Anointing a new leader for the next cycle?

Transition, Transformation and Radical Thinking. 

 

Its been a while since the Reagan Presidency. Those who govern the United States tend to be immortal though. The friction between the business man/real estate mogul and the body builder/governor has got me thinking about the possibilities for the next cycle. It was easy to sense the tension in the air when Barack Obama took a few jabs at Donald Trump at the correspondents dinner in response to the birther controversy. But there is a little more or for those who understand the business man and his psychology. Those who have successfully taken him on, like the young lady (in the office of Attorney General) that was shown the door for refusing to adhere to the rules, tend to profit. Others like the democrat leader and activist from the sixties also usually have the benefit of making it big with their books sales after such encounters.
So will this attack on the governor bring about enough ill feeling to cause a call to the highest office in the land? Or is there still a chance to see a sufficient democratic response? The train has already left the station now the challenge for anyone who would seek to change that will struggle and part of DJT drive will be to find a link to those voices that cheered him on as he spoke. Normally the second part of your first term is sent trying to make sure you can get re-elected. You could see the struggle for the previous president as he sought to harness the energy of the crowds and as he dealt with the temptation to return into campaign mode. Governance and the pitfalls in the establishment are tough challenges so He will have to depend heavily on his inner strength for the energy to lead and rule. What will happen for some given DJT's leadership style is that most of the pressure will fall on his vice president and the cabinet. We might see similar moments as we saw right before the final vote when voices began to call for the vice to step up and take the place of his more aggressive boss. This was in response to the tapes that were released right before the people made their choice at the point when they were most vulnerable. The other group that will bear the brunt of this attack might be the Christians who are enjoying a revival of sorts at least in terms of the law which has been perceived as being on the whole against them.It kind of got uncomfortable when it was time to make some phone calls. If you look at the list of calls, each country, was in some way struggling with the question of indigenous natives of the land. Canada is still working on these issues which have made their way into the core of first nations people. Australia was also still healing wounds from its desire to expand its settlements with Aborigines. The Americans themselves are yet to even dream of having a discussion about the possibility of a First Nation's president. But those are the struggles of each power as it seeks to advance itself at the expense of another. The pipeline deal represents the possibility of progress but for another group it stands for the sacred land of the ancestors. Jobs and progress and the hope of investing in a big projects which often are useful in boosting the morale of the people and turning the tide after leaner times. There is also the unfortunate reality that wars often help boost economies around them especially those that take place on foreign soil. Besides we are still living in the shadow of a military industrial complex. Perhaps one of most amazing things about the tweeting head of state is that this kind of transparency has revolutionized the manner in which we think about open governance maybe even sooner or later contributing to the gutting often entire intelligence and diplomatic system.
But like we have seen there are difficulties to come and now the immigrants have to walk the thin line of protesting and expressing themselves while not holding the Country hostage.

League of Former 'Extraordinary' Presidents or precedents?

Transition, Transformation and Radical Thinking.

A leading news provider with a vast global reach recently had an interview with a former president. The interview was prompted by phone calls and a 'back and forth' between a sitting president and a delegation regarding a controversy about a wall between two countries kind of like what happens after the romance ends, and you no longer want to fight over the paying for the meal.
He casually and with a flair of 'french' words explained some of the reasons why the economic 'war talk' was going to be damaging for the U.S. There are three countries that formed the core of his argument. Mexico and China came up both which he said, had an advantage in terms of trade. The third was India which was different in that the advantage was of a different kind-an Import Innovative minds whose numbers form the core of silicon valley. Even if the excitement for BRICS seems to have diminished, i think that another country ought to be added to the mix to make it MBRICS (a term my East African friends will appreciate given the tendency and difficulty some of us experience when confronted with words that start with 'B').
So Mexico, Brazil, Russia, India,China and South Africa. Dealing with next door neighbors will be a challenge and will bring about a mix of feelings. What might be necessary though will be a deliberate decision (strategy) to split between the local experience and post independence ones which split the new liberated country and pitted it against the Spaniards, English and host of other free agents. There is a lot to celebrate about the influence of immigrants on such a core aspect of business in a leading country. What i think frightens some, is the difficulty Americans have in decided what it means to be American and where to place the responsibility of the defense of what it means to be American. Every battle or war has a wide range of recruits. Unfortunately the bigger often end up being foot soldiers while the more intelligent will fight yes, but are more likely to sail through and function in a mental arena. Maybe the same principle works for other less obvious areas especially in the unconventional wars that have been a significant marker for the last two decades. While some will sacrifice for the cause in a physical manner others will engage with as much vigor and patriotism except this time expressing this in an intellectual space. How you deal with a group that is just as radical and authoritative but whose sole purpose it to perpetuate a different way of thinking?
How much time will it take to demonstrate that promises delivered during campaign mode and now within the one hundred days of executive orders form a solid enough demonstration of a 'draining of the swamp'. How should people separate between two distinctively different expressions of an executive? How much will be attributed to the Harvard Law Graduate and his tenure from bailouts to health reform to the confrontation with Wall Street? Maybe the orders which have been a direct response to a more liberal presidency and therefore a reversal of these changes will help in defining the rest of the first term but my guess is that instead it will impede the progress and agenda of the Business man eating into the time he needs to engage with his own agenda.

The American debates as we heard them.

The crowds of republicans are gone including those who I thought would make more formidable foes to a democratic party in search of another term. Cannot help but wonder if a Biden Bid would have made more sense. I suggested before that a look into a previous battle between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rick Lazio would have been helpful in creating a strategy for the Republican Candidate. I hope you listened. In the meantime there were plenty of metaphors and useful insights from election watchers of days past that will help inform or at least add to this web log. 

A boxing match. 

If this was a match then it was a nasty fight. All civility was lost after about twenty minutes in the ring. Ears were bitten and blood was spilled. We did not hear as much as we needed to hear about the very important issues. What we heard was an exchange in which both candidates sought to soil each other. One candidate seemed or have been more resigned to their position and was therefore more keen to prove that their adversary was just as soiled if not more. As the days have passed the media seems to have moved in with more stories helping buttress the real estate guru in his position-where he firmly claims to be on the receiving end of mainstream media and its biases. This while managing to attract free advertising and attention from a media that others have had to send gazillions for coverage and ads. 

Body switches. 

It was not clear who was who. At some point it felt like the two candidates had switched bodies. But this is politics. You have to have the ability to blow smoke out of both sides of your neck. You have to depend on short term memory of those who matter while pushing away the long term memory of those who have the power of influence. We have has shift in directions that have made us look like colonies of the USSR as we have championed causes closer to socialism and communism that were previously unimaginable. Try this in the early and late fifties and you would have faced the same challenges as MacArthur? 

But these are challenges that are unique to our generation with its massive young and tech savvy populations with movements such as black lives matter, the 99 percent as well as the tea party making a comeback or at least their presence known. 

Sounds and sights? 

Other insisted that it was better to hear the debates than watch them. This was decided for me when my provider decided to pull the plug at 3:30 AM right after I had made myself comfortable in preparation for debate night. So I listened courtesy of the BBC. The same media group took quite al to of criticism for not availing it's massive crowds the full 90 minute debate instead giving 30 minute chunks. So I listed to sniffles which were later explained away as microphone sabotage. As can be expected the female card was used extensively to Mrs. Clinton's advantage. We heard some evidence of the Trump charm, "...i want you to be comfortable". 

Junior High or Kinder? 

We expected a little more about what we in these parts think are very important issues. The army and veterans issues, health care, retirement, job creation, race issues and challenges, immigration reform, foreign policy, economics with an emphasis on international trade, Canada, Mexico and South America, The Drug Trade. Instead we got something similar to what would take place in a class room between two young children where they for a moment forgot the issues and hand and instead went after each other on things as simple as hairstyle and who was dating who and cheating on who. 

Pacesetters and front runners

In a season when athletes are taking centre stage, I cannot help but think about the five and ten thousand meter races. These metes often have to be governed by pacesetters. These are usually experienced but retired runners who are paid to make sure that the participants stay within a time frame. These times are flashed across the screen and at specific points in the race to make sure that the runners can achieve goals and if need be break records. 

I think this is a fitting description for the race to the white house as it stands. There have been few front runners who have sailed right through the initial party nominations all the way to the 'finals' in most cases, were shielded by the rest (like migratory birds in flying in formation) only to emerge towards the end to achieve the victory. 

So while encouraged by the appearances and attention drawn by Hillary Clinton on the democratic side and Donald Trump on the republican side, there is a possibility that all they are doing is setting the pace for the rest of the runners. 

It is also interesting to note that a ten year anniversary of the Katrina 

disaster (a hurricane that ripped through the State State of Louisiana and possibly turned the tide of the U.S public opinion) has brought about the appearance of the former presidents club of Bill Clinton (D) and George Walker Bush (R). Strategic because both pulled off a controversial eight year terms and both are bound to support the bids by close family members Jeb Bush (R) and Hillary Clinton (D). 

The pacesetters have therefore helped bring certain issues to the fore. 

While the end of the first of two presidential terms is often useful in creating some breathing room, it also presents a shift of thinking focusing on legacy. The battles to cripple the presidency (using shut downs and jerry-mandering) were a mark of these eight years and have been further amplified by determinations by the bulk of the republican candidates (aspirants) to reverse by decree many of this current presidents rulings. 

So the return to Louisiana is significant because it involves the passage back in time where the Republicans can attempt to reclaim their southern territory (bible belt) while the democrats prove their worth and demonstrate to the people in the south that the choice of change was the right decision. In my view, both parties being political animals have to defend their claims using some of the most valuable pieces in their arsenal. 

But while this is significant, these are not the issues at the centre of race as it stands and as presented by the media. 

But this weeks appearances of the 'former presidents club' have placed these two presidents into part of the pacesetter groups if only vicariously. 

We have not engaged directly with Hillary Clinton but she seems to have benefitted from the media attention...or at least she should try to. Maybe a key to this race for her campaign will be in returning to the battle between herself and Barack Hussein Obama and sifting through the noise to see why his version of change was more preferable to her version of the same. Him being an African American and her being a woman (both beneficiaries of constitutional amendments for civil rights and suffrage). 

My guess is that his subscription to the change message worked both against the republicans (and his views regarding their failures) as well as against his democratic foe (who by being in the white house for eight years-albeit as wife, was also viewed as being part of the establishment). 

The battle for the nomination is complex enough for party members and at some point the needs of the whole must be sacrificed for the one. Which is why the entrance of 16 participants in the republican race is such a challenge to call. 

Part of the battle could end up being for the house and for the senate especially if the white house is offered on the altar of sacrifice. But the brutality of coalitions is something few of us want to see. 

Immigration, Race relations in general, The economy, U.S foreign policy, Gun control.