A Trump Presidency, the Path to Progressive Legislation?
Could a trump Presidency really pave the road to progressive legislation? This may sound like a crazy notion, and it is counterintuitive. But please keep an open mind. To make informed decisions, one must look at every topic from multiple angles. Many of these angles, however, are often overlooked by the individual. In order to have a WHOLE outlook [on current events etc.] that is GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS (SYNERGY), people must have open-minded discussions to share ideas. Synergy is what empowers the human race. It used to empower people at the bottom, but those at the top have used synergy to trick the rest of us into thinking that this is a bad thing. So how could a Trump Presidency actually facilitate a progressive agenda?
Whether Clinton or Trump wins this November (assuming it's one of them), it's safe to say that there will be a knee-jerk reaction in the next two Congressional Elections (2018 & 2020). So if Trump gets elected, it will be much easier to get progressives into Congress, and there could even be a domino effect in local elections. Keep in mind that real change to fix this country needs to come from the bottom, up. Because of the backlash that would likely follow a Trump Presidency, it's well within reason that the next President (elected in 2020) would be a progressive. Then, there would be a minimum of two years to make some real progressive changes to this country's legislation, and it would be quite possible to implement the Real Deal (see article: The Real Deal). On the other hand, if Hillary gets elected, the country will most likely turn in favor of the Republicans.
The only reason Hillary Clinton reversed her position on the TPP was to get Bernie Sanders' endorsement. He in turn had to endorse her because he's a politician, not a rock star. Bernie is still in Congress, and he has to conform a little or he loses his ability to negotiate. Plus, he probably wants the Democratic Party to be more progressive again. If Clinton is able to win this election, especially with a landslide victory, the progressive movement would most likely take two steps back. After all the hard work and the recent step forward, it would be a travesty to let that happen.
Another issue to consider is the fact that there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court. But does it really matter if the Senate elects a 'liberal' or 'conservative' Justice? Let us not be short-sighted about the issue. Yes, a Supreme Court Justice is a particularly important position within our Judicial System. But how important are the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal?' Regardless of what politicians say in front of the camera, the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans subscribe to the Third Way, which is economically conservative and socially liberal (liberal enough to keep the masses from rebelling). Citizens United v. FEC and Obergefell v. Hodges are two of the most influential Supreme Court rulings in recent times. Citizens United is an economically conservative Supreme Court ruling that equates money with free speech, which significantly contributes to the current level of corruption within Washington. Meanwhile, Obergefell, the Supreme Court ruling that guarantees the right of marriage to same-sex couples, is socially liberal. And surprisingly, Obergefell was enacted with a 'conservative majority' of Justices. The Third Way guideline is by no means absolute, and there are definitely exceptions to the rule. But the Justices don't always have the public's best interest in mind, especially when it comes to economic issues. Congress isn't any better, and the anti-labor movement proposed by Barry Goldwater in the '60s has been supported by every President from 1981 to the present (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama).
If progressives vote for a third party candidate, which would likely allow for the election of Donald Trump, they would send a very powerful message to the DNC. If candidates are chosen autocratically, the 'Democrats' will permanently lose the progressive vote. Casting a ballot in this manner should not be viewed as throwing away one's vote, especially if there's a statement being made. Perhaps electing a Democrat or Republican should be viewed as throwing away one's vote. Politicians should have to earn votes, and neither of the two major candidates have done so. Also, if people always choose the lesser of two evils, then evil will always be their only option. How many people wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but they were afraid to because of their party loyalty and the fear of making Hillary look bad? And why are so many people loyal to a political party that does not reciprocate their loyalty? Well, the DNC and Hillary's campaign actually denigrated her on their own, and the Democrats might lose this election because of it.
When people make comments like, "We're stuck in a two-party system," the proper response should be, "Tell that to the Whigs." For most of the Antebellum Period (before the Civil War), there were two main political parties, the Democrats and the Whigs. Ignoring the will of the people had become bipartisan, and the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party as a result. The Whigs went the way of the dodo, and perhaps it's time for one of the two major parties to do the same. Donald Trump tapped into something with his opposition to the TPP (not all of his supporters are bigots). So don't be surprised if the Republicans investigate whether or not it's worthwhile to oppose free trade agreements and create a more progressive platform in general.
Moreover, the Democratic Party seems to be fracturing, in part, because of the Guccifer 2.0 leaks. Exposing the Democratic Party's deceit is a good thing, not a threat to national security. The government, and likewise the political parties, need more transparency. The DNC falsely claims that Guccifer 2.0 must be affiliated with the Russian government because a lone hacker could never get past the DNC's firewall. But the Bernie Sanders team breached the firewall BY ACCIDENT and reported it to the DNC. The DNC's response was to punish Team Bernie by withholding crucial voter data at a critical point in the primary campaign. The fact that the DNC blames Russia specifically is not coincidental. In a time when socialism is regaining favor amongst the American people, the clergy is restoring the scapegoat of Cold War paranoia.
Trite as it may be, "We can't trust Trump with the nuclear codes," has become a popular cliche'. It's actually a quadrennial saying that is constantly repeated by loyal Democrats. Replace Trump's name with George W Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and there should be a sensation of de'j- vu. It is unfortunate that so many Americans have been manipulated this way because they are unaware of the National Command Authority and the chain of command required to authorize a nuclear attack. Yes, Trump has made some terrible statements, but he never said that he wants to use nuclear weapons. He did say that he doesn't want to take the cards off the table, but is Trump actually considering the use of nuclear weapons? From the view point of a progressive that frequently challenges conservatives to debates, all of the irrational things Trump says are completely unoriginal. Even blaming the foundation of ISIS on Obama is nothing new. He's pandering for votes, not laying out a real Presidential strategy.
Trump's politically incorrect rhetoric would be an embarrassment for the country, but it's highly unlikely that it would start a serious conflict. Although Trump's words are being used to recruit terrorists, the same can be said for almost everything relating to America and the West. The root causes of radical Islamic terrorism are in fact the oil industry coups, the union of government and religion in the Middle East, and the increased competition for diminishing resources. Meanwhile, Hillary's proposal for no-fly zones in Syria COULD ACTUALLY CAUSE WORLD WAR III. Oh well, at least global warming will no longer be a concern when the nuclear winter comes.
Sometimes it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to turn over a new leaf. With a Trump Presidency, the road ahead will be bumpy for a few years, and things will probably get worse before they get better. But is there a path for America's future that doesn't get bumpier along the way? Try not to get discouraged, and never give up. Believe it or not, the Robber-Baron Era that followed the Civil War was actually much worse than the status quo. But because determined people organized, the Labor Movement was able to temporarily overthrow the capitalist oligarchy, which led to the most affluent period in human history THUS FAR. There is light at the end of the tunnel. People just need to be patient, understanding, and perceptive, and they must organize and work hard to fix this country from the bottom, up.
*I would like to officially endorse Jill Stein, the Green Party's nominee for Presidential candidacy.
--Jill Stein, time after time.
(Article changed on October 11, 2016 at 18:18)
