02.27.2016
Voting
for Hillary Part IV
As a supporter of Hillary (HRC), I can tell you that
it was gratifying to watch the results come in from yesterday primary in South
Carolina. Even though I am not anticipating it, I hope my DFL friends who are
planning to caucus on Tuesday I hope we can show the same good sense. I am
going to be up at Jefferson Elementary Tuesday night, March 1st;
making the case.
I support HRC, it is not that I don’t think Senator Sanders
(BS), has good ideas; I do. I share his ideals, but I think, as many of you
have heard me say, that HRC has a much better chance of advancing the
progressive agenda than BS does.
This is why I think HRC will get more traction for her
agenda than BS will be able to do:
The republican establishment has been playing a long
con, for the past eight years, by refusing to cooperate with Obama. They
thought they could keep both social policy, and economic progress stagnant, and
that this would do enough damage to the democratic brand that America would
abandon both President Obama and his allies in congress. President Obama was
able to get some things done, like the ACA, in the first two years, when the
democratic party had control of both chambers of congress. However, in 2010 the
democrats lost the House of Representatives, and the obstruction set in, and
the long con began.
This gamesmanship did not work out quite the way they
planned, President Obama was reelected, but the republicans did gain control of
the Senate, and so they doubled down on their strategy for his second term;
thinking that if things were held at a standstill the election this year, in
2016, would be viewed as a referendum on the Democratic Party and they would be
able to sweep in. It was a big gamble, and the results of the 2014 election
indicated that it might be working, the republicans strengthened their hand
that year, and yet the con is not complete, and the risks are still risky,
because the big money behind the Republican Party establishment, wants more
than anything to make money. They want 4% or 5% economic growth, not 1% or 2%.
They want the prime lending rate at 1% or 2% not 0%, or 0.25% which it is now.
The way I see the last eight years is that those
interests basically accepted the notion of having a weak U.S. economy, one in
which they were still making money, still performing better than the rest of
the world (by just sitting on their capitol), with the hope that at the end of
it they would have both houses of congress, the executive branch, and the
Supreme Court all wrapped up. That is the con, but it did not quite work.
The economy performed better than expected. The stock
market performed better than expected, the rest of the world did much worse
than expected. At the moment, the U.S. economy is benefitting from the global
slow down. The recent slowdown in China only benefits us, it hurts the stock
market short term, it generated some uncertainty and instability, but it will
help us in the longer term, because investment dollars will move away from
those markets, into ours due to the long term stability that the United States
provides. Furthermore, beyond those economic considerations, that long con that
the republican establishment played forced the establishment to coddle the most
rightwing elements of their party, and now establishment has been completely
undermined by their ideological clowns, and they are on the verge losing
control of it to an upstart named Donald Trump.
Here is the deal, those republican economic interests
are not going to triple down on that bet. They will not play the con any longer
if their gambit does not pay off. Those economic interests who are sitting on (as
much or more than) two-trillion dollars in capitol, are going to free up that
capitol, and return to investing it in the U.S., in our work force, in
technology, in industry and in infrastructure development. Securing that capital
investment, cooperatively (not by coercion), is the key to economic development
and prosperity in American for the next several decades. But they will only
play ball, if they have someone in office that will play ball with them. HRC
will work with them.
For many of my friends, the fact that HRC will work
with these interest groups is reason enough not to support her. I respect that,
but I contend that it is short sighted. We want that capital investment in
America, we can get to it much faster if we deal with them, than we can if the
plan is to change the tax structure first, and take it from them. HRC will be
able to make a deal in the short term, but only if they get some concessions. HRC
will be able to cut an infrastructure deal, BS will not. This is true regarding
the rest of their proposed agendas; HRC will be able to make deals and get some
things done and BS will not. I am not going to put forward a long list of what
HRC will be able to do that BS won’t, because that one example (on
infrastructure) summarizes my argument and my point of view, and I think you
can extrapolate my rationale from there.
I am certain that if Hillary puts out a reasonable
plan for growth and the Republican leadership refuses to play ball, there will
be some party switching, republicans will defect, and the leadership will get
some marching orders from those economic interest groups; they will be told to
play ball, those economic powers do not want another four or eight years of weak
growth.
BS however, he will not get that consideration, because
he either will not compromise, or he will not compromise enough. The strength of
his idealism, will become his ideological weakness, he will not compromise
enough. His idealism will have him come off looking like the crazy person at
the bargaining table, and they will drive him out as a failure in four years,
while at the same time holding on to the other channels of power. The
republicans will triple down on their bet then, and the great con game will
continue.
