There are a lot of Democrats running for president for 2020. The list is only going to get longer. Only one of them is going to get the chance to challenge Donald Trump, assuming Trump is still the president and is running for re-election.
Much of the focus so far has been on domestic issues. There has been a noticeable increase in progressive (i.e., leftist or socialist) rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party, and that includes the presidential candidates.
They are almost trying to outdo each other in terms of how much they can increase spending and increase taxes on the so-called rich. In Elizabeth Warren’s case, it really is the rich, as she is proposing a tax on wealth. Most tax increase proposals are on income.
It was easy for Bernie Sanders to be the far left candidate in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, at least in terms of rhetoric. The field was very limited then.
Now, Bernie has many challengers, and it is not certain that he is the most politically leftist candidate. When one of them proposes free healthcare for all, the next one will propose the same thing and up the ante with free universal childcare. And the way they will provide these “free” services isn’t really explained except for higher taxes on the rich.
In terms of going against Donald Trump, I am not sure how much it is going to matter who the Democrats nominate. Trump’s re-election is going to hinge so much on his political problems with the media and the establishment in general. It is hard to say if all of the allegations against him will stick in the court of public opinion. The hardcore Trump supporters will mostly still support him, and the Trump haters will obviously continue to hate him. It is more a question of how the middle-of-the-road voter will vote, or even whether they will vote at all.
I think most of the election will revolve around domestic issues, unless something unexpected happens that is significant. In this case, it really is the economy, stupid. It’s ironic that that slogan came from the Clinton era, because Hillary Clinton ignored it at her own peril.
If we are in a deep recession in November 2020, then Trump will likely lose. If the economy is booming, or seemingly booming, then Trump has a good chance to win. If it is somewhere in between, then the election is likely to be really close.
Where a President Matters
It has long been my opinion that the president doesn’t really impact the economy that much, at least in terms of a domestic agenda. Now, if you had a radical libertarian in office, then things would likely change, but they would have already changed because of the obvious change in public opinion.
A libertarian president could use the bully pulpit to advocate a massive reduction in spending. This is really what needs to happen. That is what would make Americans more prosperous. Tax cuts don’t matter much in the long run if spending continues to go up.
The one area where the president has the most power, or at least should have the most power, is foreign policy. The president could declare an end to all wars immediately and bring the troops home. This would put a stop to the killing of innocent lives, at least by the U.S. military. It would put a stop to the massive destruction, at least by the U.S. military. Unfortunately, the chaos already created by these wars can’t be undone. But they would have a better chance of fixing themselves in the future without the presence of U.S. troops.
Ending all of the wars would also help Americans economically. It would be a major reduction in spending, or at least it should be.
Trump had some good things to say in 2015 and 2016 from a non-interventionist standpoint. He also had some bad things to say. But it was better to hear his inconsistency rather than the consistent cheerleading for war by the other candidates.
This is the main reason that the establishment hates Trump so much. It isn’t because of his brash personality or his mean tweets. It is because they fear he will contract the empire and the military-industrial complex.
Unfortunately, Trump has been mostly bad on foreign policy, just like his predecessors. He has surrounded himself by war hawks, some of whom are from previous administrations. He has surrounded himself by people who actually opposed him before his election. They probably still oppose him, but they are just not vocal about it. They would rather have a seat at the table and have some influence, which they have had.
Trump has been mostly unable to achieve anything significant in terms of foreign policy. The best you can say about Trump at this point is that he has not started any new major wars. It was about this time into Obama’s presidency that the conflict in Libya was underway.
The question is, what if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020? Will we see any significant change in foreign policy?
Tulsi Gabbard – The Only Hope?
I wrote a blog post on Tulsi Gabbard, asking if she would make a good president. I still stand by what I said that she would be the only one I would consider voting for from the Democratic Party.
However, I am leaning a little more in not voting for her if she somehow miraculously got the Democratic nomination. I already vehemently disagree with her other leftist positions, particularly when it comes to economics.
Gabbard was recently on The View. One of the co-hosts is Meghan McCain, the daughter of the late Senator John McCain.
After Meghan McCain thanked Gabbard for her “service”, she went on to say, “When I hear the name Tulsi Gabbard, I think of Assad apologist.”
Gabbard tried to stand her ground, but she did say this: “There is no disputing the fact that Bashar al-Assad in Syria is a brutal dictator. There is no disputing the fact that he has used chemical weapons and other weapons against his people.”
Actually, Tulsi, there is disputing this. Whether Assad is a brutal dictator is somewhat subjective. Maybe it is a repetitive term. But relative to other dictators, Assad is probably one of the better ones. He has allowed people of different religions to peacefully co-exist in Syria. It was the U.S. intervention that destroyed all of this.
And there is plenty to dispute as far as Assad using chemical weapons on his own people. These are just claims of the U.S. government. It is no different than the claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They are completely unsubstantiated. They are probably purposely made up for their interventionist agenda.
If I had been Gabbard responding to McCain, I would have said, “When I hear the name McCain, I think of blood-thirsty warmonger.” Maybe that’s why I wouldn’t make it in politics.
I don’t even like Gabbard’s response when everyone thanks her for her service and her bravery in going to Iraq. If she is so opposed to intervention, then she should say that they shouldn’t be thanking her because she never should have been in Iraq.
Forgive me for being such a cynic here, but I know how these things go. If she is wavering at all now, she will only waver more if she ever gets into office.
Near the end of the interview, Joy Behar asked her if her position would be popular with the Democratic Party. Behar said that Trump said something similar when he was running. Gabbard responded that he may have, but Trump has not followed through and has broken his promises.
But the real question is: why would Gabbard be any different? She is a little more consistent than Trump was during his campaign. But just because she says she will follow through, it doesn’t mean she will.
If I am doubting Gabbard, you can only imagine how I feel about the rest of the field of candidates. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not hawkish in their rhetoric, but they mostly try to avoid talking about foreign policy. It is not a priority for them.
And let’s remember that Sanders ended up supporting and campaigning for Clinton in 2016, even after what she and the party did to him. Anyone who can even pretend to support Hillary Clinton is not going to be a non-interventionist in foreign policy as president.
I am glad that Tulsi Gabbard is running for president. At least people are having discussions that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred. But I am doubtful that she will get the Democratic Party’s nomination. The establishment is against her for some of the same reasons they are against Trump. They may fear her even more.
But even if Gabbard were to become president, I don’t trust that she would fully follow through on what she is saying. When I detect just a little bit of hesitation or wavering as I detected in her appearance on The View, I fear she will not be strong enough to follow through. I have seen what happens to people when they get into power and are surrounded by the vultures.
A change in American foreign policy will come when there is a drastic change in public opinion. A change may also come when the government can no longer afford to pay for it all.