Trivializing Impeachment

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – The Democrats who hold the majority in the US
House of Representatives did their best to present their vote leading to the
start of an impeachment process, potentially leading to the removal of
President Donald Trump from office, as a solemn and sad moment dictated by the
gravity of the charges and the urgency of the constitutional crisis created by
a criminal president.

Solemn moment

With solemn voices accompanied by serious demeanor they told the nation that
while impeaching Trump is the last thing they wanted to do, they simply “had
to”
. The gravity of the situation left them no choice. They recognize
the profound implications of this move. They are fully aware that the US
Constitution contemplates impeachment as an extreme remedy for extreme
circumstances in which a president must be removed from power, without waiting
for the end of his four years mandate. But they had no choice.

Guardians of the Constitution

As they told America, in their constitutional role as guardians of our
institutions, the House Democrats could not ignore a president who has
deliberately and consciously broken his Oath of Office. On this Ukrainian
matter, he clearly abused his power as president, this way acting in open
disregard of the Constitution. And so the Democrats in the House, conscious of
their solemn constitutional obligations as public servants, simply had
to act.

Swift action

Furthermore, they had to act swiftly; because the evidence shows that this
president is busy engaging in unconstitutional conduct on a daily basis. He is
such a menace that he needs to be stopped, now, lest he
destroys the entire fabric of our cherished democratic institutions.

Exaggeration

Well, this narrative presented by the House Democrats is outlandishly
exaggerated. By inventing this notion of Trump as a monstrous creature living
in the White House, intent on shredding our American Constitution, the House
Democrats have turned this impeachment process into a farce. Many Americans
(may be most) have seen through this manufactured drama and concluded that this
impeachment process is nothing but “politics”, and not a
serious constitutional crisis, and so they have tuned out.

Real charges against Trump

Let me be clear. This is not an invented story. Ample evidence, now
corroborated by multiple witnesses who have first knowledge of the “Ukraine
military and economic aid matter”
conclusively proves that President
Trump tried to twist the arm of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, (by
threatening to withhold aid for Ukraine already voted by Congress), so that
Zelensky would commit to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, this way
helping Trump’s to get re-elected.

All this is beyond dispute. And it is bad. Really bad. It is most
inappropriate for any US President to mix the foreign policy of the United
States with personal electoral politics. President Trump acted most
inappropriately; and in so doing he tarnished his office.

Impeachable offense?

So, something bad happened and the president did it. However –and this is
the critical question– is this an “impeachable offense“?
The country is deeply divided on this. Most Democrats hate Trump as a matter of
course, and so they would like to see him gone, whatever it takes. Most
Republicans believe he is OK. The independents are divided.

That said, notwithstanding the anti-Trump media hype, most Americans who
live outside of the Washington, DC bubble do not care much about the complex
constitutional arguments dished out by legal experts appearing non stop on
cable TV.

The charge of “abuse of power” against this president for
most people is an abstraction that few are willing to dig into in order to
determine whether or not this particular instance of abuse rises to the level
of an impeachable offense that warrants removing a president from office,
especially when president Trump can be removed from office via regular
elections scheduled to take place this coming November. “You want to get
rid of Trump? Well, vote for the other candidate come November”.

For sure, most Americans would agree that they do not want “a
criminal”
in the White House. However, the “crime”
the president is accused of has to be something most people can relate to.
There is no clear majority that would agree that Trump’s conduct regarding the
whole Ukraine messed up affair clearly constitutes “criminal
behavior”
. Bad behavior, most probably; but not something that rises
to the level of an impeachable offense.

Inflated case against Trump

In other words, it is not that the House Democrats “invented”
a case against Trump. Far from it. There is plenty of evidence that there is a
case. Their political miscalculation has been to inflate the
dimensions of the “Ukraine story” up to ridiculous proportions.

Yes, President Trump behaves in an erratic, often bizarre fashion. He says
plenty of outlandish things. And in this Ukraine case he tried to use the
considerable power of his office to obtain from another head of state something
that would probably benefit him politically by threatening to withhold a large
package of economic and military aid duly approved by Congress that the
Executive Branch was obliged by law to deliver to Ukraine.

But to assert that Trump needs to be removed from office, RIGHT
NOW
, as opposed to allowing the voters decide in the upcoming November
elections, because the future of America as a viable constitutional republic
hangs in the balance, is silly.

No, we are not about to fall into an abyss. You may have plenty of reasons
to dislike Trump; but he is not in the process of dismantling the US
Constitution.

Impeachment trivialized

The end result of this rushed impeachment process based on significant
evidence of serious misconduct which however does not jump at you as obvious
criminal behavior is to have trivialized impeachment. Impeachment should be
viewed by all as an extreme remedy for truly extreme circumstances. And this is
not the case right now.

By labeling Trump’s abuse of power as an impeachable “high
crime”
, the Democrats ended up with the unintended consequence of
trivializing impeachment. Do not be surprised if in the future, whoever will be
in the White House, a hostile House majority will threaten to impeach another
president whom they profoundly disagree with.

I do not believe that the Founders decided to include impeachment provisions
in the US Constitutions as just another tool to fight inevitable political
battles. For that purpose we have free elections held at regular intervals.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the
President of the Global Policy Institute,
a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International
Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in
Washington, DC.




US Fiscal Irresponsibility Will Lead to Bankruptcy

WASHINGTON – The Democrats in Congress and Republican President Donald Trump agree practically on nothing. Therefore, it is impossible to think of any major piece of legislation that can be passed between now and November 2020, when Americans will go the polls to pick a new President and a new Congress and new political majorities may be formed.

Sharply divided government

Since the Democratic control the House of Representatives, while the Republicans control the Senate and the White House, and considering the increasingly toxic political climate that makes compromise impossible, we have not just a divided government. We have a sharply divided government. So, do not hold your breath. No significant legislative actions between now and the next presidential and congressional elections in November 2020.

The spending deal

That said, there is a huge exception –and a very shameful one—in this political stalemate. And that is federal spending. Very recently, and very quietly, Republicans and Democrats hammered a major spending deal. There was no fight. No public posturing to defend this plan and attack the other side spending priorities. No grandstanding.

Very quietly
the two arch enemies came rather quickly to a spending agreement. How so?
Because they decided to increase spending across the board. Essentially, the Republicans
got some more money for Defense. The Democrats got a bit of this and that in
other areas of non-defense discretionary spending.

Larger deficits

In case you
were wondering, these increases will not be offset by spending cuts in other
areas. This means that a large and growing US Federal Budget deficit, for
decades now a structural feature of our public finances, will become much bigger
much sooner than expected. Think of a $ 1 trillion billion deficit, (that is 1
thousand billion), year after year, unless something rather drastic is done.

This is a
colossal figure. In simple language, this means that Uncle Sam every year
spends more money –a lot more– than it takes in via tax revenues. In principle,
overspending could be justifiable; but only when the government goes into
overdrive with extraordinary fiscal stimulus in order to counter a major
recession, like the most dreadful one we had beginning in 2008. Borrowing money
could also make sense if the funds are to be invested in important capital
projects, (new highways, ports or airports, for instance), that would improve our
national infrastructure networks this way benefiting the economy. But we are
not doing any of this. Indeed, this is not money borrowed for stimulus or for
financing needed infrastructure. This is mostly money to be used to finance
current spending. In other words, as a nation, we are living beyond our means, while
we obviously think that we can keep our lifestyle by borrowing the difference –indefinitely.

Everybody knows

By the way,
everybody in Washington who is even remotely familiar with federal spending
trends knows this. But the fact is that nobody seems to care. The sad and
worrisome conclusion is that chronic overspending is now accepted by most Washington
policy makers –both left and right– as the normal way to run the government of
America, a major modern country which used to be run according to established
principles of fiscal balance. Namely: in the long run you should not spend more
money than you can raise through taxation. By the same token, if you have
accumulated a large public debt, you must change tax and spending patterns in
order to return to a healthy balance.

The roots of the US deficit and debt

Now, as to
the actual roots of this systemic overspending, obviously they are not in the
deal just struck by the two political parties. This recent deal just made a bad
situation a lot worse.

The roots of
US overspending are in the incremental but steady growth of large entitlement
program that cannot possibly be funded as they are currently structured, unless
taxes will be substantially increased and/or benefits reduced. 

No, US overspending is not about “fraud, waste and abuse”. It is not about too much foreign aid, as many believe. It is mostly rooted in our big federal entitlement programs. Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps and other related programs, absorb about 2/3 (yes, that is a lot more than half!) of the US total federal budget, currently at $ 4.7 trillion (again: a trillion is 1,000 billion).

Good programs designed in a different
era

The problem about these programs (most of them) aimed at providing for our senior citizens is that they were designed in another era, (Social Security goes back to FDR in the 1930s, Medicare goes back to the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was president).

Clearly that was a different America, with completely different demographics. The programs as designed were solvent and meant to be self-sustaining. But this is no longer the case. The way the system works, the payroll taxes paid by current workers and their employers go directly to fund the benefits for the retirees. The problem is that the US population is slowly shrinking, which means fewer active people are supporting the benefit for a larger number of retirees, while health care costs for seniors have been increasing. Simply stated, the programs are no longer self-sustaining.

Kicking the can down the road

This trend of the growing cost of entitlements, year after year, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget, is not news. This has been going on for decades. But lawmakers and presidents of both parties simply ignored the problem, in large measure because they believe you cannot tell the truth to the American voters. Even talking about serious reforms that would modify or potentially decrease benefits to retirees is deemed to be political suicide in Washington.

The Debt Commission recommendations went
nowhere

For example, back in 2010, then President Barack Obama created a bipartisan commission to review federal spending and make recommendations on ways to reduce deficits in the future. It became known as “The Debt Commission”.  The two co-chairmen were Erskine Bowles (Democrat), and Alan Simpson (Republican). These two elder statesmen took the job very seriously, without any partisan animosities. This was no Washington wishy-washy anodyne process marked by generalities and obfuscations. Indeed, their 59-page report was entitled “The Moment of Truth”. It included actionable plans to reform entitlements, while also raising taxes; so that these key programs providing needed benefits to millions of American retirees would remain solvent and available to all beneficiaries, now and in the future, without bankrupting the federal government.

Well, nothing, absolutely nothing, happened after the report was issued. President Obama, just like all the other presidents before him, did not want to kill his chances of re-election in 2012 by becoming “The president who killed Social Security and Medicare”. So, notwithstanding the serious work done by these two elder statesmen whom I consider true American patriots, no action to reform entitlements, defense spending and raise some taxes was undertaken under president Obama.

And, by the way, no action whatsoever under President Trump. Trump fully understands that his political is made up mostly of blue-collar white workers. And these are precisely the people who need these programs aimed at low income retirees the most.

How else could we save money?

Well, if we cannot reform costly entitlements, what else could be done to restrain public spending, this way reducing the deficits, and down the line slowing down the monstrous growth of the US national debt? Well, not much. “Oh come on, many would scream. We could start by cutting our gigantic defense budget!” Sure we could. But it would not solve our structural fiscal imbalance.

And by the way, believe or not, US defense spending is now close to a historic low as a percentage of GDP. Yes, while America spends more than $ 700 billion on the Pentagon, this large figure is only 3% of GDP. During the Cold War the US routinely spent close to 10% on the military. Which is to say that current defense spending levels are not an aberration.

While it may be possible to spend less or at least more wisely on defense, contrary to popular opinion, most of the Pentagon budget is not devoted to procuring new super expensive, unnecessary weapons. Most of the money goes to salaries (we must pay for an all-volunteer force), and operations and maintenance. This includes all that is needed to keep at least a percentage of a large force ready. Think of training, housing, food, deployments, fuel for an enormous fleet of vehicles, airplanes and vessels, and a lot more.

While we can and should have a sensible discussion about better ways to spend defense dollars, do not expect even significant savings to make a big difference. Indeed, our federal budget deficits are so huge that even if we abolished the Defense Department altogether, (an unlikely scenario), Uncle Sam would still be in the red.

Well, what about other areas of spending? Where else could we cut in order to achieve big savings? Well, no fat targets out there. As a percentage of total federal spending, transportation, energy, agriculture, commerce, and so on, claim relatively little money. Again, even if we abolished the Departments of Education or Energy, we would still run a large deficit. By the same token, cutting 10% or 15% here and there would impair basic functions without saving much money.

And do not forget another budget line item that keeps growing and cannot be cut. That is the interest on the existing national debt, now about 10% of total federal spending. To put it in perspective, this enormous number is about half of all defense spending.

Not on the verge of bankruptcy

To put all this in perspective, America right now is not –I repeat is not—on the verge of bankruptcy. Investors and foreign governments still eagerly buy our Treasury Bonds. They believe that America will be able to meet all its financial obligations.

Still, unless federal spending is seriously reformed –and by that I mean mostly a serious revision of our key entitlement programs, via a bipartisan agreement– we are definitely headed towards bankruptcy.

More money for everybody

If not today, pretty soon something drastic will have to be done. Either we cut spending, (remember: the fat target is entitlement reform), or we raise taxes, or a combination of both. But, right now, we are going in exactly the opposite direction.

With no public debate, and in a completely irresponsible fashion, our national leaders, in both parties, one year before the 2020 elections have decided that they want to tell voters that the free money party is still on. “Cheer up everybody! More spending, therefore more goodies for everyone: Mid-West farmers and Boeing”.

Deficits do not matter?

One last note. While our elected leaders act myopically to pursue the immediate goals of currying favors with the voters ahead of a major national election, at least some academics have come up with the bizarre “theory” that –guess what— in America federal deficits do not matter. When you have a country like the US that can borrow in its own currency, assuming tame inflation, large deficits are not an issue. According to these economists, Washington can just keep borrowing and borrowing and nothing bad will even happen. There are no limits. Apparently, our growing national debt (the cumulative result of chronic annual deficits) does not have to be paid back. Got that?

I would say
that if this preposterous idea is accepted as a sound foundation for managing
our public finances, then we truly deserve to go bankrupt.




Is There A Democratic Party Policy Agenda?

WASHINGTON – If you watch most of the cable news channels these days you get a steady diet of endless, in fact almost obsessive, commentary on what President Donald Trump said or twitted today, and what the seasoned analysts around the table think about it.

Endless coverage 

As President Trump relishes being unconventional and breaking all the established “Washington rules”, plenty for the experts to talk about. Fine. Except that this –Trump– is all they talk about. Which is to say that if you watch CNN or MSNBC what passes as “the news” is the endless effort to score the latest Trump outrageous tweet. And as different talk shows follow each other on the same cable news channel, the new anchor picks up exactly where his/her colleague left it and repeats the very same tweet of the day, and asks a different panel of supposedly savvy experts what we should make of it. The variations in all this are limited to the degree of (feigned I believe) amazement and/or outrage.

Again, this is not happening on occasion. This is now the standard offering throughout the 24/7 news cycle. Look, I do understand that the media has a duty to report on what the President of the United States says or tweets. And certainly, since Mr. Trump enjoys being unconventional and controversial, his statements give fodder for talk shows.

Is there a Democratic Party agenda? 

Still, my point here is that there is practically nothing else in the news. The one thing that is missing, probably because it does not really exist, is a thoughtful alternative policy agenda coming from the Democratic Party. Cable news shows do not report on it because most likely there is nothing to report.

And this is truly astonishing. We have an entire news media apparatus supported by scores of pundits who keep telling us that we have a strange President sitting in the White House who says and occasionally does unpredictable things, while the Republican majority in Congress is in (terminal?) disarray. And yet no alternative vision to this (apparently) unsatisfactory state of affairs is presented by the Democrats and discussed by the media.

Sit back and watch the Republican Party implosion

Are we to conclude that the Democratic Party strategy is just to sit back and watch the hoped for Trump implosion and the eventual dissolution of a Republican Party torn apart by incurable internal ideological battles? This may be a clever tactical approach.

But this is not a strategy for a national political force aspiring to govern the United States of America. Let us not forget that the Democratic Party in 2016 lost its momentum and ability to connect with millions of voters. It lost the White House to a complete outsider with zero political or campaign experience, and it failed to regain control of the Senate even though the odds favored it. Some party!

No compelling message in 2016

In 2016 the Democrats best hope was Hillary Clinton, a  shop worn, uninspiring candidate who represented a retread of the tired Clinton Brand. And, notwithstanding the Clinton machine open effort to game the system via the guaranteed support of the super delegates at the Democratic Party Convention, Clinton had to fight until the end against Bernie Sanders, a feisty old socialist whose astonishingly outdated policy agenda was all about redistributing (ill gotten) wealth accumulated by the demonized 1% in a more equitable way. That’s all the Democrats had to offer: Clinton and Sanders.

What’s the alternative?

Today, precisely because the Republican Party policy program seems confused and confusing, the American voters need to hear about a credible and thoughtful Democratic Party alternative agenda. It is OK for the late night comedy shows to use the latest Trump outrage as material for their jokes. This is fine. Political satire is healthy in a vibrant democracy.

Show America how the Democrats will govern

But the news media should stop this obsessive Donald Trump saturation coverage, while the Democratic opposition, instead of relishing the Republicans’ self-inflicted wounds, should rise to the occasion and offer a new and inspiring vision on how they intend to govern America.

As of now, I have seen none of that. And the reason for this, I suspect, is that the Democrats do not have anything new to say. And this is sad. A healthy republic needs a healthy debate on policy alternatives. Right now we have mostly noise.

 




Unhappy Americans Look for Culprits

WASHINGTON – The most visible impact of “The Great Stagnation” , (the title of Tyler Cowen’s book provides a good definition for this uninspiring economic era), is that many Western societies, including America, have lost whatever confidence they had in the ability of elected representatives to deliver steady economic growth, and therefore more prosperity. Hence a peculiar mix of revulsion and cynicism towards the “political establishment that failed”, and at the same time completely unrealistic confidence –almost blind faith– in would-be new, non traditional leaders who promise cost-free, total transformation –first and foremost the overnight rebirth of slow-moving economies.

Politicians do not deliver the prosperity they promised

Regarding popular sentiments in the U.S., just look at the stunning outcome of a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Only 24% of all American polled indicated that the country is moving in the right direction, while 70% believe that we are headed the wrong way.

The problem is that most people, looking for the causes of an anemic economy, now believe that their own personal economic misfortunes are almost entirely attributable to the errors and/or misbehavior of corrupt or incompetent political leaders.

Hence the delusional hope, in many cases absolute certainty, that if we finally “throw all the rascals out”, and replace them with genuine fresh talent, all will be well. Sadly, here we have a combination of bad diagnosis and delusional faith in an impossible cure.

Lack of innovation, constrained opportunities

As Tyler Cowen explains in his book referenced above, the developed world is going through a bad patch of slow growth due lack of innovation. This means that there are very few new economic opportunities created by new technologies.

In the meantime, most Western societies, the U.S. included, are suffering because of the negative consequences of globalization. With hundreds of millions of Asians willing to work for far less money, millions of steady manufacturing and services jobs held by so many Americans migrated to Asia. No chance that these jobs will be coming back. I mean not a chance. Which is to say that anybody who promises to “bring our jobs back” is dreaming, or worse.

Who is guilty of all this? 

Anyway, no matter what the real facts are, this is what millions of Americans believe. Number one: most U.S. voters have lost confidence in the political and policy-making process as we know it, mostly because “establishment politicians” are unable to deliver improved economic standards. Number two: large numbers of voters — large numbers; but not majorities– are willing to take a chance on untested would-be leaders (businessman Donald Trump on the right, and Senator Bernie Sanders on the left) because they are perceived to be “good outsiders”, not tainted by the corrupt Washington establishment; even though one should note that, just like the old establishment politicians, both Trump and Sanders also promise great things at almost no cost. In fact, these brand new would-be Chief Executives promise much bigger and better things.

So, here we have a really bad combination of disgust about what exists and childish fantasies about what the next happy chapter is going to be. It is clear that there would be no number two (escapist fantasies about great, flawless leaders), without number one (excessive pessimism about the current political establishment).

Loss of confidence 

Number one is serious business. Millions of Americans are now convinced that this country is run by an insiders’ game rigged by the special interests who pay for the election of candidates. Once in office, these puppets do exactly as they are told by their paymasters. The accepted story is that the innocent American people are fooled by nice stories told at election time; and then they get just a few crumbs that fell from the table, because all the goodies go to the crooks who paid for the elections of their corrupt representatives.

Disgusted voters 

While this is an exaggeration, there is unfortunately enough truth in this generalization, (think of the armies of Washington lobbyists, the “revolving door” always open for retired politicians who want to go into business, the PACs, the convenient tax exemptions), to generate and justify genuine disgust about the whole political process. And this is a real problem.

Let’s not forget that the peaceful self-perpetuation of the American Republic rests on the assumption that most people believe and will continue to believe that we have a legitimate, ethical system that operates in a transparent way, and that this system is run mostly by law-abiding office holders.

People feel cheated 

This is not the case anymore. People feel cheated because politicians dis not keep their promises. And there is some truth to this. Indeed, in order to get elected, most candidates for public office routinely promise that they will magically create millions of new jobs. But the honest truth is that elected officials at best can help create a more pro-business environment. No elected officials can create millions of jobs. Looking at our current predicament caused by aggressive Asian competition and lack of innovation, it should be clear that nobody can reverse new historic trends and major global shifts through legislation.

Politicians cannot fix this problem 

No U.S. Senator, Governor or President can reverse the rise of Asia, with its hundreds of millions of low-cost workers who get millions of jobs outsourced from the U.S. simply because Asian workers are happy with much lower salaries, and therefore are more cost competitive. By the same token, no U.S. President can prevent automation from killing hundreds of thousands of factory and now services jobs.

Promising the impossible is immoral. And yet all candidate do it, all the time. Voters believed those who in either party made the biggest promises. But now they do not believe them anymore, not because they understand the truth about “The Great Stagnation”, an epochal change that cannot be controlled, let alone reversed by elected officials; but because they believe that these politicians are personally responsible for their plight.

The accepted narrative is that the masses suffer because most U.S. politicians are in the pockets of the greedy 1% who want to grab everything. Unfortunately, most Americans do not really understand the true dynamics of globalization.

Rigged game

Most voters no longer believe in the establishment because now they are convinced that America is a rigged insiders’ game. According to the simplistic and yet generally accepted narrative, America is still very rich. The problem is that most of the wealth is stolen. Millions of Americans believe that Wall Street and major corporations are making huge gains by willfully sending jobs abroad, while all the cash goes to them, a tiny minority. Meanwhile, corrupt politicians paid by the special interests twist the system so that the greedy few will keep receiving even more, thanks to customized laws and tax provisions that favor the already ultra rich elites.

Throw everybody out 

Contemplating this ghastly picture, the disgusted voters are not asking for reforms. No, they decided that the entire establishment needs to be junked. And so, in this most unusual presidential campaign, they turned their attention and hope to outsiders, with blind faith that, once elected, these new leaders will step forward and fix everything, quickly and painlessly.

The fact is that the outsiders, if anything, make even bigger and therefore far more preposterous promises. But millions of voters are willing to believe them, because they appear to be “sincere”. Since they are outsiders, they are not tainted by Wall Street money, PACs, Washington lobbyists, and the dirty business of buying and selling votes. So, they must be real saviors.

There are no saviors 

Well, they cannot be. And this is has nothing to do with their intentions. It has to do with the limited reach of any public policy. As indicated above, we are going through a bad patch that is only in some measure the result of poorly designed laws and regulations.

Washington cannot make productive innovation happen by legislative or regulatory fiat. Washington can and should promote and support a pro-growth, pro-innovation, pro-business environment. But even assuming that we did this tomorrow, this would be no guarantee of success. Eventual success is about the drive and the ingenuity of smart people who will come up with new technologies, new products and new services. This is a highly desirable outcome; but it cannot be mandated by law.

Aspiring “Political Saviors” cannot and will not deliver prosperity just because they say they will. Unfortunately, this simple common sense message will not be listened to by people yearning for a panacea.

The old guard is out 

At this point, the infatuation is on, and the focus is and will stay on those who promise miracle cures. Sadly the traditional political forces are too discredited. Whatever sensible message about establishing a healthy distinction between realistic and unrealistic expectations they may put forward, they will not be believed.

And why? Well, because for decades they have been in the business of making exaggerated promises they knew they could not keep. For a long time they got away with over promising, because the economy was still growing. But now it isn’t anymore, and so nobody believes them. Hence the rise of the Saviors.




Angry American Voters Cannot Coalesce Around A Real National Leader

WASHINGTON – The American voters are angry and upset. They “feel” more than know that the country is losing ground. Many look at their own circumstances and see that they are not moving ahead in terms of disposable income and new opportunities. In fact, millions have been treading water, or lost ground.

The game is rigged

Right at this juncture, the same despondent and disgruntled Americans are told by aspiring national leaders that this is happening because a few clever scoundrels, domestic and foreign, rigged the game, (“Wall Street”, the 1%”, “large corporations”, “big oil”, “China”, “Japan”, you name it). The wealthy and powerful and our dishonest international competitors get all the financial gains squeezed out of a not so hot US economy, while the vast majority of the American people is left with nothing.

Confused people, confused politics 

All this –unhappy citizens and populist politicians promising quick and sweeping change– is coming together, (in a rather confused and disjointed way), in this election year.

The Republican Party, excluded from real power since it lost the White House in November 2008, decided that the best course of action was to tear itself apart.

There are some within the party who think that only a radical conservative revolution could save them, and the country. Motivated by this belief, they proceeded to attack all the “Establishment Republicans”, found guilty of having sold out. These are politicians willing to compromise with the other side, essentially traitors who need to be humiliated and defeated, so that the true orthodox principles can be restored.

But then there are many other Republicans who do not want to go back to first principles of pristine conservatism. They want something completely different. They want national leaders who are completely outside the existing parameters of professional politicians beholden to the “special interests’.

No more “Establishment Politicians” 

The net result of this confused political upheaval is that the (once respected) experienced candidates for the GOP nomination have been wiped out, simply because they are “same old”.

In his quest for the Republican party nomination, early favorite Jeb Bush, (twice Governor of Florida, and a recognized national leader in education reform), hardly registered anywhere. Despite enormous financial backing, and despite spending much of it on hundreds of expensive TV ads, he failed –miserably. So, he is gone. And so are all the others.

Who’s left standing? Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a right-wing populist, (ostensibly a
“true conservative”), and Donald Trump, a wealthy celebrity TV  personality, (he is the populist with no well-defined program, except for his promise to “change everything” in Washington in order to make “America Great”.)

Trump’s moment

The considerable (although not overwhelming) support Trump is getting represents the purest expression of a yearning for “something totally different”. Oddly enough, Trump’s main qualification for the highest office in the land, according to his supporters, is that he is a complete novice.

Indeed, the fact that he plainly admits that he does not know much about the complex policy implications of complicated issues is viewed by his supporters as refreshing. And they are not worried about electing to the highest office in the land someone who does not have governing experience. “Trump is rich. He is very successful. Therefore, he must be clever. Of course, he will figure out some common sense solution for this and that, once he is in the White House.”

This is where we are now 

That said, here is the odd (provisional, as we are months away from the actual nominations, and then the elections) outcome of the generic anger vented by the Republican base. The old guard (Walker, Bush, Christie, Jindal, and Rubio) has been attacked and discredited by the “revolutionaries” and wiped out. They all abandoned their quest for the Republican nomination. (Ohio Governor John Kasich survives as a contender. But his chances of getting anywhere are very, very low).

No national leader 

The yearning for total change promoted two potential candidates, Trump and Cruz. However, both of them have limited appeal beyond their grass-roots supporters.

In other words, this revolution produced  mostly internal disruption and feisty factional leaders. There is no new  Republican leader here with a good chance of getting real national support.

Disaster 

And here is why this odd season most likely will spell political disaster for the Republicans. Trump is the most likely Republican nominee. However, this is not due to his ability to attract broad-based support from a variety of Republican constituencies, hopefully extending it later on to millions of independents who will vote in the November general elections. No, this is due to the fact that he has a strong, but limited base of support among the “insurrectionists”, while the other more “traditional” candidates have been abandoned by the base.

Trump’s support at 40% looks a lot more impressive when the number two contender gets 18% and number three, four and five (when they were still in the race) were way behind, in single digits. Trump has won most Republican primaries. But usually with strong pluralities, hardly ever with clear majorities.

This is important. The fact is that Trump, although clearly on top, is not an exceptionally strong candidate. In reality he looks stronger that he is because very few primaries voters were supporting the other candidates. Again, getting 40% or even 45% of Republican primaries voters is impressive; but it is not good enough to win a national election in November.

High negatives 

But this is only half the story. The other half is that, while  40%  to 45% of Republican primaries voters are definitely for Trump, the rest of the country finds Trump an unappealing (or worse) choice. Trump has an incredibly high unfavorable score. According to the most recent polls, about 63% of all voters (this includes Republicans, Democrats and Independents) do not like him, while 30% like him. Many Republicans have stated that if Trump is the nominee they will not vote for him.

Trump will not get elected 

So, here is the thing. Trump in the end may get the GOP nomination because a large plurality of Republican primaries voters supports him, while nobody else has emerged who looks like a plausible alternative, not even number two Ted Cruz.

However, the support Trump is getting represents less than half of the GOP base, and 1/3 or less of the national electorate. If these polls do not change, nominating Trump spells defeat for the Republicans in November.

The Democrats have their own problems 

Yes, this would definitely be the case, if the Democrats would nominate a strong candidate. But guess what, they will not. In the Democratic Party we also see an insurrection against the establishment. But it played out differently.

The Republicans essentially “killed” the Establishment candidates and promoted populists like Trump and Cruz. The Democrats are still going with Hillary Clinton, their anointed “Establishment Candidate”; but many are having buyers remorse. Hence the rise of ultra-leftist Senator Bernie Sanders.

The surprising resilience of this most improbable challenger may be due to the fact that Clinton also has high negatives. She started with 40% and now she is at 54%. Not as bad as Trump. But not very promising either, for a national politician with a long CV, (former Senator and former Secretary of State), who wants to be President.

In what is now a two candidates race, Clinton is definitely ahead and likely to finish ahead. But it is astonishing that Senator Bernie Sanders, until yesterday a complete nobody who promotes idiotic ideas about wealth redistribution and “free everything” for the masses, has become a real challenger, with a massive national following and unsuspected fund-raising abilities.

Voting for a lunatic

Many Democrats go for Sanders as their way to show that they do not want Clinton, that is business as usual. They want someone entirely different. And, boy, is Sanders “different”. That he is.

However, the very notion that mature voters would vote for a left-wing lunatic who would destroy the American economy just to show that they are fed up with the Establishment represented by “Clinton Inc.” gives you pause.

Again, let me stress that Sanders’ chances of getting the Democratic Party nomination are really slim. Still, on a national basis, Democrat Sanders is getting millions of votes, while Republican Jeb Bush, an accomplished Governor with a real record, got almost nothing. But who is Sanders? What has he done? What following and national recognition did he have prior to these primaries? Notwithstanding years in national politics, practically zero.

Populists and lunatics

So, here is the thing. These days, populists (Trump) and lunatics (Sanders) are in. Experienced politicians, (granted some of them shopworn and fatigued), are out.

Just like what is happening in Europe, here in America voters are also upset and angry. They want immediate positive change (impossible in any democracy); and they are willing to vote for the clever (or unhinged) new aspiring leaders who promise it.

Dangerous immaturity 

Whatever the outcome of this confused political year, one thing is certain. The American society is not becoming more mature. Picking untested populists and “socialists” as the best people to run the most important country on earth is not a sign of maturity.

On the contrary, as these strange (frankly dangerous) political choices reveal, we are regressing into infantile temper tantrums, (“kick everybody out”), mitigated by foolish dreams of complete fixes magically carried out by super smart outsiders.

If this is the approach that most Americans these days have towards the political process, let me just say that emotions and childish dreams are a pretty lousy foundation for a functioning modern republic.