Hamilton and History

       I wrote this five years ago as a response to an individual who asked if American Politics had ever been as nasty as the run up to the 2016 election! Having just watched “Hamilton” and realizing that the finer points of the events portrayed (wonderfully, I might add) were thrown fast and furious although absolutely correctly, I thought maybe it was time to rerun this number. I wrote. “The answer is yeah, pretty much.

         The election of 1800 was a mudslinging steel cage match between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and while the language may have been marginally more civil, the rhetoric was as full of innuendo and outright falsehood. Adams was accused by Jefferson supporters of planning to marry off a son to a British princess as a prelude to restoring monarchical rule here. Jefferson was "Godless" (not an insult as I see it, but bad juju back then). Each had their own partisan newspaper just like MSNBC and Fox.


       Washington had been elected in what was to be the only non-partisan election in the USA. Washington's siding with Hamilton over several key issues (assumption of state's war debts, establishment of the Bank of the United States (essentially creating a national banking system, excise taxes and other issues, drove a wedge between Sec Treasury Hamilton and Sec State Jefferson, who resigned in protest. In Hamilton’s five plus years as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton, who saw the job as more like a prime minister’s role had Washington’s ear, as he had while serving as The General’s aide during the revolution. That fact was a supreme irritant to both Jefferson and VA. Congressman James Madison who saw Hamilton as creating a far more centralized government than he (Madison) had envisioned as he and Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist papers. The Federalists, of which Hamilton was one, opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, to whom Madison had gravitated feared a strong centralized government and refused to support the Constitution without one. Adams, following 2 terms for Washington, ran as a Federalist in 1800, with Jefferson running as a Democratic-Republican (not the same as today's parties, by a stretch. Hamilton, while still politically influential, was also well aware that several of his own party knew of the Reynolds affair (sex scandal), and he was not a candidate, but campaigned and wrote seriously nasty s**t against Adams even though they were both Federalists.


       Adams won, which left second highest vote getter Jefferson as Vice President to a man he seriously disliked. Because the Constitution originally specified the second highest vote getter as becoming Vice President, the nation had, as its top two elected officials, two men from opposite parties who at the time actively disliked each other. Federalists blamed French sympathizer, and former ambassador to France, Jefferson for the violence of the French Revolution, while Dem-Reps accused Federalists of favoring a return to monarchy. Jefferson spent most of his VP term at home at Monticello vice the seat of government.


       Considering the role of VP as originally planned, there wasn't a lot to do anyway, since he wasn't actually required to preside over the Senate. Apparently, there is no record of actual days spent by either house for either the 5th or 6th US Congresses (Adam's four years), but Jefferson wasn't there much.


       The 1800 election again exposed a defect in the original formula in that if each member of the Electoral College followed party tickets, there would be a tie between the two candidates from the most popular ticket. The emergence of partisan political activity caused the failure of the original constitutional plan. Thomas Jefferson, a Virginian, and New Yorker Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes as Democratic-Republicans, with Adams third. While it was sort of a tacit agreement that Jefferson was the Presidential candidate and Burr the VP candidate, Burr, the political opportunist, saw the flaw in the plan and claimed that he intended to be President as well.


       Under the rules in place, the house of Representatives was supposed to vote, each state casting one vote, with the candidate receiving the majority becoming President. Some Northerners voted for Burr, not because they liked him (most didn't) but as an "anti-Jefferson" vote. After 35 ballots over 6 days with a lot of politicking between ballots, there was still no majority.


       Finally, Burr's fellow New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, a guy with serious creds as former 6-year Treasury Secretary and Washington confidante, and still a leading and influential Federalist, made the statement that shaped the mindset of the Northern states' Federalist fence sitters. Hamilton referred to Jefferson as being "by far not so dangerous a man" (as Burr) and that Burr was a "mischievous enemy" to the principle measure of the past administration. There were, in retrospect, some who later stated that what Hamilton really feared was Burr's appeal to the members of the Federalist Party and loss of his control over them. On the 36th vote, swayed by Hamilton's opinion, a majority of the states voted to elect Jefferson President. Later, as we know, Burr, royally pissed, managed to goad Hamilton into the famous duel which cost him his life.



       And now, the “rest of the story”. By now it had become increasingly apparent that a situation in which the Vice President had been a defeated electoral opponent of the President would severely hinder the ability of the two to effectively work together. By having the Presidential and Vice Presidential elected on a party ticket, this possibility would be eliminated, or at least minimized.


       The resultant 12th Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that each elector must cast distinct votes for President and Vice President, instead of two votes for President. Additionally, electors may not vote for presidential and vice-presidential candidates who both reside in the elector's state—at least one of them must be an inhabitant of another state. It also explicitly states that the Vice President must meet the same constitutional requirements as provided for the President. A majority of electoral votes is still required for a person to be elected President or Vice President by the Electoral College.


        So yes, there has been drama galore and hard feelings along the campaign trail almost from the get-go. some elections have been more or less acrimonious that we currently see, but I believe media has fueled this apparent ramping up of hostilities. The immediacy of "sound bite" politicking and the immediate reaction by all forms of communication merely serve to amplify the scope and volume of what's always been a part of American politics. Hope this answers the question. You hit my history professor button, lol.

Even More Stuff I Wonder About

Even More Stuff I Wonder About

Why didn’t John Bolton save us a lot of time and just name his book: “How I know more about foreign policy than anyone else, ever, and was stymied by the biggest dumbass ever to live in the White House?”  The one main takeaway from the book is that no one in the universe admires John Bolton more than John Bolton. And, coincidentally, he does give ample evidence of Trump’s “dumbassery”.

Do pet food manufacturers really think calling a can of food “All white meat chicken “primavera” (yes, it actually says that, probably to entice Italian cats) with garden vegetables in a classic sauce” makes it more attractive to either the cat or the owner? It’s friggin’ cat food; look at the nutritional data and feed it or don’t.

I’d love to be able to have a non-violent sit down with a non- masker to have a reasoned conversation in which he or she explains exactly to me how they believe their civil rights are being violated by being asked to protect others. Recently a “Christian” activist (no, not Jesus) said he’d, (and I quote) “Rather be beheaded than forced to wear a mask.”  He went on to liken wearing a mask, to prevent spread of illness, to Jews being forced to wear Yellow Stars in Nazi Germany. I’ll just let that sink in.

What kind of family forces or coerces their children into signing Non-disclosure agreements? I can hardly wait for Ms. Trump’s Book. I also find myself wondering how long after leaving the White House the former Ms. Knauss will remain Mrs. Trump.

How many times, I wonder, has Dr. Fauci  had to stifle the words “No, you dumb  fuck,  that’s wrong.”  On a similar note (ok, not all that similar), I saw a meme of Trump needing 2 hands to get a glass of water to his mouth beside a photo of Angela Merkel hoisting a full clear glass stein full of beer with one hand. When I say full, it looked like two pints. Bravo Ms. Merkel, (can I call you Angie? Call me.) Angela, I mean it as a compliment when I say you’re a better man then he is.

The mere thought of Trump using the land we stole from the Lakota for a self-aggrandizing fireworks display, especially over the strenuous objection of the National Park Service because of the possibility of fires, is sickening. It constantly amazes me that those who applaud such efforts have no clue that they’re being used.  

Financial Shenanigans in the Age of Trump

       In the “They snuck it in while we weren’t watching” category, the big winner is….US Commercial banks. The one paragraph item is relegated to the last page of the world and national news section of the local rag, right beside the notice that Chuck E, Cheese has declared bankruptcy. Of course, Mr. Cheese has been bankrupt in numerous other ways, primarily having to do with good taste, for decades.

       The issue at hand is what has been called the “Volker rule.”  For those not intimately familiar with commercial banking regulations (which included the kid) the news rang no bells …that is until I reflected upon recent history, like, say, the great recession of 2009-13 and the words “commercial banks” rang a bell. First, the sobriquet “Volker rule”, named for former “Fed Head” Paul Volker refers to section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which sets forth rules for implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

      The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (commonly referred to as Dodd–Frank) is a United States federal law that was enacted on July 21, 2010, primarily as an attempt to stave off, by legislative fiat,  further financial sector bleeding from risky use of clients’ money by large commercial banks. The law’s intent was to overhaul and increase financial regulation in the aftermath of the Great Recession. You remember, TARP, bailouts, mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, all that “stuff?”  It made changes affecting all federal financial regulatory agencies and darned near every part of the nation's financial services industry. Much of the act was consumer protection oriented.

       This act was a direct result of proposals by President Obama aimed at helping to prevent another epic economic tanking based on malfeasance at high levels of the US banking industry. Responding to widespread calls for changes to the financial regulatory system, in June 2009, Obama introduced a proposal for a "sweeping overhaul of the United States financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression". That pretty much sums up Dodd-Frank. The bill, based on his proposal, was introduced in the US House by Congressman Barney Frank, and in the Senate by Senator Chris Dodd. As one might expect, Most Congressional support for Dodd-Frank came from members of the Democratic Party, but three Senate Republicans voted for the bill, allowing it to overcome the Senate filibuster.

        One provision, the afore mentioned Volker rule, restricts banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments. The act also repealed the exemption from regulation for security-based swaps, requiring credit-default swaps and other transactions to be cleared through either exchanges or clearinghouses. The Trump administration is eliminating  most of the Volker Rule’s regulatory prohibitions and provisions

        For the uninformed, market manipulation, intentional or not, resulted from the sheer size of funds involved in questionable securities, chief among them being high risk mortgages, bundled as viable and sound instruments. Proffered by agents for the big commercial banking houses which bundled and sold these dogs, there were easy customers aplenty such as union pension funds or state employee pension funds, or simply large fund managers, seeking safe (hopefully) and profitable (primarily) places to put their money.

         Added to the mix were credit default swaps. This is bordering on a Grad school economics course, so I’ll just describe credit default swaps (CDS) as “I’m buying insurance to pay me if your investment tanks.” Think of it like this: Tom buys a racehorse with money borrowed from Bob. He plans to pay for the horse with its winnings. I don’t know either Tom or Bob, who lent him the money. Bob, the original lender, might buy insurance (a CDS) that pays off the loan if Tom defaults. Bob can then, since he feels sure the horse is a winner, sell me that CDS.  If the horse wins the triple crown and Tom pays off the loan as promised, the lender, and I, or whoever bought the swap, is out the premium we paid the underwriter as well as I’m out the money I paid the Bob, the original lender, to buy the swap.

        However, should the horse break a leg and never run, the owner of the credit default swap (me) will (usually) collect the full value of the loan. Bob, however, gets the asset (the horse), now worth only its glue value.  This little gem of an idea (one of many concepts to use money to make money which have no real product or service whatsoever in the mix (derivatives). What it did do, was to entice such insurance giants as AIG to insure these bets against the system with large premiums involved, and investors to buy them.

       When the bundled mortgage housing bubble imploded, and the “tranches” or groups of unsound mortgages were just paper, and worth nowhere close to the literally trillions of dollars pinned on the illusion of their value, everyone lost. 

        Insurers lost, because the amount of massive defaulted credit they had insured via CDS would have bankrupted several of them, so, the buyers of the CDS also lost because the Insurer couldn’t pay (and they had paid the CDS sellers for the swaps) and the sellers of CDS were left with almost worthless bundles of impending foreclosures.  By the end of 2007, the outstanding CDS amount was $62.2 trillion.  For a bit of perspective, that figure was over ten times the national debt!

        Commercial banks, like Bear, Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch were in trouble.  Lehman Bros, with $600 billion in bonds outstanding went bankrupt. AIG, having insured individuals world-wide against such defaults via by CDS was saddled with far more claims than the dollars to pay them.   As we know, the recovery was long and painful, and many have pointed fingers each at another, but one salient fact remains uncontested:  CDSs are not traded on an exchange and there is no required reporting of these transactions to a government agency. 

       This has been called a “shadow banking system” by economists. This situation is a result of unregulated market capitalism. The 2010 financial crisis demonstrated the lack of transparency in this large market which became a concern to regulators as it could pose a systemic risk to the US economy if allowed to function unchecked. This and other issues were prime concerns of the framers of Dodd-Frank.

        Oddly enough, as a candidate, Donald Trump was the most anti–Wall Street presidential candidate since FDR in the 1930s. He attacked Wall Street relentlessly, directly, and explicitly throughout the 2016 campaign and attacked his opponent, Hillary Clinton, nonstop as being “In the pocket of Wall Street.” He even put the then-CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, in his last campaign ad as “one of the biggest threats to the people of the United States!” So, the Donald must be a fan of Dodd-Frank, huh? Not so much. C’mon, we all know he’s a lying sack of shit, why should this be different.

       Predictably, critics of financial reform have claimed that the law and rules would kill banks' revenue and profits, which would prevent them from lending and would in turn kill economic growth and jobs. They did the same thing when FDR signed the Glass-Steagall banking act 1933. Glass-Steagall was different in that its principal regulatory function was to separate investment banking from retail banking. Repealed in 1999 by another banking act, the Gramm‐​Leach‐​Bliley Act, much of Glass-Steagall survives (separation of commercial and investment banking, FDIC, etc.). Neither would have stopped greedy lenders like Wells-Fargo, Washington Mutual or Indy Mac from making bad loans to persons willing to borrow today without regard to the inevitable adjustable rate increase next year.

         Republicans tend to push the blame to Federal initiatives urging the cessation of red-lining and other discriminatory (and racially motivated in many cases), lending practices. Likewise, private mortgage brokers in (too) many cases simply threw rational thought and responsibility to the winds, realizing that, the more mortgages sold, the more commission and that the vast bulk of them would be resold to banks before the ARM kicked in triggering, in a lot of such instances, default.   

        So, did Dodd-Frank and the Volker rule damage or stifle the vitality of the commercial banking industry as some have predicted? Hardly.  In fact, in virtually every quarter since 2009, including throughout 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, the biggest banks recorded or eclipsed record revenues, profits, and bonuses while at the same time increasing lending. Even so, at least 115 Dodd-Frank rules remained to be completed when the Obama administration ended, including executive compensation rules, securities-based swap rules, credit rating agency reform, and commodity speculation rules.

        Despite his constant excoriation of Wall as a candidate, and since taking office, the Trump administration has set about dismantling the core pillars of financial reform by a number of regulatory reductions some of them are:  

Lowering capital requirements (easier, riskier commercial loans, important to Trump, himself heavily leveraged)  

Enabling more unregulated derivatives dealing (you know, like the CDS that triggered the bubble damage)

Rolling back consumer and investor protections reducing prudential regulation of systemically significant banks (this is critical because it takes Federal eyes off those banks not considered critical, which now is every major “non-bank” as these commercial entities are sometimes called.

        Both GE capital and AIG are examples of “too big to fails” which are now off the list.  AIG,  not only failed spectacularly and engaged in egregiously irresponsible conduct, but also required an unlimited bailout, which ultimately amounted to $182 billion. The other was General Electric (GE), which, although with fewer headlines and less egregiousness, would have gone bankrupt without being bailed out as well. removing all of the “non-banks” from scrutiny is insane and even bankers outside that unique arena have said so' 

        And finally, neutering the regulation of systemically significant nonbanks and the shadow banking system, stopping enforcing the laws, if not actually siding with the predators.   Goodbye Volker rule.

       From 1929 through 2010 the US has experienced a number or recessions, some have been cyclic adjustments with no singular or specific cause, several were adjustments from wartime to peacetime employment. Three, however,  (and two of these are 21^st century phenomena) were the result of a specific sector of the nation indulging in irresponsible market operations based on that most base of motives greed, leading to runaway speculation. All three, the great Depression, the Dot-com crash and the great recession are the result of individuals who rarely,if ever get their hands dirty,playing fast and loose with other people’s money or betting other’s money on “what ifs.”

       Trump favors loosening responsible observation and regulation of these entities. His sycophants echo that claim. History says he and they are wrong. History is powerful proof that regulation and financial stability don’t stifle growth and prosperity, but that broad-based deregulation is. That is why Dodd-Frank re-regulated the financial industry and why the Trump administration's deregulation is so reckless and dangerous. The Volker rule is simply the latest insult.

For more, and more entertaining, discussion watch or read “The Big Short”

Reinventing Aunt Jemima

                Reinventing Aunt Jemima

  

        A recent entry in the seemingly endless Republican “making up shit” campaign is this, from a short speech at the recent Tulsa farce, from an earnest Young Republican blonde “college student.” I put that in quotes because other than Liberty or Oral Roberts, it’s hard to picture her as actual college material. 

        In summary she, for a reason which escapes me and most sane individuals, is lamenting the decision by Quaker Oats to cease using the stereotypical “Mammy” image of Aunt Jemima on several products. Why she felt compelled to do this can probably be determined by the fact that she blames “the leftist mob.”  Here is her lament: “She (Nancy Green) was a freed slave who went on to be the face of the pancake syrup that we love, and we have in our pantries today. She fought for equality, and now the leftist mob is trying to erase her legacy. And might I mention how privileged we are as a nation if our biggest concern is a bottle of pancake syrup,” she said.  This last assertion is stultifyingly moronic, meaningless, and Trump worthy. 

        It's a goddamned good thing Nancy Green wasn’t the Thigh Master spokesperson, or this young naïf, who truly had nothing to say and said even that poorly, would have been in tears.

        Just as bad are the recent Facebook claims of a female Black Republican (yeah, really, there is at least one): The claim is also made in an image shared in a June 17 Facebook post from Peggy Hubbard, a Black Republican and former U.S. Senate candidate. Shared more than 186,000 times, the post,  rife with error,  came just hours after the maker of the Aunt Jemima brand of syrup and pancake mix announced it is removing the name and image because "Aunt Jemima's origins are based on a racial stereotype." (uh… yeah, they are, and I have always wondered why it continued this long.) Then Ms. Hubbard goes completely bat shit nuts ranting:

       "We as black people don't know our history! Here is something that Black History Month doesn't tell you! They feed us b.s. (sic) and, hide the TRUTH from us. Nancy Green aka Aunt Jemima was the FIRST black millionaire! she sold her pancake mix to General Mills Corp. The jokes on US black people."   

       Note: Apparently, regardless of race, the first refuge of the ignorant is to capitalize inappropriately. This is like a red warning sign, “caution, bullshit ensues.” Which it certainly does in this snippet of drivel.

First: Nancy Green was a corporate symbol. No corporate advertising image in that day and age ever became a millionaire. As a Black woman, she was almost surely undercompensated for the use of her image. And her public appearances.

Second: Nancy Green did not, as some have claimed, sell any recipe, pancake, syrup, or anything else other than her image to General Mills, Quaker Oats, Amazon, Bill Gates or George Soros.

         Chris Rutt, who created the pancake flour in 1889, was inspired by the song “Old Aunt Jemima” after hearing it during a minstrel performance and decided to give the name to his pancake flour. Rutt then sold his company to a larger milling company, R.T. Davis Milling Co., after failing to sell the flour. The milling company brought its mix to the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago and hired Nancy Green, a former slave, then working as a cook for a judge, to act as Aunt Jemima and sell the pancake flour.

Third: Nancy Green was a domestic worker (housekeeper) until her death by automobile in 1923. She was active in her own community and church but claims by the young Republican twit in Tulsa that she “fought for equality” are unsubstantiated. 

       It is inconceivable that significant overt public activism would not have resulted in her employers terminating her employment. Her public appearances as Aunt Jemima were, as the corporate lords wished, always in character. Tragically, but in truth, between 1893 and 1923, black activists were more likely to be lynched than lauded.    

Fourth: The claim that Ms. Green died as America’s “first Black millionaire”, does little justice to the real “first female self-made millionaire”, of any race in America, Madame C.J. Walker. There are some who claim that Madame Walker’s mentor, Annie Malone, also Black, actually was also a millionaire, and even earlier than Madame Walker. Both extraordinary women were true entrepreneurs, seeing the market for beauty care products among American women of color and servicing it.  And those are the facts, sprinkled with educated opinion.     

"Don't criticize what you can't understand"

Unjustified critique of an American Master

Bob Dylan premiering new album, "Rough and Rowdy Ways "

Today's paper carried a review of the new Bob Dylan album, his 39^th studio effort, entitled “Rough and Rowdy Ways.” It is, overall,  a  positive review, but the reviewer makes a statement toward the end which almost made me spit coffee all over the counter. Here’s the quote:

“He has long been regarded as a master of verse. Unlike ‘Like A Rolling Stone’ and any number of rhyme-less classic works in the Dylan canon ….(praising the album’s rhyme schemes).”

Like a Rolling Stone “Rhyme-less?” Has this guy ever really listened?

"Once upon a time you dressed so fine

  threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't    you?

People call say 'beware doll, you're bound to fall'

You thought they were all kidding you

You used to laugh about

Everybody that was hanging out

Now you don't talk so loud

Now you don't seem so proud

About having to be scrounging your next meal

How does it feel, how does it feel?

To be without a home

Like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone.

Ahh you've gone to the finest schools, alright Miss Lonely

But you know you only used to get juiced in it

Nobody's ever taught you how to live out on the street

And now you're gonna have to get used to it

You say you never compromise

With the mystery tramp, but now you realize

He's not selling any alibis

As you stare into the vacuum of his eyes…”

        No, it isn’t “Eeny meeny miney moe…. It’s far better than that. Yes, the rhyme scheme varies from verse to verse but is there throughout. It varies from stanza to stanza, so what? There is poetry and rhyme in the meter as well as in the words. Citing this song in any other sense than acknowledging its anthem status is borderline blasphemy

        One of Dylan’s singular qualities in the era of the 2 minute, 30 second am radio “air play” recording was to produce songs which compelled the listener, regardless of length, to pay attention. No, it wasn’t Paul Simon’s tidy and engaging lyrics. Dylan’s work has always been grittier. Simon is an acknowledged tune-

smith and composer, one of a handful of masters who also made popular music mean more than “June, Moon, Croon.” 

       Dylan also repeatedly jabbed the social conscience and core memories of several generations. “The Times they are a Changing,” released in 1964 seems (sadly) even more relevant today. At a time when his contemporaries were timing their songs for air play, Dylan gave us songs like “Tangled Up In Blue,” seven verses,  running 4 ½ minutes. 

       Covered by hundreds of artists from Duke Ellington to Trisha Yearwood to Adele, Jimi Hendrix and Pearl Jam, Dylan is, and always has been, one of the great poets ever to write popular music.

       If a reviewer can’t appreciate sophisticated rhyme schemes, they should limit themselves to prose.

Not So Silent

        Last night, before a half empty arena in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Donald Trump continued his apparent attempts at the resurrection of the ghost of Richard Nixon.

        Nixon, was under ever increasing pressure over Viet Nam and increasing awareness that, except for, possibly, Sammy Davis Junior, most Black Americans ( and a fair number if White ones) didn’t really care for him and that he needed to find some sort of unifying catch phrase on which to build support for the second election campaign. He, or more likely an unidentified speechwriter, coined a phrase which Donald Trump reiterated last night.

  

      In October 1969, less than year into Nixon’s first term, there were more massive anti-war demonstrations. With his post inaugural grace period (or “honeymoon” as politicos sometimes call the first six months of a Presidential term) over,  anti-war sentiment was rising and, like LBJ before him, Richard Nixon remained committed to what many Americans, by then including a steadily increasing stream of vocal former draftee veteran survivors, were calling the wrong war, fought for the wrong reason (defense of J.F. Dulles “domino theory”), in the wrong place.

        Within just a few months after being sworn in, Nixon had authorized a series of clandestine bombings over the non-combatant states of Laos and Cambodia. When the news of these broke in the US, they were justified/rationalized as being targeted at Viet Cong “havens” inside these nations. To many it seemed analogous to Canadians bombing New Hampshire because Canadian criminals were hiding there. While evaluations vary widely on the final impact of carpet bombing areas which included thousands of Cambodian civilians, most historians are in accord that the destabilization of the Cambodian government and the rise of a brutal regime under the Khmer Rouge Communist insurgents  ultimately resulted in the death of roughly 1 million Cambodians. (see “The Killing Fields”)

        While Nixon was concerned about domestic order, he was also concerned that it seemed many Americans were becoming strongly disaffected with him over the “Menu” bombings with racial issues a close second. He had often iterated as a campaign promise that he had a “secret” plan to end the war, and it wasn’t happening.  He also recalled the Presidential campaign of George Wallace of Alabama as a third-party candidate in 1968, and had, with the help of willing party hacks, crafted what would become known as the “southern strategy.”

          This was what was refined, later, by Republican strategist Lee Atwater, master of “dirty tricks,” into a series of campaign tactics which were basic to getting votes for Regan and both Bushes. Atwater’s “finest hour” was the infamous and racist Willie Horton ad used in the 1988 campaign to destroy Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis, Even though Atwater died in 1991, his tradition of half-truths and smears survives well into the 21^st century in the personages of Roger Ailes, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, and, especially, Donald Trump who, needing no Lee Atwater, makes up his own lies, usually ad lib.   

        For Nixon, the Southern Strategy was a sort of reaching out to Southern Whites with language which said, “I’m saying “this” (“Law and Order” for example) but you know what I really mean (“For white people”)”  It’s called “dog whistle” politics, and one of the key coded messages was delivered in a speech of November, 1969, following the first of what would be an escalating series of anti-war demonstrations leading up to, in May of 1970, 4 deaths at Kent State University.     

        Nixon said, in part, "And so tonight, to you, the great silent majority, my fellow Americans, I ask for your support." (Several years later, sham Pastor and televangelist Jerry Falwell would morph the term into “moral majority.”)  Exactly what Nixon meant, only Nixon knew, but to his supporters it connoted being part of a group who shared similar values. They, especially, he hoped Southern Whites, would “get” that Nixon intended racial superiority to be one of those concepts, law and order (again along racial lines) another. Along the way, he hoped this group spirit would also continue supporting the War in Vietnam until he could hammer out a “peace with honor” (his words).

        Yeah, I know, “So what, Mike?”  Well, last night an embattled and embittered narcissist resurrected the same phrase in a rally (read that as “partially taxpayer funded campaign event”) in Tulsa.  Like Nixon, facing dwindling support with an election on the horizon, Trump appealed to the “silent majority.”  

        Anyone literate and even marginally politically aware must grasp that, like Nixon, Trump is desperately appealing to the  electorate's baser instincts of greed and selfishness" as well as the racial divisiveness which Trump has displayed throughout -  I was going to say “his term” here, but it’s a lifelong trait with Trump.

        To say “majority” and link that with “good” is to assert the existence of a “minority” (and everyone knows who minorities are) and suggest that they are somehow children of a lesser God. They are people in America who are not white, is the message. If the majority is moral, then surely the minority must be less so.

        With Nixon, a large portion of emotional makeup of the man was his lifelong inferiority complex. Oddly the somewhat similar actions of Donald Trump are driven by the diametric opposite. He has a narcissistic personality, cultivated by being a child of privilege, the chosen one, reared and given just under half a billion by a racist father who was himself a tax cheat. It seems an almost undistinguishable difference since the actions are similar, but one can almost feel somewhat sorry for Nixon - poor farm kid, second fiddle to an older brother in hid father’s eyes, loved his mother (every public mention of her involved the line “My mother was a saint”) military veteran, struggling most of his life to get up the hill and, moreover, to be loved.

       Trump, on the other hand, was born on the hilltop, prep school reared, draft dodger, rarely mentions parental memories, demands, not hopes, to be adored, and is desperate not to be dragged off the hill, trying to stay there by pandering to those at the bottom with whom, unlike Nixon, he can never even identify and who, in fact, he loathes, except when they vote.

Either way, it is America who pays the price.

         

The Real Reasons

       This is another of those “started out small and just kept growing” posts. After several paragraphs on Facebook, I decided to word process and blog it. It was triggered by the incredibly naïve meme below and the responses to it.  

       First, and from his own mouth, he said he was going to "fix" (immigration, trade, deficit, racism, etc.) so either he lied to get elected or he's incompetent  or, my best guess, both are correct(most likely ).

       We tend to forget that these people only serve as long as they are reelected. Their job is to represent the voters who put them there, Obviously, these folks have done that for their state or district. If you (other voters in other states) don't like them, you differ with their constituency. That's your problem, those who scream "term limits" apparently have no idea that they're only there because a majority of the voters in their state sent them there, 

       There are specific term limits: 6 years in the Senate and 2 in the House. It seems that the real issue is that someone doesn't like another who serves a long time.... , that is, if they're of another party or have ideas one doesn't like. All the folks in the picture except Trump are Democrats. This meme would imply that they are responsible for those “problems not solved for decades." 

       It would be nice to hear from someone on the right just exactly what they think these “problems” are, but they are as a rule unable to put their discontent into words; so I’ll try, based on what I hear and see from them

       Start with  the fact that none of those folks on the left are bigots or racists, while the guy on the right has been, ever since he and his dad refused to rent to Blacks in their apartment buildings. Some current problems of race, such as voter suppression are all Republican in origin. If you think there’s a race problem, I suggest you look in the mirror, or at Donald Trump, who even when he’s trying to suck up to minorities, is offensive. It was Congressional Republicans who attempted to terminate the Voting Rights Act. There’s only one conceivable explanation for that; ask Mitch McConnell.

        Likewise with all the screaming Trump is doing over mail-in ballots, remember (it’s painful, but try anyway) that shortly after his inauguration, Trump appointed a hand-picked commission to investigate what he had claimed was “rampant voter fraud.” When the commission, whose mission was to prove his point, returned and said, “We couldn’t find any” He terminated them and suppressed the results. Remember, if it doesn’t fit Trump’s preferred narrative, it's “fake news” or “You’re fired.”

       So how about trade? Obama negotiated and signed the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was sort of like NAFTA (signed into law by Bush 41) for Asia. Trump immediately withdrew us from it. Why? Like everything else Obama, it had to go. 

       Along the way, and against the advice of basically every credentialed Economist in the country, he launched a tariff war with China, which continues, three years later. The sole effect so far has been to cause a slew of soybean farmers to trash their crops, because China simply found another market (Brazil) without punitive tariffs.  America’s soybean farmers may never recover. So far Trump’s trade war has cost the US about $35 billion (9 zeros!) solely in unbudgeted emergency farm subsidies. The best estimate is that the tariffs have also loaded about $875 annually, per household, (an aggregate $123 billion) in additional retail costs, not to mention far greater negatives for a number of large American manufacturers such as 3M, Ford, and others.  Meanwhile Trump renegotiated a trade agreement with Canada and Mexico which was lifted, conceptually, almost chapter and verse from the hated Obama TPP agreement. But it has Trump’s name on it now!

        But what about illegal immigration? Surely no one did anything about that until Trump, right? Actually, there are two separate methods by which a person who has entered or is arrested for illegal entry is returned to the state of origin. The Bush (43) administration moved toward removing people from the country with a court order. While it is commonly thought of as deportation, it’s technically referred to now by the government as a "removal." (sounds "nicer" huh?) A “return” occurs if people attempt to enter the country, and are turned away, often without a hearing before an immigration judge. That procedure used to be known as a "voluntary departure" but is now called a "return" by the government. While Trump has slandered several previous administrations, claiming they did too little, the numbers tell a starkly different story.

       The last year for which a comparison can be made is 2018. The numbers, regardless of what Trump has said repeatedly, contradict him. Here are the real figures:

Clinton: removals per year average for 8 years: 108,706

Bush: removals per year average for 8 years: 251,567

Obama: removals per year average for 8 years: 383,307 (no kids in cages)

Trump: removals per year average to date: 275,725 (too many kids in cages)

Note: 383,307 is a larger number than 275,725

My point? Regardless of how you feel on the subject, Obama actually did more and far more humanely, than Trump has done, but you’d never know it listening to the Red Hat hate squad.

        Next, consider Trump’s ludicrous campaign statement, “I’ll be too busy to play golf,” stated in various versions while slandering Obama. As it turns out, by the way, Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower both played far more golf than Obama, Wilson just under 4 times as many rounds, even while WWI was underway!

Obama averaged a round of golf every 8.8 days, the majority of it near DC, (military bases, 74% of the time) where a car ride got him to the course. Trump has averaged a round of golf every 4.2 days. Yeah, that’s right, the man who dissed Barack Obama for playing golf plays twice as often as Obama did, and uses Air Force One to do it most of the time at a total taxpayer cost of, so far, over $140 million. He is, by any standard, the liar in chief, at least where golf is concerned.  

       The mantra of “tax and spend” Democrats implies that the Democrats are wasting our tax dollars by spending on such issues as clean water, health care and environmental issues. It is, or should, be painful for Republicans, if they have a shred of integrity and acknowledge facts when presented, to face the reality which is: The last President to balance a budget was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. He left office with actual deficit reduction in sight. Enter Bush 43. His unnecessary war ballooned the deficit even more than Reagan’s tax cut, recession and Star Wars military spending.

        Obama had the disadvantage of shitty timing, taking office at the pit of the Great Recession with record mortgage defaults and a huge deficit the day he was sworn in due to TARP obligations undertaken by Bush 43. I’m not saying it (TARP) was unnecessary, but Obama was blamed by many, who knew no better, for Bush’s law. 

       That didn’t stop Republican criticisms of bailouts for “those kind of people” Yes, they bitched publicly about extending unemployment and whined about the fictional “Obama Phones” (a law passed by Bush 43!) they whined about welfare and food stamps, even though Obama signed no legislation increasing either, but were oddly mum when it came to bailouts for the huge commercial banks who started the whole housing bubble collapse. Obama had record deficits during the worst of the recession, but we were well into strong recovery by late 2013.  The U.S. economy typically added more than 250,000 jobs each month in 2014 and 227,000 a month in 2015.

        The economy under Trump’s first two years simply continued growth on almost precisely the same slope. Oddly enough, by 2014, the deficit was down to pre-Obama figures, but by Trump’s first year and for three straight, it has grown larger. In 2020, even without COvid, which has had a huge impact, Trump’s deficit was on a schedule to exceed Obama’s worst mid- recession figure, all while Trump bragged about the economy. 

       

       The reason? Primarily decreased federal income due to an unnecessary tax cut for those who never needed it. Per Trump’s bait and switch tax plan, the break for middle and low-income families expires in a couple of years but continues for the wealthy. Again tragically, many Red Hats will tell you they remember the “good old Eisenhower years”, conveniently forgetting (if they ever knew) that the highest marginal tax rates then were as high as 90%. These are the same morons who now scream “Socialist” when an AOC or Liz Warren proposes raising highest marginal rates to 75%. But as Ron White says, “you can’t fix stupid!”

       Ok, what else. Oh, Oh, I know! How about socialized medicine? Many Red Hats scream their lungs out about it then gladly accept …. wait for it….Medicare, which is almost the textbook definition of socialized medicine. American families spend a higher percentage of their total income on medical related items than any other comparable nation, with lower consumer satisfaction (by actual surveys conducted by US companies.  

       So, what’s left? There must be something that has been all the Democrat’s fault for decades. I mean the meme can’t just be full of shit, …can it?  OK last chance, “Leadership?”  Nope, a quick look at the horrible Trump response to Covid 19 says otherwise. I’ve written this elsewhere but it bears repeating: The Obama administration, contrary to Mitch McConnell’s claim, did leave the Trump staff a “Play Book” for a pandemic, which was based on a “super flu” model. It specified recommended steps, organizations to involve, etc. Moreover, using a new “change of command” procedure written by the Obama administration, and using this play-book, Obama’s staff actually did a run through of what to do, how to do it, and who to involve. Trump couldn’t be bothered to personally be involved, but he sent two Cabinet level folks to be there. One was Rick Perry, former Texas governor, candidate, imbecile,  and Energy Secretary who, unfortunately by the time Covid 19 appeared, had also been one of participants in the Trump revolving door of resignations. So, no Perry to tell about the book and the plan. 

       Here’s where it gets good and the real Mitch McConnell comes to light: The other cabinet level participant in the pandemic dry run was Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao. So, what, you ask? So, Elaine Chao is Mrs. Mitch McConnell. Now, she might not tell him everything, but his claim of “no pandemic playbook” which is the standard Trump “blame it on Obama” ploy, is simply horse shit. His wife knew.  

       So, looking back, and trying my best to identify the “problems they haven’t solved for decades”, there are two final observations. First: let’s just pick a number of decades, say 4. That’s 1980 to 2020. Twenty four of those years have been under Republican Presidents. More than half of those 40 years, the US Senate has also had a Republican majority. For exactly half of those 40 years each party has held the majority in the House.

        Here’s a quick lesson in how things work. The Senate Majority leader can simply, at will, refuse to consider a bill. McConnell has done this to hundreds of bills during the current administration simply because the Republicans lost the majority in the House. Then his King, Donald the Vain, bitches about “do nothing Democrats.”

        The Democratically controlled House has passed, and sent to the Senate, about 400 bills, many with wide bi-partisan support, as of November 2019. 80% or so have died there!  McConnell calls himself the “grim reaper” of Democratic legislation he derides as socialist, but many of the bills that never see the Senate floor are bipartisan issues, like a universal background check bill which 75% of NRA members favor, net neutrality, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

       Ok, that’s enough for you MAGA people to consider at one sitting, so tell me again why the folks on the left are responsible for not solving these “problems.”  And finally, consider that all I have written here is factual, documented and in no way “Fake News” and ask yourself, “Why is Donald Trump actually making these same things worse?” Because he is.