By Dick Miller
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: How this presidential election plays out is neither complete nor foreseen at this writing. We explore two possible factors.
First, the race could end up very tight due to a third party candidate. Gary Johnson, Republican and two-time governor of New Mexico, has been nominated by the Libertarian Party. He should be competitive in a number of states. Because that party’s mantra is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” Johnson could change the outcome either way, tipping the balance to Donald Trump in states that should have been claimed by Hillary Clinton and vice versa.
If Johnson is permitted to participate in the debates, all bets are off.
By comparison, Ross Perot, shelling out his own money, was a serious third-party candidate in the 1992 election between George Bush One and Bill Clinton. At one point polls showed the three candidates each having about a third of the voters.
This was at a time when there was no compelling reason to vote against Clinton or Bush, other than Perot represented a business approach to running the Federal government. Final results showed Clinton winning with less than a simple majority. Perot ending up with nearly 20 percent of the vote, but won no states or electoral votes.
This year is different. Both Trump and Clinton have the highest negative ratings in memory. Many people already refuse to support the candidate of their Party, but do not want to skip going to the polls. Pundits claim this election will have a smaller turnout that any in recent memory when the Oval office is about to be occupied by a newcomer.
The second outcome can happen regardless of who wins in November and could lead to the end of the United States in the fashion we have enjoyed for 240 years.
What happened in the United Kingdom recently could be a harbinger of events to come in other relatively civilized nations.
“Brexit” is the nickname for a British exit of the European Union. By a slim majority, voters elected on June 23 to pull out of the 28-nation bloc. Originally formed in 1973, then re-organized in 2007, the EU could never count on England as an enthusiastic member.
For example, when these countries adopted a similar currency, England retained the pound. The United Kingdom was also never in tune with the “open border” philosophy promoted by the organization at large. Withdrawal has been the right of every member since the new Constitution was approved in 2007.
Sentiment of the English populace grew more in favor of withdrawal in recent times. The so-called “straw that broke . . .” is the recent worldwide economic stagnation. Like many other countries, the United Kingdom suffers from high unemployment, high taxation, mortgage defaults and bankruptcies. The EU, especially after revision in 2007, was supposed to preserve strong local economies.
Couple these results with the impression UK was one of the larger contributing members of EU, giving more than benefits received.
The sentiment spreads.
Scotland talks about withdrawing from UK and joining the EU as a primary member.
Quebec separatists wonder if Britain’s decision could have impact on that province’s long standing goal of forming an independent nation with a French culture. Those in favor of recession are already eyeing the next Quebec election in the fall of 2018.
Separatists will attempt to elect Quebec Parliament members sympathetic to seceding.
Closer to home, some Texans believe their state’s process of joining the United States was riddled with errors in 1836 to 1845. A paper government with all three branches has functioned as the Republic of Texas for 150 years.
Recently the FBI barged into a legislative session of the Republic to warn participants their conduct may be illegal. Even the Texas Republican State Committee debated whether secession should be part of its platform for 2016. As Texas grows more Democrat because of migration, expect this issue to remain on the front burner.
Bottom Line: Even President Obama ignores the serious economic upheaval in certain areas of the country as he continues to sell globalization. Sitting for an extended interview with Bloomberg Businessweek recently, the President said “We’ve got to go into those communities that have been hard hit and say . . . if your strategy is just to make the same old steel that you were making 30 years ago, you (will not outsell) the Chinese or Brazilians.”
The President did warn CEOs to share more of their profits with workers or expect a pushback. “That’s how you start getting a Brexit campaign,” he added.
Impatient at the lack of positive results, protesters still believe they can effect change at the ballot box. In these instances, the method employed in the UK can be implemented in Scotland, Canada and the U.S.
If these fail and the oligarchy continues to snuff out the economic life of the poor, then look for parallels to what occurred in the Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya.
