The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Wednesday, March 09, 2016


With every passing week and every set of primaries, it becomes increasingly likely that Donald Trump just might capture the GOP nomination for president. Despite 'assassination' attempts by many prominent GOP functionaries, hit pieces in some of the media, and comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini by some unhinged Democrats, Trump continues to collect primary wins.

I am no fan of Donald Trump. I do, however, believe he has identified a number of key issues that have been swept under the rug by a combination of political correctness and political inertia. But his poor grasp of details, his inability to enunciate realistic policies, coupled with his shoot from the hip style, and his megalomaniacal self-absorption, make him a poor choice for president.

I think there are a number of GOP contenders (John Kasich or even Marco Rubio come to mind) who might be more suitable. But all of that is meaningless if Trump gets the nomination. At that point, the question becomes, is Trump a better choice than a dishonest, corrupt politician who is currently under FBI investigation for national security violations or a crypto-communist who is obsessed with class warfare and income redistribution? It's a difficult question to answer until you consider the Obama years.

Let me explain.

During his ruinous presidency, Barack Obama was allowed by his own party to champion flawed legislation, establish poor economic policy, and make catastrophically bad foreign policy decisions. Like the Stepford Wives, the Democrats marched in lockstep and followed their president blindly. They did nothing to reign him in, even when many in the party had grave reservations about his work (think: the Iran "deal"). One could argue, I suppose, that the Dems have swung so far left that they truly did agree with everything Obama did. If that's the case, the Democrat party is considerably more monolithic in their thinking than the fractious GOP.

The implication is that no matter how corrupt or dishonest a Clinton presidency or how hard core socialist a Sanders presidency might be, the Dems would be the Stepford Wives—following their candidate blindly wherever he or she wanted to go. The nation would suffer grievously, but the Dems would march on.

Now consider a Trump presidency. Party leaders have already publicly expressed their outright concern about Trump. People like Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or John McCain or Lindsey Graham or any of dozens of other party bigwigs, along with major business people and donors would actively and aggressively resist Trump if he, for example, tried to start a trade war or attempted to deport 11 million people. If he tried to do any of this by executive edict (as Obama has repeatedly done) his own party would resist with legislation, public pressure, and even impeachment.

That is a fundamental difference between the political parties. The Dems would blindly follow their president. The GOP has clearly indicated by its recent actions that they would resist presidential crazy stuff in a heartbeat. It would act as a necessary control on a Trump presidency, allowing the man to identify key national issues that have the support of many Americans, but at the same time reigning him in if he attempted to over-react or do stupid stuff.

Bottom-line: It's increasingly likely we'll be left with two sub-optimal choices—(1) a continuation of the ruinous Obama years or (2) the election of a wild card leader. I'm convinced that if the first choice occurs, the Stepford wives Dems will continue to allow very bad policy decisions and the country will continue on its downward path. I'm also convinced that if second choice occurs, the the GOP itself will act as a necessary brake that just might turn the wild card into an effective president.