Alternative Insight|

Toward a Third Party


The Grand Old Party (GOP) has stumbled along with its assortment of religious fundamentalists, Tea Party cohorts, traditionalists, social conservatives, Libertarians, moderate Republicans, anti-union workers and monopolists, all of whom want to lead, refuse to follow, complain they are being marginalized, and treat one another with disdain. Perceived as a Party of stagnation, argument, and obstruction, the GOP is identified with encouraging discontent, lacking cooperation, and showing willingness to shut down the government. Its opponent, the Democratic Party, which, until post- Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration, actually featured northern liberals allied with southern dixiecrats, has evolved into the Party of the financial centers, global enterprises, and hi-tech businesses. Except for the African-American constituency, the constituencies that Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor, brought to their Democratic Party -- unions, women, visionary, and disenfranchised, which enabled the Democratic Party to shed its albatross of southern alliance -- have lessened their effectiveness or absolute attachment. By noticing President Barack Obama's difficulties in promoting a more radical agenda that characterized his lifelong pursuits, the public has become cognizant of the constraints imposed by a Democratic establishment upon its leaders. The American electorate has spoken; they are disappointed with the established political Parties and want new and fresh election choices.

Responding to the call, two compelling figures have come to town, well prepared to challenge the establishment. Their performances have transformed a mundane primary contest into a mighty drama, and demolished the accepted notions of what constitutes political strategy and campaign acumen. Having both of them performing magnitudes better than expected in the primary races invites the question: If either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders ran as independent candidates, rather than being allied with the conventional parties, would they have increased their chances of winning the election?

Although accurate percentages of support are not available, the primary votes indicate that Trump could gain 35% of the popular vote and Bernie Sanders might be able to rally up to 40% of the electorate. Because the Republicans and Democratic parties have usually come close to splitting the vote, a Third Party candidate that featured one of the new faces had an opportunity to capture the White House. Imagine that each renegade ran on separate tickets so that four candidates contested for the presidency -- what a circus and who knows the surprises. The sudden disenchantment with the established Parties is not surprising; it only waited for candidates to articulate the grievances that alienated the masses and recite the issues that drove them to despair.

Donald Trump's polices have resonated well with a substantial portion of the electorate. Many agree with his policies of not intervening militarily in foreign disputes, not financing NATO for Europeans, not approving trade treaties, not funding Planned Parenthood, not supporting pro-choice, aiding the Kurdish militias, and erecting barriers to illegal immigration. His shifts on many of the issues does not perturb Trump's supporters, who are also easily swayed by his triumphalism -- bringing back jobs from China and Mexico, reversing the trade deficit with China, making America great again and magically providing jobs for all. These policies appeal to a large mass of the public, but Trump has proposed them for the wrong reasons.

The real estate magnate must have shocked the undergraduate and graduate students at Radford University in Virginia when he mentioned in a speech that he intended to relieve their unemployment situation by bringing back jobs from China and Mexico. Do they really want jobs that pay 80 cents per hour?

Does the United States have a large trade deficit with China? Looks so on paper but that is an incomplete story. China imports many unfinished electronic goods from other nations and then adds value by assembling them into a finished product. As an example, the cost of an IPhone may be about $200, of which China imports almost the total, and adds labor to about $1.20 in assembly. Because the finished electronic product is then shipped to the United States from China, it seems that the U.S. has that trade imbalance with China. If U.S. labor replaced the Chinese labor, Apple would still import $200 of an unfinished product and that part of the trade deficit would be almost the same, only shifted to other nations. Trying to replace the other imported products in the trade deficit -- machinery, steel, clothing, toys, and furniture -- can be done but probably not by U.S. labor. Cut out China and the labor from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand or Bangladesh replaces the Chinese effort.

The trade deficit with Mexico is of a similar pattern. U.S. companies send unfinished products to Mexico, where labor adds value to finish the product. Mexico then ships the final product back to the U.S. The trade deficit is mostly the added value in assembly.

Illegal immigration is a valid problem but the real problem is that by casually accepting the immigration the United States is relieving other nations from responsibility in resolving major problems -- unemployment, social unrest, crime -- and shifting the burden of resolution to the American public. The exodus deprives nations of their best people, generates additional migration and operates as if it will only end when the countries from where the migration proceeds are completely barren. Rather than inherit other nations' problems, is it not preferable that the U.S. use its influence and funds to assist these other nations in solving their problems?

As for making America great again, why is Trump complaining; he's not doing bad. Nor are most Americans. Problems persist as they have for ages and Trump has not detailed any programs that will improve the U.S. socio-economic system or lower its unemployment, which official figures claim is now low.. For whom will he obtain jobs? This presidential aspirant only knows how to make money by using other people's money, and has been involved with service and not manufacturing. industries. He hires people who know where to order golf balls or take money at a gambling table or hotel counter.

Now labeled as a political genius, Trump's campaign has actually been erratic, rudderless, chaotic and unpredictable. His apparent lack of detailed knowledge and his lack of presidential appearance are complemented by his rude and provocative character. By making enemies without reason or care among the electorate, how can he possibly win an election?

If Bernie Sanders wins, he will be hailed as the Lincoln of the present generation -- coming from behind against all odds and winning on his admirable presence, character, and credibility. Go from A to B, and we have honest Abe replaced by honest Bernie.

By raising the conscience of the American people and energizing a mass of the population, which previously refused to recognize the words he speaks and the policies he advocates, Bernie has already succeeded. Vermont's junior Senator has shown that a unified voice can awaken a dormant electorate. His message has been welcome but he still remains a candidate by default, attracting many voters who object to Hillary Clinton or are moved by his social responsibility. it's difficult to argue with a successful campaign, but Senator Sanders has also insufficiently detailed his programs. His agenda demonstrates the imperfections -- making public colleges free for all in a discipline which is under state and municipal control, single payer medical system in a country that has continually rejected universal medical care, and raising the minimum wage to $15/hr without providing the calculations that show of its effect on the total economy. The platform is stirring, forward looking, and covers the issues that need attention. However, Senator Sanders could elevate himself above the others by giving the issues more substance and personal direction. As one example, his platform describes wealth and income inequality as "the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time," without giving appropriate reasons. It's more relevant than those platitudes.

Re-distribution of wealth places funds in the hands of those who use it to purchase basic goods, more assuring the money will recirculate in the economy and provide added production and employment. This relieves the public of welfare burdens and diminishes protest. Much of surplus wealth goes into purchase of meaningless luxury goods and speculative investments, which only churn money and keep it from productive use. We also have reports (see Health is a Socio-Economic Problem) that show a large inequality in the distributions of wealth and income are more significant factors than either absolute poverty or low income in determining the health of deprived populations. Income inequality benefits the entire public and Sanders should make that clear.

Another lapse is the intensive concentration on winning the election and not preparing to carry the message forward with other associates. Should not Senator sanders be developing leaders and an organization that will survive the primary, no matter the outcome? Which is preferable, Bernie wins the primary but his agenda is lost in the Party apparatus or Bernie loses the primary but his agenda is carried forward by a new and vocal element of the Democratic party?

Part of that agenda has emerged late in the campaign. Bernie Sanders, possibly because being Jewish, seemed reluctant to talk foreign policy and become involved in the Middle East crisis. To his credit, unlike the other candidates who kowtowed in their obsequious speeches at the AIPAC convention, Senator Sanders did not appear before the pro-Israel lobby. In a recent debate with Hillary Clinton, he also defended Palestinian rights, while Hillary Clinton defended Israel's policies. Political pundits may have thought that Bernie's attitude would be politically costly, but evidently he had calculated otherwise -- after all, the pro-Israel voters are a minor segment of the population and he does not need their contributions or media attention. As a bonus, his honest attitude contrasted greatly with that of Secretary Clinton, whose July 2, 2015 letter to Haim Sabin, seemed to indicate a quid pro arrangement of "you help me with campaign funds and I'll see what I can do for Israel." Regardless of the competing expressions on that issue, Bernie has shown that criticizing Israel is not political suicide and, as in other issues, displayed courage in speaking and exhibited creativity in opening new avenues of dialogue. He also scored points with Donald Trump, who seems to covertly recommend a more equal approach to the Middle East crisis but finds it politically expedient to cater to the Israel Lobby.

As the mighty politicos fall, the apparatus of both political Parties become fragile. For the Republicans, the primary campaign has steered the Party toward disintegration. A Trump nomination and then election is not a win for the Republican Party. Trump, despite his assertions, is not a Republican; he is only Donald Trump of a Trump Party. Call it Republican but a duck is not an elephant. A large part of the Republican faithful will either stay home or vote democrat before voting for Donald Trump. The latter may be a wiser choice -- have Trump decisively defeated and demonstrate that straying from Republican conservatism and Party principles can be catastrophic.

Trump might shout "foul," that if he did not have the large number of opponents he would have gained their votes and been easily nominated. However, Cruz and Kasich can make the same claim. Besides, the function of a political Party is to win elections, to nominate a preferred candidate who can be victorious. Because from the polls, Trump does not have a chance of winning, the Republicans would be foolish as an organization and negligent in their obligations to the Party faithful if they allowed Trump to be the candidate. For the GOP to remain a vital political Party, it needs a familiar GOP candidate, a person who is well known to the public, is identified with the Republicans Party, and has a chance of being elected. House Speaker Paul Ryan, former Governor Jeb Bush, and Senator Ted Cruz have some qualifications, but only Governor John Kasich satisfies the complete criteria.

Ryan has ruled himself out, which means he is determined to run, but his running will give the appearance of a well planned coup. Due to his moribund activity during the months he has his served as House speaker, his credentials have become questionable.
Jeb Bush, at one time had a good chance, but evidently the public feels there have been too many Bushes on the White House grounds and the Bush name disturbs the electorate.
Cruz has limited appeal to the total voters, even less than Donald Trump.
Kasich is the only candidate who can unite the Party, maintain its balance and have a chance to obtain a portion of the less centrist Democratic vote. As a mayor, congressman and governor of a vital state (Ohio) Kasich's experience, forthright and honest attitude can compete with a Democratic challenger.

The Democratic Party may actually be strengthened by Bernie Sanders campaign. He has revitalized the more liberal wing of the Party, brought in new constituents and reshaped the Party's direction. Antagonism to Secretary Clinton has shown that a significant number of Dems will not tolerate well meaning ambition seekers, who sacrifice conviction for aggrandizement, donations, and votes.

In summary, the Republicans would be wise to stop businessman Trump and nominate Governor Kasich. If that does not happen, then supporting the Democratic candidate to assure the public dumps the Trump would be preferable. Considering that the failure to nominate Senator Sanders in the present election may provoke the emergence of a progressive Third Party in future elections, which would harm democrat chances in those races, the Democratic Party voters may be wise to factor that possibility into primary campaign preferences. In any event, look for a strong Third political Party in the near future.

alternativeinsight
april 22, 2016

HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE

alternativeinsight@earthlink.net