Date: January 25th, 2017 4:42 PM
I tell you:
"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who
has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War
was a mistake.
He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and
other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will
repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits
should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free
trade, fair trade!, he'll say.
On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority
to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they
will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is
on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create
jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite
pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to
stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."
"That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know,
some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to
bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs
can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a
little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country!
Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about
health care?"
I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come
out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on
prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care
reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with
preexisting conditions.
He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and
medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.
Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government
spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our
national infrastructure.
He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.
Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for
civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with
gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his
rallies."
At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."
In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.
"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he
wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further
illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall
is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants
already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+
illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about
illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the
most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American
workers."
In response to this, you might say that you need to see the
specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point
about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was
within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even
the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants (
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"
"Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to
make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and
say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."
Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day,
you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way
these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another
Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when
weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier.
Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."
"Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to
say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that
people are really not going to like."
"Like what?" you'd ask.
"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that
will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . .
are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way
possible [and] I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to
help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"
"Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone
willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible
conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in.
If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem.
I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"
At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could
try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably
realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017
is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7
-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or
"the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and
clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't
do it here. So I switch gears.
"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going
to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and
the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but
still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks
came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on
immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can
establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."
You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to
see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll
just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about
this guy...."
At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering
the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter
schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas,
seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.
You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't
have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017,
but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really
going to more than double between now and 2017?"
"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.
"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the
middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to
try and clean that up."
"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid
history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say
he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations.
There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running
for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"
(Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the
Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound
like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that
six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."
"Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's
pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was
pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the
pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."
This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe
it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those
other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like
this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even
as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"
"Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.
That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy
is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on
abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good
to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and
2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from
George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going
to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with
a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really?
OK, wow."
At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to
learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while
waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458197)
No comments:
Post a Comment