2016 Election: Devolution is Real!

This year will be the seventh time I've voted in a Presidential election since my first in 1992.

And besides the 2000 election, this will be the most significant and consequential contest in my lifetime.

The main reason being that four Supreme Court Justices will be in their eighties by 2020, so it's likely that at least one could be replaced by the incoming President, potentially shifting the court's balance of power.

But that's not all... 

In my lifetime, a Democrat has never succeeded a Democrat to the Presidency.

Think about that.

Republicans did it with George H.W. Bush succeeding Reagan, but Democrats never have.

We came close in 2000, but the 5-4 split favoring conservatives on the SCOTUS at the time prevented that.

Just think how different the aughts would have been with Gore succeeding Clinton:

No war in Iraq.  No tax cuts for the upper 1%.  A continued focus on Al-Qaeda that may have prevented 9/11.  An administration that would have made global climate change and research into renewable energy a priority.  Government agencies run by competent directors like James Lee Witt who showed what a helpful resource FEMA could be when natural disasters like hurricanes hit during the Clinton administration.  Imagine how different the response to Katrina would have been...

In other words, a Gore administration would have been a continuation of many of the programs and policies that showed government could function for the American people.

Alas, the 2000 election was very consequential.

Now don't get me wrong, neither Clinton nor Gore were perfect...

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Mass Incarceration, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (to name a few things) all happened under Clinton/Gore and were quite antithetical to liberal/progressive interests.

As a matter of fact, it was quite common during Campaign 2000 for liberals like Frank Rich of the New York Times and myself (at the wise old age of 27) to declare there to be absolutely No Difference between Candidate Gore and Candidate Bush, and so therefore, Go Nader!

Sigh...

Which brings us to the 2016 Presidential Campaign and the fight for the heart of both major political parties.

On the left we have an unapologetic Socialist versus an unapologetic Centrist.

I've read articles making the case for Sanders and articles making the case against him.

Each side has liberals I respect making their cases (Chomsky and Krugman, respectively).

But each of these articles were written prior to last night's Democratic town hall non-debate in Iowa.

And while what I saw may not change my primary vote, it certainly displayed each candidate's strengths and weaknesses more starkly.

Sanders' strengths speak to my progressive heart.  He is willing to forcefully call out the most destructive force this country has seen in my life time, income inequality.  He puts these values in action by not accepting SuperPac monies and is still competitive thanks to his ability to motivate the grassroots.  He has a consistent record of fighting for progressive interests, and his populist appeal excites people much like Obama did in 2008. 

Clinton's strengths speak to my pragmatic heart.  She's spent most of her political life on the national stage and has not withered or wavered.  She's a survivor.  She embodies public service despite 30 years of acrimonious, sexist, and demeaning attacks.  She has unimpeachable (sorry) foreign policy experience and has worked with leaders around the world for many years which means she's ready to go on day one, not needing any on-the-job training.

So I'm vexed. 

On the right, the rise of Trump shows us absolute, irrefutable proof that DEV-O were/are right:

Devolution is real!

And a President Rubio or Cruz as an alternative doesn't exactly disrupt our descent either.

Consider their crazy tax plans (and please keep in mind that conservatives routinely bemoan the size of both our national debt and deficit):

Trump's plan would cost $9.5 trillion over ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Rubio's plan has "$6 trillion dollars of unfunded tax cuts," over ten years, according to Paul Krugman.  (Update:  $8.2 trillion according to CNN Money)

Cruz's plan is by far the most radical, with estimates ranging from the more "conservative" cost of $8.6 trillion dollars to the more "liberal" estimates of $16.2 trillion over ten years!

Just for a frame of reference, during the first Bush/Gore debate, Bush proposed $1.3 - $1.9 trillion dollars in tax cuts (depending on whether you used Bush's or Gore's numbers), and that was when our government was running a surplus!

We all remember how well our economy did after Bush cut taxes, and we got those $500 checks...

Obama has spent the last 7 years slowly but steadily fixing an economy Bush helped wreck.

But Democrats must pull off an historic win this November in order for our country to continue to reap what Obama has sewn.

Republicans winning the presidency would mean a government completely run by one party and the work of the last 8 years undone.

Can our country survive Republicans gutting the government again?

I love that the Sanders Campaign has kept the message of income inequality in the media since OWS.

That's awesome and commendable.  The issue affects all Americans every day.

But this election is about more than one issue...

Actually, I take that back.

But the one issue is which candidate can prevent President Trump?