The Hillary/Trump Dilemma by Oliver DeMille
May 25th, 2016 // 6:12 am @ Oliver DeMille
Parties, Issues, and Funds
Mitt Romney was right about a number of things. One of the most important, even though it got him trouble with some voters, is that a solid 47% of the nation is against the Republican candidate for president (whoever he or she is), simply because a large group depends on government programs to financially make ends meet. In fact, the number appears to be increasing.
According to one report, “Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency.” The same article notes that “47 percent…would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all.” (“My Secret Shame,” The Atlantic, May 2016)
Indeed, in 2014 only 38 percent of Americans thought they could come up with the money for a $500 car repair. (Ibid.) In other words, the number 47 percent (who needed government help to survive in 2012) may now be closer to 62 percent.
High and Low
This is a challenging dilemma. On the one hand, those with a sense of needing more government support and programs to make ends meet are a lot more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders than for any Republican. As the electorate becomes more financially strapped, it tends to swing to candidates promising more government help.
On the other hand, it is the liberal (Bill Clinton/Barack Obama) and moderate (Bush I/Bush II) policies—growth of government intrusion in the economy and poorly-constructed education, health care, banking and other programs—that have brought our economy to this point. As more people vote for bigger government, the government naturally grows and the economy further stalls. It’s a self-fulfilling negative cycle.
In a truly free enterprise economy, entrepreneurship would create a lot more jobs and prosperity. It brings approximately 80% of new jobs in the United States—but the sheer mountain of red tape a business start-up now faces (based mostly on the policies of the four presidents just mentioned, and more from Obama than the others), has significantly gummed up the economy. Obamacare is making it even worse, with the most damaging (job-killing) parts of the Affordable Health Care Act still slated to go into effect in 2017.
Between 2003 and 2013 the median net worth of Americans dropped an amazing 38%. (Ibid.) And it’s still going down.
In short: Big government isn’t helping—it’s adding to the problem.
Beginnings or Endings
Remember the 2012 presidential debates where Romney suggested that Russia is a major strategic threat to the United States and Obama scoffed and lectured Mitt about not knowing what he was talking about? Three years later, guess what? Russia a major strategic threat. (See Foreign Affairs, May/June 2016: “Putin Returns to the Historical Pattern,” “The Revival of the Russian Military,” “The Quest to Restore Russia’s Rightful Place,” “Why Putin Took Crimea.”)
The same is true in economics. Bigger government, thousands of additional business- and job-stifling regulations on the books, and more red tape, don’t help the economy. They hurt it.
And a majority of Americans are now feeling the effects. Fifty-five percent of households don’t have enough savings to make it for even one month. (Op Cit., The Atlantic) If the middle twenty percent of households, the true middle class in America, lost their income right now, they could, on average, continue their current lifestyle for just six days. (Ibid.) That’s six days!
The sudden 2016 “defaults on subprime auto loans indicate that the American willingness to just keep buying…can’t lift us out of this [economic] pickle…. The general default rate for all subprime auto loans jumped from 11.3 to 12.3 percent in just a month—exactly the kind of ‘can’t pay my bills’ phenomenon that triggered the [2008] housing collapse.” (“The Portfolio,” Esquire, May 2016)
Recently announced: Sports Authority is filing chapter 11 bankruptcy, Staples is closing 50 stores, Fairway is near default, American Apparel filed for bankruptcy, and even Walmart is closing 154 stores. (Ibid.) The list of other companies on the brink or downsizing and cutting jobs is long.
The economy is sputtering.
All this in the midst of a presidential election year. I don’t know what Donald Trump will or won’t do in the Oval Office (whether he’ll be just another politician or really lead out and reboot the economy). But one thing is very clear: If Senator Clinton is our next president, the number of Americans who require government support to make ends meet by the year 2020 probably won’t be 47 percent, or even 62 percent, anymore.
It will be a lot higher.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Business &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Government &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Politics &Producers &Prosperity
Shannon
8 years ago
What about Gary Johnson?
Ed
8 years ago
I have been aware of the dynamic you have addressed.
You forgot to mention the FEAR factor that is always hit on
when the libs want something passed.
Thing is Many of the voters are older and more conservative.
You are right about the economic dynamic in as much as that is why
the nation is in such a fix on every level of government.
The issue with ( maintain the credit line says )
DO Not Rock the Boat with voting for the best candidate but vote for the candidate that maintains status quo.
People get the government they deserve.
I am looking forward the the kingdom of heaven my self, God willing.
Heather
8 years ago
You make a pretty bold generalization – you correlate someone not having savings with someone who needs/takes government assistance.
If I have no savings, but am actively using every penny of extra money I get to pay down credit card debt – does that mean I will use government programs/assistance/loans to pay for an unexpected expense? No sir, it does not. Yes, I would have to put it on the aforementioned credit card, which I would continue to pay off. Yes, I could have spent the time building up an emergency savings fund, but at what expense? The interest rate I would get on any savings would in no way outperform the interest rate I am paying on credit card debt.
My second point is this – is Trump truly who you want as our next president? Can you honestly get behind a man who is racist, sexist, and childish? Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Hilary is the right choice, either (she’s not), but please don’t make it sound like Trump is our only option. Can we take a look at the other candidates and make a better (more sane) choice? Your voice reaches many, Mr. DeMille – be the leader you talk about in all your books.
Respectfully,
~Heather from Minnesota
sue maxwell
8 years ago
Oliver, I really respect your advice on this one. A few weeks ago I thought of doing a write in and suddenly realize that would add to a vote for the Clintons. While I really dislike Trump, the Clintons are horrifying criminals. To have both of them in the White House would be another nightmare. I remember reading that the people who work there were just horrified at the language and screaming that went on. She will never be indited for her Bengazi issues; she has 400 million in the bank from questionable backers in other countries. The entire business is a mess in this country and the closer Obama gets the end of his term, the more horrifying bills his is passing like a dictator.
I am just glad that I have read your books, as well as others, and know enough about the future to know that, in the end, things will be good again. It is just difficult to watch all of this going on.Thank you for your insights.
Ben
8 years ago
What if . . .
Around the office there has been some speculation about what would happen if there was a third party candidate this year. I think that it’s fairly safe to say with confidence that we’ve been there before. If Bernie Sanders runs third party, he’ll split the vote on the left and leave Trump to win. Or if someone like, say, Mitt Romney were to run third party, then the he’d split the vote on the right and Clinton would win. What tickles my political imagination is, what if there were a four-horse race with two “third-party” candidates? Now that would be interesting. More choices than the American voting populace has ever really had to wrap their minds around. Who knows where that could take us? Would it be the institutional parties versus pragmatic changes? Populism versus pragmatism? I’m probably divulging my bias for practical change here, but that’s my own frustration with politics at just about every level. There is too little debate about what’s practical and what’s right and too much about who’s politically right or wrong. Many of the “hot button” issues are truly irrelevant to the day to day operations of running government, let alone how they affect the majority of daily lives. That said, the potential direction of the SCOTUS with more liberal appointments is unspeakably dire.
Okie Freedom Lover
8 years ago
Oliver, thank you for your comments. You are overlooking the only sane choice: to vote for the Libertarian candidate. I realize many people with good moral values are shocked at some Libertarian principles, but we should realize government can not enforce morality.
To address Sue Maxwell’s concern, I suggest “vote pairing” — a derivative of a parliamentary practice. There are so many people who detest Donald Trump that it should be easy to find someone with whom to pair . . . and you both agree to vote for a third party candidate.
Ammon Nelson
8 years ago
Why is a third party not a viable option this time around?
Michelle Godown
8 years ago
May I make a suggestion? I believe we should stop using the term “liberal” to describe the destructive ideology of the Democrats. There are no more liberals; they died with JFK. The Democratic party is now Left. The Marxist, European Socialist mentality that dominates the Democratic Party is what is destroying our country, and if we want to succeed in getting our country back, then we must name and accurately describe the real enemy: Leftism.
Catherine Kilpatrick
8 years ago
Thank you for your insights, Oliver.
As I have watched the primaries roll into the electoral process, one thing has become very clear to me: This election is a clear mandate between a Freedom Shift and a Force Shift.
No matter who ultimately wins the Democratic nod (Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders), their policies are clearly toward a Force Shift from which we would be at least a generation or two recovering. Donald Trump, while a political wild card, talks like a person who believes in a Freedom Shift, even if he doesn’t know the term.
It saddens me to realize our country is at a point of crisis that will impact our children and their children for generations to come in its decisions, and so few realize it.
Ammon Nelson
8 years ago
@Catherine Kilpatrick
Why is Trump the only alternative to the DNC nominee? I believe the dichotomy of Republican vs. Democrat to be false, but de facto true only because people continue to believe and act as if it is so. If people stopped acting like there are only two choices – the two given by the DNC and GOP, then there would be more and better choices.
@Oliver, this article continues that dichotomy. Do you not believe your blog to have enough influence to go against it?
Valerie
8 years ago
This is why I think Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party is the answer. It’s simply an answer that liberal leaning people don’t like to hear about. He is the only one running that aligns with small government and my values of pro-life
Jacob Lageveen
8 years ago
Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate the democrats have ever came up with. Ofcourse Donald Trump is just as bad, but all the scandals surrounding this woman are enough reason for her to never be allowed into office!