It’s not about character

Contrary to the inspiring speech delivered by Michael Douglas as President Shepherd, the most important considerations for voters in a U.S. Presidential election are not around the “character” of the candidates. They are: “Who pulls the strings?” and “What can a President actually do?”

Looking at the last two administrations might be enlightening. Eight years of “W” clearly presented a White House under the thumb of the Military-Industrial complex Eisenhower warned against. Wars everywhere, trillions of dollars wasted, lost and stolen, credibility, power, and arms for fanatics.

Obama, on the other hand, appears to have been a man of the people. with the aforementioned character, great ideals and an initial supply of unowned aides. True, things changed, many for the better, but the overriding lesson of the Obama Presidency is “the President is not omnipotent”. The
Affordable Care Act is not the medicare Obama’s supporters expected. Little has been accomplished in improving education. Wars and their associated enemy-creation continue.

So where does that leave American voters in 2016?

Were he even ten percent as good as he says he is at business, negotiating and winning, Donald Trump could not, in eight years, accomplish what his campaign suggests. There will be no wall completed, and most certainly any parts started will not be funded by Mexico. Law and order à la Trump might be close enough to Mussolini’s to conceive a second American revolution, perhaps in itself not a terrible idea. His distaste for NAFTA and the TPP may well bring jobs back home. Yes, Mr. Trump and many of his cronies will amass even more dizzying piles of wealth, but Trump is not the corporatist one might expect of a “billionaire”, and he is certainly no friend to the banking cartel currently subjugating most of the planet.

The likely legacy of a Trump Presidency? A better understanding of how little power resides in the White House.

The Democratic nominee, on the other hand, is quite clearly “connected”. The American Presidency took a hard right turn in 1981 into the hands of the corporate world and the new feudalism became firmly entrenched in the West. The rights of Corporations expanded well beyond simple “person powers”, and Corporate control rose above even nation-state power. Realizing it more rewarding to be a revered Reagan than a discredited Nixon, the Clinton’s jumped on board. Where Trump has suggested dismantling the EPA, a Clinton resurgence would achieve the same result without public outcry through weakened regulation and budgetary restriction.

Hillary’s legacy could see the world firmly back in the hands of the elites and an end to this upstart “government of the people by the people” nonsense.

Do Americans Want a Dictator?

Just asking the question will probably anger a lot of my American friends, but no personal insult is intended. The question is honest enough given the current electoral circumstances, the personalities running for President, the candidates’ and parties’ rhetoric and the fanatical nature of the supporters of both sides.

I do understand the difficulty of the November decision for reasonable people. On the one hand we have a woman with a background of corporatism (Mussolini’s name for fascism) disingenuousness and an interesting interpretation of truth and reality. Apparently a Clinton family trait.

Opposing Ms Clinton is a blowhard extraordinaire. A man who calls failure victory, bankruptcy financial success and misogyny a family value. The only thing Donald Trump has to offer Democrats and centrists is proof that America could do worse than a Ms Clinton administration.

With social media commentary on both sides bordering on the criminal and mainstream media blind to the faults of their current choice, one might think the United States is headed for an abrupt about face followed by a desperate and hurried march off the cliff of either the extreme right or their opposition.

As the Obama presidency should have clearly demonstrated, real change in the United States is at best difficult, involves negotiations that would exhaust a used car salesman and results in thousands of pages of conflicting rules and regulations pleasing only to lawyers. So it is unlikely either candidate will be able to do all that much. After all, some of the best minds of their time wrote the U.S. Constitution with the intent of avoiding one-person rule.

What astounds me is the huge numbers of potential voters on both sides who seem to endorse the idea of doing whatever their candidate wants. In other words, electing a dictator.

Today’s “Conservatives” should not form governments

Harper has quit. Hallelujah! So now will come a by-election and, because they knew Harper would quit before the rest of us, the Conservatives are first out of the gate. Bob Benzen has sent us a fluff piece telling us how wonderful he is without actually telling us anything about Bob Benzen. Maybe the details aren’t so wonderful.

Anyhow in his fluff piece he says: “At the core of Bob’s values is the belief in human freedom and personal responsibility. We should first work together to solve our problems, rather than looking to the government for a solution.”

Meh, at first glance, but it showcases the primary reason the self-styled “conservatives” of North America – the Conservative Part of Canada and the U.S. Republican Party – should never be allowed to form government.


Guess what, conservatives! Government IS the way people work together to solve their problems. From safety from less-than-friendly other peoples, through roads, bridges, and regulations for the common good, to laws and their enforcement. That’s why we have governments. To solve our common problems, and provide the organizational structure for us all to succeed.


Welcome to the ramblings of a grumpy and now old, man. Here I will offer my opinions which are worth the price, but nothing more. Feel free to counter my comments with your own, although I would be much happier if you agreed with me.