Has the Season of MAGA Finally Arrived? Democrats Struggle for Relevance

Few doubted Donald Trump would win a second term as president. After incumbent President Joe Biden was forced aside due to supposed mental issues, all the Democrats were left with was Vice president Kamala Harris, and few thought she had any chance whatsoever in derailing the MAGA juggernaut, even with the not-so-subtle help of the so-called “impartial” mainstream media.

As Vice President and heir apparent to the Oval Office, Kamala accomplished little, although she did achieve the distinction of having the lowest approval rating of a Vice President for all four years of any party in recent history. So, I guess that’s at least something. Even the Republican Status Quo didn’t bother challenging “The Donald” with a primary.  There’s no question, the “Season of MAGA” is upon us.

During his first 50 days, President Trump signed over 70 executive orders (a record number by the way). He’s empowered billionaire Elon Musk to head the Department of Government Efficiency (aka “DOGE”) to root out government waste and inefficiency wherever it could be found.

 In the process, thousands of government employees have been let go, funding of USAID and other programs have been dramatically cut. Now, DOGE is threatening Social Security and Medicare in it’s hunt for waste and fraud. Already it’s found millions in waste, including checks going to individuals long dead.  But many are beginning to wonder if DOGE will reach too far in its zealous search.  

Tariffs have been implemented against Mexico, China, and Canada in order to level the global economic trading field. Of course, they’ve responded in kind. Now it’s a matter of who will blink first (hint: Canada appears to be first out).  In addition, President Trump, in keeping with his promise of eliminating illegal immigration, has begun widespread round up and deportation of thousands of individuals here illegally.

Trump is also planning on cutting federal funding to all “sanctuary cities” as well. And if that wasn’t enough, he’s even ordered that the name of Gulf of Mexico be changed. It will now be known as the “Gulf of America” to reflect our rediscovered “greatness”. Needless to say, Mexico and most of Latin America isn’t too keen on the name change.

Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, was the early bird to Washington, hat in hand, and wanting to be one of the first to ask for billions more of taxpayer money to continue the war with Russia. For Zelensky, it was a diplomatic and media disaster.

The Ukrainian president was publicly heavily chastised by President Trump for not having at least a proposal to stop hostilities rather than just perpetuating a war that’s lasted three years all ready and cost thousands of lives and billions in damage. Russia’s president, Vladmir Putin, has already made peace overtures which were all but ignored by Zelensky. NATO, of course, threw a fit and has promised to continue military aid to Ukraine, which itself can ill afford (or worse, to keep poking the Russian bear until it bites back).

So, what about the Democrats? They fared poorly in the election all the way around.  In today’s hyper partisan political world, it goes without saying that whatever the other side does, the opposing party is against. It could be a cure for cancer and some partisan faction would find a reason to complain about it.

Case in point, at President Trump’s recent Congressional address on March 4th, he introduced a young man (about 13 years old) by the name of “DJ” Daniel, who has been fighting a lifelong battle with a cancerous brain tumor. This young man has always wanted to be in law enforcement. Knowing that to be unlikely given his condition (in 2018, doctors told Daniel’s family that DJ had roughly five months to live), he started collecting police and other law enforcement badges.  

Along the way, he’s been made an honorary officer some 50 times (including an honorary FBI “Special Agent”). During the speech, DJ was introduced and received a rousing applause from everyone, well, except the Democrats in attendance. They sat on their hands and totally ignored the brave young 13 year old cancer survivor.

Even when he was made an honorary Secret Service agent by the director of the Secret Service himself, Sean Curran, there was crickets coming from the Democrat side of the aisle. What gives? Has partisan hatred (and I do mean “hatred”) gone so far as to take it out on some little kid? Well, the public noticed in a big way.

Democrats were overwhelmed with negative letters, especially coming from their own side, chastising them over their disrespect of DJ. Even Democratic rank and file members, in a rare instance of courage, went after their party leaders for not allowing them some leeway to respond during the speech.

For anyone who watched the address, all they saw from the Democrats was them holding up signs calling Trump names, making accusations, and playing video games, while a few got up and walked out. One, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) stood up and tried to shout over the president and heckle him, was thrown out. The end result was a political party in disarray and at each other’s throats.

 That’s not how you win back the American People, and in case you have any doubts, an NBC News poll released on March 17^th found just 7% of those polled have a “very favorable” opinion of Democratic Party and just 27% had a “favorable” opinion! To put it another way, 66% of respondents had a negative opinion of the Democratic Party.  That’s the lowest favorability numbers since 1990.

A CNN poll, conducted March 6 -9, showed similar results. Reflecting a new low for the Democrats, the poll showed a favorability rating of 29% among Democrats and liberal leaning Independents. 54% said they had an unfavorable opinion of the Democrats.

In comparison, the low point for the Republicans was in September 2017 during Trump’s first term when the GOP hit an all time low of 62% (their approval rating was 29%) with the rest having no opinion.

Also, according to the CNN poll, 57% of Democrats and liberal leaning Independents surveyed said they wanted the Democrats to oppose the current Trump agenda. Just 42% said they want the Democrats to try and work with Republican lawmakers.

Contrast those numbers with a September 2017 poll and Trump’s first term when 74% of Democrats and liberal leaning Independents wanted Congressional Democrats to work with Trump while only 23% said they wanted Democrats to stop the Trump White House. As for current Republican favorability among the GOP faithful and conservative leaning Independents,  the Republican Party was standing at 48%.

A CNN/SSRS poll from March 18^th show that voters in general had a low opinion of both corporate owned parties in general with neither polling over a 20% approval rating. This is especially true of the nation’s largest voting bloc, Independents.

Republicans and conservatives gave themselves an 80% approval rating whereas just 63% of Democrats and those who lean liberal could say the same thing about the Democrat Party. The majority of Democrats and those who lean liberal---52%---said the biggest issues with the party is a lack of leadership.

Among Independents, the Democrats have a 19% approval rating while the GOP’s approval rating is a paltry 20%. In our current “winner-take-all” system, 90% of all elections, including Congressional races, are safe for one party or the other, meaning that the losing side forgoes any real representation for the duration of the office term (of course, despite a lack of representation, you can bet that the tax bills keep rolling in).

A February 13^th Gallup Poll showed that 45% of liberal leaning Independents and Democrats alike say the Democratic Party needs to adopt a more moderate or centrist course. 29% would like to take the party even further Left.  Just 22% wants to stay the course.

In dropping back to 2021, 31% of Democrats and progressive Independents wanted to stay the course. However, it was a tie at 34% each between those who wanted a shift further to the Left and those who wanted a more moderate approach.

In looking at conservative leaning Independents and party Republicans, 43% are happy where the party currently is. 28% would like to take the GOP further to the Right whereas 27% would prefer that the Republican Party tone it down a bit.

With Republican and conservative leaning Independents, 40% in 2021 want to see the GOP get even more conservative. 34% were happy where they were, but 24% thought the party should dial it back a few notches. Among all groups, each wanted theirs to take the lead with moderates wanting more moderation, liberals wanting to be more liberal, and conservatives wanting to be even more conservative.

So, where does this leave us? President Trump has hit the ground running full tilt, much to the delight of his MAGA supporters while the Democrats are still suffering from election shell shock. They have yet to come up with an effective massage to counter Trump, primarily because their leadership is completely out of touch with the American People.

Meanwhile, the nation’s largest voting bloc---Independents---have had enough of the extreme partisanship of both corporate controlled parties. Remember that both the Democrats and the Republican constituted minority parties, which reflects why both are struggling with the American voter.

 Until one or the other party can tap into the large centrist bloc, this national divide will only continue to worsen. Perhaps now, more than ever, it’s time for a third party. 58% of Americans agree.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Trump makes 13-year-old cancer survivor  a Secret Service agent during speech to Congress

Polls Show Democrats Losing Popularity, Yet Making 2026Gains

CNN Poll: Only 19% of Independents View Democrats Favorablyand Don’t Think Much Better of Republicans

More Democrats Favor Party Moderation Than in the Past

Gallup: Support for Third Party Dips Slightly: Still Close to60%

 

 

 

The Manifesto of Max Azzarello: The Man Who Set Himself on Fire Outside Trump Trial Courthouse

I came across this article quite by mistake...sort of. It's the death manifest of Max Azzarello, ago 37 from St. Augustine, Florida. Never heard of him? Me either, but he's the guy who set himself on fire (and later died) outside of the  Manhattan courthouse on Friday where Trump's trial is take place. Normally, I don't pay much attention to thinks like this but for some reason it caught my attention. Perhaps it's because the only time we hear about people setting themselves on fire always happens somewhere else, such as in Nepal, China, or Algeria.

In those cases it was a Buddhist monk,Thich Quang Duc, protesting persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese Government  of Ngo Dinh Diem and, indirectly, by the Roman Catholic Church, set himself on fire in 1963. The second, in 2011, was a Tunisian street fruit and vegetable vendor, by the name of Mohamed Bouazizi. He set himself on fire as a way to protest oppressive government regulations and harassment by local police. 

In the former case, not much happened except some brief outrage and condemnation of the government and to earn some photographers a few good paychecks. In the latter case, it lit the fuse (pardon the pun) and ignited a massive pro-democracy movement throughout most of the Middle East known as the "Arab Spring" (in Tunisia, Bouazizi's death ignited the "Jasmine Revolution" to overthrow the authoritarian government of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and institute major democrat reforms). 

So what do these two "incendiary" acts have to do with Mr. Azzarello except three individuals, out of desperation, decided to turn themselves into human candles. At least, that was as far as I got initially. It's not often the police or the media allow manifestos like this to be published. Usually, the media gets a brief peek at it and publishes some intriguing but vague tidbits, and after a few days the story...and victim are buried without much fanfare and the briefest of public explanations.  Not in this case it appears. 

In the case of Mr. Azzarello, his manifesto was posted on a site called "The Ponzi Papers" which appears to be the project of one "M. Crosby". For whatever reason, "M. Crosby" published the political manifesto of Max Azzarello (who may have been one and the same). I am posting the link, which you'll find below, so you can read what Max had to say himself. 

Much of the manifesto is, well, "crazy stuff" and full of references to schemes by the rich and powerful, especially financial schemes on a global scale (which is the only level the elites play on). War and conflicts often have little to do what we're told they're about---democracy, freedom, ending extreme poverty, and so forth.

In reality, behind all the flag waving, patriotic sounding sound bites, photo ops and photo plants, they're almost always about gaining access to or control of economic markets, cheap and unregulated labor, or access to certain natural resources such as rare earth metals, gold, tin, oil, iron ore, and increasingly, fresh water. Everything else is designed to appease us---the masses---so that we'll go along.

However, what I found interesting, at least from my perspective, as a political and historical writer, is that Mr. Azzarello identifies today's government as being fascist and his actions as "revolutionary" act (I guess that would make his letter a "revolutionary manifesto"). A neo-fascist America has been a topic of interest for decades (my first introduction to America's transition was the 1980 book "Friendly Fascism" by Dr. Bertram Gross and "Trilateralism", also written in 1980, and edited by Holly Sklar. These two eye opening books (which I reread repeatedly) were followed by countless others, along with numerous academic papers and articles. 

I don't know where or how Max Azzarello came to his political realization, but obviously he must have read or watch many of the same sources (not to mention being an observer of certain recent events such as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the January 6th protests). He claims many of his conclusions were the result of his intensive investigation of Peter Thiel and his venture capital firm, Founders Fund. Thiel was a co-founder of PayPal, Valar Ventures (a venture capital firm), Palantir Technologies (which specializes in software platforms for data analytics), and was an outside investor of Facebook.

Thiel is also a member of the Republican Party. He regularly gives to both Republican and Libertarian candidates through his private political action committee, "Free Forever". While gay, he is an avid supporter of strict border control, restrictive immigration policies, support for veterans, and backs an anti-interventionist foreign policy.

Azzarello claimed that Thiel, a conservative libertarian, was responsible for a run on Silicon Valley Bank and was a key figure in a massive financial "ponzi scheme" which adversely affected thousands for nothing more than a simple fat payday. 

Public records indicate that in 2023, Thiel's company, Founders Fund, advised corporate investors to pull their money from Silicon Valley Bank after their announcement that the bank needed to raise capital to cover losses by selling certain assets. That resulted in a run on the bank . Within 48 hours of disclosing the sale of its assets, the bank collapsed, resulting in the takeover by the FDIC. 

The FDIC later facilitated the sale of Silicon Valley Bank to First Citizens Banks while the FDIC kept control of approximately $90 billion in assets and securities in receivership. According to the FDIC, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank cost taxpayers roughly $20 billion dollars.

Despite claiming that he spent over 1700 hours in his research of Thiel and Founders Fund and producing a slew of information which he claims supported his allegations regarding a defacto "raid" on the bank.  Was Mr. Thiel the villain as alleged or just a investor protecting his and others money? I can't say I totally agree with Mr. Azzarello's conclusions of pure greed by Thiel, but I certainly do not agree with his "solution" in bringing attention to his efforts.

America needs results to its growing problems, not martyrs. That means we need to find ways to bring about term limits, removing Citizens United and the ownership of the two large political parties by Wall Street, serious tax reform, overhauling our education system, and stopping illegal immigration. We need voter approval on any tax, fee, or rate increases, at least at the local and state levels. It's our money after all.

We need stronger employee input in business through not just unions but non-union employee associations and the creation of more Employee Stock Ownership Programs ("ESOP") whereby the employees are the owners of the business they work for. We need to address climate change, dissolve defacto monopolies, end "wars and conflicts for fun and profit" and stop interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries.

We need to reform our political system so that those elected or appointed stop being partisan and start representing everyone in their district regardless of party. The political playing field also needs to be leveled so that the same rules expected of Democrats and Republicans apply to third parties and Independents. As it is, third party candidates and Independents are forced to jump through some outrageous hoops just to get on the ballot!.

For instance, instead of requiring three signatures (of the same party as you) on your application to run, Independents and third parties have to have dozens or more signatures! Also, while Independents are overwhelmingly the nation's largest voting bloc, they are rarely appointed to boards and commissions. Instead, most of these appointments go to the two corporate owned parties (with the party in power getting the lion's share).

These are but just a few of the changes we need if we're to restore our Republic, and it's going to take a lot of work and people. After all, we didn't lose the Republic overnight. Personally, I believe our freedom and the freedom of our children and grandchildren are worth the effort. Don't you? This is where Max missed the boat. A live reformer (or even "revolutionary") is better than a dead martyr.

So, without further ado, here's the link to Mr. Azzarello's "manifesto". I'm also including a link to a booklet written by the mysterious "M. Crosby" which you might find interesting entitled "The True History of the Work (Haunted Carnival Edition)":

I have set myself on fire outside the Trump Trial

The True History of the Work (Haunted Carnival Edition)

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Man sets himself on fire outside Trump trial

  

Mohamed Bouaziz

Thich Quang Duc

List of Political Self-Immolations

Founders Fund

 

Peter Thiel

Arab Spring

Silicon Valley Bank collapse explained: Whatyou need to know

The Seeds of Destruction

There's expression which seems to aptly apply to the current state of America like no other which goes like this,  "every revolution contains within it the seed to its own destruction". The expression originates from author Frank Herbert's magnum opus, "Dune", first serialized in the sci-fi magazine "Analog" from 1963 through 1965 and finally published as a book in 1965.

The expression was given voice by the character "Princess Irulan", the emperor's daughter, as she said "...if history teaches us anything, it's simply this: every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. And empires that rise will one day fall". Have truer words ever been spoken (even if only by a fictional character)?

The United States was founded based on the concept of freedom of the individual, no matter what that entailed. We had the right to live where we wanted. To believe---or not---what we wanted. To lives our lives with as little government interference as possible. This was to be the land where the individual was sovereign. 

We welcomed everyone with a dream and who longed for freedom. It was here that a "seed" of the revolution which was planted by our Founding Fathers. In time it would be called The Tree of Liberty. It would bear fruit and shade for all Mankind or so hope our nation's Founders.

 That seed has struggled to survive. It's been watered with the sweat and blood of countless Americans. Some have sought to dig it up while others wanted to cage it and change it. Now that seed has grown into something not wholly expected.

We allowed ourselves to become distracted. We turned over its care to those for whom care was their own interests. They watered it too freely with our blood and sweat. They pruned too deeply, cutting away the lives of our young men and women for their temporal benefit like placing a rose in a vase. They deprived it of nourishment by cutting off its sources of knowledge as others poisoned its roots with lies and distortions.

The Republic created on that hot July day in Philadelphia in 1776 has passed as all empires do in their Autumns, yet those who destroyed haven't allowed it to fully take its place in history. They sought to hide what they've done by showing us reflections.   

Perhaps we were willing to be deceived. Unable to face what we had allowed.  But if we're to save it, we must let it go and salvage what we can. It's decay didn't result from the idea itself. The seed itself was good. Perhaps it placed too much faith on the individual. It's slow decay the result of our lack of attention. In the end, it shows that freedom is never free or safe, even in soil where it was planted.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

 

The Race to Beat Trump

I have to admit that I'm perplexed and to be honest, a bit amused. Why you ask? The Republican Primary and race to defeat Donald Trump. I've never seen anything like this and I've been involved in politics for a very long time. This is much more than just an attempt to dethrone a frontrunner. It goes far deeper than that. There is an organized and concerted effort by both the Democrat and Republican Establishment to defeat Trump before the May 17th Primary, and if they can't do it then, the GOP party boys seem intent on using "small print" convention rules to deny him the nomination.

As a few political observers have noted, a party nominee isn't determined at the conventions by the candidate with the most delegates(i.e., who the people want). The nominee is chosen by the party leadership, who may, at their discretion, ignore the wishes of the voters through the use of so-called "super-delegates", which were built into both parties by-laws in ensure control, along with more than a little backroom intimidation and bribery. I think this is something most voters were unaware of previously; that their vote doesn't necessarily mean anything, which seems to play right into Trump's hands since part of his campaign has been about just how corrupt both political parties are.

Almost from the outset, the GOP leadership, the candidates themselves, the corporate media (including several at the once conservative Fox News), and naturally, the Oligarchs who now run this country, have been behind a no holds barred campaign to belittle, bully, distort, and harass Trump and his supporters. We would expect this from the Left leaning wing of the corporate party, the Democrats, and the Left leaning (but corporate controlled) media, but not from the those on the Right. We've even had candidates try and team up against Trump, such as Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz in various configurations. When did that last happen? Just recently, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, who is still nominally a candidate though mathematically eliminated, publically agreed to join forces to work against Trump. A few days ago, after losing all four races in the same night, Cruz, acting "as if" he was the party's frontrunner, announced that former candidate Carly Fiorina was going to be his choice for Vice President. Seriously? Cruz has no chance of catching Trump at this point, so why is he announcing Fiorina as his running mate? Is he counting on the party boys to engineer his nomination? Is this a "Hail Mary" effort to pick up at least a few more delegates so he doesn't look so bad going into the convention? Is it to deny Trump the opportunity of asking Fiorina (though doubtful) to be his running mate?

Then there are all the protestors showing up all of sudden at Trump rallies. Again, when was the last time that happened? I'm reminded of the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, when there were a large crowd of anti-war protestors down the street and the Chicago Police were given approval by then Mayor Bill Daley to go ape on the protestors, which spilled over into the convention itself and police "thugs" went after a few reporters and camera crews they disliked (the incident later became known as the 1968 Chicago Police Riot). A lot of people were seriously injured by the Chicago cops; something which I think they have yet to live down. Now, we have individuals sneaking into Trump rallies, trying to shout down speakers, start fights, pushing people around, tearing up signs, and whatever else they can to do. It reminds me of the ways the Nazi "SA" or Brownshirts, the Italian Fascist Blackshirts, and the Communists used to do back in the 1930's (as did corporate hired thugs to break up union meetings); anything to disrupt, embarrass, or intimidate their opponents. The corporate media presents the disturbances "as if" it was all Trump or his supporters fault by cherry picking what they say and how they edit the footage. No wonder people don't believe the corporate media anymore.

Recently, the violence has increased. We have protestors breaking through police barricades and attacking Trump supporters, throwing bottles, rocks, tearing down signs, blocking entrances and even trashing police cars and assaulting police officers. Of course, the corporate media bends over backwards to blame Trump. All of this is, naturally, to create a negative image of "The Donald" and keep supporters away, all in an attempt to sway voters to Cruz or at the very least, get them to lean to towards Hillary should Trump get out of the Primary with the GOP nomination. What they've accomplished, however, is in making themselves look like punks. In fact, I think we've long passed giving them the legitimacy of calling them "protestors", which implies at least a measure of order. What we are witnessing aren't "protests". These are political riots like what you would expect to see in Third World countries or places with dictatorships who order opponents and their supporters to be harassed (Paraguay and Egypt come to mind). Is that what we've become? Is that how our political system functions how?

In just the past few days, we've seen thousands of these "political rioters", including hundreds of apparent illegal immigrants and others with dozens of Mexican flags, breaking through police and security barricades, overturning police cars, burning the US flags, violently attacking individuals who simply came to hear Trump speak---leaving several beaten and bloody, blocking traffic for miles (which has become a favorite tactic of late); forcing Trump and other speakers to cross a footbridge, cut through a fence, and come in a side door...to his own event! Even during the worse of the riots of the 1960's and 1970's, this never happened, not at least to this degree!

What all this says to me is less about Trump and his message, and more about what the Oligarchs who run this country are afraid of. What is it about "The Donald" that inspires such fear on the part of the powerbrokers and their pawns? Is it the fact that Trump has enough money to fund his own campaign and isn't beholden to them; doesn't have to make any special deals? Is it because he is actually a political outsider, and not one of the usual insiders who pretends to be "one of the people" and will "stand up to the special interests in Washington"---that is, until the election is over (the only "standing up" they do is when their paymasters walk into the room and that's because many are too old thanks to gerrymandering and the absence of term limits to be able to get off their knees).

Ted Cruz and others like him like to pretend he's not one the Oligarchs' minions, just like all the rest in Congress. It's part of the game. They try to convince the American People they are "different"; that they really represent the interests of the ordinary Americans, just don't look to close at their records or who they get their money from. These are the vetted and pre-approved candidates who will do as they told, without question or conscience. They will foment wars, economic downturns, labor and social unrest, challenge traditional family values; whatever is required of them just so long as their Overlords, the Oligarchs, make a profit and enlarge their control. After all, control is the name of game, be it control over resources in some far flung nation or here at home. It's also control over us. We're are necessary liabilities. The more control they can exert over us, through control of the economy, our workplace, our credit ratings, social norms, and most of all, our privacy, the more they can maximize their profits and minimize their risks by manipulating and anticipating our actions and reactions. They control our elections through pricing ordinary---and perhaps more qualified---individuals out from the get-go. They buy who they want, thanks to Citizens United, and keep them for as long as they want, with thanks to gerrymandering and no term limits. It's how we went from being a democratic republic to a neo-fascist nation with an emerging police state. Welcome to the Machine boys and girls.

Perhaps all this is what frightens the Oligarchs the most about Donald Trump. He's unscripted, which makes him genuinely popular with ordinary Americans across the political spectrum. He's self-financed, so no backroom "sell-your-soul" deals. He's a actual outsider, not a Kool-Aid drinking Democrat or Republican follows party dogma over the Will of the American People (what a novel concept). He's willing to think outside of prescribed boundaries or act in pre-approved ways. He's willing to do what the American People want, not just either make empty and meaningless promises or simply ignoring us altogether. He will not take a stand, but make a stand, regardless of whether its popular with the 1% elites or not. Personally, I haven't been a particular fan of Donald Trump through the years; a bit to brash for me. However, if the Oligarchs, their corporate media, the K Street moneymen, the party boys on both sides are willing to go to this extent to degrade, belittle, harass, intimidate and bully, burn vehicles, attack and beat innocent people up, blocks highways and streets, assault police officers, burn American flags, bring out illegal immigrants, then there must be something they are terrified of and if that's the case, then Trump must be on the right track and that's someone I think we need to get behind.

Playing the Trump Card

If you didn't see the debates, I'm sure you've heard all about them by now. For days before, all I heard was how Donald Trump was going to be the comic relief; not to be taken too seriously while the corporate media barely was able to hide both its puzzlement as to how Trump could be leading the pack of these prepackaged "empty suits" so handedly (he was leading with 27% pre-debate; close to 3 times that of his closest opponent) and their contempt for "The Donald".

While I don't think the gloves were on in the first place (given the not-so-subtle negative buildup and steady innuendos), they were definitely off by the time of the debate; while the other candidates were asked mostly policy type questions, the three Fox moderators went after Trump's personal life and past statements; some from years ago. Now, I will agree that in some instances personal questions are important since they go to character of the individual, however in the Donald's case, it was almost all personal. It seemed clear that the intent of the moderators was to make Trump look like an amateur up against the professionals, which in some ways I guess he was.

Trump defended past remarks---some made in jest or off the cuff---with all the "in your face" finesse we've come to expect from New York developer. Trump made it crystal clear that he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Meanwhile, the other candidates were asked a few character defining questions, but for the most part, seemed to get off light in that respect. Most tried to pretend they weren't professional politicians or were mere humble servants of the working class. All, without exception, touted their political accomplishments, which is certainly fair enough (a few carefully omitted the part about undertaking their newly found "Man of the People" exploits while planning their presidential run. But you know what? That's just politics. All politicians prestaged their races with calculated acts to make it look like they're not a part of the political class. They talk about sponsoring bills to do this or prevent that without mentioning they never made it out of committee or were never voted on by the House and so forth. Others like to talk about "taking the lead" for some cause or another, when all they did was lend their name (if that) or happened to mention it in a talk or speech. Of course, all of them love to take credit for popular projects they either had little to do with or just happened to fall in their lap.

I remember back around 2001, after spending months working to preserve a badly needed bus route which was used by seniors and low income individuals, an opponent of mine stepped in and took credit for the effort right after the election to the amazement of the other nine or so individuals on the board; some of whom never even had heard of him (TARC, the quasi-government transportation company shot it down anyway, citing insufficient usage). He went on to try and take credit on a neighborhood drainage issue I had had spent a year or so working on. I think the only ones who bought into it was his core cronies! But, as I said, that's just politics and that's what most of these characters were doing. At least Trump was honest. No spin. No "PC". When he liked someone else's answer, he acknowledged it. How wonderfully unscripted!

The big take away from the debate was that except for a few of the candidates, most of these individuals looked plastic. A few did stand out. Notably Marco Rubio, Dr. Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee with some outstanding comments (though Dr. Carson's nervousness showed through), while a few others, including Chris Christie, Rick Sanatorium and Kentucky's Rand Paul didn't do themselves any favors. Christie and Paul came across combative (some critics were calling Paul "Napoleonic" presumably because of his size and almost angry tone. He would be better served by relaxing more and showing more of his personality). Christie too was competitive, which, while people like his straightforwardness, seemed more spiteful than explanatory (which conjured up images of the big traffic foul-up undertaken by his staff, and allegedly with at least his tacit knowledge if not approval, over an unintentional slight by another politician. Vindictiveness never looks good in the light). As for Rick Sanatorium, he just seemed unprepared and ill at ease, which is not what you want in a potential candidate. Florida Governor Jeb Bush, he had a few good remarks as well. However, his lack of charisma shined through as did his Establishment demeanor (there's been some persistent rumors that somehow Jeb Bush or someone on his staff were given an advanced copy of at least a few of the questions. I suspect that will remain unproven. Nevertheless, it's seems that Bush is the Establishment's "boy". The rest, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and company reminded me of the old Second City comic team, "The Not Really for Prime Time Players".

Yet with all of this, the pressure was on to make Trump look unstable, volatile, and not a team player (by that, I mean the "go along to get along" sort as former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn used to say when talking about backroom politics). When Trump fired back, the Fox mediators tried to make it look like he was too unpredictable to be president. When the candidates were asked if they'd support the party nominee, everyone raised their hand except Trump. Moderator Brett Baier jumped on that and kept repeating the question as if Trump had admitted to committing some major crime (I guess in the eyes of the oligarchs who run the media and this country, his response could be viewed as crime). Trump made it clear that if he significantly disagreed with whoever the nominee was, he'd at least consider a third party run. Even after the debate, Trump wasn't invited to a follow-up event and now, apparently, one of his campaign managers has decided to leave. There's is no doubt that this kind of pressure isn't for everyone, and you can bet that the media and power elites are going to try to find Trump's "Achilles heel' anywhere and anyhow they can.

Think about this for a minute. Here's someone who has more politicians who owe him favors than he owes them. He's also one of the very few individuals who could largely, if not totally, underwrite his entire campaign. He is also someone who is not willing to play

the usual political game of making promises he knows he cannot and never intends to keep. He's not "politically correct". He's saying what the American People have been saying all along. He's not letting those who control both political parties (as well as the media) dictate his responses the way they do just about everyone else. Trump isn't beholden to the powerbrokers. And despite how desperate the media tries to manufacture a negative image of Trump, he continues to not just lead in the polls, but is gaining momentum. That has to send icy cold shivers down the spines of the 1% the way another rich blue blood did to his fellow aristocrats nearly 75 years ago. I am, of course, talking about Franklin Roosevelt (one could even make a good argument for JFK who turned his back on the political establishment) who was labeled a "traitor to his class" by the Wallstreet elite of his time and more than a few newspaper editors.

So, what's the bottom line here? I think it's quite simple really. The American People know that our political and economic system is utterly broken despite all this "rainbows and sunshine" these candidates and the media are trying to blow up our collective rear ends. Bush talked about "raising up" Americans while Huckabee talked about "restoring" American values. You can't climb a ladder with missing rungs or rotten legs. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you can't afford shoestrings---or even boots. Mega corporations like the kind which own Washington get rewarded for moving jobs overseas and slapped on the back for finding creative ways to steal from taxpayers or avoid paying their fair share of taxes while mom and pop shops are either regulated out of business or undercut by cookie cutter stores.

The Average American is struggling to make ends meet, and many aren't succeeding even by working two or three jobs. When adjusted for inflation, Americans are make less---far less---than they did in the 1970's. Young adults are burden with school debts that some may

never be able to pay off while the academic performance of American high school students continues to nosedive. Welcome to the Machine children. We hope you adjust to your serfdom quickly. We have a tax system which is out of whack and grossly unfair. Seniors are struggling and Obamacare isn't working. Crime is rampant. America is and has been invaded by individuals coming here illegally, not to become citizens or avoid persecution, and most definitely with no interest in integrating into the American Melting Pot or even learning our language (expecting Americans, instead, to learn theirs). Despite a decade or more of public outrage over illegal immigration by the majority of Americans, politicians of either party even bother to give us lip service anymore.

That's another point made by "The Donald". If it wasn't for him, the GOP wouldn't even have acknowledged illegal immigration. At least now they will have to pretend to care and offer up a make believe "solution". We are engaged in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in; particularly Iraq, which was conceived of and carried out as a bold face lie for the sake of "punishing" Saddam Hussein and to acquire control over Iraqi oilfields; such is the ignorance, arrogance and callousness of the ruling elite. Meanwhile, we find ourselves wanting to extend "political correctness" to our enemies while at the same time inviting them with open arms into this country and cater to their every demand lest they don't like us anymore (you would think hate filled chants of "Death to America. Death to all Americans" would be a clue as to their feelings), and all the while, we've been transformed from the democratic republic of our Founding Fathers to an oligarchy with a neo-police state to enforce it. Thus far only a small handful of countries have escaped this new version of WTO, IMF and Federal Reserve inspired corporatism (another term for fascism as defined by its founder, Benito Mussolini). The most noteworthy of which are China and Russia (wouldn't it be ironic if our Cold War bogeyman, Russia, proves to be the very nation most capable of saving America from our new fascist overlords?).

Like him or hate him, Donald Trump is a breath of fresh air. He's giving voice to what America believes. He's not politically correct. He's not prepackaged. Yes, he's part of the Establishment, at least in some ways, while he firmly stands outside the fantasy world of Washington's Beltway. Trump, at the very least, energizes the country. Will he win the nomination? In a word, no. The power elite who control the election process and the levers of power will never let a potential reformer anywhere near the Oval Office. Some of his less "extreme" ideas may be incorporated, at least into the rhetoric but rest assured, the powerbrokers will make sure their chosen one will be selected just as they will on the Democratic side. "The Donald" can attempt a third party run, but remember the two parties previously came together when third party candidate Ross Perot ran so successfully to make it impossible for no future independent or third party candidate to ever again challenge their cozy rigged system. So if nothing else, Donald Trump has reminded the American People of just how far removed the political system is from the ideals of our Founding Fathers and what it's going to take to restore our America.

Politics and Age

America is at the crossroads. We've heard it time and again how this or that election is somehow the "most critical" . Such hyperbole is generally used to create an emotional response on behalf of the electorate in order to get them to the polls. But something is in fact changing in America. There has not been such a broad and deep divide between people, and the role of the government since the decade preceding the Civil War. However, this series has examined a number of key topics such as gay marriage, race, and religion and its affect on current and perhaps future party affiliation. Continuing with our series on future trend of politics in America, I'm going to look at the age and party affiliation in this article, but first, let's define some terms.

The "Greatest Generation" are those born after 1929. They are our seniors today. Theirs was the generation of the Great Depression , WWII and the Korean War. Many served in senior positions during the early years of the Vietnam War. "Baby Boomers" are those born between 1946 and 1964., a span of 18 years. The first wave (Peace or Woodstock) was born between 1946 and 1955. The second wave (Protest) was born between 1956 and 1964. "Generation X" (GenX) was born between 1965 and 1979. They were first generation "technies". "Generation Y" (GenY or Millennials) were born between 1980 and 2005.

According to a Gallup Poll from 2009, Democrats do well across all age groups. Their greatest strength seems to be among the second Boomer wave and among those 20 and younger. Republicans, on the other hand, seem to do well among those in their 30s and 40s and among seniors. Independents, interestingly, do well among the younger and middle age groups, but begin to decline in number by age 40. Seniors are slightly more likely to be Republican than Democrat, except among the senior most, those in their 70's and 80's, where the trend is reversed in favor of Democrats.

As for a possible explanation, the younger groups are concerned about the costs of higher education, finding a job, and getting established in life. Therefore, they are looking more to government assistance which has been a Democratic issue since FDR. Among Boomers (which includes yours truly), it's about government's role in society. Boomers, who grew up with the Vietnam War, Woodstock, the murders of MLK, RFK and Kent State, the Chicago Police Riots, and Watergate, are less trustful of government, especially the corporate/government connection. They tend to be fiscally conservative but socially liberal or moderate. They are most concerned with retirement, IRAs, Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs.

On the other hand, you have the GenXers who came of age during the Reagan Years (think Alex P Keaton of Family Ties or Wallstreet's Gordon Gecko), a gorowing economy, small but successful military operations, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact, and, later, of Communism itself in Russia. They later experienced George Bush (41) and a moderate Democrat in the person of Bill Clinton. This was the "go-go" generation of overpaid MBAs on Wallstreet; Newt's Republican Revolution, dotcoms, and an unrealistic real estate boom. Greed was good, for some. Bush's Operation Desert Storm made the world safe for oil producer states like Kuwait. Moderates were driven from the Republican Party and the birth of the Independents was born.

GenYs came started to come of age during Clinton and witnessed George Bush (43) in all his bumbling glory. GenYs did get a sense of patriotism not felt since their grandparent's generation when, on 9/11, America was attacked by cowards and provoked into the invasion of Afghanistan, and later, the ill advised invasion of Iraq while the economy began to tank. This, in turn, resulted in GenYs coming out in droves to support the other party as wars and depressions always do. It is also this same generation which is most disillusioned by their choice of president. However, while they appear to have lost their attraction to Obama, they haven't lost their attraction to the Democratic Party. It has often been said that the current generation is a reflection of their grandparent's generation. In this instance, it appears to be a fair comparison. We witnessed the rise of the Tea Party, the Occupy Movements, the hacker group Anonymous, the faltering of corporate capitalism, the rise of Chinese and Indian economies, and the greatest fundamental division among the American People since just before the Civil War. Perhaps an harbinger of things to come.

If the numbers are any guide, the future for the Republican Party, if it continues on its present course, is one of irrelevance, and finally, political oblivion. Whites, the GOP core, are declining. GOP influence among women, a key voting bloc, continues to decline. In a June 12th Gallup Poll, 41% of women leaned Democrat regardless of age compared to 27% who leaned Republican, which reaffirmed an earlier May 6, 2009 poll. While for the Democrats, its current coalition is doomed to be rearranged into something less familiar. Blacks, long the core of the Democratic Party, are no longer its key minority base. They have been replaced by Hispanics, and perhaps soon by Asians. Hispanics, on the other hand, tend to be socially moderate to conservative, which may cause the Democrats to move closer to the center on at least social issues.

So, what does all this mean? Simply that across the board, in terms of age, the Democrats hold the strongest positions. Especially important are the aging Boomers and the raising GenYs which will box in the more Republican leaning GenXers. When compared to my last two articles (Politics and Race and Politics and Religion), the future isn't very bright for the Grand Old Party, at least as it now stands. Trends across the board favor the Democrats and Independents. If things continue as they are, I could foresee a future where moderately conservative or libertarian Indies have largely replaced the GOP while small conclaves of the Republican Party exist here and there while a center left Democrat Party becomes the defacto party of America.

Obama may lose. I'll be surprised of he doesn't. But his defeat will not signal a victory for Romney or the Republicans, but merely the majority's rejection of Obama's policies. Romney will represent a short breathing space for a return to a Democratic White House. Meanwhile, public apathy toward Congress will worsen to outright contempt, especially among the conservative and predominately white minority (currently Congress has an 84% disapproval rating). It's at that point that things may be interesting.


Suggested Reading:

Gen Dems: The Party's Advantage Among Young Voters Widens

Democrats Do best Among Generation Y and Baby Boomers


GOP face Political ID Deficit Among All Age Groups

Republcians Face Steep Uphill Climb Among Women

Two Corpmen I Knew (anotheropinionblog.com)

Politics of Race (anotheropinionblog.com)

Politics of Religion (anotheropinionblog.com)

The Politics of Religion

I'm sure we all heard the old maxim about not discussing sex, religion, and politics. I previously looked at politics and its relationship on such issues as race and gays in the military in this series. Now, we're going to wade into the issue of politics and religion, so it's obvious that I don't listen to old maxims.

As previously discussed, the Republican Party has historically been mostly WASP types---White Angle-Saxon Protestants, although early on, many blacks belonged to the GOP thanks to its most illustrious representative, Abraham Lincoln (that changed during Depression Era and the creation of FDR's "Grand Coalition"). Other large minorities, such as Germans, Irish, Jews, and Catholics, tended to belong to the Democratic Party; a trend which seems to continue on to today and includes Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics).
Religion has always been important to Americans. Although it's a popular myth that America was founded as "Christian" nation, the fact is that America was founded as, and remains, a religious nation. Perhaps it's due to our Puritan heritage, or the large number of Huguenot descendents who came to our shores. One can't overlook the Quakers or German Protestants either (Jews, by and large, didn't come until much later). The fact is, however, that our Founding Fathers wanted to create a nation without a state sanctioned religion. In their day, one has to belong to the Anglican Church of England to own property or participate in government (it was even a requirement for certain professions. Even if you belonged to a different religion, you were still required to pay a "Church tax"). This wasn't unique to England. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, and Russia had similar restrictions.

Many of the Founding Fathers left the Anglican Church (or Episcopalian Church as it was called in America) and became Unitarians (which included Deists) or Congregationalists, which would morph and subdivide into dozens of other faiths during the "Great Awakening" and subsequent religious revival periods, in additional to the introduction of other faiths brought by new immigrants. Catholicism remained strong among the early Spanish, Portuguese, and French settlers. But, what about today? How does religion break down along party lines, and how is that factor in deciding elections?

According to a 2009 Gallup Poll, 49% of Republicans considered themselves to be "highly religious". 37% of Democrats thought of themselves as "highly religious" while only 10% of Independents did so. In a slight reversal, among those who simply regarded themselves as "religious", the highest number, at 44%, went to Democrats. Close behind with 42% were Republicans and Independents rounded out the "religious" category with 12%. Among those who responded that they were slightly religious, 37% were Republicans, while 48% were Democrats and 12% were Independents. The last group, the "not religious", showed that the overwhelming, 56%, were Democrats. 26% were Republicans and 16% were Independents. The results clearly show a strong divide. Democrats and Indies are least likely to be strongly religious while Republicans, as a whole, were the most likely to be religious ("religious" being defined as regularly attending services and active participation in religious holidays, etc).

When this was broken down along racial lines, the results become even more significant. Blacks are more likely than not, to be aligned with Democrats and have traditionally made up the core of the Democratic Party. While Democrats, as pointed out, are least likely to be religious, 80% of Blacks consider themselves to be "highly religious with 82% saying they are "religious". 78% identified themselves as moderately religious, and 79% said they weren't religious (the number among black Republicans across the board is steady at around 11%). As addressed in my last article, blacks, who are the third largest population, behind whites, and Hispanics, have shown a decline in population growth, meaning that their influence within the Democratic Party is also declining while their responses regarding religion would appear to show a closer tie to the Republican Party on social issues.

The population with the largest growth by far are Hispanics. Here again, we see a reversal of what one would expect. While Hispanics are strongly either Democrat or Independent, 46% identify as "very religious" while 48% are "religious". 54% say they are not religious and 51% indicate that are slightly religious. Of the ones who indentify as Republicans, 24% say they are "very religious", while 26% are religious compared to 21% who are not religious. Among Independent Hispanics, the number is fairly consistent at 22% across the board. Again, there is a significant religious oriented Hispanic population which appears untapped by the GOP for some reason.

The largest minority population is of course whites. Perhaps not unexpectedly, 62% who indentify as Republican also indicate they are "very religious" compared to 28% who are white and Democrat (only 9% of Indies fall in this category). White and Democrat polled at 36% "religious" compared to white and Republican at 53% (again, only 9% are Indies). The numbers break close to even among slightly religious white, either Republican or Democrat with 43% and 44% respectively. Non religious white Democrats reach their peak at 56% compared to 28% of the Republicans. Interestingly, this is also the high water mark for Indies with 15%.
What this appears to show us is that there is a significant population within minorities who, based on their religiosity, fall closer to current Republican ideals than they do to Democrat. This, presumably would include most social issues. The fact seems to be is that there is a large, generally conservative population among blacks and Hispanics, though the predominately white Republican Party has failed to take advantage of, which could be key to the survival of the GOP and conservative movement given the continuing decline of whites as a core population. As a result, I thought it would be interesting to take a brief look at denominations with regards to party affiliations as well.

Among Republicans, 55% indentify as Mormons. Conservative "Mainstream" Protestants were the second largest with 38%. Pentecostal, Christian, and Baptists were 38% and 37% (tie) respectively. Those belong to other Protestant churches were 31% likely to be Republican. Catholics were 28% likely as well. Among Muslims, 19% identify as Republicans as did 13% of Jews.
Among Democrats, Jews made the overwhelming population with 54%. Non-traditional religions made up 40% followed by Baptist with 39% and Catholics at 36%. Muslims were 35% likely to be Democrat, which ties with others of Eastern religions (such as Hindu or Buddhists). Those with no religious affiliation were 30% likely to be Democrat. Mainstream Christians made up 29%, along 24% Christian and 23% some other Protestant denomination. The least likely group to be Democrat were Mormons, at 14%.
As for Independents, who are the largest political group in America, 43% have no religious affiliation. 79% belong to a Eastern or other religion. 39% of Muslims are likely to Indies. 30% indentify as Christian and 29% say they are Catholic. Mainstream Christians are 28% with 27% for Jewish and various other Protestants denominations. Among Mormons, 26% say they're Indies compared to 24% of Pentecostals and 22% of Baptists.

So, what does this mean? I think, perhaps not unexpectedly, the more conservative religious denominations tend to be Republicans with Mormons leading the way (Mormons have always tended to be fiscally conservative, so I'm not surprised here), whereas Jews have tended to be the most socially liberal, and, therefore, the largest group among Democrats (given the history of the Jews, this too is no surprise). The trouble for the Republicans is that their demographics are declining. Whites, who are the core group of the GOP and the ones most apt to be "very religious" or "religious" are shrinking in terms of overall population, and the with the increase of religious diversity in America, are declining in terms of likeminded conservatives vis-a-vis the total population.
On the other hand, blacks, who are the core group for the Democrats, are looking at a similar problem. Blacks, as a percentage of the population, are declining. While a significant number are "very religious" or "religious", the Democrats appears to be drifting away from traditional Western religions. Part of this is due to the increase in religious diversity mentioned above. As a result, some, more socially conservative blacks, are likely to feel increasingly isolated from their traditional political home. With the GOP not reaching out, and the increase in the Hispanics population, blacks could find themselves politically isolated.

Hispanics appear to hold all the cards at the moment. They are the second largest minority, which means most federal dollars previously directed toward blacks, will now be redirected their way to reflect their new status. This will increase their economic, and thus political clout. Given their religiosity, 46% and 48% respectively considered themselves religious or very religious, a good sign for the GOP. With Hispanics traditionally being Catholics and the Catholic Church's often archaic stance on social issues, this should further make them ideal candidates for the socially conservative GOP. However, Catholics comprised only a midpoint within the GOP with 28%, but a high midpoint within the Democratic party at 36%. Therefore, we may see either more Hispanics look to the GOP, especially on social issues, or to become more liberal on social issues and remain with the Democratic Party. Again, it will depend on who is more successful in reaching out.

Lastly are the Independents. In keeping with their political nature, it's not surprising that the majority espouse no religious affiliation (43%). However, we know too that Hispanics make up a sizeable portion of their ranks, and that Indies are the already the largest political population and that number is increasing. Also of note is that 29% of Catholics are Independent, which may reflect in part the Indies' Hispanic base. In our increasingly diverse landscape, it's worth noting again that non-Western religions comprise the top 1/3 of Indies.

Taken in totality, America's political future appears to be in the hands of the Hispanics and Independents with white and blacks populations declining along with both the GOP and Democratic numbers. What is reflective here, and in the previous two articles, is that the most Americans are in the middle as shown by the large numbers declaring either slightly religious or not religious while both major parties are dominated by populations on the religious extremes. America appears ripe for either a return by either party to a committed centrist stance or to a new centrist political party which, of course, does not preclude the rise Independent challengers to high office.



Belief vs. Behavior: Religion and Political Party Preference

http://www.publicopinionpros.norc.org/features/2005/june/keysar.asp

Religious Intensity Remains Powerful Predictor of Politics

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124649/religious-intensity-remains-powerful-predictor-politics.aspx

Two Corpmen I Once Knew

Anotheropinionblog.com

The Politics of Race

Anotheropinionblog.com

The Politics of Race

According to the Census Bureau, whites are now a minority, albeit the largest minorities, yet that is a little deceiving. Non-Hispanics whites are a numerical minority in 22 of the top 100 metropolitan areas including Washington DC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Antonio. We can now add New York City, Las Vegas, and Memphis where black, Asian, and Hispanics outnumber whites. By or before 2020, whites will be a minority across the board nationally. Politically, communities which had small GOP majorities a few years ago, now have Democrat majorities. This is because non-white minorities tend to register Democrat; largely because the conservative Republican Party has failed in the past, and is failing in the present, to actively reach out to non-white minorities.

Non-white minorities now comprise 50.4 of the total new growth in population. The majority of this growth in among Hispanics, followed by Asians and whites. The lowest growth rates appears to be among blacks with around a 1% growth comprise just 12.3% of the population. One reason cited for the unexpected increase among Hispanics is that the average age of Hispanic women is 22 years; prime child rearing age., while average age among Hispanics in general is 27.6 years of age. Growth is approximately seven birth for every one death.

While all is not lost for conservatives, it appears to be for whites as a racial group. Minorities now make up 98% of the population growth as white births have fallen by 11.4%. As for the GOP and conservatives in general, the jury is still out. If the conservative gets serious...and aggressive...it can make inroads among conservative blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (what is often overlooked is that many black, Asian and Hispanic families are conservative on fiscal and foreign policy issues and moderate on social issues). Therefore, if the conservatives and GOP in particular, reign in their right wing religious zealot brethren, the drift to the Left back could be slowed or possibly reversed.

Gallup Politics published an interesting in 2009. While it's 3 years old, the results aren't likely to have significantly changed. According to Gallup, 11% of Hispanics and 19% of blacks are likely to be Democrat and either moderate or liberal while Asians are approximately 6% likely as well. Among whites, 63% are likely to be Republican and conservative. Only 12% of whites are Democrat and conservative.

With Hispanics currently making up just under 37% of the total population, 14% are moderate and Independent (5% are conservative and Republican). Blacks, who make up around 12% of the population, 6% are likely to be moderate and Independent (and only 2% likely to be conservative and Republican). Among Asians, 7% are moderate and Independent, with 6% being liberal Democrats and 4% conservative Republicans.

The survey went on to indicate that 89% of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites. Democrats, the most diverse of the two parties, is made up of 64% whites and 36% of Asian, blacks, or other race. 27% of Independent voters are Hispanic, black or other race. As an aside, 40% of Republicans consider themselves strongly religious (mostly fundamentalist or Evangelical Christian) with only 20% of Democrats regard themselves as actively religious.

So, what does this all mean in the final analysis? The Republican Party is in serious trouble if they do not aggressively reassert their more successful centrist roots. Nietzsche once said, "if you stare in the abyss long enough, it will stare back at you". The GOP is staring into its abyss. Its core group, whites, is rapidly shrinking while other racial groups, who are not as extreme conservative, are growing. To fail to adapt is to accept irreverence and finally oblivion.

For the Democrats, it will perhaps be tougher since blacks, once a key bulwark for the party, have been supplanted by Hispanics. How will they accept their new role, especially with Asians starting to breath over their shoulder? Public funds, once directed to black communities, are now being redirected to Hispanics ones along with key leadership positions, minority contracts, and public jobs. What's left may be fought over with an increasing and more vocal Asian population.

The best news all the way around is for moderates and Indies. Hispanics seem to prefer moderate politics and don't have a solid allegiance to either party. The same can be said of Asians. Meanwhile, the white base of the GOP and the black core of the Democrats are fading. The future seems to lay with the moderate and perhaps to the Independent movement. Ironically, that's something our Founding Fathers would have been proud of.




Whites become a minority in America
http://rt.com/usa/news/minority-america-change-metropolitan-569/

The Next America
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/analysis-not-courting-minorities-may-doom-gop-20120510

Minorities now surpass Whites in US birth census
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/17/minorities-now-surpass-whites-in-us-births-census-shows/

Republican base heavily White, Conservative, Religious
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious.aspx

A World of the Left or of the Right?

I receive dozens, if not more, emails daily from various groups outlining their own spin of some event (like the "war on women" or some "anti-worker" bill). It never ceases to amaze me as to how many there are to spin an issue. I've often wondered what it would be like if what they said was the literal truth.

Think about it for a moment. What if the Democrats really were Communist-loving Leftist after your guns? How far do you think they'd really get? Are the Democrats seriously out to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace it with Das Kapital? Or that there is a secret cabal in some dark dingy room under the Pentagon hovering over a well worn copy of "Mein Kampf", hatching their nefarious plans to strangle workers' rights, to force "working families" into servitude. Are the Republicans really out to wage a "war against women"? I can't imagine a successful outcome to that conflict when they have to explain it to their wives and girlfriends!

The absurdity is mindboggling. But, still, I confess to getting a kick at watching how one "news" network will spin one series of events, and then flip the channel to see how the other "news" network spins the same issue. Sometimes it's like they're talking about completely different issues (and occasionally, like whatever happened took place in an alternative reality). This got me to thinking (always dangerous, I know). What would our life be if the Right or Left totally won the ideological battle? Complete and utter annihilation of the other side. What would it be like?

If you were a Conservative, I suspect there would be a very small federal government. States would dominate. If the majority of them agreed that a specific policy worked, it would be adopted at the national level. There would be few, if any restrictions on business. Survival of fittest would be the first (and only) rule of business. Those that outperformed their competition, would prevail. Those which didn't would be swept away into the dustbin of history (or to be more capitalistic, simply recycled). There would be no regulations for air, water, or for that matter, labor. Certainly, unions, if they even existed, would be near impotent while existing labor laws would be abolished.

There would exist a almost vigilante mentality when it came to crime, so there wouldn't be much need for prison. Justice would be swift and for sure. In fact, carrying firearms openly would be common place, so robberies, carjacking, and rapes may be all but non-existent. Drugs, on the other hand, would largely be legal since government would have no right to control what you did to yourself so long as one else was affected.

Conservatives would demand prayer in school. A good old fashioned fundamentalist Christian "fire and brimstone" prayer. Students would be required to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance, "under God" and everyone else's eyes. There would be no discipline issues. Butt whoopings would be the order of the day for any outbursts or misbehavior. The school curriculums would be tightly regimented with little diversity or thought to conflict with Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism. The role of education would be to instill discipline, respect for authority, and pride of citizenship in the future worker bees of Cubicle America.
Woe be to the student who failed to keep up since there would be no public safety net. Charity would indeed start at home, assuming you could afford one. With no government regulations, buyers of everything from cars to dishwashers to homes and service repairers be aware! Banks and financial companies would be free to charge as they please, so to the savvy buyers goes the unspoiled (especially since there would likely be no FDA to monitor food quality). Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and workers compensation wouldn't exist since each would be responsible for their own retirement. Marriages may be as much a matter of mutual economic assistance as love, but one thing for certain, it would be hetro. Diversity would be more a matter of recipes than religion or ethnic heritage since immigration would be curtailed to critical shortages only, and then, limited to those willing to adapt culturally and linguistically. Their religious practices may be allowed, but only at the consent of the state. Orthodoxy of faith will be seen as a sure sign of God's blessing on this nation.

Doubtless, the IRS would not exist and neither would the departments of Education, EPA, or Commerce. Taxes would be based on either consumption or a flat tax with states allocating a portion to the federal government based a vote by the citizens. Education and environment have been dealt with. Commerce between states would be based on mutual cooperation and consent, with an occasional "turf dispute" arising from time to time (probably decided by the outcome of a college football bowl game).

So, there you have a snippet if the Conservative Cause prevails. Now, what if the Left emerges victorious?

In the world of Left, things would be much different. we would have very little to worry ourselves about since the federal government would manage every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave (indeed, even before then, since would-be moms would be mandated to maintain prescribed diets and health regimens in order to insure a healthy birth for the proud parent State-to-be), and if you did find yourself worrying about your place in New World Order, then worry no more since our comprehensive healthcare system would provide you--free of charge---mental healthcare coverage (provided you are not over age 55, in which case, you no longer qualify).
Yes, we would enjoy the benefits of an all caring and encompassing social system which promotes everything from the type of cooking oils you may use to how many hours of exercise per day you will undertake to the new low emission high mileage hybrid you drive (provided, of course, you have paid your monthly public road use fee), or you can stay at home in your hydro/solar powered home. If you're lucky, you may have enough energy usage coupons saved up to purchase a air quality permit for that annual May 1st cookout (the Fourth of July cookout having been outlawed due to its obvious nationalist implications).

Naturally, all meals will be organic; having used the latest natural based chemically enhanced growing agents available and grown in the most modern commercial hothouses. For the after meal clean up, all utensils and most plates are biodegradable while others are cleaned using your solar heated steam faucet (which sterilizes and saves water at the same time; the water is recycled for flushing). Of course, this can be confusing, so there will be ample government monitoring stations available to help assist you in the event you should have any questions, or periodically forget to comply.

Instead of a sovereign nation, America would exist as territorial designation only since nations as such no longer exists. Borders would be open. Each territory will be administered by an agency under overall control of the United Nations. Our electronic technology would allow complete and instant translations of everything, from commercials to road signs. Gone will be cash. Every transactions will be electronic. In addition to the government monitoring stations, government approved assistance is only an app away on every electronic devise. Crime too is a thing of the past. Starting from birth (pre-birth actually), everyone is monitored for an deviant behavior. What can't be corrected through early "time out" or discussing anger issues, can easily be addressed using current psycho-drug therapy. After all, since one doesn't "naturally" choose to be angry, there is no need to accept blame for its actions is there?

Corporations too would cease to exist. What were once formerly businesses, would now be credit earning entities, controlled by and for the territorial governing agency which oversees the administration of, well, everything. Most individuals would continue to seeking to maximize their credits, however, everyone will be guaranteed to minimum monthly income in addition to available programs for housing, food, and of course, healthcare. With a 75% tax rate, most will choose to remain part time employees. This leaves ample time to enjoy the pristine environment, thanks to mandated pollution control. However, one may not step on grassy areas; use water found in open areas or in any other way, impact directly or indirectly the naturally existing environment. Otherwise, have a beautiful day.

And while all cultures as welcomed and accepted, some restrictions will remain such as the prohibition of "honor murders" (there are some things which are inexcusable, even to the Left). Marriage will be open...really open...and no longer restricted by gender. People will be allowed to marry whomever or whatever they choose, and there will be no prohibition to the number of concurrent spouses or "significant others" one may have. Abortions will remain legal with no restrictions on age and no parental consent required given the personal and private nature of the matter.

Schools will permit open curriculums, with each student being allowed to take whatever course they enjoy and excel it (though there will be no grades; only positive reinforcement) and employment upon completion of a minimum number of courses is guaranteed. There will be constructs with respect to one's religion (or lack thereof). Drugs will be decriminalized, though largely unavailable due to the consumption and recreation taxes (which may be waived with a government issued prescription). Sports will largely remain the same, but there will be no final scores kept since everyone wins by simply participating.


And there you have it. What life would be like if all the emails I receive from the Left and Right played out. Kinda makes Donley Kong looks sensible doesn't it?