More War, More Cronyism, More Corporate Give-Aways, More CrowdedPrisons, More Taxes, More Regulations, More Drug War, More PoliceMilitarization and Civil Rights Violations, More Assaults on Free Speech, More Economic Bungling, More Debt, More Control, More Corruption.
Donald Trump states things in a manner simultaneously ambiguous and incendiary.
Of course, he has help from the media, the Clinton camp and other embittered opponents, all elated to act as firestorm propellants … through as many 24-hour news cycles as possible.
At a rally this week, Trump claimed that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint justices to the Supreme Court committed to undermining our individual right to bear arms. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” he told the crowd, before adding, off-the-cuff, “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
The Clinton campaign and much of the media (but I repeat myself) immediately took this as a clear call to Second Amendment activists to … well, summarily execute Mrs. Clinton.
A leap? As Hillary would say, “Let’s unpack this.”
Would Mrs. Clinton curtail gun rights as Trump charges? She recently told Fox News that she would not choose justices seeking to overturn the High Court ruling in the Heller case, which interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual gun right.
Do I trust her? Stop laughing and read on.
Was the Donald attempting to incite violence against Hillary? No.
But what should be the people’s response were a future president or court to declare our right to defend ourselves null and void?
Remember, musket-armed American patriots met the British redcoats at Lexington and Concord for the shot heard ’round the world. Why? Specifically to stop the Brits from rendering the colonists defenseless by confiscating their arms and ammunition.
The implication? Clear.
So, with a chill down the back of our necks, let’s hone and redouble our peaceful support for our most basic right, self-defense.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Hillary Clinton is roundly disliked by millions of outsiders, but admired by hundreds of politicians and activists. What sets her apart?
She listens.
Well, that’s Ezra Klein’s take in “Understanding Hillary,” an almost-believable piece of apologetics courtesy of Vox.
He calls Hillary’s problem “The Gap,” though “Vast Chasm” is more like it.
There’s a huge difference between how the public sees her — “Polls show most Americans doubt her basic honesty” — and how her fellow insiders feel about her. “She inspires a rare loyalty in ex-staff,” Klein informs us, “and an unusual protectiveness even among former foes.”
Klein emphasizes Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to talk naturally and listen carefully, when dealing one-on-one with insiders and constituents, and in small groups. “She gets things done,” he asserts, though I think what he really means is she moves her agenda forward. Actual accomplishments? Open to dispute.
On the crucial issue of trust, Klein buys into what Hillary is selling. She says people doubt her because she’s been so often attacked.
I don’t know about you, but I doubt her because … well, cattle futures, for starters. Her ridiculous “vast right-wing conspiracy” dodge to all those rich 1990s scandals: the blue dress, President Bill losing his law license, even the crony takeover of the White House travel office. Hillary has led the way more recently with the Benghazi “video” lie and her private server and email scandal. Plus, witness the ongoing conflict presented by the Clinton Foundation raking in millions from unsavory foreign sources..
Klein, on the other hand, argues that the media is against her.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
In breaking news, a major politician has promised to give important benefits to the poor and the middle class.
She did not specify where those benefits would come from. But we know where they do come from: taxpayers. What this politician has done is promise to take from some to give others. Actually, it’s even more complicated — after taking from some folks, then there’s the skimming off the top (or: taking a big chunk); and after that, there’s the hoopla about the money she is “giving” back.
This is how politicians work. Vague talk and big promises, backed up by the ability to tax and the sanction to threaten your life if you don’t comply.
Characteristically, they avoid talk of the costs of their actions. They focus on the “benefits.”
Many, many years ago, a great American sociologist explained the process:
A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C’s interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
That was written in 1883. In 1932, a major politician took the term, “The Forgotten Man,” and applied it not to C but to D.
And since then, politicians have tended to ignore C entirely, except to make them feel guilty for not doing more for D (and, by implication, A and B).
You can see why I prefer direct action on discrete issues by responsible citizens. In which the C’s are consulted.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Original Photo Credit: David Goehring on Flickr (Creative Commons)
When Bill Clinton ran for president, the slogan inside his campaign’s war room was a blunt reminder to focus on “the Economy, Stupid.” This was Clinton’s first enduring contribution to the American stock of catch-phrases.
Now, Bill’s wife, Hillary, seeks the top banana position. But she has a harder job than Bill: he could fight against a lackluster incumbent caught in a big lie (“No New Taxes,” another slogan). Hillary is almost required to defend the outgoing president, in no small part because she served in his Cabinet.
If she were candid, she’d address the weak recovery and long-term stagnation.
Her slogan could be, “It’s the Stupid Economy.”
No matter what politicians say, however, secular (long-term) stagnation is a thing. Lots of people have given up, are off the roles of job-searchers and so don’t appear in official unemployment statistics, and too many people have taken early retirements on trumped-up disability claims.
At least, economist Lawrence Summers is decrying it, jet-setting around the world to meet with financial leaders and political functionaries.
I doubt his diagnosis, however. Summers talks Keynesian, pointing to inadequate aggregate demand. While there may be something to the general shift in the desire to hold monetary assets, leading to deflation and even negative interest rates, I bet the underlying problem is regime uncertainty — when widespread fears of the future and doubts about governmental consistency and follow-through lead the owners of capital to withhold investing in production.
There are also the effects of general regulatory and redistributionist kludge.
When the problems stem from your favored policies, you can’t revive FDR’s slogan “nothing to fear but fear itself” and let it go at that.
Hillary will surely explain — Thursday night.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Today, the Democratic National Convention begins in Philadelphia.
Yesterday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, announced her resignation amidst a growing controversy over the DNC’s favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during this year’s presidential contest.
Months ago, Sen. Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, noting her closeness to the Clinton campaign and angered by what his campaign perceived as unfair treatment. To which, Wasserman Schultz had smugly responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”
It seems Sanders had a lot better understanding of what the DNC does than she thought.
Thanks to WikiLeaks, the American people have also gotten in the know. Last Friday, WikiLeaks released 20,000 emails from top DNC officials, reportedly snatched by Russian hackers. In the emails, one can read the DNC’s top financial officer suggesting a smear against Sanders over his religion. “AMEN,” responded the DNC’s CEO.
Yes, indeed, the Democratic Party establishment was rigging the process. “The release provides further evidence,” Michael Sainato wrote in The Observer, that “the DNC broke its own charter … by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.”
Caught breaking the rules, Wasserman Schultz is out!
Sorta. She’s out after the convention, not before.
Furthermore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still “in.” Mrs. Clinton just offered her a position on the campaign, and said she was “grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year’s historic convention in Philadelphia.”
By hook and by crook.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Photo credit: Medill DC on Flickr (Creative Commons)