TRUMP AS USEFUL IDIOT FOR THE LEFT

Once again Donald J. Trump’s ego has stomped on his common sense, or what remains of it. We remember how his egocentric obsession with the outcome of the last presidential election caused him to favor “loyal” candidates in Georgia rather than those that might destroy the Democrat’s slim majority in the Senate. Flawed Trump candidates in purple states in the midterm elections helped shore up the Senate for the Left and mitigate the predicted “red wave” in the House. And now, his ego has shot him in the politico-legal foot.

There is no question that the Department of Justice has been weaponized against conservatives (the asymmetric application of the enforcement apparatus has been laid out in detail in prior rants, and won’t be revisited here). The current legal bludgeoning of Trump is a continuation of the banana republic-type behavior we’ve witnessed since even before the Russia Hoax. Any honest, informed citizen can see the slow-walk of the Biden scandal. The televised hearings on of January 6^th and the prosecution of Trump in NY re the Stormy Daniels debacle were examples of laughable political theater. Politically, the current indictment of Trump over the stored top secret documents in Mar-a-Lago, however, is not a laughing matter. Oh, it’s clearly disgustingly partisan, in keeping with prior Democrat behavior. But Trump, once again, has armed the opposition—and this time sacrificed himself, potentially along with the Republican Party.

In the bygone days of Secretary of State and future presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, we all recall the scandal of secret documents stored on her home server that were eventually found on Anthony Weiner’s computer. Despite the subsequent bit-bleaching of her server and electronic devices to hide the evidence, FBI Director James Comey not only incongruously declared an absence of “intent,” then went on to unilaterally proclaim intent as the measure by which prosecution should be undertaken, allowing Hillary to walk. Now we have an ex-president in legal peril who kept secret documents, as did Pence and Biden (who both returned them). Charges against Pence were dismissed. Biden is being “investigated,” and I won’t hold my breath on that outcome. But Trump, either through hubris or blinding anger from his wounded ego, decided not to defang the situation by simply returning the documents. Instead, he hid a quantity of the boxes from his lawyers, who unknowingly claimed all had been returned, and which were subsequently uncovered by authorities. On top of this political and legal malfeasance, Trump was recorded as sharing some of the content of secret files to an individual who was without appropriate security clearance and then proclaiming he had not declassified them and could no longer do so, countering his own defense that, as president, he had had the right to automatically declassify all documents in his possession. This makes a legal defense going forward challenging, at best.

There is a clear, banana republic-style double standard being used to indict Trump and further divide the nation. The remedy would be a political, rather than a legal one, i.e., a refusal by the DOJ to prosecute, consistent with prior precedent. Instead, Biden et. al. has chosen, as we might expect, to allow this unprecedented indictment of a president to move forward. The effects of this are predictable. The pro-Trump Republican base will be justifiably outraged, likely increasing Trump’s chances of winning a Republican primary. Unfortunately, I fear it will further decrease his chances of winning a national election (I’ve already expressed concerns about his ability, in the setting of TDS, to overcome even a decomposing zombie such as Biden). But I see a second, perhaps even more substantial danger to the Republican Party as a whole: As the understandable ire on the right from this political injustice grows, it is not inconceivable that it will radicalize more disgruntled voters in right wing of the party, increasing the likelihood of politically-motivated violence. This, in turn, will justify, or appear to, the Biden contention that the alt-Right and “MAGA Republicans” are the dominant “threat to democracy,” and will be used to intensify the crack down on conservative speech and potentially alienate more of the centrist and independent votes needed in a national contest.

Trump’s policies were a force for good when he served in the White House. Political and legal stupidity may end up making him a useful idiot for the Left, and cost him and his party an election. Or it may open the door to other Republican contenders. In any case, handing the noose to the hangman for your own lynching is never a great idea.

TOXIC TRUMP

In the wake of the Red Wave that became the Red Ripple we conservatives must pause for reflection. The magnitude of the failure is as astonishing as it is disappointing. Typically, even with stronger opposition, the party out of power has decisive gains. In a time of grossly incompetent leadership, a president who suffers from early cognitive dysfunction with approval ratings in the toilet, and disastrous inflation coupled with feckless foreign policy, one could not be faulted for having assumed, abetted by historically worthless polls, a potentially unprecedented shift in the legislature was coming—only it didn’t. The question is why.

Ben Shapiro gives some insight in his analysis that the strongest candidates were put forth in the least threatened seats, and the weakest in the most contested. His mantra that the quality of the candidates matters has been borne out by the results. Still, as weak a candidate as Mehmet Oz was in PA, it boggles the mind that a radical left, mentally challenged opponent such as Fetterman could decisively beat him. The counterpoint supporting Shapiro’s contention is that in Florida, strong candidate Ron Desantis, having squeaked through to a victory in his first go-around, had a blowout in his second, and carried a purple state into red territory in record time. Ironically, the other state with the most flipped House seats (4 ) was Democrat stronghold New York, potentially preserving a slim lead for Republicans in the House.

The reasons for the electorate’s amazing and suicidal decision to soundly mitigate the shift in power cannot be ascribed to a single factor. Decades of progressive ideological grooming via control of the institutions of learning and the culture certainly play a major role. While the conservative vote in the black and Spanish-speaking communities grew, unmarried women voted 2 to 1 for Democrats, as opposed to their married counterparts who predominantly went Republican. Likely this reflects not only the aforementioned progressive indoctrination and successful vilification of conservatives, but also, in this demographic, a dependence on government in the absence of a committed life partner as well as the an increased impact of the abortion issue since the Supreme Court’s decision. The mainstream media’s mis- and disinformation campaign and censoring or deemphasizing of facts that fell outside the progressive narrative cannot be underestimated. But the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in an election that had razor thin margins in contested areas, in my opinion, was Trump. I contend that the man is politically toxic. This isn’t new, but in the past his populist message was sufficient to overcome this. Now Trump is mainly about…Trump. Yes, he has a loyal base of “always Trumpers,” possibly about 25-30% of Trump voters if the numbers still hold. But in these days of squeaky elections decided by the swing vote from the Independents and moderate Democrats (yes, they still exist but you wouldn’t believe it from listening to the mainstream media) I think the “Trump factor” is fatal. Trump Derangement Syndrome, still prevalent, is the dagger in the Republican heart.

Trump was brilliant policy-wise but has always been a disaster politically. He lost the Republicans the Senate via Georgia in the last election, and this go-around he may again, although it is now moot with the Democrats still in control of the Senate. In the most contested seats, the Republican Party chose to run Trump loyalists vocal about the illegitimacy of the Biden win. While gushing praise for Trump may play well with his loyalists as well as most nose-holding conservatives who see no viable alternatives in the other party, it’s a non-starter for many of the Independents and cross-over Democrats. Adding to this, to our detriment, for many voters personality trumps policy, and I suspect the more uniformed and misinformed the voter, the greater role this plays. Biden’s policies may be juvenile and dangerous, but for anti-Trump voters even the president’s mental stumbling and poor governance is insufficient to overcome their TDS. Trump has done nothing to mitigate this. His ego post defeat has overshadowed his connection with many of the voters who supported him in the last election: In the current race we can see a referendum against Trump-endorsed candidates chosen solely on the basis of their willingness to proclaim loyalty to Trump and decry the legitimacy of the 2020 election. His current outbursts against the biggest star of the midterm elections, Ron Desantis, follows the prior pattern of narcissism and political self-immolation.

While it can be tempting to view the country as potentially lost, it’s important to recognize the few bright spots that may be a harbinger of a new dawn. The margins of defeat remain slim, and Florida demonstrates that with a more strategic approach going forward, with more competent and electable candidates, a shift back to freedom and normalcy is possible, Almost half of the country still holds the view that morality, God and the founding values count (and without which we cannot succeed), recognize the difference between a democracy and a republic and why our Founders opted for the latter (something apparently no longer taught), and value freedom over security. More people will be won over as the social and economic circumstances continue to worsen, as they must with a continuation and potential intensification of current policies (both parties seem to interpret any win as a mandate). While we are in danger of failing from threats internal and external before this transformation can occur, and this is going to be a decades-long battle, there is no acceptable alternative but to keep fighting. Adversity can demoralize or energize. Conservatives and our anti-progressive allies should take a cue from the beleaguered Ukrainians, and move relentlessly forward to drive the progressive enemy from the borders of our republic.

And forgo nominating Trump.

Addendum:

Addendum:

Shortly after posting this I learned of another important factor contributing to the Congressional upset: Redistricting. As Mark Levin pointed out, pollster Frank Luntz (who got it wrong, like so many others) in his post=election analysis pointed out that the redistricting gerrymandered seats that favored the Democrat Party (I now recall reading about this at the time). The favorable result in New York as opposed to many other purple districts may reflect the fact that the NY judiciary prohibited this redistricting favoring the Democrats. Supporting this is the fact that voting favored the Republicans by 5 million votes (4-5%) with disproportionately worse outcomes in contested districts. So this should be added to the mix of variables that may explain the unexpected outcome.

THE EVIL WE FACE

Last year, I attended one of Andy Caldwell’s campaign events in his unsuccessful bid for California’s 24^th Congressional District in the US House held at a private home. I spoke briefly with the radio host and conservative political commentator and at the time I described the Republican Party as bad and the Democratic Party as an order of magnitude worse. He characterized the Democrat Party as “evil.” At the time it struck me as rather harsh. Clearly, in retrospect, his intimate involvement in politics gave him a clearer vantage point.

While it’s been evident that the perverse values of the Left, at odds with those of the Founding Fathers, were progressively holding sway over the Democrat Party, the recent and rapid rise and control of the Party has been nothing short of astonishing. An early clue that Biden was truly embracing these evil principles as the core of his political agenda came to me with his remarks about transgender children back in October. While some on the Right distorted the message to maximize outrage, a practice I denounce on either side (and left-wing sources rightly condemned this), Biden’s words in this time of concern regarding minors transitioning seemed at best neutral and more likely supportive. He actually couched his words in the doctrine of anti-discrimination, a term effectively used to disarm conservatives time and again on many issues. Because who favors discrimination? His current statements about the recently passed voting bill in Georgia have now (only figuratively, it seems) unmasked him.

When questioned about the Georgia law he stated that it disproportionately targeted black Americans and called it “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” and “a blatant attack on the Constitution.” This statement is problematic on multiple levels. First, it is a blatant lie on its surface, employing racism to denounce a law that applies equally to all individuals, irrespective of race. Second, if one were to use the Leftist tactic of unequal impact/outcome as a priori evidence of racism, then he’s going down the rabbit hole of the soft racism of low expectations: One of the provisions of the law is a requirement for voter ID, something that blacks and “vulnerable communities” have, like everyone else, managed to successfully negotiate for generations with respect to everything from driving a car to flying to purchasing an alcoholic beverage. All the provisions in the law are intended to minimize the risk of voter fraud and increase Americans’ trust in future elections. Spinning this as racism or voter suppression (at a time when black turnout in the Georgia elections was at historic highs) is mendacious, and, yes, evil. Third, it reprehensibly defines Georgians as racist. And this from a man who has already demonstrated his own racism by proclaiming during the campaign leading up to the presidential election that those black Americans that didn’t vote for him weren’t really black.

Although the phrase “turning to the dark side” has lost its gravitas and become something of a meme in the post-Star Wars era, I think it aptly applies to the trend in the Biden administration. And now even big corporate CEOs are signing on. Given that none of us can know the heart of an individual, it’s unfair to characterize people who engage in immoral behavior as “evil,” but it is possible to recognize its presence through lies and evil actions. When the facts are ignored or obfuscated to achieve an end, this is no longer a “difference in opinion.” While Biden’s remarks (calling Georgians racist for supporting voting procedure reform) fall clearly into the realm of the “hate speech” the Left so vigorously denounces, as a constitutional conservative I support the president’s right to say it. This does not, however, absolve me of the obligation to oppose it. Which brings me to the main issue: the silence of good people on both sides of the political aisle.

The old maxim “if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem” has never rung truer. We are well past the point of muttering about the blatant, hypocritical, and divisive evil that is coming at us from the newly empowered Leftist-controlled Democrat Party. When will we ring the Capitol not with a fence built on a foundation of political hyperbole, but bodies and voices crying, “Enough!”? When will we, too, finally take to the streets of our towns and cities en masse to truly peacefully protest? When will the millions find the strength to rise up and speak, even at the risk of unemployment, social banishment, or incarceration? Or will we allow this transition to a new, tyrannical nation to proceed unimpeded? Others have given their lives for the liberty most of us have taken for granted and have allowed, bit by bit, to be taken from us. Will we have the courage to risk even less to preserve it? If not, perhaps we no longer deserve it.

I’M FORMING MY OWN COUNTRY

Well, it’s come to pass. The day started badly with the Republicans’ apparent extraordinary loss of the Senate with the addition of two far-left entries to the ruling class. Then, to make matters worse, idiotic right-wing rioters (not due to make an appearance for weeks to months by my flawed prediction) gave the Left the ammunition it needed to label all Republicans/Trump supporters/conservatives as alt-right supporters of violence and a threat to democracy. Not that they haven’t been doing it already, just that they now have a real-world event to support their straw man stereotype. And they’re now in power. The last, unstable thread holding the nation together ironically may be Democrat Joe Manchin, who has committed himself to defending the filibuster and preventing court-packing. Otherwise we can expect two new blue states and 15 Supreme Court justices.

I’ve reached the conclusion there’s only one way out of this mess: I’m hereby ratifying the establishment of the United States of Puro. Since it doesn’t make sense to re-invent the wheel, I’m going to adopt the Constitution of the former United States of America, but institute a few changes.

• In my country, installing anti-white racism as a cure for perceived or real anti-black racism is illegal.
• Employing citizens in the government or private sector based on skin color, ethnicity, or sexual preference rather than competence is illegal.
• Using the term equity in place of equality of opportunity or employing policies that promote equity at the expense of equal opportunity is illegal. Furthermore, all equity positions will be investigated to assure that public or private corruption is not at play.
• Government subsidies are illegal.
• Government bribery is illegal.
• Terms of office exceeding three are illegal.
• Legislation longer than 10 pages and that cannot be understood by someone with a 10^th grade education or that contains items unrelated to the bill’s purpose is illegal.
• Insider trading by public or private officials is illegal.
• Programs that purport to combat prejudice by providing unearned advantages while implying that the recipients are incapable or inferior are illegal.
• Laws that abrogate the right to own weapons of self defense are illegal.
• Suspension of the right of free speech in the public or private domain, regardless of content, is illegal, if no call to violence is expressed.
• The terms “microaggression” and “hate speech is violence” are illegal.
• The term “diversity” can only be used in the context of ideas; it is otherwise illegal.

The boundaries of the United States of Puro at present only extend to the borders of my property. In the event of invasion, expect bodily injury. However, competent workers of any color, ethnicity or sexual preference are welcome here. If you wish to apply for citizenship, sorry, but our borders are currently closed. However, if you wish to open a country of your own, I’m open to free trade.

I’m signing off now to compose my national anthem. God bless.

POST-ELECTION VIOLENCE—YEA OR NAY?

An article was forwarded to me by a friend predicting the low likelihood of major violence post election based on his research. Putting aside the evident but low-key political bias of the piece, it makes an attempt to inject some objectivity into something that is inherently speculative. I also think it’s wrong.

Predicting the future is a hazardous enterprise for anyone at any time (just look at the 2016 presidential election). That being said, it’s important to dig down below the superficial political animus to the values of the citizens if you want to get close to the mark. Analogies have been made to the unrest of the 1960s and the 1860s in attempting to extrapolate. Admittedly I’m influenced by the work of William Strauss and Neil Howe in The Fouth Turning and I view the 1960s as a period of Awakening and the 1860s as a more serious period similar to the present, a Crisis. Neither resulted in the dissolution of the Union. Neither accurately represents the present state of affairs, however.

It’s important to note that dynasties (the empires of Alexander, Ottoman, Rome, to name a few), even very stable ones, do not last forever, although those living within them at the time all share the illusion of permanence. What generally ends them is mismanagement born of a change in, or non-adherence to, the values that led them to succeed, causing them to disintegrate from within. In our case, the Founders, with unprecedented historical astuteness, developed a Constitution, designed to anticipate and ameliorate the forces constantly in play aiming to destroy the values upon which the country was based. As outlined in the Declaration of Independence, they are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The country was founded on the principle of rights granted by God, not government; they incorporated proscriptions to limit federal power over the states (it was also essential to getting it passed). Hence, they constructed a democratic republic and not a democracy. They recognized that tyranny of the majority was no better than tyranny of a monarchy.

Over the past few decades, the Left, via masterful commandeering of the educational system and the heretofore monolithic media have pushed the worn siren call of socialism effectively. A sizable portion of the country (we’re about to learn if it’s more than half) has accepted the notion of equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, and the concept of institutionalized racism as the founding principle and white privilege as its result. They’ve also moved from E Pluribus Unum (from many, one) to the concepts of diversity and intersectionality. These are divisive, not unifying principles; no country can survive widescale acceptance of these destructive doctrines.

Given the above, I predict the following with a Trump win: The protests and violence will continue and likely intensify, becoming more multicentric, requiring more police, military and National Guard intervention. Barring a shift in values, over the next decade or two we will start hearing state calls for secession. If Biden wins, a doubling down on the Leftist policies whose effects over time can be gauged by looking at the present state of the big cities will move the government more toward a socialist paradigm, the Constitution will be progressively weakened, the economy slowed by increased regulations, and the growth of the federal government accelerated. Democracy will be increased at the expense of republicanism in the political sense, with attacks on representative mechanisms such as the electoral college intensifying. Federal agencies and corporations with assail liberties such as free speech with cancellation, “diversity” training, and racial quotas with more alacrity, heightening the influence of the “mob.” An over-extended, indebted economy weakened by the pandemic will accelerate the malaise. A delayed result will be armed backlash by right-wing groups, at first those that are more extreme (including some execrable white supremacist groups) and, if pushed far enough, ordinary conservative Americans (possibly abetted by effective annulment of the 2^nd Amendment by oppressive regulations). Alternatively, conservatives, who are less prone to demonstrate or initiate violence (remember the maligned Tea Party), will withdraw from Left-dominated tools and form their own schools, businesses, sports teams, and social media and we’ll be a divided country, ripe for secessions or outside attack. Disunity took decades to seed and grow; reunification. if it occurs, will likely take as long, barring assault from an external, mutual threat.

There is no Dumbledore or Hogwarts, and no magic wand that can be waved to unify us, no matter who inhabits the White House.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UNDECIDED

Dear Voter:

A very small group of American citizens will be determining the fate of the nation in 4 months. You are one of them. This is not hyperbole. The signs of a terrible rent in the fabric of our society are everywhere. The Democrats have decided to go with the far left version of America, that of a systemically racist nation, built on the backs of slaves, rotten at its core, and in need of fundamental change. The Republicans, weakly in my opinion, support the notion of a sinful past overcome on the back of a nation built on the principles of God-given rights, equal opportunity for all, and a limited government of, by and for a people entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As concerning as the riots, statue disfiguration and destruction, killings, and isolation, with the consent of the governing, by activists of a portion of a major American city are, I see signs of things even more disturbing. This is not tantamount to the Awakening in the ‘60s and is not a “one-off” or a blip, but a sea change. There has been wholesale acceptance of the Democrat narrative by the major corporations, the most recent evidence being the removal by Nike, long a fan of the far left, of all products with the Redskins logo, until the team name is changed. As Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator points out, conservative thought is now counter-culture. Some of you may think this is good. But as corporate actions indicate, this is just a warning shot of the power about to be exerted over your lives. The cultural shift is not limited to race relations. A new video shows BLM marchers protesting; not decrying police brutality, but Israel, as child-killers. But the most disturbing indicator to me is the story of Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the armed St. Luis, MO couple that received national attention for defending their home from angry BLM protesters that entered a private, gated community, possibly forcefully (narratives vary). Fortunately, no shots were fired. The Left’s take on the incident sarcastically complains that it doesn’t matter that the protesters were heading to the Mayor’s house, what matters is that the McCloskeys were afraid— a “boo-hoo” criticism coming, ironically, from a member of the group that invented the idea of feelings over facts and “safe spaces.” Interviews with McCloskey suggest the event was not the benign encounter portrayed by left-leaning sources, and the couple appear to be credible, their account buttressed by the chilling aftermath of multiple death threats, an unreturned 911 call, and multiple private security firms refusing to provide service to the frightened couple. One even recommended that they abandon their home and leave it to be burned. Regardless of your personal take on the incident, what is clear is that the appeasement of violence and abdication of responsibility by our elected officials in concert with the withdrawal of the police (in the wake of their unwarranted wholesale demonization), has led to a mindset that will only lead to more of the same, and eventual injury and death.

I know the Republicans are weak. I know Trump can often be boorish, non-presidential, egotistical, and has a history of sexual immorality. I know you’ve heard ad nauseum the far left descriptions, adopted by the activist media as gospel, of Trump being a racist Nazi myogynist who is mentally incompetent. If you’re undecided, it means you haven’t completely bought the hyperbole. At this stage of devolution, I don’t know that Trump, or anyone for that matter, can patch the social rent, or even the ailing, COVID-ridden economy. I do know that changing leadership to a party that has adopted a far left agenda that is dividing the country with a narrative that is demonstrably false, and is catalyzing the burning down of the country both literally and figuratively, will only hasten its demise. Changing from a president who has proven track record of energizing the economy to one that will assuredly adopt the failed economic policies of more aggressive and wanton spending and taxing at a time of maximal financial distress is like following lemmings over a cliff.

So I ask you to look closely at what is unfolding, and realize that none of us is immune. I implore you to hold your nose if you must and give the current leadership 4 more years. We may still hemorrhage, with an uncertain prognosis, but it’s better than a head shot, and maybe we’ll buy enough time to locate a tourniquet in the interim.

Or, to buy a gun.

Sincerely,

A truly frightened conservative

COMPROMISE—THE ANTIDOTE TO SOLVENCY

OK, the title of this rant is an exaggeration; we haven’t been solvent in decades. Still, I’m sick and tired of hearing about the need for our ruling class to “compromise.” What it gets us is a two-year, $400 billion spending bill that increased the federal debt by more than $1 trillion. The bill passed in the Senate 71-28, with 16 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting nay. In the House it passed 167-73 (56%-43%), with 57 Republicans and 119 Democrats voting nay. Rand Paul stood up to protest, and irritated his colleagues. Per Jeff Crouere, writing in an op-ed for Townhall, “Senators of both parties were left fuming, with most of their ire directed toward Paul.”

Well, Paul, I’ll stand with you. Compromise is like telling someone who makes $80,000 and carries $100,000 of debt while spending another $100,000 per annum that he’s really got to cut his spending to $90,000—someday. But for the next couple of years, at least keep it to $110,000, okay?

Everyone agrees we should cut spending. Few believe we must actually do it. It’s too hard.

It’s easier to focus on the reputed imminent demise of the planet than imminent demise of the economy. I’ve heard the arguments that the burgeoning debt is “no big deal” and arguments that it will sort itself out (unfortunately, the living are not the ones that will be doing the sorting). Some believe this can go on forever. While I believe sane people can argue all day where the spending cuts need to occur, the idea that we can drift on into eternity borrowing, overspending and overprinting is delusional, and history bears this out (in case you haven’t noticed, we’re not speaking Latin).

It’s now clearer than ever that there exists not a progressive and a conservative party, but a more progressive and less progressive one.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same think over and over again and expecting a different outcome” may be cliché, but America seems to have become yet another poster child for it.

BOSS TRUMP

We have a new Teflon Don. The resilience of John Gotti may be responsible for the coining of the nickname, but the old mob boss is now a whisper in history to the shout that’s known as Donald Trump. And arguably, Trump is the more deadly.

 

Few people, myself included, anticipated the staying power of the new Teflon Don. I’d assumed that his refreshing bluntness (read: bah, humbug to political correctness), his financial independence immunizing him to the demands of special interests, and his outsider status burnished by an astute business knowledge often lacking in career politicians, would fuel an ascent that would, however, fizzle in weeks to months–just as Republican candidate after candidate rose and fell in succession during the prior presidential election. A barrage of self-launched anti-Trump missiles would inevitably bring the campaign crashing back to Earth. Well, like so many others, I was wrong.

 

His most recent missile, supporting a moratorium on all Muslims entering the U.S. has, if anything, increased his poll numbers. My assumption that 75% of the conservative and right-of-center independents were just biding their time, waiting for another candidate to gain enough traction, may still be correct, but may now be only 70%–and falling.

 

I hate political correctness. I hate arrogant Washington insiders with about as much understanding of economics as Stalin. I hate the ineffective prosecuting of the terrorist threat and ineffectual protection of our borders. But I never thought anger would so cloud the sensorium of the electorate as to believe that a man with bull-in-a-china-shop diplomacy skills should serve as the international face of the U.S. And I don’t care if he gets Mexico to pay for the wall (although that would be a nice perk). But the true danger is making him the face of the Republican Party.

 

Now, I consider myself a conservative but only grudgingly associate with the GOP, which more often than not is as embarrassing as the Democrat Party. However, we remain a two-party system and the only alternative is Hillary. Trump’s antics give fuel to the specious arguments that conservatives are all racist, bigoted shills for the wealthy. While Trump will have no impact on the entrenched beliefs of the far left, my fear is that he’ll dramatically influence the undecided independents and the low-information crowd that arguably decide the election to move to Hillary’s camp, and cause many conservatives to stay home on election day. And this would spell disaster for our country and possibly set back conservatism for decades. No wonder the liberal media can’t get enough of him (they gave him more coverage this past week than the San Bernadino terrorist attack).

 

I still think it likely that Trump will implode, but I’m becoming less certain of that outcome with each passing week.

 

After all, he is the Teflon Don.

 

THE BAD PARENT

I’ve had conversations with parties of opposing views that seem to think a job is a job, whether it be in the public or the private sector. After all, what’s the difference between someone getting a paycheck for a service provided through government employment and that same service through a company in the private sector?

Plenty.

The government, by virtue of its ability to legislate, shields itself from market forces, rather than operating within them. It can, for a while, manipulate the marketplace by printing, borrowing, and stealing (legally, of course, through fees and taxes). Hence the inflated retirement benefits that are driving all our governments at all levels to the brink of bankruptcy. We’re like one big, bloated General Motors, with the exception that no one exists to bail us out if (and I fear it’s when) we fail. Many people have become so used to these ploys that have seemed so successful or decades that they think it can go on forever. They also point to the corruption in the private sector as justification for growing the government slice of the economy, failing to recognize that crony capitalism that aids and abets this bad behavior is government-mediated. How many people in the street really know that the Dodd-Frank legislation, 800 pages of directions for more regulations, defines the big banks as “systemic” and therefore “too big to fail,” providing them with government (read: taxpayer) guarantees? This enables them to borrow at lower rates than their small brethren, giving them the edge they need to perpetuate the precarious status quo. Almost all governmental good intentions have toxic unintended consequences.

The marketplace can be a cruel mistress, but left to its own devices it is self-correcting. Governments can’t beat it. Delaying a tremor only leads to an earthquake down the line. That’s not to say that bad behavior shouldn’t be monitored and punished. Government policy, however, goes well beyond this, trying to manipulate market forces and pick winners and losers. The only real losers, ultimately, are the American people.

Currently, the Democrats and Republicans are fighting over how to deal with the upcoming “fiscal cliff.” In a bygone era the ruling class placed politics above the public good, but were loathe to admit it. In this new, progressive society, they revel in it. To wit: Zerlina Maxwell, a Democratic strategist, has suggested that Republicans put forth their idea for the entitlement cuts, as Democrats have already put their piece, the tax rate increases, on the table. This seems to parallel the president’s approach to date in his dealings with the legislature. The administration taxes the top one percent, a populist move (that generates little revenue), and requires the Republicans to do the heavy lifting—define the unpopular entitlement cuts that must happen if any hope of reversing the economic decline and paying off the burgeoning debt is to occur. This is a politically unbeatable “good parent/bad parent” strategy for the Democrats. One tells the child he can watch TV and play on the X-box and the other makes him eat his broccoli and clean his room. Bad parenting, it seems, wins votes.

It just doesn’t pay the bills.

WHERE’S THE MONEY?

As the President and Congress move closer toward passing the unpopular health care reform bill, the New York Times reported last month that “virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls.” The Washington Post reported that “because the program is large and expensive, the spurt in Medicaid caseloads has produced far more damaging effects on state budgets than” food stamps or welfare benefits.” On the cost-cutting side, The Boston Globe editorialized that “Fear of intrusion in the doctor-patient relationship so inhibits insurers that they are shunning one of the most obvious ways to cut medical costs: Avoiding costly procedures when they are proven to do no good.” They cited a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine study which found that “doctors could save $5 billion a year by treating patients with chest pain with drugs rather than surgically inserted stents” which “has been largely ignored.” The Globe suggests that “the government should give the medical profession the impetus to determine the most effective treatments for a range of ailments by establishing committees to determine the best practices.”

On the personal front, I’ve marveled at the burgeoning age of my patients. A few days ago I saw a 90 year-old, and 84 year-old, and a 94 year-old in succession, and hardly a day goes by now where one of my octogenarians doesn’t present to the emergency room somewhere in atrial fibrillation, a rapid, irregular heart rhythm that is becoming epidemic. The ability to live long enough to glut the health care system is testimony to the success of out ability to manage, and modulate, the many chronic ailments we haven’t yet learned to cure.

While the Democrats argue that, when presented with pieces of the proposed health care legislation (such as immunity from denial of pre-existing conditions by the insurers, and portability of insurance), their constituents give universal approval. This fuels their arguments that the overwhelmingly negative reception by the voters to the legislation is simply a manifestation of the distortion of the facts promulgated by the Republicans. But I think the politicos (intentionally?) underestimate the collective wisdom of the people. The people know in their hearts you don’t get “something for nothing,” and the addition of millions to the rolls will add billions to the cost. They also know that health care reform is needed and inevitable, but the current proposal, as I’m hearing ad nauseam in the media, is “a dog that won’t hunt.”

The only way to get more “bang for the buck” is to change practice patterns, and increase competition. I’ve suggested ways this can be accomplished in prior posts. I welcome other innovative ideas.

Addendum: In my last post I noted that Medicare reimbursement was slated to be reduced by 21% in March 1^st. In the interest of full disclosure, this cut has been placed on hold. It has not been repealed. The jury remains out on what the outcome will be.