In our last post LOOKING TO THE FUTURE we stated people, businesses and organizations interested in things such as free trade should get in the game now or they’ll have no place to go for help.  After all, one of the first things President Trump did was dump the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and no Democratic 2016 contender favored it. Remember Free Trade is essential to the proper functioning markets that are the core of capitalism. This week we became aware just how much work was needed to be done.  On Monday 2/13 we read an OP-ED in the Wall Street Journal we first thought was satire but apparently was a serious article. Blake Hurst the President of the Missouri Farm Bureau and  a soybean farmer authored a piece “Free Trade and How the Soybean Helped make America Great”. In it Mr. Hurst stated:

In my rural county in northwest Missouri, home to plenty of soybean farmers, Mr. Trump received about 75% of the vote. We were drawn to policies like his “two for one” executive order, which requires the removal of two regulations every time a new one is written. The vocal and at times vulgar protests against him have only solidified his support here.

But unease is growing in the more fertile parts of the hinterlands. As his trade policy comes into focus, it’s starting to scare the heck out of farmers.

Mr. Trump is now embarking on a huge economic experiment, one at odds with what had been a bipartisan commitment to increased international trade. He has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that, according to the Farm Bureau, would have increased net farm income by $4.4 billion. The president has also promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yet since Nafta was signed, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico have increased to $18 billion in 2015 from $4.2 billion in 1994, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

A soybean farmer like me looks at Mr. Trump’s statements with particular unease. Data from the National Oilseed Processors Association show that China and Mexico, both targets of Mr. Trump’s trade policy, were the top buyers of American soybeans in 2015.

The question crying to be answered is where was Blake Hurst and the Missouri Farm Bureau before the election? For that matter where was the American farm Bureau? Trump  swept  rural agricultural America. If farmers are just now getting scared for their livelihoods, maybe it’s because the people they relied on to make them aware of major threats to their well-being failed them. Continue reading →

In our last post 2017 The Year the World Ends we offered some observations and advice to Democrats looking forward.to 2020. The Republicans barring death or impeachment, will put forth Donald J. Trump for re-election. The real question is what Donald J. Trump that would be. At present Republicans have great hopes for the Trump Presidency. Many echo former  George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen’s  jubilation at Trump’s inauguration. Writing in his  1/19 Washington Post Column, he lists a number of  reasons for conservatives to celebrate. First of course is that he isn’t Hillary Clinton. He’ll appoint a Scalia  clone to the Supreme Court restoring a conservative majority. The cabinet will be “perhaps the most conservative Cabinet of any president in modern history.” He’ll”break the mold of governance in Washington.” Regulatory, education and tax reform will be accomplished. Our full energy potential will be realized. National defense will be greatly  strengthened. Even poverty would be addressed. Sounds as if he expects a Trump presidency would be much the same as a Kasich, Rubio or even a Jeb Bush presidency. Those Republicans agreeing with Thiessen probably see a united party riding a wave of conservative prosperity behind their “conservative” incumbent.

Continue reading →

We don’t actually believe the world will end in 2017 but read much of the dire press predictions and warnings one could draw this conclusion.  More likely it will be a very interesting year especially for our two major parties.  Readers will recall our hopes for the third-party tickets especially the Libertarian.  We thought neither of the major party candidates was worthy of our great nation.  Alas, in spite of  our best efforts, one of them was elected.  Four years hence will we may be faced with similar bad choices.  Barring death or impeachment (maybe more likely with this new president), we know Donald Trump will be one of the major patty candidates. That leaves it up to the Democrats to improve our choice. However, this party is moribund. At every level of government, it is in the minority or weak.  Its most visible leaders are old and/or in the case of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama just rejected at the polls.  Resistance to the Republicans  seems to be limited to the old progressive standbys, protest marches and Hollywood rants. This just seems tired and out of date. Parties have come back from worse a position but not without updating methods and candidates. With the view of improving our nation’s choices, we offer some suggestions.

Rather than big protest marches that have in some cases resulted in violence and in any case repels some voters, can’t  these people come up with a less in your face way of making a point? Something that has some chance of  attracting new adherents. For instance instead of  having a march against President elect Trump why not send musical groups to his and other public appearances and singing parodies. For instance, take the Village People’s Macho Man (if you don’t know it, listen on the internet. Catchy) and changing it to Moscow’s Man, singing Moscow’s Moscow’s Man, DJT is Moscow’s Man with numerous witty verses. With access to some of the worlds best rhymers, this shouldn’t be a problem and in any case superior to anything we could come up with.  While not threatening, it would rub a sore point raw for Republicans and independents uncomfortable with Trump’s coziness with Putin while pleasing your base. You just might have Senators McCain, Rubio and Graham among other Republicans singing along. Continue reading →

In our Oct. 5,2016 post THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME we declared “Trump can only win with 65% of the white vote of a greater white turnout. He might get this last great white hurrah but what then?” Turns out we were wrong. All he needed to claim victory was approximately the same number of  votes as Romney in 2012 according to MIC.com. It’s early so this may change but assuming it’s close to the truth, this is stunning. How was this possible? The Democratic vote was discouraged. They simply didn’t show up. Why? First of all Hillary  Clinton was a bad candidate. Our ALL IN THE PLAN? post of April 27,2015 suggested that  Hillary’s potential legal problems would lead her to being replaced with Joe Biden. Democrats would probably be a lot happier today if they had gone in that direction. But she was such a weak flawed candidate she had big trouble putting away a 75-year-old socialist. This meant it would be hard to replace Hillary with Biden over the claims of the runner-up. Instead,we got FBI Chief James Comey declining to recommend prosecution while telling the world she was a liar and irresponsible. Not what you’d want to hear about a presidential candidate. Still, she consistently ran ahead of Trump except for right after the Republican Convention in the Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls. Now lately polling hasn’t covered the profession with glory, but nothing showed a big increase in Republican votes and indeed their vote came out pretty much the same as 2012. However, the democratic vote apparently dropped by over 5 million. This appears to have occurred in the three weeks before the election. A few things could account for the diminished democratic enthusiasm. Obama care’s large premium  increases coming at this time might have influenced voters but this would’ve increased the Republican total while diminishing Pres.Obama’s popularity. Neither of which occurred.

The answers are found elsewhere. First WikiLeaks constantly airing scads purloined emails showing Hillary and Democrats in a bad light. It seemed as if there were new ones everyday creating a constant negative narrative in the media. The scary part of this is the fact Russia was behind the hacking of the emails according to 17 federal intelligence agencies. While some media outlets mentioned this after they aired the emails, some never did. The source of the emails should have prefaced any mention such as “Russian hacked emails released today by WikiLeaks said…” Unfortunately this almost never happened. Apparent Russian interference in a Presidential election decided by a razor-thin margin, wasn’t as horrifying to others as it was to us. However,as this sinks in, it could well  undermine the legitimacy of the Trump Presidency. After all, it’s hard to overlook the fact only 112,000 votes in three key flipped states, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania, cost Clinton the election and not think Russian-WikiLeaks releases accounted for at least this much and more.

Against this background of the incessant email releases, FBI Chief James Comey against all protocols saw fit to send his vague letter to Congressional leaders about newly discovered significant emails 11 days before the election. Of course, people assumed something  major  found was against Hillary if he did this so close to the election. While this heavy weight hovered over her, prominent Fox News Anchor Bret Baier  announced he had good sources telling him she was facing indictment. Given Baier is a respected journalist,the report went viral. You couldn’t turn on talk radio, check the web or social media without it being front and center. Liberal media might have missed how big this was because these aren’t the sources they usually follow but an awful lot of people do. It energized those leaning Trump while turning wavering Republicans and Independents away from Hillary. They began to conclude Trump may be bad but at least we wouldn’t have a President facing criminal charges. Could anyone be blamed for feeling this way? This all meant  the media was dominated by negative stories on Hillary while driving off Trunp’s negative ones. .Donald couldn’t have  wished for more..

The only thing wrong with both these bombshells,there was no substance to them. On Sunday 2 days before the election, Comey sent another letter saying they found nothing. This came after Baier was found making a relatively quiet apology for his erroneous report. Both men owned up to their errors but only days before the election. After still hearing people even today saying they couldn’t vote for someone facing “indictment”(only Baier used this term), we conclude this was hardly enough time to right these wrongs before the election. Remember as Jonathan Swift said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” You just can’t unring a bell.

At this moment Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote, so over half of the population is feeling down. As readers are well aware we didn’t favor either candidate, but we can sympathize with these voters feeling ill-treated. Getting hammered by the Russians, the FBI Chief and a major cable anchor days just before an election isn’t going to make a Trump Presidency more acceptable or legitimate to this majority. Being “Moscow’s Man” is hardly a great place start a new administration.

After the first few days of Gumbaya (maybe not even that given protests in 25 cities), the reality of an unpopular President a majority of Americans refused to vote for but whose party controls everything will sink in. What will he do? Most Presidents come in with governing philosophy and a program. With Trump we’re not sure. Will he really try to enact his divisive first 100 day program? Maybe he’ll bury the hatchet and unite behind speaker Paul Ryan’s  “A Better Way” program. Or he cold lean toward Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and start with a “Huge” jobs (infrastructure) program, the Obama Stimulus on steroids, and subsidies for child care. Or he could freelance. Trump has had so many positions it’s hard  to even guess. One thing is certain, he can’t get too far from his base that is the source of his power. If he moves to conciliation and inclusiveness he risks being seen as  just another politician or a monumental fraud enraging his followers. Without them he would be just a rubber stamp for Congressional Leaders. With them he can continue to threaten retribution against any Republican. Because of this we don’t see Trump changing what got him here. It would be political suicide.

This is the Republican conundrum, they may get somethings such as a Supreme Court Justice, tax cuts and a Obamacare repeal but with Trump it may be impossible to widen their base for the future. It’s doubtful the same number of votes will win in 2020. He might even prove to be more of a progressive than they guessed. How long before conservatives head for or are pushed out the door. Without hatred of Hillary to unite Trump and conservatives the animosity is likely to reemerge. Right from the start, the national security wing of the party has to be aghast we have a President in no small measure owing the Russians for his victory. Only if one side or the other does a 180 on their principles can they continue to coexist.The question is,have the Republicans made a Faustian bargain? Some success today at the cost of their future.

Democrats woke up after the election forced to face the realization Obama was a disaster for their party. While personally winning two presidential elections, his two terms  disseminated the party at every  elective level. For 2016, Democrats had the unappealing choice between a failed governor (Martin O’Malley), a 75-year-old socialist (Bernie Sanders) and failed Presidential Primary candidate with more baggage than a cruise terminal.(Clinton).  How could their bench be so empty? Simply by losing at every governmental level when Obama wasn’t on the ballot. The Governor’s Mansions and the Senate are the usual farm clubs for Presidential Candidates but with the Republicans achieving their majorities at every level, the young Democrats never got started. Even now, can anyone name even three likely Democratic 2020 Presidential candidates. Only two women come to mind, Elisabeth Warren and Michele Obama. Interesting, but each would have their problems, Warren too far left and Obama too soon. For them or anyone else to have chance, the party machinery has to be totally rebuilt. Their vaunted “get out the vote plan” proved to be a paper tiger without Barrack on the ballot. They need a DNC chairman similar to Reince Priebus for nuts and bolts but with a better sense of “Institutional Image” he so sorely lacked.(see A Tale of Two CEOs: Stumpf & Priebus) On paper the Democrats should have a wealth of bright diverse young potential candidates for political office.Someone has to find and back them. Just as important, they need to become a party of ideas. Rather than just offering freebies and fighting culture wars,some real solutions to our problems could go a long way to restoring the public’s faith in Democrats.

All this again points out how much we need more and better choices. We think most people now realize the present Republican-Democrat duopoly has failed us and needs competition so we can get a 2020 Presidential candidate that doesn’t make most of us sick to our stomachs.