Following modern politics is always an interesting occupation.  Take the latest article I read explaining how to effect a shift in power in Washington.

The question presented was, what would it take for the Democratic Party to win again?  “And again, it comes back to class,” was the answer.

Now, I don’t doubt the truth of the statement necessarily.  But the argument to get there was concerning!  At one point, the idea was that they should learn from the success of Trump.  Trump “won whites of all genders, all ages, all incomes and all levels of educational attainment.”  He did it by appealing to the anti-establishment, anti-elitist feelings of the people.

For a Democrat, obviously that won’t work.  But a review of history gave the author the answer.  As the title proclaimed, “Democrats used to campaign on class — and win. It’s time to do it again.”

Of course, the Democrats have complained for months now that Trump is tearing the country apart by sowing disunity.  But nothing tears a country apart faster and more deeply than class warfare, as it uses both economic and cultural forces to pit one group against another.  And unfortunately, the author is correct: the Democrats have used class warfare to win since at least 1932.  Since FDR, the Democrats have based their campaigns on economic (i.e. Marxian style) class warfare, not caring a wit for its destructive results.

Whether self-consciously or not, Trump’s rhetoric has been based, not on economic class warfare, but on political class struggle.  It’s a case of everyone – rich, poor, black, white, male, female – against the “in” crowd, against the politically connected elite.  For those who have no political pull, who are net payers of tribute (to use the old word for taxes) to the denizens of Washington, Trump was the voice they hadn’t had in many decades.

That most political pundits haven’t figured this difference out yet does not bode well for the country.  The Democrats will most likely become even more divisive in upcoming elections.  The Republicans, from all I can see, either don’t really understand this, or are clearly aligned with the political elite.

Both types of class conflict destroy a nation/people.  But ending the political class would allow the common interests (both economic and cultural) of the people to start a healing process, to forge a common unity again.  Continuing the economic class warfare will lead to a torn, “Balkanized” society, like France after 1789.  At this point, it’s hard to tell which direction we are going.

(reference was to https://frontier.yahoo.com/news/democrats-used-campaign-class-win-time-090031609.html.  Accessed 10/27/17)

“Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” Trump wrote.  Sasse responds, ““Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the 1st Amendment?”

Now let’s see.  Trump’s suggestion was based on using the government’s regulatory approval process to shut people up.  There’s nothing constitutional about that licensing process.  [“NO law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” the Constitution says.]  So Sasse’s response is criticizing Trump for using a non-constitutional means to shut up the media?  I doubt that’s what he meant!

The criticism is that Trump should protect the constitution by defending – but not using -the unconstitutional regulatory licensing currently in place.  If licensing is right and constitutional, then why isn’t it’s use by Trump also right and constitutional?

In essence, Sasse is saying, preserve free speech by allowing the infringement of free speech to remain in effect.

Trump’s tweet leads down a dangerous path.  But Sasse’s response proves the adage that a weak defense is to play into the enemy’s hands.  Few people are better at that than the so-called Republican conservatives!  (Note that the true answer to Sasse’s question is, “No, I recanted my oath when I did not immediately eliminate the FCC on my first day in office.”)

It is time to renounce ALL forms of government control over free speech and a free press!

 

Time after time, we are faced with clear evidence of how economic regulations hurt people, benefiting some at the expense of others.  Mostly, people shrug and turn away, or turn back to their sports channel.

The latest episode that brought the issue into sharp relief was the Jones Act as it relates to Puerto Rico.  The Jones Act (the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) requires all goods shipped between American ports to be on ships built, owned and operated in the United States.  The idea, obviously, is to grant a quasi-monopoly status to American shipping, allowing them to raise rates (and pay) by limiting competition.  Those hurt include those shipping items and those buying shipped goods.

It is customary, in times of great distress, for the government to suspend the law for a while.  However, after Puerto Rico was hit by the latest hurricane, the government refused to waive it.  Howls of protest went up – and rightly so.  It is unconscionable to add injury to the devastation that had already happened.  Senator McCain complained that the Jones Act was doubling the cost of recovery.  After a short while, President Trump did allow the law to be waived, but only for a short while.

But why is it any more ethical to take money from consumers in Puerto Rico and give it to the American maritime forces during good weather than it is immediately after a storm?  Both cases are acts of theft, pure and simple, regardless of what term the government uses.

The same thing happens when an area is made a tax-privileged zone. It is a clear admission by the government that their taxes are a harmful, destructive force against business and workers.  Taxes are lowered or eliminated for a while until a business can get established, then they are raised.  It reminds one of a vampire guzzling less blood from its victim for a while, allowing the victim to regain some strength, then resuming its efforts to suck the life blood from the victim.  But again, few care, as long as the “bread and circus” continues.

The Bible and ethics demand that neither the rich nor the poor be granted special privileges, a “favorite status.”  It’s time the law caught up with a correct interpretation of ethics.