 and 2 have proven to be hyper dangerous in the past for other democracies that were experiencing turmoil. Trump may be a demagogue, but he has far more in common with Silvio Berlusconi than he does Mussolini. Democrats on the other hand have all but proven the old line, "its ok for me, but not for thee" with the IRS scandal, the crafting of the ACA (famously known as Obamacare), the omnipresent email scandal (that is point 4), Democrat controlled so called sanctuary cities, the Iran deal/bribery/money laundering. This complete disregard for the laws by an elitist alliance of media types, government, and supposed government watch dogs is corrosive to almost all democratic foundations which have shaped this country the past 250 years.
4. The email scandal. I know it. You know it. It's not the server, or the devices, its the fact the Clinton's solicited cash for favors while in office. Accept it. They pimped the US government and influence for personal gain.
5. This point may be philosophical, but it is engraved on the very marble steps of the national archives in Washington D.C.: eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. When one party has entrenched itself for too long in government, a soft, legal revolution is necessary, and that time is now.
Lets face facts about Trump: he's a sexist, a misogynist, a blowhard, and a big mouth. But he also knows it, and after the primaries he offered Kasich essentially the keys to the convertible to run the White House and let himself do what he does best : be something of a figurehead and celebrity. With Mike Pence, who has years of level headed experience in DC helping to call the shots, I believe the US government and America will get what it needs, a change in direction that has veered too far and too fast off of the foundation that has made it the most influential, prosperous, and powerful country since the Roman Empire. We need to get back to our foundation, and I think a change in direction, more so than a party, is what is ultimately necessary at this point in our history.
Comments