WHAT BERNIE GETS RIGHT AND WRONG

Anyone who thinks Bernie Sanders is only an absentminded professor type, merely sincerely and cogently bumbling away in what he fervently believes, is plain wrong. Sanders is, in addition, a brilliant politician. He has done the unimaginable - a self professed Socialist who has been successfully elected to national office, off and on, for nearly two decades, a Mayor for nearly ten years and now a serious contender for the Presidency of the United States. In the process of running for POTUS he is regularly drawing ecstatic crowds of tens of thousands. This is not the lot of a hapless well meaning academic muttering to a few long haired fellow travelers. This is the ultimate triumph of a carefully thought out principled career in politics.

His timing for joining the Democratic Party in 2015 and then making a run for President was impeccable. He is able to project the image of being an outsider in a climate that was almost totally rejecting of the “politics as usual” atmosphere that has characterized Washington. He is a hundred percent on message which he has delivered with charismatic and messianic fervor. His is the central message of the day in the field of economics. The fact that the economy is dominated by the one percenters and the political system is rigged in their favor has resonated particularly among millennials who flocked to him in droves and mobbed him like a rock star. He unashamedly trumpets a socialist agenda and makes Hillary’s measured proposals look anemic by comparison. There is no beating around the bush. There will be free tuition at colleges for all, a new healthcare system, and student loans will be scaled back. There will be job creation with infrastructure programs and Wall Street would pay most and taxing the one percenters would pay for the rest.

 COMETH THE HOUR

So cometh the hour cometh the man and truth be told Bernie is the real deal. He has not only talked the talk he has walked the walk. MotherJones outlined his earlier political life and from the sixties he has been in opposition politics. His line has not changed from his first losing elections but his political skills have. He from the word go he was into the “corrupt establishment”. He warned President Ford about having Rockefeller as Vice President - the then billionaire class. So it has been the same schtick. His gun compromise is well known but as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont he also allowed Lockheed in, (a.k.a. a big corporation). This was very non pc in his circles because this was post Vietnam. But the airplane company provided jobs and even Bernie has to do what he has to do. He continued to hone his skills for the next two decades in Congress. 

The 2016 Presidential election was very much the moment for his big move. There had been a vigorous movement a few years earlier entitled “Occupy Wall Street” which was a ground swell support of his economic message. They too were against the fat cats who had it both ways. They argued that Wall Street took economic risks and made vast sums of money and when it all collapsed the small man lost his house and they were bailed out. So there was a dormant group out there that needed leadership and he was about to provide it.

WHY AND WHAT DID HE MISREAD

Now Bernie’s background was in socialism and of course he read Marx. He wasn’t a Marxist but nevertheless he sees societal conflicts in economic class struggle terms. When he came to Vermont in the sixties he came as part of a mass immigration of hippies to the State. All his influences and fellow travelers were of the same ideology. He successfully functioned in the rarefied atmosphere of rural Vermont where his constituents were white.

The Berne lived for the day when his message would truly resonate. So he picked up on the  current climate of anger - even Obama’s electorate were disillusioned. Bernie had even tried to get a Primary candidate against him in 2012. Obama’s youth following was to become Sander’s constituency and he believed if he mobilized the discontent and anger he could increase the frustrated body politic giving him an overwhelming mandate thereby allowing him to achieve what Obama couldn’t.

But his message didn’t take into account all demographics and that all the issues were not purely economic. His inner circle was white and he had not computed the demographics and the complexities that made up the Democratic party that he had just become a member of. In truth Bernie did not for one moment believe that the color of your skin or your gender, for example, made any difference. If pressed earlier on he might have argued, for example, who more than the African Americans had been economically hit by the greed of Wall Street?

BLACK LIVES MATTER

His perceptual gap really hit home in liberal Seattle in August 2015 at a very big rally to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of social security. His microphone was grabbed away from him by Black Lives Matter activists and he was not allowed to speak. They identified him with white supremacist liberalism. He had not as yet presented a platform to meet their needs in spite of their confronting him in Phoenix. When asked to comment by NBC he responded with his mantra, “…the issues we’re talking about are issues that are resonating with the state of Washington and all over the country. That is there’s something wrong when the middle class continues to disappear and almost all new income and wealth are going to top 1%”. He just didn’t get it.

After winning in predominantly white New Hampshire and running a close second in white Iowa he went on a much publicized visit to Reverend Sharpton in Harlem in New York. It all looked bit contrived and he looked uncomfortable. He was now talking about marching in the Civil Rights Movement and being arrested in the sixties in a protest about housing. But he was being reminded again and again that he tried to put a candidate against Obama in the 2012 Democratic Primary. His answer to the criticisms was that everyone who criticized him in his new Democratic Party was the establishment especially Hillary. The message of Seattle had not been not learned. 

So it was only after the Primaries moved on did Bernie really have to face the black electorate written large as African American commentator Goldie Taylor put it. 

BLACK “ESTABLISHMENT” LINES UP FOR HILLARY

So as the race pressed on the support that twenty - five years of Clinton advocacy of African American priorities had generated became evident. (There was of course the odd attack about off message statements and policies made by the Clintons along the way but that did not really interrupt the kumbaya). The Black politicians generally echoed Bill Clinton’s statement that they recognized that progress was hard and slow and that Obama never lost Congress in 2012 and the Senate in 2014 because he wasn’t liberal enough. 

The whole black caucus of the US Legislature endorsed Clinton and Congressman John Lewis an icon of the Civil Rights Movement, who stood shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King, in answer to Bernie’s civil rights credentials thundered, “I never saw him. I never met him”. The mothers of the slain black children in those controversial police incidents that was the spur for the advocacy enterprise, Black Lives Matter, have been on the campaign trail with her. Her support of Obama after losing in the 2008 Primaries and her service and loyalty to him stood in contrast to Bernie’s nitpicking. Don’t forget Hillary is unashamedly running for the first black President’s third term and until Obama came along Bill was labelled the first black President.

The most recent supporter to join the Hillary team is African American icon and academy award winner Morgan Freeman - known as the “Voice of God”. He now is the velvety gravelly voice over for some of her new advertisements including a powerful one where her service to all the black constituencies and their issues are graphically presented. Don Lemon of CNN when he replayed it marveled at its gravitas and uttered words to the effect as to how can one argue with God. 

Bernie was not without his African American backers either including former NAACP leader Benjamin Jealous who maintained that Sanders had manifested a lifelong commitment to racial equality. In addition there was the African American youth some of whom shared their white counterparts distaste of the status quo. Harry Belafonte, Spike Lee and Errol Garner were to follow Jealous but they were overwhelmed by the avalanche of Hillary’s endorsers.

BERNIE SOLDIERS ON

None of this means that Bernie isn’t sincere and hasn’t got a message. He has tapped into anger and gross inequity and brought a demographic back to the hustings that would have just simmered. The Democratic Party is a coalition of many groups. You can’t just hijack women’s support because the fact is Planned Parenthood is going to endorse Hillary after decades of service even if your agenda appears more radical. The Trade Unions are not going to flock to you all of a sudden as who has had their back all these years even if your economic policy is more to their liking. The Hispanics are going to be wary of blanket promises now that they know what they are up against and they are appreciative of how Obama, who Bernie has dissed, has tried. The LBGT organization has also come up trumps for the former Secretary of State as well.

The youth of all demographics one can understand gravitating to Bernie - they live in perpetual idealism and are sick of the compromise and logjam politics inevitably generates. In addition the term socialist doesn’t conjure up the angst that it does to their cold war parents and grandparents. They merely see it in terms of what the government pays for and what it doesn’t.

As Bernie continues he will wrack up a sizable number of delegates allowing him to have a say on the Democratic platform. He will win several small states and caucuses where the population is not diverse but Hillary will chalk up the winning number of delegates mainly in the larger Sates and the South. He is a tough competitor and the fact that he has made such an incredible showing is reflective both of his charisma and the fact that a large section of the Democratic electorate has moved to the left to counterbalance that dark shadow Trump, Cruz and the like have cast over the American continent.  

Also the thousand pound gorilla still hangs around the room - how could Bernie get anything done? In contrast Hillary has succesfully worked the selfsame Senate where he has been an ineffective member for far longer. If Obama’s relative impotence irked his supporters Bernie’s would embitter them forever.

MAJOR IRONY  - DONALD AND BERNIE SAME LIMITING FACTOR TO VICTORY

Ironically it is mainly whites in the Democratic Party that have connected with the Berne. This as a professing democratic socialist should really make him ponder. He gave up on black South Carolina and went to campaign in the whitest of States for super Tuesday. In a way he has the same ultimate limitation to the Democratic nomination as Trump has to being elected President. America’s demographic is changing fast and Trump offers to make America Great Again which is code for keeping it white. The Democratic Party however has been integrated, for decades, a fact Sanders should have been aware of when he joined last year. Bernie will be as hard put to win the nomination with only white Democrats as Donald will be to win the Presidency with only white Americans because he like King Canute cannot stem the tide of history.  

South Carolina and Super Tuesday will show what all this means. 

SCALIA’ S DEATH IS A REALLY BIG DEAL

Anthony Scalia’s death will have a profound impact on the already chaotic American political scene. His sudden passing has added to this stranger than fiction election season in what is turning out into a transformative time in American history. Almost immediately he has sent an already discombobulated Republican party into a vertiginous spin as manifested by GOP leader Mitch McConnell, who in indecent haste, warned the POTUS not to nominate another justice to replace him. This rushed statement was followed by the Republican Presidential candidates, tripping over each other in their desire to dish out gratuitous advice to Obama not to fulfill his role as President. No sooner had they all had their say there was backtracking by Republican Senators who were beginning to come to terms with the political ramifications of their standard bearers’  stance. One can understand the Republican anxiety as for practical purposes for some time their agenda’s only progress has arisen from  Supreme Court rulings.

Scalia a right wing icon has been the centerpiece of the Conservative’s fifty year domination of the Supreme Court, lurking over it like a colossus. With his passing this Conservative bent is now in grave danger . A giant intellect who created a unique framework and philosophy upon which to base his judicial rulings . He brought the terms textualism and originalism into common usage in the legal and political worlds. The former meant that words in legislation were to be strictly adhered to in the application of the law. Originalism described the manner in which the Constitution should be understood - things meant what they mean, or at least what Scalia said they meant, on the day that they were written way back in 1789. To use his own description the Founding Fathers had created a “dead” document. It could not be reinterpreted into today’s world. Nor was the intent of the legislators, normally a very important parameter in law, considered relevant in judicial deliberations.

 This is not the time or place to challenge Scalia’s framework other than to acknowledge that it had far reaching effects in his life and now in his death. In so doing to point out to that those that worship at his shrine should recognize that his judicial philosophy would have demanded that the President present to the Senate a nominee to fill the vacancy as clearly and unambiguously stated in The Constitution. 

Associate Justice Scalia’s passing at this time will have a profound political impact in the forthcoming Presidential Race, the Senate elections and the immediate decisions pending in the current Supreme Court, (SCOTUS), session and therefore the philosophical direction this country will take. Just before delving into these outcomes it would be useful to  briefly outline the role of the Supreme Court, how judges are elected and the pivotal role it plays in American life.

SCOTUS  AND TODAY’S GOP

The Supreme Court is the final Judicial arbiter in the USA. It has the final say as to what is constitutional and what is not. It is a creation of the Founding Fathers who sort to separate powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. It has had a major impact on the social fabric of society, has defined norms and decided what is legal and what is not. Bearing in mind this all embracing role they play, the manner in which its members are elected for life to this body is extremely random. If there is a vacancy on the court the sitting President nominates a candidate. Very occasionally the original nominee is withdrawn but ultimately, to date that is, the President always gets an associate Judge of his picking. So the fate and direction of the nation depends to a certain extent as to how many vacancies occur during a given President’s term. That President by picking young Judges can see to it that his political influence can continue for decades. 

Historically, Judges have been, by and large, easily ratified by the Senate. Nowadays especially when the Senate represents a different party to that of the President the candidate is subjected to rigorous questioning. Justice Scalia a Reagan nominee was ratified by ninety - eight votes to none, by a Democratic Senate, in 1986. For fifty years even though there has been a Democratic President for twenty - two of those the GOP philosophy has held sway. All because of the roulette wheel manner that dictates SCOTUS appointments, This influence was ameliorated to a certain extent by “swing votes” for certain issues - Sandra Day O Conner and to a lesser extent the current Justice Kennedy. Never in the history of the court has there been a vacancy for a year nor has the Senate ever instructed the President not to put forward a nomination. Twenty - four times in the court’s history a President has in its final year nominated a justice, the last one being Ronald Reagan who nominated Justice Kennedy. It bears repeating that even when there have been rejections or withdrawals of nominees the President has always had a choice ratified. 

So Mitch McConnoll GOP Senate leader and all the GOP Presidential Candidates’ injunctions to President Obama are both unconstitutional and unprecedented. Instructing Obama because he is in his last year of office not to appoint a successor to Scalia is so much self serving tripe. If anything all of this debate is indicative of the fear and uncertainty the GOP are feeling as its Party is ripped apart. In fact SCOTUS is the only hope for getting the Republican fundamentalist doctrine enacted and it becomes more and more apparent as the Party itself implodes and the SCOTUS can no longer be relied upon to deliver.

With Scalia’s death the halting of the Republican agenda has already started.

 SCALIA’S DEATH WILL IMMEDIATELY ROLL BACK THE GOP CONSERVATIVE AGENDA

The Supreme Court is now deadlocked at four conservative votes to four liberal votes. The Conservative five to four majority is no longer. The current court had already decided at least five pivotal cases but had not announced the outcome.  Precedent, oral argument and their subject matter are such that all court watchers are certain that they all would have been decided in terms of Scalia’s philosophy. With an absent Scalia his vote no longer counts so that the decisions will be deadlocked. What then is most likely to happen is that the ruling of the Appellate Circuit remains in place or the Supreme Court can leave its own precedent in place. 

The first is a Californian Trade Union Case where the Court ruled that where a Union existed all employees were liable to pay Union dues as all benefited. It was confidently predicted that the Scalia court would have reversed this decision which would in practicality broken the power of the Unions throughout America as large numbers of employees could opt of paying Union dues. This will no longer happen and the Appellate support of the Union’s right will stand. Then there is an Affirmative action Case where a Texan University lost its right to use race as a factor in the admission process. With Justice Kagan having to recuse herself and Scalia having remarked in oral argument that African Americans do better in less prestigious Universities the outcome was a forgone conclusion - the disbandment of Affirmative Action in Universities. However the Supreme Court would have to change the law as their precedents supported Affirmative Action and they might be wary to do this with a seven Justice Court. There are two other cases that would have far reaching consequences where in the normal course of events on law alone the Supreme Court should reverse the Circuit Courts decision. With Scalia there it would be far less likely that they would overturn them. Both emanate from the highly conservative 5th Circuit Appeal Court in Texas. In one the decision extrapolates from the specific to shutting every abortion clinic in Texas and in the other the Fifth Circuit has ruled that Obama’s executive order on immigration should be forestalled across the whole country. In both these cases it has to be painfully obvious that the Regional Appellate Circuit Court has exceeded its authority.

So sans Scalia what amounts to the Republican political agenda, an agenda that they haven’t been able to effect legislatively, is in jeopardy. With their party being total disaray it is inconceivable that they would ever be able to effect any of this legislatively. O’Connell’s initial shotgun response to a potential liberal court becomes more and more understandable. 

But the GOP has much to be thankful for Scalia’s legacy.

SCALIA’S LEGACY 

Scalia weighed in on every possible issue on the Supreme Court. He asked more questions than any other Associate Judge in oral argument, wrote more concurring opinions and was in the top three in Judicial history in authoring dissenting arguments. He did not limit his influence to the court itself being a prolific lecturer in law schools and college campuses. He is best known for his strident opposition against abortion and only Sandra O’ Conner thwarted his objective to overturn Roe versus Wade. Similarly Justice Kennedy forestalled his desire to criminalize homosexual relationships. He believed that the death penalty was constitutional and had it reinstated but dissented on the court’s view that underage murderers should be exempted. His views on affirmative action were well known and he sort every opportunity to reverse it.  He was against removing life support unless there was “clear and convincing evidence” that this was the wish of the patient. 

There are a few cases among the hundreds that are more famously associated with him. Bush versus Gore is one. The latter is a seminal case where some still argue that the Supreme Court crossed the line by reversing a State’s Court ruling in an area where States have constitutional jurisdiction - voting. Scalia by his public pronouncements and justifications is the public face of this fateful ruling. His statements that people should “Just get over it, It is so old” and his rationalizations for not allowing an unanimous Florida Highest Court ruling to sanction a recount of the votes still ring loud in detractors’ ears -  “We were the laughingstock of the world. The world's greatest democracy that couldn't conduct an election. We didn't know who our next president was going to be.” All these very non judicial remarks to justify his judicial decision.

Another landmark ruling was authored by him in 2008 in the District of Columbia versus Heller docket. There he categorically interpreted the Second Amendment to allow individuals to have firearms. This he did by stating that the term “militia” in 1789 meant the body of all citizens not just the legitimate armed forces. This decision unleashed an avalanche of gun purchases and a political debate that is still ongoing. More recently his advocacy in the Citizen’s United Case where the First Amendment was interpreted equating money with “free speech” opened the floodgates for the billions being spent now on political campaigns. Then his support of gutting the1965 Voter Suppression Act by ratifying Republican States’ legislation making it more difficult to vote is another societal changer. A notable dissenting vote by Antonin related to the Special Prosecutor Act. He correctly prophesied that such an appointee could run amuck with no limits or authority placed upon him.  Ken Starr proved him right when the latter spent 80 million dollars on trying to prove malfeasance of the Clintons and all he netted was Monica which was not the subject of his investigation. 

All in all Scalia has a legacy that has dominated the social and political scene for a quarter of a century and with his parting the five to four Conservative majority on SCOTUS  is a memory and the political fall out is massive.

POLITICAL FALL OUT

It must be obvious now why Mitch McConnell and the Presidential candidates rushed onto the scene to attempt to stop history. It is equally obvious why, as the cold light of day dawns, that several key Republicans are reconsidering their options. The GOP head of the Senate Judicial Committee, which would initially vet a Presidential nomination for the bench, has indicated that maybe they should wait and see who President Obama nominates. In addition some Senators, particularly those in swing states have either said nothing or are hedging their bets. 

Obama has clearly stated that he is going ahead with a highly qualified nomination and that the Senate needs to go ahead with either accepting or rejecting the candidate. Obama cannot lose. If they accept his choice then voila he has the majority on the court there and then if they don’t the court still is deadlocked and cannot continue on their conservative march.  Then if his candidate is a high profile, well respected and well suited nominee the political fall out will be immense. If his candidate is rejected he then has the option of introducing yet another one to increase the opprobrium of yet another refusal. If let us say his first nominee is an African American and he or she is axed this will certainly mobilize that demographic and if he follows that up with an Asian American…. 

Then again he could pick one of the jurists who were recently unanimously ratified to the Appellate Courts by the Senate. There is one that is particularly significant, Judge Jane Kelly, who is from Senate Judicial Chairman Grassley's State of Iowa. Ms. Kelly, who has strong Republican connections, with Grassley’s support was elected to the Appellate Circuit Court with a vote of ninety - six to nothing. Obama, as reported by Newsmax, has canvassed Grassley and the latter has changed his tune from outright refusal to “taking one step at a time” and to “see who the nominee will be”. Then there is Loretta Lynch, the highly regarded African American prosecutor who currently heads the Justice Department. She had her appointment ratified by the Senate after an exhaustive process. The possibilities are endless. What would happen if he picked Colin Powell who is nominally a Republican?

Now if the GOP had any sense they would ratify Obama’s pick and move on but they can’t because their loose cannon presidential candidates that represent the party’s future are unified on only one issue and that is that Obama should jump in the lake. The rules don’t apply anymore and it is shoot from the mouth first. The biggest impact of this whole bohaai is going to be in the Senate races because this is the Senate’s responsibility. This cannot bode well for the GOP in the six marginal seats in the Senate. The pressure is only going to increase as more and more luminaries weigh in. Former, Supreme Court Judge Sandra O’ Connor, who is highly respected and was a Reagan pick, has already told the Senate to get on with it and allow the Court to function properly. 

Most important for the Dems is that they are no longer dealing with an adversarial SCOTUS and if their following doesn’t screw up they will have the next few picks on the court as well.

 So Scalia’s death is really a big deal.

BLOOMBERG A THIRD POTUS FORCE ?

Tom Brokaw, the legendary NBC anchorman, summed up the current frenetic, bizarre, topsy turvy presidential race by exclaiming that he never thought he would live to see a presidential candidate who mouths obscenities and has proposals comparable to Nazi Germany as well as  an unabashed socialist leading in the polls. Trump and Sanders have been drawing audiences of tens of thousands in what Brokaw calls a climate of extremes. It is in this milieu that Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York, who is politically an Independent and a billionaire, has confirmed his intention to consider a run in the 2016 POTUS  election. He has not denied the salient points of a “reliable report” that maintained that he would only join the race if the candidates were Trump or Cruz versus Sanders and that he would decide by March the first. In this media driven and sometimes scripted presidential circus Bloomberg’s declaration has been largely ignored and more significantly so has the rationale behind it. The media for the moment are concentrated on the issues du jour and are not into in-depth abstract analyses that might detract from the excitement of the horse race and thus interfere with their ratings.

WHO IS BLOOMBERG?

Michael Bloomberg, a former Mayor of New York, is a far more successful businessman but a less flamboyant aspirant than Donald Trump. Bloomberg through his media company is, according to Forbes, the sixth richest man in the world. He is also politically ambitious and comfortable with effecting whatever it takes to reach his ends. He unceremoniously resigned from the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party to ensure his election as Mayor of New York. He then once ensconced as Mayor became an Independent. Unbelievably this cynical flip flopping has not impacted on his credibility or standing. These party changes of convenience would have a short year ago put paid to any candidates prospects but all Bloomberg would be doing is joining club members Sanders and Trump.

To a large extent his preeminence is due to his success as Mayor of New York where he whittled away a $ 6 billion deficit while generally extending or maintaining social programs and remaining a social liberal. He was criticized from the right by increasing property taxes to pay for it all but generally has emerged unscathed after a three Mayoral term of America’s biggest city where he had consistently had high approval numbers. He has been most prominent in forming a country wide coalition for gun control and unlike Trump has systematically funded philanthropy.

He also has the advantage of not needing any big donor’s money already a big plus in both Trump and Sander’s campaigns. In many ways there are other similarities between a Trump and a Bloomberg candidature. He straddles both party’s policies although he has lost far less of his Democratic credentials than the Donald has. 

HOW WILL HE DECIDE?

Now Bloomberg is no fool. He knows the abysmal track record of third party candidates. He is not about to spend a year of his life on a fruitless exercise. He has also been commissioning his own polling. He is aware that he is going to have to make a decision as to whether he is in or out much earlier than he would like to. His decision will be largely based on upcoming primary contests.  The next two Primaries in the Democratic race will be the first real test as to whether Bernie’s spell translates to the minorities. Thus on the Dem side the Nevada and South Carolina races include the Trade Unions, the Latinos and  African Americans and if they switch from Clinton to Bernie in great numbers then a red flag will be raised. Likewise if Rubio, Bush and Kasich cannot dent the “terrible” GOP twins Bloomberg will go on to red alert. In addition on March the first, Super Tuesday, there is a representative sprinkling of all sections of the electorate that are on display in the Midwest with its blue collar Democratic electorate, the South with its more conservative white Democrats and swing states like Colorado and Virginia. Here Bernie has yet to be tested. In addition Bloomberg will be on he look out as to whether the Trump Cruz lock on the GOP nomination comes unstuck. If, as is likely, the GOP are sticking to Trump or Cruz his sensors will be lighting up all over the show. Hillary winning, unless convincingly, will not totally reassure him as there is a worry about her that will be discussed later, that might influence his decision.

WHAT IS MOTIVATING HIM?

Interestingly enough, notwithstanding Bloomberg’s liberal social agenda, his general fiscal conservatism still allows sections of the desperate GOP establishment to ally with him if they are faced with a Trump, or a Cruz or the possibility that a Sanders could be elected. It is an open secret that both traditional parties and their establishments are more than unhappy about the prospects of a candidate that they perceive could loose the race and in their coattails deliver reverses in the Congress elections. This anxiety is far greater in the Republican Party which already has had its very soul ripped out by Donald J. Trump who has successfully engineered a hostile takeover. The thought of a rampant Cruz has already unleashed the party faithful to unprecedentedly attack him during the Primary run off. The behind the scenes nervousness about a Trump Presidency is leaking out everywhere. There are those that have shared their anxiety with the popular Republican TV show host Joe Scarborough and have confided that if Trump is the candidate they would back Hillary. 

Amongst the patricians of both Parties are a significant group who take who becomes the President of America pretty seriously. They really don’t want a bragging, xenophobic, lewd, misogynistic lout being the face of the USA. Nor do they relish the thought of an anachronistic one message ideologue who they believe represents the very antithesis of the leader of the Free World in the White House. Also the Democratic establishment know that Sanders agenda is not going to go anywhere and both sides tremble at the unpredictably and chaos that would be engendered by a Trump Presidency.

It is also well known that there has already been some strategic support of various candidates in order to eliminate competition for the main event. Hillary claims that in the New Hampshire Primary Bernie benefited by at least $6 million GOP Political Action Money. There has to be little doubt that Trump and Cruz must be also getting a boost from the opposition as well as they will be more easily beaten than a Rubio, Kasich or a Bush. 

Bearing in mind all these realities can anyone believe that patricians of both parties have not been talking to Michael Bloomberg? He doesn’t need their money as he says he would spend a billion dollars of his own should he run. But that wont stop PACS backing him. The Koch brothers have a billion which they are itching to spend but there is no way they would want a Trump or Cruz in office. Should the choice be between Hillary and Trump, and realistically that is what is staring them in the face, they would probably sit this one out as would several other GOP donors. 

CANDIDATES RESPONSES

Generally speaking the Presidential wannabes respond to a Bloomberg challenge in terms of the current status quo with the changes that need to have taken place to allow for his entry not having taken place. Candidate Trump says come over and play in the knowledge that the former Mayor will take more from the Dems than him. Sanders recoils in horror as he needs more competition for liberal votes like a whole in the head - “We don’t need another billionaire in the race. The country is in danger of becoming an oligarchy”. Hillary tells it as it is by arguing that Bloomberg will only step in if she has to step out. 

But there are hidden narratives all around. Bernie has not conceded the Hillary e - mail controversy. He says it is a serious matter that is being investigated by the law but he is not making an issue of it. (For the moment that is). Hillary has held back on the Israeli card where Bernie is out of sync with the rest of the country. When the appropriate electorate is listening she will give the emotional topic a full go. 

When Bloomberg first made his announcement it was whispered in the media that he did so because he may have heard from his law enforcement contacts that the FBI were going to present a case against Hillary. For the moment this is off the radar as Hillary is sticking to her guns that none of her e - mails were classified when she was the recipient or sender and this post hoc classification is absurd. She backs that up by challenging the investigators to let the world see them. Her claim gained a gigantic leap in credibility when the investigators announced that both Colin Powell and Condy Rice, Bush 43’s Secretaries of State also had their private e mails classified retrospectively. In addition even if the FBI believed there was malfeasance there is no way the Justice Department would indict Clinton. But the whole production may be weighing on Bloomberg’s mind. 

COMES DOWN TO REALITY

It really is spoiling to be a Hillary Trump confrontation. Hillary does not engender empathy. With the modern media both social and conventional it is no advantage having been around for a long time. But the demographics favor her and all things being equal the ball should bounce on her side of the court. However, she is fearful that Bernie is beginning to resonate in her constituencies and there is evidence of that particularly in Nevada which too has a quaint caucus system. Adding to the mix is the fact that it seems to be written in stone that there are undying and immovable chunks of support that The Berne and The Donald own. The former’s fans don’t care that his message is impractical increasing the Federal Government by fifty percent and the latter are unmoved that the Donald mouths the most obscene and xenophobic messages and his programs with decreased taxation will run up a fourteen trillion deficit in ten years. Bloomberg will obviously compute all of this in making a decision.

But should Bloomberg enter his persona moves from the abstract to the real and he thus can be assured of a tumultuous welcome and non stop coverage by the media. The latter are rapacious for ratings and a new slant on the proceedings provides no better platform to engender even more endless speculation and punditry. Presumably there would then be a three man race between Trump, Sanders and him. He will start with his nine percent support but the way the cookie will crumble and with the media so skilled at engineering a horse race before long it will look like a statistical three way tie. Jay H. Ell is not sure what this scenario will solve as the country will be split three ways instead of two. It is also difficult to predict the outcome and it would really depend on how large the hardcore immovable Bernie and Trump bases are.  Bloomberg would have his work cut out but he, as his reign in New York illustrated, is not easily cowered. Unlike both Trump and Sanders he has successfully managed and led a city with a population bigger than most States in the USA. He also may be able to resonate with his squeaky clean reputation and middle of the road mantra. He has the advantage, if it is still an advantage, to look and sound like an ordinary politician.

WHAT COULD A TRUMP, CRUZ OR A SANDERS ACHIEVE AS PRESIDENT?

The current Presidential Primary contests have laser like focussed on the justified anger society that has manifested towards their elected representatives and a political system dripping with the influence of money. The conclusive victories in New Hampshire of anti establishment Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump and the unexpected good showing of Iowa caucus winner Cruz, in their respective primaries, has translated this anger into electoral triumph.  The public debate focuses on legislators ignoring their consituents needs and opinions, compromising on principles, not following through on campaign promises, following the bidding of their corporate backers and lobbyists and their lack of integrity in public life. Conversation is around personal characteristics such as honesty, commitment, trustworthiness, self service, ignorance and incompetence and further illustrate the frustration that society is manifesting against elected public representatives. 

These early results, albeit in atypical electoral states, are a culmination of the disconnect between legislators and the electorate they serve. Just look at two statistics: Firstly, key presidential wannabes are non politicians, Trump, Carson and Fiorina or hellbent on destroying their parties establishments as exemplified by Cruz and Sanders. Hillary Clinton and to a lesser extent Marc Rubio and Kasich are the only conventional candidates that are exhibiting any traction at the moment.  Secondly, Congress approval rating is at fourteen percent. 

Two of the leading candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have attracted record crowds whipping up emotion by attacking what they abhor in the status quo and offering differing radical solutions. (While there have been such candidates in the past, they have by and large run as Independents).

POLITICIANS AND ACTIVISTS

For argument sake let us accept that both of these candidates are sincere in their objectives in revolutionizing society with radical agendas. Such major social change is usually agitated for outside the political arena. In the normal course of events those advocating and leading what is in effect a movement have the advantage that they do not have to compromise a jot in their message. This is because they have the luxury of not having to gain a majority of support in the legislatures to make laws. The group who do make the laws have to compromise to get them passed and are also subject to pressure groups and as such cannot afford to adapt the attitude of “It’s my way or the highway”. They are  the politicians. The faction that agitate for a revolutionary or transformatory agenda are called activists. It is fair to say that Sanders, Cruz and Trump in this political race have not tailored or diluted their activist stances to the customary political reality. In fact that is part of their mantra.

ACTIVISM AND POLITICS

This whole discourse highlights a misperception that certain sections of society has of how politics functions and fails to recognize the difference between activism and politics. The failure of politicians to represent their constituencies is confused with the process or how politics works per se. So in this debate there is a failure to clarify two issues:  Firstly, there is a situation where politicians ignore their constituents needs for whatever reason and secondly, there is the confusion between activism - the societal agitation for change - and politics which is defined as the art and science of government i.e. effecting the legislation for change. The former is the mobilization of society to influence government and the latter is the process whereby government translates into law what they perceive society wants. Put another way societal activism cannot enact laws as they have no power to do so, only the formalized political infrastructure that has the power to do so and that is the political process. 

This failure to understand the difference between the politics of agitation and protest versus the politics of power is resulting in a lack of clear thinking by sections of the electorate and leads to unrealistic expectations. 

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTIVISM AND POLITICS

The difference between activism and politics is best illustrated by real life examples. In the USA Martin Luther King lead the civil rights movement. He agitated on a scale similar to Ghandi and Mandela in the twentieth century. King’s movement resulted in landmark legislation that changed the course of the country. Ghandi’s passive resistance lead to the British Parliament passing the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Mandela’s resistance, philosophy and dignity was parlayed into the elimination of the apartheid discriminatory laws from the books. In all of these instances it took the legitimate political process to effect the change. In fact it can be taken one step further, very few would argue that without Mountbatten and Attlee India would have  obtained its independence in 1947, sans Lyndon Johnson it is unlikely that the far reaching civil rights legislation enacted would have seen the light of day and absent Frederick De Klerk’s leadership there would not have been the peaceful transition to a non racial South Africa. These represent successful marriages between the influence of activism and the power of politics.

In modern times sadly there has always been happy endings to activist populist movements. The most obvious example was the Arab Spring with the exception of Tunisia. The Egyptian movement for democracy and the Iranian Green Revolution were denied political success. The former because there just wasn’t the democratic infrastructure and or statesmen to effect it and the latter because it was brutally crushed. In the late 1980’s the Chinese protestors for democracy were mowed down in Tienemen Square. 

Put another way to effect change democratically you need the political process. Failing that you need an armed insurgency or a violent revolution. It is as simple as that.

HOW ARE THE ACTIVIST PRESIDENTIAL WANNABES GOING TO EFFECT CHANGE ?

It is patently obvious that society is utterly disgusted with the current legislative process. It is becoming more and more apparent that the elected politicians are not reflecting or representing their respective constituencies needs or wants. One can look at the attitudes of three of the chief contenders in the Presidential race, who have transformed their campaigns into activist movements. It is important to note what these three feel about the respective parties whose nominations they seek. Then more importantly let us take a look at how they plan to effect change.

It is interesting to note that one of them Donald Trump, a brand new member of the Republican Party, has already smashed the fabric of his newly adopted home, another Ted Cruz, who has from his entry into the Senate attacked the Republican Party and its leadership, while Bernie Sanders,till very recently an Independant, labels as "Establishment" all Democrats that oppose him, (grudgingly exempting Obama).  All three thus have no truck with the parties whose nomination they are seeking. They wish to change Washington, acting as activists, but they fail to show how they will do it. They fail not only in providing detailed plans and their costs but by not explaining the political process whereby they are going to effect it. 

To effect legislation in this current environment you need a House majority and sixty votes in the Senate. Bearing in mind their attitude to the parties they supposedly represent and their low opinion of their colleagues how they are going to be able to even persuade them, let alone hobble together a bipartisan group to enact their agendas? Trump is the great negotiator, he argues, but he will have work cut out to get consensus among his newly adopted party. Cruz, to quote the Donald, has not one friend in the GOP. Bernie is building his campaign by alienating himself from all his colleagues that have sheltered and enabled him, as an Independent, to function these passed few decades. This is not Westminster this is the American system and elected members of Congress owe nothing to the President even of their own party - especially if he has maintained that they are inter alia, stupid, liars or beholden to Wall Street. Now in order to negotiate you need at least your own party’s votes let alone the opposition. Again this is the US Congress not Westminster. You need bipartisan support to really get stuff to be done unless you have whopping majorities. 

Bernie has at least stated that his election to the Presidency will be accompanied by such a massive groundswell of unanimous electoral support that Congress will have to go along. Seriously? The country has never been more polarized. No one but no one is predicting that the House of Representatives will be regained by the Democrats and that the Democrats would obtain sixty Senate votes and if they did, by the activists’ own arguments the majority would be “stupid” “liars” or “corrupt”. For example Nancy Pelosi the current Democratic leader in the House is on record on saying she is not starting all over on health care reform. 

Trump’s modus vivendi to turn his activism into political reality is two fold: He is a businessman that can get things done and a great negotiator. In the former he can fire you if you don’t listen - he is the boss, and in negotiations there is an assumption that both sides have a common goal. Let him try to get the GOP caucus to adapt universal health care or change their policy on the drug companies setting their own prices for example. Cruz has not suggested a process whereby he can suddenly persuade his colleagues to follow him.

So these three are trying to persuade the electorate that by opting out of the process they can change the process! All this is tautologous nonsense and it gains more and more traction because the media shows no responsibility in exposing the inherent fallacy of the movement. On the contrary they feed into it cover it almost exclusively as it feeds their ratings and sells their customers' soap. When Trump refused to participate in a GOP debate and held his own sideshow the other networks covered the freebee instead of ignoring it. By not educating their audience in basic civics the media are abandoning their responsibility as the custodians of society.

In short in the unlikely event that any of Trump, Cruz or Sanders were elected as the POTUS they are even less likely to be able to effect any of their agendas, whatever their merits may be. To illustrate this point let us look at Barak Obama’s record and what he has to say - Obama being  recognized or vilified as the President with the most transformative agenda in recent history. 

OBAMA ON EFFECTING CHANGE

Obama’s entry into politics and his failure to enact most of his ambitious agenda has been a source of sadness and reflection to the Commander in Chief. Let Jay H. Ell repeat what he wrote about Obama in an earlier blog. “ It appears to be a distant memory the expectations that Barak Obama engendered with his historic campaign and election. If it needs reminding, to accommodate the crowd of 75,000 for his Democratic nomination acceptance speech in 2008, a football field was commandeered. His Presidential inauguration oration, in 2009, saw the entire length of the Mall opened for the first time to squeeze in nearly 2,000,000 citizens as he expounded his vision for home and abroad. Just 6 months prior to his inauguration, he addressed, at the Brandenburg Gate in Germany, ecstatic crowds that far exceeded any seen since JFK addressed the Berliners".

The new political rock star spoke of his New World Order. Audiences of tens of thousands were the order of the day wherever he  made a major speech - and this charismatic eloquent orator rarely disappointed. The anticipation and hope that this iconic trailblazer brought to the world was epitomized in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2009”.

So Obama whose activist and intellectual credentials and support stand like a colossus in comparison to our latter day activists couldn’t get it done. Furthermore he had the advantage of being an unashamed standard bearer of the Democratic Party. It is instructive to see how he views what characteristics he would like to see in his successor to build on his legacy. 

OBAMA ON HILLARY AND REAL POLITIK

Obama recognized from early on if his transformative agenda was to be translated into change he needed a politician to do it and set about anointing Clinton. Following her tenure as Secretary of State Obama he took the unprecedented step to appear with her on Sixty Minutes to tell the world what a jolly fine chap she was. Then just in case it was unclear where he stood he gave an interview to Politico, just prior to the Iowa caucuses where he spelt it out that Hillary had  the nouse for the job. His assessment of Clinton, “She is extraordinarily experienced and wicked smart. She knows every policy inside out and sometimes that could make her more cautious and her campaign was more prose than poetry”. He added, “Hillary recognizes that translating values into governance and delivering the goods is the ultimate job of politics”. 

Well Obama has to be feeling the pain that sheer weight of, populism, intellect and rightness of a cause is not enough. Hillary also learned the hard way. She was entrusted to reform health care in Bill’s administration in 1993. The chances of success on the surface had to be good. One of the reasons, that this relatively unknown Governor had prevailed was health care reform. He had received unprecedented support from business. Lee Iacaco the automotive icon had maintained that America could not compete with Japan when their health care costs per motor car were several multiples more. Hillary failed because she had no support from any of the players. Obama prevailed with a far less ambitious plan because he compromised with the Insurance and Drug industries as well as the American Medical Association. And then it was because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bust a nut and delivered the votes in Congress.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

By now it must be obvious that the answer to what could a Trump, Cruz or a Sanders could achieve in the Presidency is - not too much. 

As matters stand they can each hope if their message resonates, whether one of them prevails or not, is to influence the debate and therefore have legislation enacted.