Unknown Buddhist

With the 2016 U.S. Presidential election over, the world continues to reassess how the global chess board has changed. Players we thought were leaders have been cast aside. Clinton, Sanders, Romney and a host of others are yesterday’s news.

In a global economic club, as promised by a Trump administration, leaders from Goldman Sachs would not be worthy of polishing the White House door knobs. Yet seven weeks past the election, the Trump Cabinet is shaping to be nothing more than a Goldman white-boy reunion club. Ah the more we promise, the more difficult it becomes to generate any traction of improvement.

Let’s quickly review, Trump claimed the alter of leadership based upon lies, bigotry and hatred. He promised coal miners and the jobless jobs. He promised to hold China in judgement, to reclaim the golden nectar of steel’s production benefits. And for the Goldman Sachs brethren, Trump claimed Goldman owned everybody, including Clinton, Cruz, and others. Goldman leaders were never prosecuted for the housing market crash, the predatory lending, foreclosures and other unethical dealings.

Yet, post election, CNN interviewed a 65 year-old former steel worker who lost his job to China. Having little to offer this, he was pissed for receiving monthly Social Security. He was looking for a job. He voted for Trump hoping Trump would bring back those jobs.

Truth be told, Trump used that hatred to get elected. Those jobs are not returning and the Goldman Sachs reunion club will offer you nothing. I say this for two reasons. The infrastructure that built American Steel has decayed for decades. Even if steel outsourcing suddenly reversed and Allentown, PA steel manufacturing reignited tomorrow, actual steel foundries would have to be rebuilt. That would take a decade. Secondly, nothing against coal and steel workers, but you’re older. Arthritis, Spinal Stenosis, knee problems, hand problems and the mental sharpness to be trained into a new, more technological position left many of those workers in the past.

Everyone wants change. Unfortunately, the Goldman boys live for you. Never did. They live for the deal. Just as in the past, stock entitlements go only to the wealthy. The only change Trump offers the remaining 90% is chump change.

This blog has not opined too deeply into current presidential politics. This has more to do with the fact all the presumptive nominees have yet to be decided. By I read New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s article “Clinton’s Fibs, and Her Opponents’ Double Whoppers” with interest:

“… while Hillary’s struggles with the whole truth on certain issues have garnered huge attention, driving up her negatives, Trump and Bernie Sanders have been getting away with some full Burger King Double Whoppers that will come crashing down on the whole country if either gets the chance to do what he says.”

Both Trump and Sanders appear to come from opposite sides of the same coin. Each claims political mobilization, but beyond the veneer, little appears to have changed. Neither candidate has generated real mobilization.

Real political mobilization is about getting constituents to become voters, voters to become activists and activists to become candidates. It has yet to be seen if the extreme ideas proposed by either Sanders or Trump can transform the electorate and drive public policy at the state and local level. If what has been reported is accurate, the Vermont senator has not drawn as large crowds to his events in predominantly African-American neighborhoods. Sanders may resonate in some places, but certainly not all.

Additionally, Trump has only garnered roughly 11,500,000 primary votes while Sanders has netted about 10,000,000. Contrast that to 2012, when President Barack Obama received 65,915,796 general election votes. To be elected the 45th president, each must compete on a political map that, for now, looks forbidding. This means both Trump and Sanders will require not only all their primary voters, but also an additional 50 – 55 million more voters.

First take-away: political challenges are huge.

When Republicans took control of the House, America experienced two of the least productive Congresses in history. Strangely, this happened after we elected a group of politicians to government who openly stated that they hated government. In a Trump victory, Trump must navigate the reality of political tide. Numerically speaking, there’s only 24 Republican and 10 Democratic seats up for reelection in 2016. As of this writing, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, both Bush presidents, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Former GOP Mitt Romney, and former Florida Sen. and former RNC chairman Mel Martinez rejects the idea of voting for Trump.

If Sanders wins, he’ll have to go it alone.  With a veto-proof Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives, President Obama had to battle those who were grotesquely entrenched in their own special interests.  At a time when affordable health care, a democratic priority, should have been a slam-dunk, President Obama was forced to scale back his plan.  Universal health care was never an option and even the public option (Medicare/Medicaid) was seen as “too radical.”  In the end, it took every single ounce of support to pass the Affordable Care Act, without a single vote from Republicans in the Senate as well as 35 Democrats refusing to support it in the House.

Then there are economic realities.

Trump’s border wall will encompass many subplots. If erected, trade routes will shut down, water rites and land contested and industries wouldn’t be able to export products. The economies of both El Paso and Ciudad Juárez would take major hits. For Sanders, the issue of wealth and income inequality is 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. Yet many economists claim Sanders fiscal policies reside in fantasy-land. Sanders critics claim there is little credible economic research supporting claimed economic benefits.

Neither candidate has politically mobilized constituents to become voters, voters to become activists and activists to become candidates. Freidman got it right.

“All lying in politics is not created equal. I think the ideology Bernie is selling is fanciful, but underlying it is a moral critique of modern capitalism that has merit and deserves to be heard. But Bernie is not being truthful about the costs. What is grating about Hillary is that her prevarications seem so unnecessary and often insult our intelligence. But they are not about existential issues. As for Trump, his lies are industrial size and often contradict each other. But there is no theory behind his lies, except what will advance him, which is why Trump is only scary if he wins. Otherwise, his candidacy will leave no ideas behind. It will just be a reality TV show that got canceled.”

Then again, I believe all most Americans want is a TV show. If we’re not careful, that’s what we’ll get.