Now Politics: the Political Opinions of Thomas Sarebbenonnato

A Friend of the People Opposing Elites; Social and Political Commentary of Thomas Sarebbenonnato; Publishing and Contributing Editor, Jay V. Ruvolo [Copyright (c) Jay Ruvolo 2018]

Archive for November 14th, 2016

The Unimaginable is Real

leave a comment »

Trump is President. Trump was elected; it was not a coup. Trump is also a Dangerous man, as dangerous as any man can be occupying the most powerful office in the world. I am not going to wonder if he has thought this through; I cannot believe that he has. Trump can be more dangerous than just any man if he does not get that, admit that to himself, seek help and advice.

If he is as stupid as his opponents think he is, we might be doomed. Working men would have been doomed with Hilary anyway. Obama never planned to do anything more than what he has done for the Banks—what he did for the People was the crumbs swept from the tables of Money and Power.

Perhaps Trump is a Media-Wall Street Puppet to keep working men with rifles from firing those rifles at the Masters of our Economy thus our Politics? (As stupid as Donald sounds at times, I wonder if he is not just a computer generated image.) I am not trying to say he is not anything or everything everyone has said about him, bad. I am hoping against hope that he will not be as bad as feared, but then I did not think Obama was going to be in Wall Street’s pocket–and that is exactly where he was, although he did pretend well to try to do for the People, while doing a lot for the Banks.  The first kink in Dodd-Frank reform came from Obama.

Obama and Hilary are less transparent liars. We should be grateful. We should not be impressed with Hilary’s mastery of speaking facts in and out of contexts to suit her corporate and banker interests; the Nazis were masters of using truth for nefarious reasons. I am astonished still that what we had to choose from was between Hilary and Donald, although you do have to understand that the lesser of the two evils in this context was the right choice. It’s just, we have failed to realize how so many people could have imagined Trump was the lesser of the two evils.

Yes, that is it. Hilary had so many strikes against her that there were many who could not vote for her and could vote for anyone other than her. But then this is the same Democratic Party, that with media aid, mocked or vilified Bernie Sanders as a socialist?  That explains everything there is to understand about how Trump won. If Sanders is a Socialist, then Trump is a freedom fighter? What are we talking about, saying, not thinking?




Written by jvr

November 14, 2016 at 10:21 pm

Closet Conservatives

with one comment

It seems for years that being closeted has not solely been reserved for those of the LGBT community who have not wished to–or more likely, felt (knew) they could not–disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity, including sexual identity (as well as sexual behavior), but certainly has become part of America’s Democratic Party’s own means of non-disclosure.

Closet conservatives, you could say Hilary and Obama were, of course too many will disagree, themselves having been swept up in the contemporary (or contempo-centric) rhetoric of America’s bi-nary political science. We love to play ping pong whether with paddles and table or no . . . I am not even so sure that any of US could say that either Obama or Hilary would have been moderate Republicans in another decade, when in fact we have accumulated enough evidence through actions of both and the policy support of each, to claim that both Hilary and Obama are more conservative than moderate Republicans from the 70s were, a decade in which the Republicans had members in its party that were Left of the line separating eternal political Liberal from eternal political Right.

Following me so far? Today, the entire Republican Party has shifted right of center, pulling the Democrats gravitationally(?) to right, whereby, a good portion of the Democratic Party is right of the line separating eternal political Left from eternal political Right. And we still wonder how Donald Trump could have happened? This is clear enough for me; Obama and Hilary would have been a  bit right of the moderate Republican dividing line, as far as my assessment is concerned, examining their actions, policies and words.

Yes, since the days of Hilary’s husband Bill, former President Clinton, and a building force within the party and its politics during the Reagan years, Democrats have moved ever increasingly, and monolithically I should add, to the Right. Perhaps this was a chosen response to the Republican Party’s move to the right and that party’s courtship of what once were fringe conservative pools in America, so much so that by the time Donald Trump ran for President, the Republicans had already moved so far to the right that Donald could only run as a non mainstream Republican by courting the insane fringe of the Right Wing.

But with Obama and Hilary being as right of eternal political center  as they have been, did the Democrats imagine that the Republicans would turn and come their way and meet in some middle or moderately right of center political dream world? Obama, Hilary and Bill would all have been at least moderate,leaning to centrist Republican (central positions in the Republican party of the 70s) . . .yes! more so mid-wing Republicans in the 60s or even maybe the 70s . . . but today, they are our shining Liberal stars. Yes, my fellow Americans, this is how we have come to Donald Trump and his dangerous buffoonery.

But the actual results of the election must not make us question the former wisdom of Madison. A national popular vote for President would be a mistake. The Electoral College System is the only one in the world in history that honors popular minority. Minority voice is also democratic, unless we want to say that the only viable minorities are those of color or those that the bureaucracy honors by giving special categories to . . . ?

The Electoral College also gives weight to smaller states that popular voting does not and cannot. Hilary won California by nearly 4.5 million votes—how is an election for President determined by California more democratic than one determined by a greater number of states won? No! Answer the question; don’t play the ping pong for entertainment value as our marketing obsessed media would prefer because it sells so much. This is not simply for rhetorical effect or flourish–please answer the question. Articulation is necessary; coordination and subordination is required. Sound bites are not welcome.

There is not and has never been one election to decide the Presidency–that is an invention of Television. There are fifty elections for President and that is just as democratic, if not peculiarly more so, than a one-person-one vote popularity contest without respect for State sovereignty–and do not get all reflexively anti-Confederate because we can speak of State Sovereignty because it is parcel in our Federal Republic with respect for dual sovereignty, one where the relationship between each state and the federal government is horizontal, not vertical.

We do live in our states, not in the Federal government. Our vocies are collected by state, not over-bearingly nationally as an Ayer’s Rock Vox Populi. Had Hilary won the election by the Electoral College and lost the popular election (the election was that close), the Democrats would be hailing the Electoral College as the hallmark of Democratic government. That’s why I have not liked, nor have I seen any real distinction between the parties for many years, and how I understand their disingenuousness.

Trump is the grossest kind of demagogue, base, crude . . . but Hilary was the Courtesan of the banks, and that’s not because she’s a woman. Obama was the banker’s b*&%$ and he’s a man. At this juncture, the Democrats are no less full of shit than they were when they blindly nominated Hilary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders, which is not to say I was convinced that Sanders was the candidate we needed. He was certainly preferable to Clinton, and one that was in tune with the People’s dis-satisfaction with Clintonesque Neo-Liberalism, as Friedmanesque as anything Regan envisioned . . . in fact, Bill Clinton attacked the New Deal more successfully than did Regan and was able to unhook the banks from restrictions and government impediments that lead to 2008 more directly than anything Regan or Bush II did or could have done. However, Hilary, in all of her oily heinousness, was still preferable to Donald Trump, and in this I am talking about the Stagecraft of Statecraft.

What is annoying to me is how the Democrats are as full of themselves as the mass of idiot Republicans, as much as any of those contemporary white or black or Asian or any other  liberal college kids full of slogans and cliches, full of propaganda and dogma, not reason or rational argument, literate and articulate.

Back in the 80s I wrote an essay calling for Party realignment, and it was then that I called for the right wing of the Republican Party to leave and reform the Conservative Party. I called on moderates in both parties to reform as a Democratic-Republican Party, and the Left of the Democratic Party to reform as the Liberal Party. It was a dog whistle; too few of my intelligent classmates in university went along with it.

The only intelligent response I got was from friends of mine who were here on student visas from Italy. Other than them, virtually every American college student I showed it to responded with lukewarm praise if any was forthcoming. I got mostly cold responses as if I had asked them to stick their fingers up their asses before eating dinner. I am not going to retrace my thesis as presented thirty years ago, but let’s say that I will in an upcoming issue of The Falling Leaf Review/ But in closing, let me say that from among my Italian friends here on student visas or other means of being residents from Italy,  the singularly most often asked question was not Why Americans are stupid, no; but, Why are American liberals so stupid? Yes, my fellow Americans of all color, of different races, various ethnicities, distinctive sexual preference, orientation, gender identification or reassignment, the question was not Why are American Conservatives stupid? . . . no, of course this was not the question . . . because for too many of them, as it has been for me, that question’s only response was prima facie. It was American Liberals they found too under-educated, too a-historical, too semi-lieterate to be called liberals. The chickens have come home to roost.

This conundrum of American politics I wondered, often being called conservative because too many of the so called liberal college kids in the late 80s and through the 90s and more especially through the new millennium, did not understand my critique of American Liberals and American Liberalism and my animosity for the Democratic Party, any more than too many conservatives could understand how I could be against the Democratic Party’s abandonment of the People, of the poor, the working-poor, the immigrant poor (as they had picked up that banner under the guidance of Al Smith and later somewhat, FDR, and peculiarly under LBJ) and not be with the Republicans. I have always disliked ping-pong and hop-scotch; I don’t play them, most certainly rhetorically or politically or metaphysically.

Written by jvr

November 14, 2016 at 5:53 pm

%d bloggers like this: