Dictators Are Not Communists

by with No Comment FeaturedGlobalPoliticsSocial Issues

Not that Communism is the best system to have as the primary economic engine, but it’s important to note that no economic system exists in a vacuum. So when someone points to the failures of a particular country’s economy as “proof their system does not work,” it seems a bit misguided; especially when said country is in actuality a dictatorship.

When the dictators are doing right by the people, the country flourishes. When they are making bad decisions for their people, nothing can stop them and the country suffers. When the people attempt to rebel, they are squashed, imprisoned, executed.

Much of Cuba’s current economic crisis is being blamed on the US Trade Embargo. This obviously factors into the country’s current shortage of food and medical supplies, but at the heart of Cuba’s current misfortune is a government that values power more than its people.

A centralized economy (like a dictatorship) can function if it is making the right choices for its citizens. However, considering how susceptible a government-run economy is to corruption and favoritism, decisions aren’t always made in the best interests of the entire country. A free market is meant to mitigate the poor judgment of political leaders: the people know best what and who is needed so they sort out jobs, resources, supply, and demand on their own.

Vietnam found a way to maintain a Communist government, but embrace some free market enterprise in the mid 80s. It’s reported 30,000+ private businesses were created since then, their economy has flourished, and relations with the US started to normalize in the 90s.

So, where Vietnam succeeded, Cuba seems to be failing. The Castros have “good intentions” for their… people (is “subjects” too cynical?). But when they needed the foresight to understand how a global pandemic would damage their economy and possibly require some major changes, they maintained their status quo. This is why their people are protesting; they have no power to demand accountability from their government (dictators). They can’t vote to change their system. They can’t do anything except literally live and die by the whims of their leaders.

And so maybe Communism isn’t the enemy. Maybe trying to exist outside of the influence of Multi-National Corporations isn’t the enemy. Perhaps Malignant Narcissism is the enemy. Anyone that is not accountable to anyone and believes themselves to be infallible, that person is dangerous and whether they are the leader of a Communist Country, or the President of the United States, they can do serious damage to a multitude of people.

The economic system of the country matters not if the leader is self serving and uses their political position to consolidate power, destroy enemies, and enrich themselves and their allies. As more and more information comes to light, it seems this was happening in the very Capitalist United States of America under the Trump regime.

Now, perhaps Capitalism is the system least susceptible to corruption and so Trump is an anomaly, but to view the U.S. as purely Capitalist is a misconception.

Here’s why: 

-A large amount of our manufacturing and debt come from China (a Communist country). This means we are at least in that regard participating in a Communist system to some extent – we are x percent Communist.

-The entire concept of Insurance is communist in nature: “From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.”

-Any tax-funded job is technically Socialism (army, police, fire, infrastructure, social work, etc.).

The point is: We should be very specific about what is working and what is not so we can create the best situation for everyone.

It is truly malignant narcissism in leadership that ruins countries and economies (as well as families and businesses).

The Free Market has proven to be an incredible mechanism when not being abused or corrupted. Communist and Socialist mechanisms can be implemented efficiently when overseen by Democratic institutions.

Dictatorships are never the best system as they prevent accountability and change for the better. Cuba’s current protests are happening for that reason.

The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

by with 5 Comments FeaturedGlobalPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019…  

In the latest episode of The D.C. Apprentice reality show, we unpeeled another layer of the onion that is the Trump Doctrine. Whether it’s Brexit, Afghanistan, Jamal Khashoggi, summits with North Korea, tariffs and trade deals, Putin, and now, Ukraine, we bear witness to a convoluted set of policies without specific details and a heavy emphasis on maximizing publicity and attention. Trump’s foreign policy is based on minimizing or eliminating long-term military engagements, renegotiating agreements that play into his deal-making reputation, and provoking diplomatic altercations that further establish Trump as the Commander-in-Chief of Red State America.

Trump vocally embraces the paleoconservative philosophy championed by Patrick Buchanan, Steve Bannon, Lou Dobbs, and numerous contributors to Fox News and Breitbart News. It embraces traditional social positions and nationalism while strongly opposing trade agreements, immigration, and international organizations. It also has a strong isolationist influence that opposes military interventions. Between the trade wars, ICE raids, border wall funding, immigration and asylum reductions, NATO criticisms, and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan, Trump is reliably committed to Paleoconservative orthodoxies. 

Trump’s reputation as a deal-making businessman from his real estate business in New York to his TV show to his book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ is built on maximizing publicity by making grandiose, must-see-tv gestures that consumes all oxygen from other competitors. Whether it’s the summits with the North Korean dictator, renegotiating NAFTA, and imposing tariffs on trading partners like China, Trump uses each opportunity and/or manufactured diplomatic crisis to further burnish his perceived deal-making reputation. 

Perhaps most importantly, Trump’s foreign policy is dependent on cementing his status as the Commander-in-Chief of red-state America. The President has gone all-in on being the war-time commander in the new cold war between red and blue America. Withdrawing from the Paris climate treaty is the perfect example. The trade wars with Mexico and China appeals to the rural working-class voters in Midwest and Southern states who see their manufacturing tradition threatened by globalization. Trump’s coalition swapped out college-educated middle-class voters in suburban counties for working-class voters in rural areas. He relishes any attack from blue-state America because it further establishes his war-time credentials with red-state America. Therefore, the Ukraine news only solidifies his support from his fans. In the mind of his supporters, they are at war, and all is fair in love and war. That might seem drastic, but his supporters love that there is no line he won’t cross to defend them against their enemy. Trump has nearly 3 years of history proving himself to his supporters that he will fight every fight that they believe his predecessors were too weak to engage, and this is no different.

This article was originally published on 27 September 2019.

The Demise of Kamala Harris – the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next

by with 3 Comments FeaturedPolitics

Kamala Harris suspended her campaign (12/3) just weeks before the Iowa caucuses. The New York Times ironically wrote a devastating article about her campaign just a few days before she made the disappointing announcement to drop out of the race. To add insult to injury, one of her former aides, Kelly Mehlanbacker wrote a damning resignation letter than somehow leaked to the media. Mehlanbacher mentioned that “while she no longer had confidence in the campaign or its leadership,” she still felt that Senator Harris was the strongest candidate to win the General Election 2020. So strong that she ended up joining Bloomberg’s campaign right around the time her letter leaked. Hardly a coincidence. 

How did we get here?

When a Black woman makes the decision to run for any political office in America I believe she does so with a certain level of understanding that is unique and quite different than her White counterparts. Kamala Harris had never lost a race – only the second Black woman in US history to be elected to the US Senate. It’s fair to say she has successfully calculated political and personal risk time and time again, faced immeasurable odds, and won.

But ask any presidential historian, and they’ll quickly tell you that nothing can prepare you for a presidential run.

Did Senator Harris have to deal with racism AND sexism? Of course. Could she have also run a better campaign? The answer to that question, unfortunately, is YES as well. However, that second question quasi-argument, which seems to be of major debate amongst liberals, becomes a moot point when you consider the fact that EVERY candidate in the race has also made strategy mistakes in regard to their campaign, especially the front runners, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. (If we agree with that, then why was she being held to a different standard and penalized more than them?)

Factor in the mainstream media and it’s inevitable huge role in national elections… they purposely erased her from polls, allowed other campaigns to steal her slogans AND data without holding them accountable, refused to interview her in primetime slots on issues relative to 2020 (healthcare, immigration, trade, etc), and wrote article after article focusing solely on controversies, hearsay, and the negatives of her career as an elected official. Such attacks are hard to counter, and eventually, it’s too much and you’re left with no other decision but to exit the race.

The Good: While Kamala Harris is suspending her campaign, it’s plausible to accept the moral argument that she picked up the torch Shirley Chisholm (1972) and Carol Moseley Braun (2004) dropped and carried it further down the political path for Black women who will come after her and run for Commander-in-Chief. That’s important and should not be overlooked. While this is the first time she’s ever lost a race, she is still politically young. If she chooses to run for president again, she has the time and now the experience to tweak her strategy and message. Hillary Clinton, Biden, Romney, as well as most presidential candidates, also lost their first bid for the White House. While her supporters might not be in favor of her taking a cabinet position for Biden, I mean whoever the presumptive Democrat nominee is, maybe Vice President, AG, or Secretary of State, it’ll give her the inevitable experience and exposure needed in case she does plan to run for president in the future.

The Bad: The critiques for Senator Harris were many, and came from all directions. Many point to her initial statements and mishaps on her healthcare plan, her record as a DA in California, even allegations of her having an affair with Willie Brown, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly at the time when she was 30 and he was 60. While many applauded her brilliant performance in the second debate, they cringed at her not so good performance in the next debate highlighted by Tulsi Gabbard attacking her criminal justice record in California. Gabbard telegraphed her attack a week prior to the debate and Senator Harris was still not prepared. Rumblings of strategy missteps, turmoil within, and inconsistent messaging didn’t help her campaign.

What’s Next: With Kamala dropping out of the race, and neither Corey Booker or Julian Castro having qualified for the next debate, there will be no people of color on the Democratic debate stage next week. For a party that can’t do anything without the support and backing of their diverse base, that says a lot. You’ll have mumbling Joe Biden, whose latest gaffe includes talking about kids touching his hairy legs in a pool, Pete Buttigieg, who literally drops the ball every time he’s asked about race and is currently polling at 0% with Black voters, and Bernie Sanders, who thinks that if Black men just respected the police they wouldn’t get shot in the head. All of these men have been given the benefit of the doubt, time and time again. No obituary articles and plenty of primetime interviews with softball questions. A spade is a spade, Kamala wasn’t afforded the same luxury or grace.

Against all odds, campaigns are tough and candidates make mistakes… let’s see how she does the next time around, I’m sure she’ll be back.

Similar Read: Kamala or Bust?

What the 2019 Election Results Say about 2020

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

Tuesday night’s election results have been spun by every pundit to project onto the 2020 presidential race. When put in context, some of the highlights are relatively meaningless. Matt Bevin’s loss in the KY governor’s race is not an accurate representation of the political dynamics in Kentucky. Bevin has repeatedly appeared on the list of the most unpopular governors in the country. It says something about the strength of the KY GOP to nearly carry an incumbent with a 2:1 unfavorable rating to a near tie with the setting Attorney General who is the son of a popular former governor. It also says something that the GOP swept the rest of the statewide races by landslide margins, including the election of the states first Republican (and African-American) Attorney General. In Mississippi, the Lt Governor defeated a popular 4-term Attorney General. People can quibble about the margins in these races, but the real story is not what happened in Mississippi or Kentucky. The election results that matter occurred in Virginia. 

For the first time in nearly 3 decades, Democrats control every statewide office and the state legislature. The political trend in Virginia has benefitted Democrats, but it is a similar trend in other states. George W Bush carried this state by 8 points in both of his elections. Before the 2006 election, the GOP had large majorities in the state legislature, both senate seats, and 2 of the 3 state constitutional offices. The growth of the DC metropolitan area in northern Virginia has fueled the blue resurgence, but the tide in suburban areas is a growing threat to Republican electoral prospects.

In the initial post-mortems of the 2016 elections, the media focused on the rural midwestern counties and communities that flipped from Obama to Trump, but they overlooked the counties and communities that flipped from Romney to Clinton. For all of the blue-collar working-class White voters that broke the Blue Wall of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, there were just as many college-educated middle-class Whites and Latino voters in suburban districts that stayed just beneath the media radar because it did not flip a Romney state to Clinton. While Trump’s margins in working-class states across the Deep South and Midwest were incremental improvements over Romney, he did significantly worse in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. 

We are witnessing a seismic political reorganization around new issues that shatter the red/blue narrative that has lingered since the 2000 election. Some issues like abortion and guns will not be affected by this shift, but others like immigration, trade, and global relationships/competition will become the new litmus tests. States with a heavy reliance on international commerce and immigrant labor like Texas and Arizona will continue their transition into purple states, while rustbelt states with a skepticism of global influences like Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia will continue become more red. 

John Edwards spoke of ‘Two Americas,’ and while he was technically right, his analysis for why this exists is not. The ‘Two Americas’ are not necessarily the right vs poor, it is urban/suburban vs rural and old vs young. States with growing senior populations and states that have fallen behind in the technology revolution of the last decade are the real base for Trump’s political party. As the percentage of college grads increases, Trump’s grip on the state decreases. This trend started under Obama, but Trump has accelerated it. It also means Trump’s coalition cannot win a national election, but like 2016, it is possible for his opponent to lose it. 

Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Conversative Vet Responds to SOTU

by with One Comment FeaturedPolitics

The nature of the state of the union speech, with its widely disseminated advance copies and formal nature, proved to be the most presidential delivery of any speech the president has given since his inauguration speech. While he seemed bored at times he did appear presidential. Still, it was a good moment for him (if only by comparison).

Nonetheless, it appeared that there were a number of cases he could have made stronger.

The power of that platform, speaking directly to the American people gave him a window to appeal for this wall – and for his amnesty plan… the great compromise that he’s proposed still needs a horse to drive through the legislature, and this was the perfect time to  demand the masses to be that horse – possibly sealing the issue and easily skirting another impending shutdown.

It was a missed opportunity that will likely gain even more attention should we be back again looking at a closed government with Schumer sitting on his hands.

His comment on Apple’s $350bn also seemed odd – while it’s a large number, it seemed to me that it was the first offer to see if the IRS of the new regime would accept that as “enough” as a strategy to onshore corporate income under the new tax reform laws. By touting it in his speech, he may have possibly intended to set the model for other US multinational companies, but he likely gave Apple an early pass before their time.

He generally made a good case for the economy, which is likely his most compelling argument and point of strength. I wonder, though, if he has the ability to stay on message and for how long.

Tonight our government felt sort of normal for the first time in a while… but I admit, I’m waiting with bated breath for the other shoe (or tweet) to drop.