• Looking back to a previous post, it appears that the skeptics were right about Warren Buffett's motivations in owning newspapers as he's not only selling both of the Triad's dailies but is getting out of that business altogether
• Speaking of monopolies, this is pretty accurate
• FDR is not coming through that door anytime soon but with the way things are going, it's more likely that America will have something akin to fascism than to socialism by the next financial crisis and that regime won't hesitate to squash any rebellion against the ultra rich ruining everyone else's lives

One Last Look at Election 2016

The worst election in history with the two least liked candidates in history is finally over and, boy did the disappointment live down to the hype:

• An enthusiasm gap between the two parties
• Biden pretty much being discouraged to run by the big money donors unless he wanted to be the sixth reigning vice president to not make it out of his own party's primary
• Trump and Clinton spending the bulk of the campaign explaining why the other candidate was worse rather than explaining why he/she was worthy of being elected
• Putrid debates that discussed very little of substance
• Polls that pointed out that the winner would have no honeymoon and that he/she would enter the White House with the lowest approval rating ever
• The DNC rigged the primary and may have turned off an entire generation to either the party or to electoral politics altogether. The party and its cohorts in the media refuse to learn from its mistakes. There's a reason why people refer to the Democratic Party as the graveyard of movements
• Speaking of which, the Hillbots have yelled "why now" regarding people who didn't vote. The first response that comes to mind is that enough people who sat out finally gave the pundit class's declaration of 2016 being "the most important election of our lifetime" the boy who cried wolf treatment (I had heard the same thing every election cycle going back to the 2000 election even though last year was finally the realigning election). Second, is the constant Russia bantering once the Democratic establishment was caught by Wikileaks. Nobody wanted to discuss the fact that Sanders supporters were vindicated. The third thing is that Hillary should not be absolved because she chose the big tent strategy, only for it to blow up in her face
• While the populist uprisings in both parties took center stage, very few people paid attention to the fact that 2016 was the year that the political center collapsed. Normally, this would be a horrible thing, but because of what the post-Reagan Era centrist consensus represented, this vision had to be vastly discredited by the voters. A quarter century of neoliberal austerity at home and neoconservative policies of endless wars something that turned the public off, not to mention the massive loss of jobs and the near collapse of organized labor
• The final tally was supposed to be 306-232 but was 304-227 due to seven faithless electors 
• Given that there were four other candidates--Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Evan McMullin, and Darrell Castle--who were on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, the fact that not one of them received an electoral vote showed a lack of courage of the seven faithless electors to really make a statement
• If we aren't going to get rid of the Commission on Presidential Debates, then, the minimum requirement should mandate all candidates to be in enough states that equal 270 electoral votes. Three six-way presidential debates (and one for the VP debate) would have been far more entertaining than what we ended up with
• Donald Trump is the Ultimate Sailer Strategy candidate

Tea party vs populism

From the beginning, I've been very uneasy with the Tea Party. Two years ago, they were being bandied in the media as a populist movement that was upset with bailouts and stimulus. I began disbelieving the populist moniker once:

1. Dick Armey, a person who has represented three of the banks that went bellyup and a big backer of repealing Glass-Steagall Act 12 years ago, joined the cause
2. Sarah Palin and Rick Perry waved the flag and were not be called on their corporatist leanings
3. it was revealed that the Koch brothers are once again AstroTurfing--this time they are hijacking populism to promote corporatist causes
4. various Tea Party leaders openly said that they wanted their groups to advance conservative causes

The first three points are exactly why my respect level for the Tea Party is BELOW ZERO. As for the final point, the Tea Party is doing nothing but ruining populism. Real populism should do the following things instead:

1. shatter and fight the current left-right paradigm. The Tea party openly embraces it
2. destroy the wretched system that only benefits a few and leads to the middle class being destroyed. The Tea Party has decided more often than not that the Republicans should be pushed even further to the right

Accepting corporatist nonsense like blaming the Community Reinvestment Act and anyone who isn't financially secure for today's financial crisis will lead to a scary path that our children will wonder why this generation let America descend to third-tier status, never mind second-tier.

As for other populists, especially those on the left, they are either small in number, feel powerless, or are silent on what's going on. That is unacceptable because they should not only be trying to put the Tea Partiers in their place, but they should be prodding President Obama to stop leaning on corporatist shills like Geithner and Summers. The Tea Party is as organic as GMO fish genes in a tomato so if other populists do not stop the Koch-backed frauds from spreading their lies and venom, them there is no hope for either populism taking hold in America or an overhaul of the two-party system.

Rotating two-party system

This is based on what I posted on the Fourth Turning Forums last fall. I am taking this public because the rotating model may be the only way that the next political realignment will involve a party outside of the current two in a position of power. 

Second, it looks like the mainstreaming of the spoiler effect where the major parties can now use minor parties that are the least compatible with their viewpoints to damage their major opponents--Rick Santorum's failed attempt to recruit a Green candidate to take votes away from Bob Casey, Jr. when he ran for reelection for his Senate seat four years ago and Oregon's attorney general leaving an Ann Coulter lookalike on the ballot running on the Constitution ticket in the same year. The incumbent governor didn't need the help in the end since his margin of victory over his GOP opponent was more than what the kook got (8.1 points vs 3.6).  

Third, there is no way that we are ever going to experience any kind of change to the current first past the post system because the public for the most part would rather watch horrible reality TV shows and be beholden to whatever ideology they hold dear. Ergo, complaints about the lesser of two evils will continue without any real attempt to do anything to fixed the flawed voting system that offers us two objectionable choices.

A Different Way
As it looks right now, public confidence in both parties is at an all-time low. However, we need to have a legitimate alternative to the Democrats and Republicans. The current batch of alternatives doesn't shake up. The Greens and the Constitution parties are extreme extensions of the major parties and cancel each other out. The Libertarians, while known for causing Republicans headaches, can also be a spoiler against Democrats. Another thing is that the last 20-25 years were very favorable for Libertarians and the national party spent most of that time espousing their most unrealistic ideas of their platform like abolishing all taxes. The next 20-25 years will not be favorable to the LP so different ideas are needed.

A new populist party is what's needed for the upcoming era. Bailouts and other favors for big corporations have angered much of the public for the last two years. Both parties are beholden to corporations and special interest groups interested in upholding the status quo in D.C. If the Tea Party ever got rid of its corporatist elements and joined left-leaning populists and other like-minded independents, the Dems and the GOP could be in for a rude awakening. 

Looking Ahead
As it looks right now, the Republicans are poised to take over the House. The conventional wisdom is that with one chamber against President Obama's agenda, gridlock will be the order of the day. That may be so, but unlike 1995-96, I don't think that Obama will deal with a GOP majority in either house in the event that he's reelected because this time is different in the sense that the public wants quick action on the ailing economy. If there is another government shutdown and/or the economy does not pick quickly, the voters will be left with only two choices in 2012--either reelect Obama and restore Democrats to the House, or replace Obama and give Republicans the Senate. The main point being is that the public is less tolerant of gridlock and will want a party to turn things around. That's what's at stake next Tuesday.

For all of that said, the winner in 2012 may end up with a Pyrrhic victory because if things get worse by 2014, a populist uprising will be inevitable. If things get really bad again, I expect for people to transfer their rage into recruiting candidates or run for office themselves as true populists. The main reason will be the lack of progress from the two parties. This independent coalition will surprise every pundit by sweeping into power. In 2016, the New Populists will be all but assured of the presidency.

In 4-5 years, the opposition party will remain as the #2 party for a while, but the president's party will be relegated to status as a glorified regional party because the split will be so nasty that it'll take decades to fix. 


A Couple of Scenarios 
1) Obama reelection. In 2014, the Democrats lose House seats to the Greens in some very strong liberal bastions--think university towns. The cause is continuing unease with the president's approach to corporations. As a result, the disenchanted left will deal with a faction that wants to rein in corporate excess. The Democrats will then be limited to the coasts for three decades as the Progressive Caucus and the DLC struggle for the party during its time out of power. 

2) Palin or Romney wins in 2012 with a Republican takeover of the Senate. As it did in 2005, the new president and Congress overreach in the two years by insisting on an anti-government agenda that proves to be out of touch with what's needed to fix the country. An example of this would be another disaster on the scale of the I-35W bridge collapse in the face of the White House and Congress refusing to fund infrastructure because they feel that government has no role. The 2014 end result is the GOP losing House seats to Libertarians and/or the Constitution Party and confined to the South and the Rockies for a couple of decades. The party will have a bitter battle among the small government types, Wall Street Republicans, and religious conservatives with one or two of these groups leaving. What's left of the Tea Party (the Astroturfers) will go away.

Future Cycles

3a) New Populists vs Republicans 2015-2040s or
3b) New Populists vs Democrats 2015-2030s

4a) Same as 3a
4b) New Populists vs Republicans 2030s 

5) 2040s-2060s alignment same as today

6) Libertarians (by this time the party will have expelled its extremist and anarchist elements and will be marketable to the public) vs the 2012 winner 2060s-2090s

7) New Populists vs Libertarians 2090s-2110s