by Robert M. Traxler
Given that there is an Infantry ri
fle squad plus of candidates for the Republican nomination for president, most of us who are staunch Republicans have a favorite or five. The rather large field features a wide variety of experience, education and skills, making it difficult to settle on any one this early, but time will whittle down the numbers. The first primary is still a good way off and each primary will destroy the hopes and dreams of a number of the candidates.
The Donald is a very interesting candidate, a Ross Perot with a good hair style and designer suit. Mr. Trump is rich and very outspoken, beholden to no group; he is the current candidate du jour for the angry mass on the right.
The Democrats will choose Mrs. Clinton; Mr. Sanders is merely attempting to push Mrs. Clinton to the left, he is too old, and the United States is not ready for an admitted socialist. Vice President Biden, unless President Ob
ama comes out early and strongly for him, is not a serious threat. Vice President Biden is too old to undisciplined, and fodder for late night comedians.
Mrs. Clinton is an interesting person; she was raised a good Republican. Her father was a Republican committeeman and she worked for Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign. As so many did, she turned hard left when she went to college in the 1960s. Yale Law School was a training ground for the anti-establishment and anti-America types, and she graduated a confirmed social justice advocate, if not a pure socialist.
Over the years she lost her zeal for the underdog and became a closet champion of capitalism. She was paid very handsomely to serve on the Board of Directors for Wal-Mart. Mrs. Clinton was paid, according to AP, $6,000 per meeting (in 1986 dollars) plus the use of the corporate jets, and was able to use her corporate connections to bring millions in business to the Rose Law firm, at which she was employed and paid a large bonus. Mrs. Clinton was also involved in several lucrative, but questionable land and stock deals.
The storm clouds surrounding the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation will cause problems, as the apparent candy dish it is for the family to use for funding all aspects of their lives. Private jets, luxury hotels and large personal staffs at the expense of the poor and downtrodden in the third world countries they claim to be helping will be difficult to explain away. Reports of clandestine meetings between Mrs. Clinton’s staff and Wall Street capitalists will not sit well with the rank and file Democrat voters.
Mrs. Clinton will have an uphill climb to energize the base of the Democrat party, and Democrats need a large turnout to win. The nation has more Democrats than Republicans, but traditionally Republicans vote in larger numbers. President Obama got the voters to the polls and Mrs. Clinton must get the base energized as President Obama did. Quite frankly I do not see the young, who vote Democrat when they do vote, turning out for a person with her baggage.
Mrs. Clinton is a capitalist, rich, privileged and greedy; upon departing the White House she and President Clinton made tens of millions of dollars a year. Sure sounds like a capitalist rather than a socialist to me. Please do not get me wrong; I applaud her making millions, but explaining it to the young idealistic Democrat voters will be problematic. Her time on the Board of Directors of the Wal-Mart Corporation, the largest corporation in the world and the favorite target of the left, will not energize the young ideology-driven voters she desperately needs to turn out and vote. The reported donations of up to $5,000,000 by the Walton family (the owners of the Wal-Mart Corporation) to the Clinton Foundation will again make her claims as a champion of the poor and downtrodden a bit harder to explain.
This early in the process, who knows what will happen, but the social elite who run the Democrat party must wish they were in the same place the Republicans are: having a large field of good candidates to test in the crucible that is a challenging primary. If the Republicans are smart they will choose a candidate who is able to appeal to the 18-to-30-year-old demographic. The Republicans need a candidate who will remain true to the Constitution and return our nation to its origins as a republic and a nation of laws.
It will be interesting to watch the party of the socialist left being championed by a candidate who is a wildly successful, uber-rich corporate capitalist. The term spin (a polite way to say lie) is credited to the first President William Jefferson Clinton presidential campaign; Mrs. Clinton will get very dizzy attempting to spin her dossier from capitalist to socialist. She just may be successful with the media’s exuberant assistance.
Army Bob,
You analysis is correct to a certain extent. Where I differ is a Marxist is a Marxist, whether it is Hillary or President Obama. She (and he) likes capitalism in their personal lives, but don’t want it for the rest of the serfs, or commonly called citizens, but to elitists such as Hillary, Bill, Barack, and Michelle the mantra is “Do as I say, not as I do.” If Hillary is ever elected again to dog catcher, it will be way above her abilities to perform the job responsibilities. Her lying history, obfuscation, deceit, enabler of the Predator in Chief Bill, and unlawful server with classified information; how can any Democrat want to vote for slime like that? Even “Uncle” Joe Biden, the clown he is, would be a better candidate. And the Democrats know it – that’s why Biden is lurking in the background. Bernie Sanders is at least honest – he’s a Socialist and says so.
Free Market man,
Do not hold back, how do you really feel? Kidding, you are correct, Mrs. Clinton sees no problem with condemning all multimillionaires as greedy and oppressive when she is one herself. Got to question if the President and DOJ knows more than they are telling us concerning Mrs. Clinton and the investigation, resulting in the Vice-President tossing his hat into the ring?
Free Market Man, you are nuts. Goldman Sachs was the largest campaign contributor to make Obama President. Hillary is also a Wall St. 1%er. I would have to think that anyone who would claim these Neoliberals to be Marxists is–at the very least–living inside a very unhealthy echo chamber. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, and Hillary won’t rescind them, and economic inequality becomes more and more imbalanced by the day. Have you seen this short clip? It may be of some assistance with your predicament:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
As a (somewhat) younger American, I sympathize with the older generations who grew up with the knee-jerk false dichotomy of socialism versus capitalism. Given the horrors perpetrated by Lenin and Stalin, this misunderstanding is understandable. But the truth is, any society needs to balance individualism with the greater good. In America’s case, many believe it’s undeniable that our national ills stem from our older generation’s adherence to this false dichotomy. Thirty years of “trickle down” has only seen our national wealth pour up and away from the Americans who need it most. Personally, if I thought our nation was too socialized, I would argue in the other direction. The countries of Scandinavia not only have the lowest poverty rates in the western world, and fittingly, they are also ranked as the happiest nations in the world. My words may not deserve any credit, but anyone would be foolish to shrug off Einstein’s take on the socialism versus capitalism dynamic. It should be required reading for anyone claiming to have an opinion:
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Army Bob, to be honest, many of your observations regarding Hillary are very astute. Like many others, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton because she is essentially a Republican. However, Army Bob, I think your dismissal of Bernie Sanders is mistaken. He is energizing and mobilizing the American voter base that is desperate for a cause, but unlike Obama, Sanders is genuine.
Feel the Bern, fellas. Feel the Bern!
Your point that many Scandinavian countries are better off than the United States is correct. These nations are small and able to concentrate their funds in a small area. If the State of Michigan got every penny we all pay in federal and state tax, we would be better off as well. Michigan could be better off if we did not need to pay for the floods in Louisiana or New Jersey, or for a national defense (only the Michigan National Guard), or for navigation of the Mississippi river, or the space program, or erosion control in Florida, or Federal parks, or solar power in the Arizona desert, or border protection in Texas, or any of the thousands of federal programs.
I disagree with you that it is a good idea to move the nation toward Socialism, putting the federal government in charge of all aspects of production and distribution. We will always disagree, but let’s continue to respect each other for expressing our points of view.
Senator Sanders inspires a large number of folks, but in my view nowhere near a majority of Democrats and not even close to a national majority. We can agree he is not a member of the mainstream political establishment, and that we as a nation need a President outside of the current political box.
Senator Bernie Sanders vs. Mr. Donald Trump would put two non-establishment types on the ballot and ask the American people to choose a form of government. If nothing else it would be the most interesting election in our history.
Thank you for your comments.