I’ve been hearing a lot of scary news among the pundits whose screeds populate my news feed in the morning. Usually they pertain to what horrible things will happen if this or that person (usually Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders) is elected. This got me thinking about what would happen if any of them were actually to win – as one of them is almost certain to do.
First, what is the mood of the populace? By and large, people seem really sick of the status quo. They aren’t feeling tolerant of it. From my own point of view, the planet can’t really take another 8 years of business as usual, which is what, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton represents. I say unfortunately because it would be nice if the anointed one of the Democratic party was truly able to lead us away from the center right policies that got us here in the first place.
But let’s look at what would happen if Donald Trump wins. All hell breaks loose, right? Demons running in the street and devils with little pitchforks. I’m not just saying this, although I admit the devil part is a little hyperbolic. Still, he says pretty awful things, that seem almost designed to inspire loathing in one group or another. The people who hate Trump hate him so passionately that I can see no way to avoid some form of unrest if he’s elected. From a foreign policy position, it’s almost worse. People around the world are united–they can’t stand Donald Trump. Could this translate into world peace? Probably not. Unfortunately, he’s the Republican frontrunner, so that’s a tough one.
Hillary Clinton, as previously mentioned, is likely to dish up more of the same – more intrigue in foreign lands, more wars and drone attacks, more terrorism and surveillance, more complicity with the wealthy hounds on Wall Street and in America’s board rooms. She will take small, largely ineffective steps in the direction of her campaign promises to average Americans, including every protected class of human being ever born, but the overall downward trend will continue. I doubt people will revolt under Clinton, but basic conditions aren’t likely to improve.
And then there’s Bernie Sanders. Bernie would work to enact policies to reduce inequality and fill needs that real American people and families from the poor to the middle class genuinely need – truly affordable health care, child care, and education. He would actually focus on people’s needs. With these expensive necessities reduced in cost, people would have more money left to spend on other things which would in turn stimulate local economies. People would be happier. Those who work very hard for little might not have to work so hard. These goals are far closer to where we need to go as a society, but naysayers tell us they’re impractical… It’s difficult to imagine riots in the streets over a Sanders victory. The rich would whine and moan but they’d adjust, as they did after the crash and subsequent depression in the 1930s.
I can see being afraid of a Trump presidency but a Clinton presidency would mess us up in a different way, through the sort of sepsis that comes from stasis. The whole system needs to be cleaned out, and let’s face it, Hillary Clinton isn’t going to do that. As it is, she says she wants to build on the past, while being responsive to the future! We may not and probably won’t elect Bernie Sanders – out of fear of Donald Trump, more than any other reason. But in doing so, we may be making a fatal error. We know change is needed and that change is going to come. But we want to put it off as long as possible. We can do some change now, by electoral process, in an orderly and measured way. Or we can wait until it’s forced on us by extremity. It’s up to us, as it always is, although right now, we seem to be more afraid of the bogey man that is Donald Trump than the other ticking time bombs piling up around us.
New York
This year we have someone from Brooklyn, a developer from Queens, and a transplant from Chicago who has represented NY.
I think a person with ties to NY will win!
I’m curious about how a Congress would react to each of these options.
I think Trump would cause some confusion, and traditional party lines will break down because no one will understand if what Trump proposes is their party line. Semi-adversarial, I’d guess.
I’d guess that Clinton would have steady, traditional GOP opposition as a matter of principle. She probably has the political connections and advisors to play the game, much like Obama. Less adversarial, but with pockets of GOP disgust.
For Sanders, I’d guess that the progressive slice of Congress would get a boost, and some Dems would move more left, but I’d imagine there would be monied interests playing hardball throughout his tenure. I do think he has the best shot at rallying ordinary people to action over his agenda, which would be something we haven’t seen in some time.
Does anyone think Cruz has a shot? I don’t.
"The whole system needs to be cleaned out"... ?
I wonder why it is that each presidential election year we always talk in terms of what the candidate will do or promises to do if elected. I would have thought Obama had cured us of that.
But the composition of the elected congress is probably far more important than who is elected president. POTUS isn’t entirely without influence or power, but the bottom line in this country are laws, and presidents do not make laws.
Part of the problem is as Lise says…”The whole system needs to be cleaned out… It’s up to us, as it always is..” Well, there’s no time like the present. If we boycotted the entire presidential commercial superbowl until the last 30 days prior to election day we’d take an unbelievable bite out of the media driven machine that feeds on elections. I for one could easily review the candidates with just a couple days and acquire a cogent sense of what the candidates stand for. In fact, there should be two dates only – one federal primary election and one general election. No more delegates systems, no more convention hullabaloo, where the top three primary winners face off in the general election. To see the ridiculous (and expensive)number of primary days click here: http://www.mytimetovote.com/2016-Primary-Election-Dates.html
If it’s really “up to us” then let’s do it. Of course, the media does know us better than we know ourselves, so we start out as suckers to begin, but there you have it.
Is that a finish line somewhere ahead?
The Trump machine stumbled in Wisconsin. Seems that the strategy of offending everyone isn’t quite working. Still, the GOP are lining up behind an anti-Trump that is almost certain to lose in the general election – Ed Cruz (Trust Ed!)
Sanders – Clinton is heating up. Sanders doing quite well recently, and the Clinton team scrambling to regain footing. Gloves are coming off now.
Looks like we may have two very interesting and old-fashioned conventions coming our way.
I enjoyed Sarah Silverman’s take on why she supports Bernie. She likened politics to baseball, and pointed out that when all the players are taking steroids, you have to join them to compete. She felt Clinton was in this camp – taking the big donations from wealthy donors and SuperPacs, and thought she needed to take them to stay viable. But, Silverman points out, then comes a player who isn’t taking steroids and is doing well. This, to her, is Sanders, and he becomes a much better choice for staying out of what everyone else is addicted to.