Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

Trump Won….Or Kamala Lost?

November 12th, 2024 No comments

Trump won… or Kamala lost?   What’s the difference?  If one steps back and looks at the zeitgeist leading up to the 2024 election, the groundwork had been laid for years, if not decades.

Post the World War 2 era, the United States began its ascent to becoming the world’s top economic and cultural engine.  It was a time of great emerging prosperity and during this era, the US transformed more and more into an urban rather than an agricultural society.  Industrialization drew people into cities and the influence on American culture likewise shifted towards the sensibilities of their inhabitants.

Consumerism became a thing and suddenly, keeping up with the Jones’ also emerged as the great American pursuit.  Endowed with new prosperity, Americans moved even further away from its agricultural roots and children were instead funneled into universities and colleges to fit into the new economy.  What also blossomed during this time was the appetite for entertainment of all kinds. These were the golden days of the newish device of television.  Now, news and opinions could be transmitted nationwide not just in localized regions.  Two regions emerged as major influencers on American culture; New York and California.  What came out of those regions influenced the entire nation.

Politicians, always astute in recognizing opportunities to help themselves, focused much of their political messages in these heavily populated regions, since that’s where the votes were.  As wealth grew, focus on quality of life eclipsed the mundane needs of simple survival.  Self-actualization became the rage and campuses and culture embraced this new cultural direction.  The era of ‘me’ came into being by the mid ‘60’s.  The late 60’s and early 70’s period was scarred by the war in Vietnam.  As a nation, people strongly pushed back against a war which cost the lives of thousands of young men and which seemed to have no relevance to their own lives.

This anti-war contingent was most prevalent on college campuses both for philosophical reasons and for the existential reason of maybe being drafted for war. In tandem with this was the emergence of the civil rights movement which again found fertile ground at college campuses nationwide.  The power of the youth vote emerged and became a significant political voice which politicians had to consider.  Thus, perhaps for the first time in history, the elders had to consider the views of their children.  But having radically different views from their parents was not easy in the early days.  Often these kids were considered brainwashed and rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. In fact this massive pushback against the dictates of the establishment gave rise to a new consciousness about America and its role in the world.  The notion of peace versus war became more and more mainstream and accepted by Americans tired of never ending wars.  The colleges became the conscience of the nation. They collectively concluded that the vision of the establishment was not one that they agreed with.

As the threat of war diminished along with a national draft, other issues began appearing at college campuses now empowered to exert influence.  The kids that were students were now professors teaching the next generation of students. Being bastions of free thought meant that all kinds of divergent views from the mainstream could be explored.  But an interesting thing happened.

While the embracing of free thought was always the foundation of colleges, as time went on, views that were not in accordance with the ‘accepted’ views were not only unacceptable, they were increasingly restricted or forbidden. As we know, much of what is learned at college is carried forward into society at large and supported by media and entertainment.

Thus, we’ve come full circle.  Whereas anti-war activists back in the day were considered outcasts and trouble-makers, on today’s campuses, to express any opposition to LGBT or DEI principles will make you a pariah. Show any skepticism towards Global Warming and you may as well have 3 heads.  Just as anti-war students back in the day were characterized as hippies and communists, any opposition to the woke zeitgeist on college campuses today will have you labelled as fascist right wingers.  To show any support for a traditional nuclear family or to insist that there are only two sexes will be enough to cast you into being a resident of Nutville.

As with many things in nature, the cultural pendulum has reached its zenith.  Kamala Harris was the unfortunate person without a chair when the music stopped.  It was clear that people had had enough of the incoherent utterances on issues with which she had no expertise. It was clear that she represented the very worst of what’s become of American society, someone who had risen to position without any redeeming skills and who represented a set of ideologies antithetical to common sense.  It was clear that her values and those of her celebrity pals were far removed from the values of the majority of Americans, particularly young Americans.  Rather than being an inspiration, many voters preferred to distance themselves from her party’s message.  The most damning event was when Robert Kennedy Jr, whose family is THE iconic stalwart of the Democrats, left the party and condemned them for having morphed completely away from their original foundations.

Sure, lots people of all demographics voted for Trump, but it was just as much a movement away from the radical values of the Left.  Like the college kids of the 60’s the majority of Americans today are now signaling a new consciousness. College campuses can no longer claim to be the barometer of cultural values. Post voting analysis shows that it was the youth vote that swung away from Harris as much as it was towards Trump.  I think it should be noted that people didn’t flock to the Republican party.  Rather, they agreed with Trump’s message.  Some sixty years later, they have calculated collectively again that the vison of the now establishment was not one that they agreed with.  I suspect that younger people were tired of being told what to think and what was acceptable. The woke agenda had morphed into a bizarre and grotesque creature.  Eventually, youth will always question the official narrative, that much is timeless.  Ironically, it was a septuagenarian Trump that empowered them and gave them voice.

The Mini Man Who Would Be King

February 21st, 2020 No comments

link https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/politics/bloomberg-nevada-debate.html

In the aftermath of the recent Democratic candidate debates to determine who is going to be beaten by Donald Trump in the next election, the big takeaway is just how incompetent a man who is worth a reported 60 billion dollars can be.  Michael Bloomberg appeared to be the pinata at a kids’ party since he was the only one not carrying a stick.  In what appeared to be a very bad farce, a stage full of incompetent, disingenuous do-nothings set upon Mayor Mike as if he was the new guy in a prison block.  It was bewildering to see that one of the most successful men in America (as measured by wealth) could appear to be so feckless in facing antagonists that are so incompetent and un-likeable that even their own party cringes at the thought of any of them.

The only utterance Mayor Mike made that made any sense at all was the fact that he was the only one on stage who had ever started and built a business, and a very successful one at that.   None of the other pretenders on stage had done anything in their lives to build a company, meet a payroll or know the stress of maintaining an enterprise.  They have all been employees,  never having needed to take on real risks in their lives.  Despite this, they feel qualified to assume the controls of the mightiest nation on earth because…racism, global warming etc.    His tormentors were either professional political figures, lawyers, or the most odious combination of all, both.  This background makes them well seasoned in the art of making pandering promises and faux pious utterances.  Bloomberg didn’t stand a chance.

He’s a guy from the business world, where things are done autocratically and not by consensus.  Marching orders are set not by focus groups but rather at his personal direction.  He is not used to having to explain his actions to anybody. None of these qualities disqualifies him to run for the top job of managing the nation.  In fact, they can be admirable qualities in a leader.  Unfortunately, these qualities are not accompanied by any sense of humility or understanding what people are like that he doesn’t employ.

Donald Trump comes from a similar background, having built a formidable business empire by his own efforts.  The difference is that Trump had built his organization by working with teams of people in all industries with lots of hands on involvement.  There were always lots of moving parts and he had to grasp many and varied aspects of different businesses.  He actually had to deal personally with construction trades, unions, lawyers, as well as political  and personnel issues.  Bloomberg built an information empire dealing with tech geeks. One dealt in the real world and the other in an abstract digital world.

The difference between the experience of the two men is made very clear once Bloomberg chooses to speak about things outside of his field. The disdain he holds for those people not engaged in his industry is incredibly arrogant and condescending.   This comes from a man who has been allowed to live isolated from the realities of the lives of the average person. To operate where your moves and policies have to please a public is likely very alien to him.  He won’t even let his own news organization cover him.  His apologizing for policies he once favored made him look the same as all of the other candidates who readily apologize for anything that was likely to offend anyone.  It’s reminiscent of John Kerry who was for the war before being against it.   While he did preside over a few peaceful terms in New York, his most notable accomplishment was the abolition of large sized drinks.  This nanny mentality has also shown up in his zealous anti gun stance,  a definite non starter with people outside of the bubble of liberal cities.

Certainly, he’s not the first (nor he will be the last) political aspirant to offer stupid policies, but to be seen as unable to fend off the attacks of  people of much lesser intelligence is the real shocker for interested observers.  While we can accept his quality as a business manager, his lack of ability to convey a palpable message and empathy for people knocks him out of serious consideration.  I think there’s still a chance that he can get the nomination because he can write checks with more zeros than a box of cheerios.  He’s always been used to getting his way by paying up.  But it will be all for naught because he’ll spend all this money to attain the nomination….only to lose to Trump in November.