During the election campaigns and debates that led to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America, I arrived at the conclusion that he was the best candidate for Office of President.
The reasoning was simple, Trump was the only candidate talking job creation, particularly, the sorts of jobs that enable revitalization of small towns and cities. The fact that I had been buying quality shirts and cuff links sold under the ‘Trump Label’ at Macy’s had nothing whatsoever to do with my assessment.
With respect to the alternate policy focus that was on offer from Hillary Clinton — free education — I was, and remain confident that such a policy is inimical to advancement of an economy whose viability, growth, and development is predicated on leadership in innovation.
When I was buying Trump Label shirts and cuff links way back in 2012, Trump Label items simply were the best quality that Macy’s had on offer.
Turns out Donald Trump lied. Turns out he seized on promises that Hillary Clinton was unwilling to make. Since assuming Office as President, all of Donald Trump’s policies have been skewed towards the already rich, and corporations. At this point in time, there is not any shred of evidence to support a claim that Trump cares about creating jobs that fill voids in America’s small towns and cities.
It is not just that jobs, which already left the U.S. economy are not coming back, it more importantly is the case that there is not any encouragement for the sorts of jobs that revitalize small towns and cities — new investments in manufacturing that reflect latest technologies, and that are domiciled in new standards for factory work environments.
It gets even worse. It is not just that there is not new investments in manufacturing initiatives, rather it is the case that there seems to be active discouraging of such initiatives in favor of building of new apps.
So then, the research shows adolescents are overwhelmed with apps, but what else to do, but encourage more? Really?
Business men know how to turn a profit. If we regard the U.S. economy as a business that seeks to turn a profit, a case can be made for appropriateness of Business men in Office of President of the United States of America.
Consider, however, Donald Trump’s business empire. In presence of his dependence majorly on patronage of White people, prior to his presidency, Donald Trump never had to attempt to woo Black people, Asian people, or Hispanics.
The way I hear it, Asians go to Las Vegas to make money off gambling, not to be net spenders on luxury.
So then, Donald Trump ascends to Office of President of the United States, and having not needed the business of Blacks, Asians, or Hispanics in past, in presence of some pressure from segments of society that are critical for success of his businesses, he descends into demagoguery of racism, and demagoguery of privilege for those who merely arrived as immigrants prior to arrival of others.
If voters kid themselves that any of the Business men running for Office of President of the United States of America can be any different from Trump in this respect, which is, a catering to those who have been critical to their business success, they eventually will have to confront the truth.
If anything, Candidate Yang already is making it clear that he foresees people losing jobs to artificial intelligence, hence his US$1,000 for all policy initiative. Do voters see Candidate Yang bringing manufacturing jobs to America’s small towns and cities?
Do voters think Candidate Yang is joking about prediction of net losses of jobs in future that necessitate a US$1,000 largesse for all?
Business men Presidents always will revert to what they know best, which is, patronage of segments of society that have been most critical to their success, for their riches.
Consider then aspirants for Office of President of the United States who are career politicians, and who are young enough, such that any failings during their tenure as President can affect not only their parties, but also all those whom, for protecting of their backs, they pulled up through the political system. Candidates Elizabeth Warren , Kamala Harris, and Corey Booker fit this bill, Booker less so because his constituencies do not appear to be as broad based as those of Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris. Given he is as light skinned as Kamara, highlighted difference cannot be deemed to be outcome of any racism.
If either of Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris (the Candidates) become President of the United States and mess everything up, they leave behind many disgruntled persons who have capacity for taking out their angst on people that they pulled up by their coattails (coattails people) within the political system of the United States.
If coattails people lose their place in the political system, legacies built up by the Candidates are destroyed, and they stand the chance of losing their place in history. Given coattails people themselves have need of some broad based support for their political success, each of the Candidates, and coattails people have the incentive to at the very least be perceived to be non-racist, and to not be kowtowing only to the rich and powerful. Given such appearances, of necessity, must be backed up with some policy initiatives, whether perfunctory or non-effective, in presence of the Candidates as President, all segments of society receive some attention from Office of the President of the United States.
As Marianne Williamson tongue-in-cheek pointed out, appearances are evident in the fact that with all the talk of reining in of corporations on the table, all Democratic candidates other than herself had taken campaign contributions from the private sector.
Career politicians who become Presidents leave behind many coattails people whose fortunes are adversely affected if such career politicians can be characterized as having been racist or bigoted while in Office. In presence of highlighted caveat, career politicians are less likely to introduce, or allow policy initiatives that are racist or bigoted.
The 2020 elections are the Democrats to lose, and all they have to do in order to win is figure out the candidate who has the best chance at beating Trump at the polls. In this respect, all that they require as campaign slogan is as follows.
You listened to Donald Trump four years ago. Now you have seen his actions. Can you really, four years later believe any promises made by Donald Trump?