|
I find the left is fairly hysterical when it sees itself potentially out of power. There is literally anti-Trump graffiti near my home, in a solid democratic state. Someone just defaced his Hollywood star. This is all accepted by lefties as justifiable. I think the left is more accepting of hysterics and hyperbole because it gets results with the rank and file. Romney was painted as this wall street shark that would destroy America during the election when he was a pretty much middle of the road guy who probably would have been a better steward of the economy than Obama. Obama just middle-of-the-road'd him out with the 'why change horses midstream' narrative. Trump is, of course, Hitler to them. Its all so tiresome and the kind of narratives adults should grow out of, but seemingly never do. Here in Chicago we had Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders tell us that if Rahm gets re-elected his billionare friends will take over and destroy the city. Warren and Sanders never once mentioned their friends, the Daley family, and how the Daley dynasty left Chicago with debt it cannot ever pay off. Meanwhile, Rahm is raising taxes for pension perks for public sector unions and other lefty causes. More welfare, more section 8 housing, more tax raises on business, more anti-business legislation, more police in poor areas, etc. He did literally the opposite of what they claimed. Why do we let Warren and Sanders hysterically lie to us like this? Why do we let the left dominate this angry narrative and excuse them for it when its discovered to be a falsehood? The billionaires taking over narrative works, that's why, even when its clearly bullshit. No idea about what a Trump presidency would be like, he clearly is playing the Tea party playbook here to get motivated GOP primary voters out there, but I imagine he'd be a milquetoast president probably unable to do much unless he maintains GOP majority in congress, and even then in-fighting in the GOP would be pretty rough on him. Honestly, a gridlocked congress that is ineffective would probably be best. There's a lot of federal meddling that is questionable to me that we've accepted as the status quo. Stopping that could only help. I also think we also over-value what the presidency is. Its not a dictator. Without the support of congress, the president is fairly powerless outside of war powers and even those are limited without congress post-Nixon/Johnson. One of the wonders of the US is how well the founders got the balance of power right from early on. These decisions still pay dividends today. That said, Clinton with a GOP majority congress is ideal to me. This scenario has enough gridlock to keep big government away a bit, enough gridlock to get good compromises, and Clinton's left-leaning stance on social issues are better, to me at least, than strict right-wing nonsense about alienating certain ethnic or religious groups. I also think SCOTUS has a strong right-wing advantage and it would be nice for Clinton to even that out. |