Iran and Donald
Trump
The President does not come up
with original ideas. His approach is to denigrate
something that is being done, destroy it, and then come up with the same thing
with a different label, one identified with his personage. He did that with NAFTA in regard to
trade relationships with Mexico and Canada. It’s now called USMCAN and he
claims credit for it as his baby, making him a genius in terms of international
trade. But all it amounts to is a few tweaks made in the old NAFTA, which could
have been accomplished without his destroying it. But then, he would not have had NAFTA as a
whipping boy to blame for unemployment in certain areas, for which it might not
even have been responsible.
The same thing is now going on in regard to Iran.
During the Obama administration, the United Kingdom, France, China,
Russia and Germany joined with the United States to sign a treaty with Iran
whereby in exchange for the removal of certain sanctions and the release of
Iranian assets being held in the West, Iran would limit their development of
uranium refinement to levels below weapons capability. This treaty was working out well with
inspections confirming Iran’s adherence to it, until Trump decided to tear it
up and walk away from it, declaring it to be “defective at its core.”
That is the way this goon operates. In the real estate business, a big-time
developer such as Trump claimed to have been, might have second thoughts on the
price he had agreed to accept for a piece of property when he learned that some
changes in the neighborhood suddenly made it worth twice as much. So he would rip up the sales agreement and
tell the buyer to “go sue me.” That’s
the way our President believes we should deal with other nations … and that’s
what he’s doing with Iran.
Well, it looks like Iran is back in the business of working
to develop uranium at weapons capable levels, and that can be blamed on Trump
tearing up his copy of the treaty, which,
incidentally, the other signatories are still honoring. The President’s reaction at this moment seems
to be vacillating between bellicosity and showing a desire to sit down and talk
with Iran’s leaders who in turn are flexing their military muscles.
 |
| Hormuz Straights - Current Flashpoint in Middle East |
I suspect that
despite some “war hawks” in the White House, like John Bolton, Trump would
rather negotiate than go to war. I believe
that talks will happen at some level … and a new treaty will be the result …
but just as USMCAN replaced NAFTA with Trump taking the credit, the new treaty
with Iran, similar to the old one but with just a few tweaks, will replace the
one the Obama administration had signed.
This time, however, it will have Trump’s name on it, and he is willing
to risk a war to accomplish that. This
is sort of the way Donald got his name on so many buildings and other
enterprises but it is no way to run a nation.
(Oh
well, It’s only about sixteen months until the 2020 elections … or about six
weeks to the deadline I have arbitrarily set for starting impeachment
proceedings. Incidentally, even though the polls show the President falling
behind in crucial states, his backers claim that because Trump voters refuse to
participate in polls, their results are meaningless. Proceed with caution.)
Jack
Lippman
Why the “Selfish Socialists” Always Vote Republican
Up there somewhere north of Orlando and south of the Ocala horse country in the middle of Florida is a
massive retirement community known as “the Villages.” It is totally self-contained with golf
courses, tennis courts, theatres, stores and whatever the 50,000 residents
there need as they scoot around the place in their golf carts. The place always votes solidly Republican and
in fact, G.O.P. candidates like to kick off their campaigns there in its
friendly environment. And after whomever they pray to in their houses of worship, Donald Trump comes in a very close second.
 |
| Pleasant Scene at the Villages |
If a speaker were to ask these
benign folks what they thought of “socialism,” they would be greeted by a
collection of boos and catcalls. Yet,
almost all these people receive Social Security payments each month and are on
Medicare. Those who end up in nursing
homes, and some do, turn to Medicaid after they exhaust their savings. Many who served our country, on their
passing, are buried in VA cemeteries. Hey folks! Wake
up! That’s “socialism” in which you are participating.
(Let me make it clear that I
understand the actual definition of socialism is “state control of an economy’s
means of production and distribution.”
To the folks I am discussing here, however, it is simply reduced to
government involvement in their lives and in this piece, I am accepting that
vague definition.)
“Yes,” they
would respond, “but it is a different kind of
“socialism” from what the evil Democrats are peddling!”
It’s their own brand of “socialism,”
one that they cherish and want to keep. Because
they hold it so dear, let’s call it “Selfish
Socialism” like the socialism the private sector relishes when the
government steps in to save it from destroying itself and the nation’s economy,
as it did in 2008. The Villages people
would still want to call it something else, something less radical-sounding,
but for the purposes of this piece, I’m sticking with what it truly is, “selfish socialism.”
Villages
residents worked hard all their lives, including
contributing to Social Security, to be able to afford to retire. In effect, they feel
they have paid their dues, to the government and otherwise, and believe
that they are entitled to be selfish about the
preservation of what they have, including Social Security and Medicare
and other government benefits.
What
they object to is for “others,” whom they feel have not
“paid their dues,” to share in these benefits.
That’s what the
Democrats always want to promote, and in their eyes it’s simply a way for
Democrats to go for the votes of those who depend on the “safety net” aspects
of “socialism” such as unemployment and disability benefits, nutritional
benefits (food stamps), child care, welfare payments, free or subsidized higher
education, subsidized health care and tax breaks including refunds when they
haven’t even had any taxes withheld, to get by.
That’s the part of “socialism” they’re
against.
They know that the only way
the Democrats can afford to provide these things is to increase taxes on almost
everyone else, not just the wealthy, and the Villages people probably consider
themselves within that target. They identify it as leftist “wealth redistribution” and
not part of the “Selfish Socialism” they adore, but more like “Godless
Communism.” They see it as “taking something
away from them and giving it to others who never earned it.” And that’s why, even though these retired folks
depend on “socialist” programs historically initiated and maintained by the
Democratic Party’s officeholders, they will always vote Republican. And though the Villages people are reluctant to admit
it, those “others” are often members of minority groups, so their selfish
approach to socialism sometimes has overtones of racism.
This attitude extends to many
of the other smug retirees in Florida, far beyond the Villages, whose
allegiance to the Republican Party is based on their unshakeable loyalty to
“Selfish Socialism.” This is one of the
reasons why Democrats, who are actually a majority in the Sunshine State, do
not win statewide elections.
JL
No comments:
Post a Comment