And So It Begins...

My 1st Predictions on the Trump Presidency

It's official. He is now President Trump. As much as I've been avoiding writing about him, I'm out of time and need to get at least of few predictions written down. So, here's my first one.

I'm going to get something wrong. There it is, my most cowardly qualification ever. But, I still don't have enough data to predict with any confidence. However, if I don't do it now, I'll be relating history not making predictions. Otherwise, I would not be writing this.

Of course, if all the other predictions come true, then this 1st prediction will be wrong. But, then I'll have gotten all, including the 1st, predictions right. But, then this one would be wrong... OK. Now you see why I don't get invited to parties.

Now let's point out a prediction of sorts that's already come true. During the transition period, he had difficulty getting good people. I totally called it and a lot of people are giving me credit, right down to hiring Christie to lead the transition. Sad. The question is whether issues persists or did negative press and nomination hearings produce a more reliable staff.

Okay, enough patting myself on the back. Let me start now with my most confident predictions.

The Next Four Years Will Be Noisy

President Trump, whether intentional or not, has shown the tactic of adding controversy when under criticism. He's OK with bad press as long as he originated it. Consider his reaction to bad press on his transition team and cabinet picks, a complaint on twitter on how Pence was treated at Hamilton. Inconsequential bad press drowns out legitimate criticism is the lesson learned. The question is whether or not we will get tired of it. Traditional politicians avoid bad press because it persists negative feelings that hurt you in the futures. So, far President Trump has not paid this cost, but four years is a long time.

In fact, one reason I've been quiet is that I've been trying to learn how to filter the noise. I recommend you do so, also. (If only those in the media read my blog.)

Small Victories Will Be Trumpeted. Significant Problems Will Be Defamed.

For example, Any company deciding to not export jobs will be credited to the President, while higher unemployment will be called 'fake news'. If you are a Trump supporter and still suffering, this might not work, but if you're OK but worried about the future, it will.

The Deficit Will Increase More Than Under President Obama.

President Trump has shown little concern with fiscal responsibility and wants to give a lot without asking a lot. The only way this does not happen is if republicans are willing to stop him. So far, they have not shown such fortitude.

His Staff Will Contradict Him

I don't know if this was intentional or has just been a lucky outcome. Trump will make an outrageous promise, while those under him claim he did not mean it or even that he flat out never said it (even when there's tape).  Note the Vice-Presidential date. Instead, of either him or his staff being held accountable, the message gets muddled and supporters hear what they want to hear. The question is which message results in action and does this lead to conflict with him and his staff.

Now some that I see happening, but have less confidence.

Russia Will Be the Beginning of the End

President Trump's unwillingness to speak against Putin confounds me, and I don't think he sees the pitfalls of doing so. No, this is not going to turn the masses against him, but that's not where the danger lies. He's in conflict with republicans on many issues, but their behavior during the election showed they were not as committed to their principles as they claimed. Nor, has Trump shown much commitment to pushing any particular agenda. So, most can be spun as a win for either side. (How voters respond is a different question).

What makes Russia different is that there are at least three senators (Rubio, McCain, and Lindsey) that care deeply about America's strong international presence, including opposition to Russia. They have practically defined their careers by this. Remember that it only takes three senators to block President Trump. These three have good reason to hate him and each has run for president. This is pivotal because it's likely to be the first time President Trump unquestionably loses a fight and given his bullying behavior that could cause others to fight him on other issues.

Even if does not occur, it's hard to imagine two strong-willed, competitive men like Trump and Putin not running into conflict. Then, what happens? Does Putin use the same cyber resources against him? If in fact, he was more interested in disrupting American democracy, than getting Trump elected, he will turn on him anyway. No, I don't think that would directly hurt President Trump, but again, what happens to bully after someone stands up to him.

That there will be a confrontation, I have confidence. That it will create long-term consequences for President Trump, I have less but pay attention. The effect may not show immediately.

Let Me Wrap Up Now

I have more, but that's enough for now. But, before I go let me point out where one of my past claims could go wrong. I made a big deal that who became president would not change the Supreme Court nominations. One flaw in my logic is that McConnell may be willing to end the filibuster (for Supreme Court nominations only). It makes sense that he would. Democrats will stop the nominations, otherwise, and given the numbers, he's likely to keep a Senate majority until 2020. However, my hunch is that he still won't. I give it a 50-50, not enough to bet on either way.

That will be all for now. I'll add more as I learn more.

How We Got Here - Post 3

The Jacksonian Era, and What I didn't Talk About

By now, you should have realized that the point of this post series is to show how American history formed the political arguments of today. So, far the discussion has been about State’s Rights, tariffs, and slavery. In Post 1, I showed how these issues put a slight advantage in the Constitution to the “rural” side of the persistent “urban” versus “rural” conflict in all cultures. In Post 2, I showed how the lead up to the Civil War further refined these arguments, made them regional, and linked activism with the “urban” side and Federal Government.

But, that’s over 80 years of history, and it could not have all been about State’s Rights, tariffs, and slavery. There was a reshuffling of political parties for one thing. But, more importantly, from 1807 to 1840, American evolved from a republic to our current democracy and party system. Let me address that now.

As I pointed out states decide who can vote, and up until 1840, there were states that had property requirements. The first state, to let non-property owning was New Jersey in 1807, but what really started the push towards a “common man’s” democracy^[1] was the election of 1824, when John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson, despite him having a plurality^[2] of votes. But, what really motivated the democratic movement was the idea that Adams had been made president by the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay, in return for being made Secretary of State, labeled as the Corrupt Bargain.

By this time, there was only one party, the Democratic-Republican Party. The other party of the 1st Party System, the Federalists, had practically ended by 1820 as a result of their unpopular opposition to the War of 1812. However, in response to the outcome of the election of 1824 and Andrew Jackon's campaign against the Corrupt Bargain^[3], the Democratic-Republican Party splits. And with the election of Jackon in 1828, only the side supporting Jackon survived to become the Democratic Party^[4] of today. Afterward, in opposition to the democrats, the Whig Party formed to create the American 2nd Party System.

Don't get too attached to labels and platforms here, because what the Democratic party is and its platform changes over time. So, from now on I'll refer to them as Jacksonian Democrats when talking about the specific party of this period.

Since Andrew Jackson was a southerner, the Jacksonian Democrats are often described as a southern party. However, that was more rhetoric than action. Jackson did little to promote the issues of the South (State's Rights, tariffs, and slavery) and largely just remained neutral. In fact, during the Nullification Crisis, Jackson was one of the greatest reducers of State's Rights, only to be outdone by the Civil War.

Now, help me out here because this always confounds me. What Jackson did spend a lot of time and passion on was fighting the National Bank. Granted, he lost money due to the Bank's action, and he was following existing arguments^[5], but a populace issue this is not. Mostly, this appears to be an indulgence that those votings for him tolerated and gained no benefit. Resistance to the National Bank (which is now the Federal Reserve) persists today but is an issue only an obscure and passionate minority care about (with a lot of conspiracy theory thrown in).

During this period began many of our political troupes: racism, all politicians are corrupt, the common man knows more than the experts, etc. But these are the natural outgrowth of all democracies you see in history and other countries. The reasons why are worth going into, but that will have to be another post (or more likely a series of them).

We also see political themes that root in American culture: individualism, the frontier spirit, the self-made man, and self-reliance. But then again that's what we always thought American democracy should be from the beginning.

And there were events and ideas that shaped America but have no relevance today such as the Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, and two wars.

During this time many of the ideas and issues discussed in politics today were born, But rather than a central theme as I had described before, these are a melange of origin stories. In other words, these are the subplots of How We Got Here.

Perhaps where there is a bit of a trend is the way religion evolved to activism and interact with politics.

At this time, there was the threat of religious fanatics entering the country. Their beliefs were entirely incompatible with American life and if allowed, they would undermine democracy and persecute Christians. If you doubted that, there was ample evidence in the media of their terrorist acts.

I am, of course, talking about Catholics.

Ridiculous, of course, but it got a lot of politicians elected. Not until the election of John F. Kennedy did politicians stop using this form of bigotry. Remember that the KKK persecuted Catholics.

There was no causal relationship, but rooted in the same irrational fear of Catholics, was the rejection of religion being "too organized", Protestantism rose in defiance and of the Catholic Church, led to the Reformation, and partly created America. In the Protestant tradition, each man had the power and the responsibility to determine the Word of God. In other words, he had the power to leave his church or even start his own.

And so, America embraced the idea of the layman preacher. Different Protestants sects cropped up during this period (most of which disappeared) started by any man that could read a bible (or at least claimed to). These went from the adulation of pure reason, like the Unitarians, the exotic and spiritual, like Transcendentalism, and some truly radical ones with ideas of sex, marriage, diet, and even bathing that would strain our most modern sensibilities.

With this religious experimentation came activist movements lasting through to today: Sufferage, Temperance, Anti-War, Civil Disobedience and, of course, Abolition. These were not the refined debates of Jefferson and Hamilton about the role of the Federal Government. (Though even those could lead to a duel or two). These were movements of the masses with intellectual leadership, for sure, but formed more from passion and straight forward ideas of right and wrong.

But unlike political parties and church leaders, politicians don't know who they can bargain with, as is the problem today. A politician can meet with the Baptist National Convention offering help with "prayer in school" if they ease up on "gay marriage or tell the Sierra Club that he can increase regulations on coal if they let another pipeline be built. However, what guarantee was there that voters still vote for him? As prestigious as these organizations may be, there will be members not satisfied with any bargain. Members willing to form new groups and begin new opposition.

Then again politicians did not have to listen to these groups with the same way kings had to listen to the Catholic Church. From 1808^[6] until the Civil War, there was little to no federal involvement on these activist issues (except for Abolition). Ultimately, activists of the Jacksonian Era had to bring their agendas to the voters, convincing them by the rightness of their cause instead of direct negotiation with politicians. They had to change American culture before they could change its politics.

In other words, this is when the first "culture wars" started, and they play out today as they did then.