Could Liberals' Hope in a Trump Presidency Lie With Mitch McConnell?

The Democratic Party anointed a candidate that couldn't beat a clown (apparently). While the Dems lost the White House, they also couldn't convince anyone to vote for a Democratic Senate, and obviously lost the gerrymandered House. That leaves the Presidency and both chambers of Congress in Republican control, and liberals chasing nightmares every time they close their eyes. With a conservative agenda ready to go and at least one Supreme Court seat to be filled in the coming years, could Mitch McConnell give Democrats their best hope of slowing down the upcoming onslaught of Republican policies?

McConnell has been a reclusive man this election, hiding an assumed disdain for Donald Trump in favor of a prototypical candidate. He avoided the cable news circuit and campaigns alike, utilizing his time to privately fundraise for Congressional Republicans. But now that he raised enough money to buy the Senate, he faces a problem: being responsible for governance. While the Senate leader never demonstrated an interest in working to develop smart policy or pass a responsible budget, he succeeded wildly in obstructing President Obama and running against his objectives.

McConnell seemed happy to play the role of obstructionist, and fundraised well doing it. Unfortunately, the goalposts have moved. Trump has demonstrated zero interest in policy development, suggesting he'll sign whatever Congress sends up as long as it can be sold as a big idea. If something goes wrong, or there's something McConnell doesn't want to do (fully repeal Obamacare?), there's only one place America (as well as Trump, assumedly) will point the finger - at Congress. Unless, that is, McConnell can create an alternative place to deposit blame. Whither the obstructionists?

Democrats eliminated many filibuster rules regarding Presidential appointments out of necessity, after Republicans in the Senate minority refused to allow anyone to be confirmed regardless of their merits because partisanship. It'll be hard for McConnell to sell his conference on reinstating that power, but filibusters of legislation will remain. So Senate Republican will to confirm Trump appointees (maybe a couple Republican will demonstrate the courage to oppose those appointees that refuse to uphold the constitution, but we'll see), but Democrats will retain the power to impede controversial legislation. And though the filibuster can technically be eliminated, McConnell would be strategically smart not to infringe on the ability to use it.

Democratic opposition via filibuster is important to both sides. Democrats need small victories and the ability to claim they're fighting the machine. Republicans need an opposition to fundraise against (expect this e-mail in your inbox soon: "We could fix healthcare if only those dastardly Democrats would stop trying to shove their death panels down our throats! Won't you donate $25 today to help America show those liberals we won't stand for their bullying ways?") McConnell has shown himself as a politician first. A smart politician would open the system to Democrats to obstruct a legislative agenda, and give Republicans something to run on in 2018. We'll see if liberals are (un)lucky enough for this to happen.

The Best Polling Spot in the Republican Primary

It's July 2015, and America has already checked out of the Presidential election set to take place November 2016. Or maybe they never check out, because election season never ends. Or maybe they're permanently checked out because election season never ends. I don't know. Here's what I do though: a candidate currently outside the top ten is going to be one of the top finishers in the Republican primary, and there's some game theory that encourages this positioning.

As of the RealClearPolitics polling aggregate published yesterday, the list of candidates outside the top ten includes Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham. Some of these candidates we know will be written off at the end of the day: Santorum might not actually understand how the constitution works and fails to exhibit any critical thinking ability on foreign policy. Jindal probably can't defend the direction he sent Louisiana in over the course of a campaign. I feel like Graham isn't seriously running, he just wants to push the party in a more hawkish direction (and in that is succeeding). But each of these could mount a noticeable campaign along the way, while Perry has worked hard to redefine himself, Fiorina could grab all sorts of suburban soccer moms, and some other candidates such as Chris Christie and Ben Carson may still take flight.

We get it, there are a lot of candidates in the field. So what's the best spot? I'll take #12 (give or take one). That's money.

Being top dog early on carries great peril. During the 2012 primaries, the Republican field systemically destroyed each candidate that took a lead until Romney finally held on. Ignoring Donald Trump, Jeb Bush presently leads all candidates. That puts a target on his back, and he'll be attacked in the coming months by all comers. Yet how does a candidate distinguish themselves to eventually overtake that top spot in the first place?

Our Presidential debates are travesties of democracy that cable news relentlessly covers. The news doesn't cover the issues, it covers the horse race. Who won? Who lost? Who best positioned themselves for the next round? And that's where a #12 distinguishes themselves. Fox and CNN have stated the top ten polling candidates will have one debate, and the leftover candidates get a secondary platform (interestingly, while CNN has clearly established rules for defining top ten, Fox does not, leaving the door open for them to choose which top ten they actually want on stage to a degree. Think the refusal to acknowledge Ron Paul in 2012 from Fox). And the winner of the secondary tier is due for attention and fawning: "Which candidate from tonight could we see on the main stage next time," and "who among the second tier looked like a serious contender?" With the spin cycle of our 24-hour entertainment news industry, that's phenomenal press. I guarantee the media will devote hours to the second tier debate outcome, and if one actor clearly outperforms the others, that's money. Even better, it doesn't carry the target of winning the big boy debate. 

I've been chewing on this idea for a couple months, and it just seems right. Candidates polling at #8 or 9 have little chance of distinguishing themselves and will likely drop out. If you're not in the top five, there's one way to hope to win: beat everyone else polling outside the top ten.

Geography Influences Politics (i think)

Small communities will always be in favor of less government compared to their bigger counterparts. It took me until today to understand why. A community provides assistance. Some part time work to someone down on their luck. Cutting the yard and bringing food when someone's sick or injured. A vigilant eye and some deterrence to crime. Emotional support.

You see that in Concordia, KS. It's regular. Ain't regular in Topeka - let alone Chicago. It's not that a Highland Acres neighborhood can't be close and look out for each other, but it ain't the same thing. People can't come together around here like they can back home. So they turn to government to fill the void. No judgment calls here; it's a natural progression of thinking. Maybe if you're a decent person you're entitled to some sort of support when bad shit happens. The good people of Concordia can provide that assistance without a bureaucrat directing resources. Not necessarily true in Topeka.

I think this is fundamental in how we view government. Should the people of Concordia pay taxes to provide those services in Topeka that they provide themselves? And if they do, are they 'owed' similar assistance regardless of ability to provide? I suppose your answer to this question allows me to determine if you're a lily livered Democrat or a heartless Republican. And no, I refuse to frame it in other terms.

Some people are rich and live in suburbs and are still anti-government because they can provide for themselves regardless of the presence of community. Some people are rich and live in the suburbs and are big government folks because they're all paternalistic despite an already strong presence of community. Some people are poor and in the suburbs and that must be awful.

Chickens In Pots; A TV In Every Living Room

An abundance of poor is necessary to enable the comfort of the rich. Voltaire said something like that. When the rich lack comfort, they set their eyes upon foreign lands. GE best prospers when Cambodia is being bombed and Marines are in Haiti. The military industrial complex prospers during conflict, but uncertain outcome of conflict threatens the nation. The rich must remain satiated to prevent new war. I suppose in that vein, our national security has been most at risk in those moments that threatened the institution of poverty itself.

In the mid 19th century, the fall of slavery provided the promise transcendence, but that's bullshit. The whip was traded for the noose, and the black populace remained enslaved. No major wars following Civil War, killing of natives continued but that was status quo.

The mid 20th century threatened everything. The GI bill provided the opportunity of education to the masses of returning soldiers, depriving society of an easily exploitable poor. The unions also gained power in the mid 20th century, and shooting union members fell out of fashion. The rich were forced to waste resources on improving working conditions. South Korea.

This is why the Vietnam War was so important. Imagine millions of young people, sitting in the quads of universities across the nation. Plotting. Organizing. Smoking weed and spreading anti-establishment bullshit. They had to be sent overseas to be killed. The further profiteering was merely a bonus, the important outcome was to break down a potentially explosive movement. No one returns from military service the same.

It's not enough to keep the poor abundant, they must also be controlled. The only thing that saved us during the rise of the middle class was the ability to pit the newly formed middle class against the poor. Race riots and the drug wars.

With the natural dismemberment of the middle class over the past two decades, new means for controlling the poor must be established. High society lacks the intestinal fortitude of its forefathers to enforce the obedience of the poor through violence. Imprisonment has become increasingly less frightening; conditions are more agreeable than ever; warm food and a bed can be had by all in this institution. If there is no fear and no middle class buffer, there is nothing to protect the rich from the poor. New methods must be established.

Aldous Huxley shows us how - control through the use of sex and narcotics. Technology has allowed these to be combined in new mediums; media. The tv provides escape, and young men can be distracted by the gaming consoles connected to them. Put a tv and Playstation in the living room of every housing project and crack den in America. The aim is not to brainwash, the goal is thought evacuation. Sometimes the poor will steal from each other, but if everyone is provided the same, the market will be saturated and the incentives to steal removed. Everyone must receive a television and cable. No one can be allowed to go without.

If we can devise methods to shuffle young men to and from work while filling idle time with these distractions, the rich can remain in comfort. The women can be oft be counted on to take care of themselves. Ensure the poor girls continue getting pregnant at early ages before they can attain education. Keep abortion difficult to access, if not illegal. Children are the most important impediment to success.

--------
The economist says giving people food for free decreases incentives to work. The activist says we must help those who lack the means to help themselves; think of the children.

It's interesting that people in America still go hungry. Not to say it's surprising. None of your elected officials have experienced hunger. To be hungry is awful, to die of hunger is an awful, painful, miserable experience. I have never died of hunger. Biden grew up comfortably middle class. Obama has a compelling backstory, but was never hungry. No current US Senator has experienced a lack of sleep stemming from hunger pangs. They don't know what it's like to pray for sleep to take away the pain. This is an important distinction. The poor do not provide the money for politicians to be elected, the rich do. We must continue electing politicians unable to empathize with the poor.

And what if no one was hungry? What if all citizens felt they led lives worth living? Then who would fight our wars? It's the proposition of a dangerous world with no honor.

Tosh.0, Doobies, and Other Non-Intellectual Pursuits

My sophomore year I almost got a job doing database entry for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and the only questions they asked were if I had ever smoked marijuana or been convicted of a crime. Anyone seeking a security clearance is asked the same question on marijuana - this government is serious about preventing hardened criminals from infiltrating the system. Yet assuming the nation becomes more reasonable and legalizes the substance, is this question still appropriate? Personal feelings of how idiotic present drug laws are aside, it begs a pondering.

The reversal of a law denotes an acknowledgment of either 1. misplaced judgment in crafting the original statute; or 2. a change in circumstances making the original reasoning no longer relevant. An altered marijuana policy scenario is likely both - present policy is wrong, which was reflected by a change in public opinion which shifts to legalization. However, there's no real moral high ground in breaking the current law - it's a law you're expected to abide by, even if you don't agree with it. A democracy is generally better off when people follow the laws prescribed by government. Problems arise when individuals only obey what they believe should apply to them, for no individual should be above others.

So, is it appropriate to expect a security clearance seeker to have abstained from the sticky icky, even after its legal reception? While I believe it should not be a question directly asked, abstinence remains an expectation. Though the codified criminal code is currently an infringement on civil rights, there is no moral righteousness in subverting it. Public defiance for the purpose of bringing attention to the issue is one thing - rolling a doobie and watching Tosh.0 in your living room is not. You've broken the law, yet in doing so failed to influence the trajectory of marijuana policy. Because even if I can provide a damn solid case against current policy, to say I'm more judicious than our lawmakers is more pretentious than cause for absolution - even if it's true.