Why the Democrats Vote in Lockstep and the Republicans Often Resemble a Circular Firing Squad

Prologue

After going through the process of thinking through and putting in readable text the logic behind the answer to this question I realized that it would be helpful to ask another question that is addressed at the end of this paper. That question is: would the Mueller Russian Investigation and the overwhelming obsession with Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential election have occurred if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 Presidential election? In effect, the evolution of the obsession with Russia and the Mueller investigation demonstrate many of the observations and that are drawn throughout this paper and especially at the end. The simple answer is obvious and when coupled with the underlying philosophical make up of the political left and the political right, the inevitable expansion of political bias within Federal agencies becomes apparent. This prologue is followed by a discussion of the philosophical differences between Republican and Democrats that sheds light on the actions, messaging and tactics of both parties over time and explains why the creation of the Mueller Investigation should not be a surprise to anyone. The final section returns to the question posed in this prologue (along with the obvious answer) and ends with some very notable and relevant Winston Churchill quotes.

Democrats vs. Republicans – Philosophical Differences and Tactics

The answer to the question posed by the title of this paper rests primarily on the basic philosophical underpinnings of the two parties and to a great extent how the evolution of the parties has amplified their differences. The philosophical foundation of the political right’s vision of the optimal economic and political structure of society rests on the universally recognized superiority of the free market and the freedom of the individual to pursue his or her personal interest and goals. In the eighteenth century, Adam Smith, in his seminal work, the Wealth of Nations, recognized the efficiencies gained by the pursuit of individual profit and success with his theory of the “invisible hand”. The dominance of the individual and the freedom to gain from efficiencies associated with his or her insights and efforts is the invisible hand that Adam Smith perceived to be the major driving force in a free market environment. It was this concept and his approach to productivity, markets and limited government in an orderly, well policed free market environment that formulated the basis of classical economic theory.

In contrast, the political left’s ideal world is one in which the effective political structure and economy is dominated by government directives, central decision making and collectivism in all aspects of everybody’s life. Karl Marx in his major works, the Communist Manifesto (with Friedrich Engels) and Das Kapital, which together constituted the backbone of the socialist/communist movement in the nineteenth century, espoused the labor theory of value and the inevitable success of a unified classless social structure. His hard line socialist/communist dogma identifies central decision making as the ultimate economic/political structure. The efforts of the individual are subordinated to the common good and, for the most part, the socialist/communist movement has one primary goal, moves in one direction and speaks with one voice. The ultimate goal specified by Marx and the socialist/communist movement has always been to replace the free market system as spelled out by Adam Smith with centralized decision making by a collectivist central government. We should all beware, when listening to left wing politicians, as they parse their words in a stump speech, that regardless of how strongly they may profess to support the free market system, “socialistic free market” is an oxymoron.

It should be noted that Marx’s work is more philosophical in nature than economic, and that his predictions regarding revolution and the goal of a classless social structure will remain at least somewhat relevant as long as the level of social and economic inequality is substantially skewed. It must also be noted that a vast number of left leaning Democrats, who would identify themselves as socialists, tend to be zealots, which is to be expected from members of a movement whose goal is to change the existing political structure and social order. Proponents of the free market and small non intrusive government are individualistic by nature and are not part of an organized movement striving to replace an existing political and economic structure

Even though the Democrat Party during the twentieth century was more left leaning than the Republican Party, the dichotomy between the parties was not as severe as today. There were centrists in both parties and at times the two parties’ voting patterns overlapped in the center and even appeared to have minor similarities. The divergence of the two parties in the twenty-first century has increased substantially with the Democrat Party retreating almost entirely from the center and the Republican Party experiencing an influx of working class voters that historically voted Democrat (except for during the ‘Reagan’ years). The further left the Democrat party evolves, the more the party will be dominated by zealots and the more unified the party will be in both words and actions.

As discussed above, it is apparent, based on their philosophical underpinnings, that Democrats as a whole can be expected to be far more singular in their actions and goals than Republicans. They circle the wagons to protect their important comrades and vote in a block with little if any breaking of the ranks. A good example of this is the refusal by Loretta Lynch, one of the Attorney Generals in the Obama Administration, to recuse herself regarding an ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton, even though she had met with Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton surreptitiously prior to the 2016 election. At that point in time, with Hillary running for president as the Democrat candidate, the Clintons were very important to the Socialist cause and not expendable. On the other hand Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General in the Trump administration quickly recused himself for far less cause relating to the Justice Department’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Because the major agenda of the Republican Party is to encourage economic growth within an existing free market system, with a small government that is a referee and not a player, the party is not driven by a movement aimed at radically changing the existing social and economic structure of the country. Without the glue supplied by a movement, such as described above, members of the Republican Party act more as individuals who, in addition to their basic support for the free market system, have various agendas that are not always in unison. Consequently, members of the Republican Party are often in disagreement both in policy detail and style, and every so often, resemble a circular firing squad as demonstrated by the first two attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act during the summer of 2017. The further left the Democrat Party leans, the harder it is to distinguish significant policy differences among the various Democrat Senators Congressmen and major supporters (e.g. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and George Soros).. The Republican Party, on the other hand, exhibits unfortunately timed disagreements in policy detail among a number of its major players coupled with an ongoing battle of egos (e.g. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Jim Ryan, Mitch McConnell, George Bush, Mitt Romney and John McCain).

Recent activity of the Democrat party (during Q3 and Q4 of 2017) has demonstrated that they are quick to utilize tactics associated with the socialist movement as laid out by Saul Alinsky in his1971 book “Rules For Radicals”. One of the primary tactics listed by Saul Alinsky is to label your adversaries, paint them in the most negative manner possible and keep the pressure constant. It is clear that within the socialist movement no individual or group of individuals is bigger than the movement. The moment that you lose prominence and are no longer able to help advance the movement toward its ultimate goal you become expendable, especially if your political demise is deemed to be politically beneficial to the overall effort to label the opposition and to achieving their ultimate goal.. The Clintons, after Hillary’s devastating loss in the 2016 presidential election, became vulnerable. Minor players, such as Al Franken and John Conyers, are vulnerable in that it is perceived by the major players in the Democrat party that “throwing them under the bus”, affords them, in coordination with the media wing of the socialist movement (most of the press and media), another avenue to attack Republicans by labeling them as misogynists and other despicable characterizations while they themselves profess to take the high road.

When Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election, the Democrat party clearly exhibited an apoplectic behavior pattern, which intensified steadily through the first year of his presidency as he proceeded to undo many of the socialistic policies the Barrack Obama worked so hard to impose on the American economic and social structure. Donald Trump’s propensity to be a showman, without any filter or apparent long term strategy in his tweets, have allowed the media to constantly propagate negative coverage of his administration and himself regardless of the accuracy of their pronouncements. Even though Donald Trump’s aggressive use of bumptious tweets to circumvent the media is a major irritant to both the Democrats and the media (and sometimes to me when a tweet has served no useful purpose), their true deep seated anger stems from his ongoing agenda to undo the legislation and regulations that have been steering the economic and social structure of the country toward the socialist model. The ongoing efforts of the socialist movement (starting with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal) have been relentless and have been slowly, but steadily, shifting the country left. Donald Trump, in a somewhat blusterous manner (in contrast to Ronald Reagan’s more elegant demeanor), has stymied the socialist progression, at least temporarily, and in the process has generated resistance from the left that has been ferocious.

At some point in time, it can be expected that the Republicans will borrow some of the Democrats’ tactics to promote their message and agenda as well as the Democrats. In order to do so they are likely to copy some of the tactics espoused by the socialist movement as outlined in Saul Alinsky’s playbook. First, just as the left uses the labels of racism, anti women and anti immigrant, the right could more aggressively and persistently label the left as part of the Marxist Communist/ Socialist movement as well as anti free market, anti entrepreneur, and anti American factory workers. Copying the Democrats, every facet of social media would have to be utilized in a “full press manner” to maintain constant pressure on primary targets and messages. Second, even though the Republicans have finally begun to circle the wagons (early in 2018) around the important members of their party regardless of whether or not they are universally popular, they can be expected to do more so in coordination with aggressive messaging as discussed above. A good example of aggressive “circling of the wagons” as referenced earlier is the actions of Loretta Lynch (when she was the Attorney General) when she protected the Clintons by not recusing herself in an investigation where she exhibited blatant bias, and by mandating that the subject investigation of Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State be referred to as a matter rather than an investigation. The Republican Party can be expected to be more aggressively protective as the midterm elections approach and their popularity increases as main stream Americans experience higher paychecks as tax cuts are implemented

Politics and Investigative Agencies – An Unfortunate Toxic Mix

The Inference to be Drawn From the Prologue Question’s Answer

Highly correlated to the topic of this position paper is the Mueller investigation referenced earlier. In order to avoid appearing to being influenced by political talking points I have chosen not to find fault with a hypothetical non-politically driven investigation into Russian meddling in presidential elections. It should be noted that the Russians have always been meddling in every election on a worldwide basis where they perceive such meddling to be beneficial to their interests. Any effort to investigate Russian meddling in U.S. elections should be directed at prevention without any of the political nonsense that shrouds the Mueller Investigation. Linking the Trump administration to this investigation has the pungent odor of political manipulation.

Referring back to the Prologue, the answer to the question posed in there is NO! The entire question of Russian interference in the 2016 election would have been summarily glossed over if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Anybody that doesn’t already know that Russia has been trying for years to manipulate opinion and political discourse in the United States and everywhere else of economic relevance is totally myopic. Anybody that doesn’t realize that the United States has behaved similarly in selected situations is also totally myopic. Any effort to determine if Russia has meddled in any U.S election is a waste of time because we have been aware of their spying and meddling for decades. Determining how to prevent or minimize such activity has merit. Regardless of the rhetoric and media’s hysteria trumpeting collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, the American Left’s political manipulation of the Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election has only benefited the Russians and the Democrat party. Both the Russians and the American Left have succeeded at least to some extent in pushing their agendas. The Russians, with help from the American left have been able, at least to some extent, amplify political discord in the U.S. and the left leaning Democrat Party and their allies buried in Federal Agencies and everywhere in the national media have been able to bog down the FBI, Justice Department and Congressional committees in countervailing efforts relating to alleged (and highly unlikely) Trump Administration ties to Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election. The Democrat Party must be extremely proud of their successful efforts to maneuver President Trump’s political naivety, Republican inability to ‘circle the wagons’, Trump’s political missteps (e.g. timing of his firing of Comey, which should have occurred immediately following the inauguration), and his numerous unedited (counterpunching and often poorly aimed) tweets into an investigation with a bulls eye placed squarely on the back of President Trump.

Much of the pungent odor of political manipulation emanating from the ongoing push to link the Trump Administration to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election arises from ability of the left to manipulate the implementation of Federal agency functions and messaging from within jurisdictional Federal agencies. This situation should not be a surprise to anyone. As discussed in detail earlier in this paper left leaning Democrats espouse a socialistic economic structure with government (public sector) control of major aspects of the national economy, whereas right leaning Republicans associate with the private sector of the economy. For those basic philosophical reasons Republicans overwhelming tend to find employment in the private sector while Democrats significantly outnumber Republicans in public sector positions. It would be massively naive to believe that left leaning public sector employees’ work output would not be biased by their philosophical beliefs and that they would not bend policy in the direction of their preferences whenever they can. As is well documented we have ample evidence that much of the impetus leading up to the Mueller Investigation received more than a few helpful nudges from well positioned left leaning public sector administrative employees.

Earlier today (02/17/18) the news media was ablaze with the Mueller Investigation announcement of thirteen individual indictments of Russian citizens and three businesses relating to Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Such pronouncements are as enlightening as declaring that the ‘Sun Rises in The East’. Given the open nature of our free market system and the relatively easy access to social media in the U.S. the number of foreign players trying to influence American elections can be expected to be greater than one. It is completely unrealistic for anyone to believe that Russia is the only foreign player. Russia and other foreign entities have been meddling in American politics both openly and surreptitiously for years. Isn’t it curious that only now these activities have gotten so much attention? If this malicious Russian activity has been so serious why was it ignored by previous administrations even though it was common knowledge that such activities existed? It is useful to detect exactly how they have been accessing the American media to push their agendas, but to effectively infer that it was only relevant during the 2016 presidential election creates an excretive political odor that is hard on the olfactory nerves. Regardless, the perpetrators of the subject misdeeds are not likely to ever see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.

One observation, completely ignored by the national media that can be made, in reference to the above referenced indictments, is the apparent effort by the Mueller Investigation to increase its’ appearance of relevance and to extend its investigative life. The timing of the indictments by Mueller demonstrates his excellent survival skills, especially in light of the fact that the amount of funds involved in the Russian meddling was minor relative to the volume of negative ads placed by political action committees leading into the 2016 presidential election and that the effective dimension of the influence resulting from their activities was also proportionately minor. The manner in which the indictments referenced apparently unwitting participants in the Russian meddling it is apparent that grounds have been established to spy on and to investigate American citizens, and generate numerous additional indictments. Also, given the fact that all of the Russian shenanigans relating to the 2016 presidential elections occurred during the Obama Administration (according to the Mueller indictments starting in 2014), where were the FBI and Justice Department under the aegis of Democrat appointees.

The Mueller Investigation has taken on a life of its own which is not unusual for a special counsel. The obvious concentration of the Russian meddling investigation on the Trump

Administration with no purview of the actions of the Administration in power when the meddling actually took place clearly demonstrates an egregious bias of that investigation. It is likely that Mueller’s ultimate goal, if collusion on the part of the Trump Administration cannot be proven (which is the probable outcome), will be to make the case that the FBI and the Justice Department (agencies that he holds in the highest esteem) acted appropriately under the direction of the Obama Administration. The attention he has paid to the indictments of Manafort and Gates for activities prior to joining the Trump campaign affords him the fallback position that Trump’s hiring of the two, who had ties to Kremlin backed Ukrainian operatives, justified the Mueller Russian meddling (and collusion) investigation and all of the actions of the FBI, the Justice Department and the Obama Administration that led up to that investigation. The shortness of Manafort’s and Gate’s connection to the Trump Campaign will be ignored and the FBI and Justice Department’s ultra soft handling of Hillary Clinton’s email issues and the obvious political stink associated with the entire Russian narrative will be whitewashed and deodorized. .

The text of the indictments spells out in detail the illegal actions of the Russian operatives, their plans and their goals. With this information in hand, the task that should be assigned to the FBI is to coordinate an ongoing effort by public sector law enforcement in conjunction with relevant private sector entities to detect and prevent all foreign players from fraudulently accessing American media in order to influence elections in any manner and for any purpose. The heavy lifting in the overall effort to limit foreign access to American media, however, must be borne by private sector entities such as You Tube, Facebook, Twitter and all other social media platforms. Their involvement in any such endeavor is not only critical to the success of the effort, but is also fraught with regulatory and political dangers in addition to the substantial expense of implementation. They have to walk the tightrope of detecting and restricting suspicious activity for whatever reason (i.e. controlling content) and beginning to take on the appearance of a media entity that would be subject to state or federal regulation.

Concluding Comments

My concluding comments refer to the ‘NO’ answer to the question posed in the prologue. My primary conclusion is that the obvious answer to this question supports the argument that the Democrats have been successful in mixing politics and the investigatory and prosecutory roles of the Justice Department and the FBI. The danger of such action should be of grave concern to any rational independent observer. There are a number of rather obvious lessons that Republicans should learn from the question posed in the prologue and the answer. First, the Democrats’ success in maneuvering the Russian meddling narrative into a full blown investigation against the Trump Administration should be a reminder that the Democrat’s ability to turn messaging and rhetoric into political reality is vastly superior to their own, and that Republican policies will actually have to produce tangible improvements for a majority of Americans’ quality of life in the short to medium term. Second, as the Democrats move further and further left in their political posture, they will behave more and more as pure socialists and become more and more adept at utilizing the tactics of the Socialist/Communist movement. Note that the Republicans are defending an existing economic and political structure and the Democrats are in effect attacking that structure by slowly but surely pushing it in the direction of the socialist model. The socialist movement in the U.S. markets utopia without having to defend the success of a dominant socialist model in the U.S. because there exists no examinable track record to defend. The Republican small government free market policies must continually produce in order to counter the ongoing push by the socialist movement to move the country left. Every normal cyclical economic downturn will be utilized by the Democrats to push their big government agenda.

Regardless of any denial by the left leaning pundits in the media wing of the Democrat party, no objective observer of the timeline of the obsessive push for the Russian Investigation would conclude that the answer to the prologue question is yes. Unfortunately, the political right needs to be constantly aware of the situation and be prepared to fight fire with fire. As repugnant as it may be to resort to tactics of the socialist movement, the capitalist free market system, which has created the wealth and strength of the United States, needs to be protected from its adversaries within as well as without by whatever means necessary. My ancestors are from Southern Europe and as a conservative economist (and a centrist on some social issues), it would be derelict on my part not to use Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain as examples of what occurs to countries where the socialist model dominates their social and economic structures. Keep in mind, when being bombarded by the media’s obsessive analytical bias relating to the Mueller investigation, that the intensive push to investigate Russian meddling was not vigorously pursued until Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election and most certainly would have been passed over as an irritant not worthy of exhaustive investigation if she had won.

I will end this discussion of economics, politics and investigatory agencies by presenting a number of Winston Churchill quotes that are timeless and particularly germane to issues raised above along with my take on their relevance.

“A nation that forgets its past has no future. “

“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”

These correlated truths apply directly to a number of positions taken in this paper. First, the capitalist free market in America, over time, has elevated this country and with it the whole world. As a country it behooves us not to forget this fact as the political left slowly chips away at the basic driver of our success. Socialism markets utopia, but socialism’s message of uniform prosperity is a deception. Look at Southern Europe as an example of the prosperity (or lack thereof) that the Socialist model actually offers in the long run.

“If you are not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if are not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

This statement needs no commentary.

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its virtue is the equal sharing of misery. “ –or-

“The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery.

The basic logic behind these relatively equivalent statements is the unarguable fact that economic theory relating to the distribution of scarce resources identifies central decision making in the form of government controlled pricing over time (and its’ equally bad option, pure monopoly) as the least efficient format for distributing a “basket of goods” in any market. The maximization of total social welfare occurs in a competitive market setting, with government acting as a referee and not a player. Over time, therefore, the socialist model will diminish the well being of everyone and in some cases severely (e.g. Greece).

“There is nothing government has given you that it hasn’t taken from you in the first place.”

“We contend that a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

These two quotes need no commentary. They do, however, beg the additional saying, that in the long run, “there is no free lunch” (i.e. that you haven’t already paid for, no matter how hard you pull on the handle).