Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot,
by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse.
" -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Let the Country Bottom Out?

A writer at Slate is arguing that maybe what needs to happen is that the GOP wins next year, and then we'll see just how bad things can get.
A Hillary [Clinton] presidency, we believe, would do very little to address wealth inequality, and the situation in the middle and working classes would continue to deteriorate. Republicans would have another villain to turn their base against — maybe even a better villain than Obama, if such a thing is possible — and a means of escaping accountability yet again. Maybe they’d win the next presidential election, and if not, they’d at least stir up enough hatred and backlash to maintain their ironclad grip on Congress and state-wide offices. When 2020 came, they’d gerrymander the hell out of every district in the country to ensure another decade of legislative dominance. It’s status quo all the way, and the status quo doesn’t work.

But! If Hillary lost because progressives abstained from voting, it’s possible that Republican incompetence would be laid bare, and that they’d run the country into the ground over the next four years. If that’s what it takes to show the people that a leftist political revolution is the only viable way forward, it will have been worth watching Hillary bite the political dust. Come 2020, we could be looking at a landscape where progressive politics can finally gather enough momentum to sweep the country, and usher in a new era of FDR-esque reforms.
I understand the argument. But that is playing around with dynamite and hoping that one escapes the blast.

First off, there is a non-zero chance that the GOP's nominee would be Donald Trump. Trump is a fascist. That is not an insult in this case, it's a statement of fact.

Trump has a history of not taking no for an answer. He will use every tool at his disposal to achieve his goal. He will proclaim that as one of the three branches of government, that he has the power to do what he wants. Even moreso than Andrew Jackson, he would likely disregard any court orders or injunctions with some pithy observation of how the Federal cops and the military answer to him, not to the judges.

Some of the other GOPers are only a little less crazy. Rafael T. Cruz is smarter than Trump, but that seems to be his only distinction. His track record (such as it is) in the Senate is one of a man who operates on the principle of "my way or no way". Indeed, his entire adult history, from college to today, is one of being an arrogant bully, convinced of his own superiority and unwilling to entertain any dissenting opinion on any subject. As much as Hillary, Cruz would roast live puppies on a spit and eat them if doing so resulted in a net increase in votes.

However, it is at least probable that, if a President Cruz lost an election or a court case, he'd abide by the outcome. I have so such belief about Trump as president.

Electing Trump president on the belief that things would get so bad that change for the better would happen would be akin to playing around with the inner working of an atomic bomb. Which is never a good idea.

5 comments:

B said...

See, and with the exception of a greater chance of permanent loss of freedoms, I feel that letting Hillary and her ilk finish the destruction that Barry had begun would show the failures of the Socialist Democrats.

I don't want Trump (or Cruz or Rubio) but feel that they would be less damaging to the country (and our freedoms) than Hillary.



I have an honest question: How can you as a second amendment proponent, push for Hillary? I'm not saying any or the GOP is much better, but still...we can all see where the DNC will take us (see also Before Obama). You seem like a decent honest freedom loving anti-Statist...yet you essentially shill for the DNC...Were you saved by a Republican at an early age? Your hatred of all things GOP seems to be illogical. Not trying to insult you here, just trying to figure out how such a seemingly intelligent person can feel and believe that which you spout here....

3383 said...

What destruction hath President Obama wrought? I'm not seeing it. Loudmouth Republican panderers in Congress may say so, early and often, but who has been adversely affected?

Me? I'm a registered Republican who is worried that the pack of idiot presidential hopefuls will result in a Hillary Clinton victory, even though I was also a (Bill) Clinton Republican back in the day.

And I hope gridlock continues in 2016. I can't name anyone running for President who I trust with either house of Congress in their corner.

D. said...

Without getting into the [lack of] merits of the article, the proposed tactic is what was called "heightening the contradictions" way back when, and it. does. not. work!

In fact, I'd suggest that any political statement with the word "would" included is going to run smack into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Rant about political power vs. political purism snuffed.]

[Further rant about progressive political schisms and the history of Christianity snuffed.]

As it happens, I see offputting areas of both Hillary and Bernie, but I will support whichever one is nominated because the passengers in the Clown Car want to do everyone not them /m/e/, /p/e/r/s/o/n/a/l/l/y/,/ greater or lesser harm.

(Started this last night and have probably been ninja'd. Oh well.)

ShortWoman said...

So, Slate's argument in a nutshell: "We have to destroy the country in order to save it."

Comrade Misfit said...

SW, pretty much.