End of the Republican Party?

By Stephen Macaulay

In the early 1980s I worked at a conservative think tank. I spoke at Hillsdale College. I got published in The Wall Street Journal. I attended an Adam Smith meeting. So I have some bona fides in that space.

And I am mystified as to why anyone thinks that Donald Trump is in any way, shape or form a conservative.

Among the things that conservatives believe in are family values. The comments he made to Howard Stern about his older daughter or the “Access Hollywood” tape invalidate that one. As does his administration’s treatment of children who were taken from their parents as part of his immigration program. While borders and national identity are important to conservatives, does anyone think that if the sanctity of the family is an essential aspect of Judeo-Christian existence there couldn’t have been a better way of dealing with those families?

Another aspect of conservatism is a belief in free markets. Given the tariffs that Trump seemingly willy-nilly applied on our allies (e.g., does anyone think that Canada’s aluminum capacity is in some way a threat to our national security: Were we to go to war with a country in Europe or Asia, what is the likelihood that our strong ally to the north would say, “Naw, you can’t have our aluminum?”), the aforementioned Smith would have been rolling in his grave were he an American. Yes, there is general consensus among conservatives and liberals that something must be done with regard to Chinese trade policies, yet Trump’s alleged deal-making prowess isn’t working out so well. While during phase one of a trade deal China was supposed to buy more than $200 billion in goods and services, it is way behind; during the first eight months of 2020 China purchased $69.5-billion of farm and manufactured goods, or $10.7-billion less than the same period in 2017.

Of course, fiscal restraint, or responsibility, is certainly a bulwark of conservatism. So how is that working out? According to the Treasury department, on September 30, 2017 (the first year of his presidency) the debt was $20.2 trillion. The same date in 2018, $21.5-trillion. 2019, $22.7-trillion. And September 30, 2020: $26.9-trillion. Seems like that one doesn’t fly, either.

There is the question of “what does the Republican Party do?” post-Trump.

I have a question as to “what is” the Republican Party.

To quote from its 2020 platform:

“RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention. . . . 

RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.”

It is the party of Trump, not a party of conservativism. What it once was and what it has devolved into are two different things. It once had principles. It now seems to have nothing more than blind obedience.

—–

It’s Trump’s GOP, but is it Still the Conservative Party?

By Todd Lassa

The Lincoln Project and its followers have been agonizing over the future of the heart and mind of the GOP since the Democrats first had comparative moderates running for the nomination such as Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and of course, Joe Biden.

What if Republican stalwarts, they wondered, helped propel one of those people to victory? 

After such a victory, what happens to the Republican Party? Does it revert to its Mitt Romney-esque roots, thus rejecting such erstwhile party leaders as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham, who quickly turned from profoundly anti-Trump to enthusiastic supporter-enablers by November 2016? Or does it continue to be the Trump Party?

Anti-Trump Republicans now find themselves at a fork in the road with especially sharp tines. When (or if) President Trump vacates the White House, the Grand Old Party could revert to its pre-populist ways and welcome back the “never-Trumpers.” Or the party, such as it is, could shun those who have been associated with people from John McCain to George W. Bush.

The struggle has been playing itself out among Republicans inside its Washington power structure, where potential candidates for its 2024 presidential nomination have been lining up. 

That struggle hinges at first on whether Donald J. Trump himself chooses to run again in ’24 (the 22nd Amendment limits presidencies to two terms, but they do not need to be consecutive), or whether his son, Donald Jr. or daughter Ivanka gains more traction within the party. If not, the first Trump loyalists already on the short-list include former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and even Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Alternatively, never-Trumpers who espouse traditional conservative values, have been getting behind Govs. Larry Hogan (Md.), Charlie Baker (Mass.) and Phil Scott (Vt.), all from Democratic-leaning states, former Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who gained notoriety before the Nov. 3 election for the leaked (wink, wink) recording of a call to his supporters in which he said Trump “kisses dictators’ butts” and spends like a “drunken sailor.” 

Sasse had warned of a “Republican bloodbath” in that recording, predicting a Nov. 3 “Blue Wave” would give Democrats a big Senate majority. That didn’t happen, but questions of Trump’s authenticity as a conservative and whether he and his family can maintain control of the GOP remain.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Trump is the Most Conservative Republican President of Our Time

By Andrew Boyd

The question at hand, is Trump a conservative, is an interesting one for sure. Stephen argues first and foremost that it’s family values and fiscal conservatism. It’s certainly arguable that the conservative movement put a lot of its eggs in these two baskets over the past several decades and has largely failed to deliver on either. But I think there are greater fundamental issues at play. More on that later. Let’s first unpack the stuff in Stephen’s argument.

In character, I'd agree that Trump is not a conservative. In his deeds, he most certainly is.

On the fiscal front, Trump is a mixed bag. He’s not taken on the systemic issues of government bloat and out-of-control federal spending (yes, it’s a spending issue), but he has installed pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that led to a booming post-Obama, pre-COVID economy the likes we’ve never seen. Sadly, I’m not sure there’s a serious political player on the national stage who’s willing to go to bat for a balanced federal budget or the reeling in of the welfare state. These are cans virtually everyone seems happy just to kick down the road. I’d say that, systemically, our body politic is in something akin to a persistent vegetative state on the debt and deficit thingy, which is certainly not ideal from this conservative’s point of view, but not something particularly attributable to Trump.

But what about free and fair trade? asks Stephen. Yes, it could be argued that Trump stepped over the line on the Canadian aluminum tariffs, but I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent in a conservative’s appreciation for the free exchange of goods at home and nationalistic international economic policy. Trump was elected to represent the people of Peoria, nor Paris, after all, and I’m mostly down with that. Tariffs are lousy, long-term structural tools, but they can come in handy at the negotiating table, which is by and large how the administration has used them, in my estimation. 

But what about family values? Seriously, in Washington, Stephen?  Surely you jest.  Personal peccadillos of the Trumpian sort have been baked into the swamp cake since the dawn of the republic. Do I wish he was less like JFK and more like Obama in the category of marital fidelity? For sure. But you work with what you’ve got. And in the new age of a leftist, socialist-slouching Democratic party, I think an increasing number of conservatives are inclined to take a more macro view.  

At the macro level, Trump, I would argue, is the most conservative president in my lifetime.  Drawing down the 15-year Afghanistan fiasco, taking the hard line with China, appointing textualist Supreme Court justices, delivering American energy independence and leveraging the same in foreign policy, supporting Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning Democracy, putting Hezbollah and the Iran mullahs on their heels and calling out the leftist media establishment for their gross journalistic malfeasance. 

The only blind obedience I’m aware of within my Republican circles is to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and the ideals these documents embody. Trump isn’t perfect by a long shot, but he’s drawn the party back toward its genuine center of gravity, motivating its base and drawing a stark contrast with the socialist, globalist, identity politics dogma of the unhinged left.  

If time and space weren’t issues, I’d take another thousand words to explain how Obama was, by contrast, the least traditionally liberal, least inclusive president in my lifetime, by a long shot, but that’s a column for another day.

—–

An Agenda for Uncle Joe

By Jim McCraw

Come January, when the 46th president takes office, we have a few words of advice for Uncle Joe. Herewith, assuming a majority in the House, a recommended agenda.

First, bring COVID-19 to a halt by example and by force of will, which President Trump never did. A quick and thorough response may shut down businesses hard in the short-term but will pay off in stemming outbreaks in the U.S. more quickly allowing us to open up again. The new president has to be in charge of this effort, has to wear a mask at every appearance, and has to coerce Americans to socially distance properly. 

If we could get General Motors and Ford Motor Company to build respirators and make masks in a revival of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” why can’t we get Americans to wear masks and avoid crowding in a World War II-era display of patriotic citizenship?  

Next, undo all the harm that Trump did in terms of environmental deregulation. We need, within reasonable limits, to protect our clean water, our clean air, our natural resources, our national parks from commercialization in all its forms. It’s still our country, every cubic inch of it, and we need to protect it.

We need to have a very serious look at our defense spending, which has, over the last 50 years, become a gigantic, self-sustaining pork barrel.  The Defense department and the federal government have presided over a system where communities in every state count on contributing something to the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of 60 years ago, to the point where defense accounts for almost 60 percent of the federal budget. We already own enough weaponry to dominate every other country on Earth. This is ridiculous.

And, Joe, since you’re a center-left Democrat, why not some policy that would please center-right Republicans? Dismantle the Department of Education, send all those people back to real, productive jobs, and leave education to the states, counties, cities, towns and school systems.

If you have some free time, how about bringing together Treasury and Congress and figure out a new tax system that shuts the hundreds of loopholes in the current system and gives money for nothing to huge corporations.  Be the new Democratic party of smaller, more effective spending and fair taxation.

And have a good look at the Department of Energy, confine its role to the original intent, and let the rest of the 108,000 direct and contract employees go out and compete for real jobs.

Now that you’re in, start talking up term limits.  You may not get re-elected over this, but you will be doing a great service to your country by giving government back to the people and dismantling the Washington oligarchy.  While you’re at it, have a good look at lobbying and the damage it does to the democratic process.

And, as Justice Kavanaugh said, Roe v. Wade is settled law.  Let’s hope the Supreme Court keeps it that way. [McCraw is not interested in having Biden “stack the court” beyond nine justices. -Ed.]

Election spending limitation also deserves a hard look now that you’re back in office, and it’s time for a re-write of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as a run-around to restore portions of the legislation that were dismantled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

Oh, and how about taking In God We Trust off the money and "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?  Trump doesn’t believe in God, so why should the rest of us?

Thanks, Joe.  Appreciate you taking the time to listen.

Jim McCraw is a semi-retired writer and columnist. He has been a resident of The Villages for nearly five years.

—–

Biden’s Short Coattails Predict Two More Years of Split Government

By Todd Lassa

As of Monday morning, 97-percent of the presidential election vote is in and Democrat Joe Biden leads Republican incumbent Donald Trump, 50.9 percent to 47.3 percent, according to the latest count by NBC News. The pertinent number, of course, is 306 to 232, the Electoral College advantage for former Vice President Biden, who has matched the count President Trump had when he beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race. 

Biden’s 50.9-percent most certainly is not a “mandate,” though historians say it is the highest share against an incumbent candidate since Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt beat Republican Herbert Hoover in 1932.

What’s certain about the first half, at least, of Biden’s term as president is that he will not have much success pushing an aggressive, potentially progressive agenda through the 117th Congress. Though Democrats hold on to the House of Representatives, retaining Nancy Pelosi as speaker, the margin has shrunk by eight seats to 224 Democratic to 211 Republican. In the Senate, Democrats must win both January runoffs in Georgia to acquire a 50-50 split and take the majority vote from Republicans, with Vice President-elect Harris providing the tie-breaker.

If Georgia doesn't chose both Democratic candidates over the Republicans in January's Senate race runoffs, Senate Majority Leader McConnell will potentially have as much power in Washington as the president. Followers of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and The Squad are not likely to gain much legislative traction in this scenario.

The “blue wave” many expected this year has been largely restricted to the presidential race, with Republicans making many down-ballot gains, including in state governments. 

It is appropriate, then, that left-column pundit Jim McCraw, a centrist living in The Villages, Florida who supported Biden in the Nov. 3 election provides a recommended agenda for the president-elect. Equally appropriate that right-column pundit Bryan Williams, a former GOP operative in Southern California counters McCraw’s proposals without much serious disagreement. While Williams supported the populist-nationalist Trump in the 2020 election (though not the 2016 election), his own pro-business, laissez-fair agenda is more reminiscent of old-fashioned Mitt Romney conservatism. 

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

An ‘Agenda’ Filled With Executive Orders

By Bryan Williams

Copious amounts of ink have been spilled since Joe Biden became president-elect about his vision for the country. Some have even said he has a mandate based on the record 78.7 million people who voted for him. Really? 50.9 percent is a mandate?

I expect a lot of Joe's first 100 days -- or even the first two years of his term -- will be government by executive order. We have a divided government, and that will most likely still be the case after Georgia choses its two U.S. Senators in its runoff elections in early January. Divided government is good in that no one person or party can steamroll through a partisan agenda. Look at what the Democrats did with Obamacare when they owned the White House and the Capitol building, or what the Republicans did with the tax cuts early in President Trump's term.

I think we too often look towards the government to define American life and history when we should look more towards our people: no government told Henry Ford to build a car, no government told Jeff Bezos to sell books online, and no government told Andy Warhol to paint.

Joe Biden will most likely be a caretaker president and won’t make any sea changes. One area he may have a slight effect is in foreign affairs. There is a lot of work to do to re-engage America in the world after Trump's retrenchment. I am a bit fearful of what Biden may do regarding foreign affairs. I mean, he advised against sending in the strike team that killed Osama bin Laden. I'm sure he'll bring the US back into the Paris Accords, but last time I checked, the skies in my neighborhood wasn't so much polluted by CO2 released by humans as it was by massive forest fires that no international accord could account for.

Here's to governmental gridlock. May Joe Biden's term shift the focus to the innovators and people that fill our great fruited plain with ideas, hard work, and hopes and dreams.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

—–

Trump Won’t Celebrate National Pancake Day

By Michelle Naranjo

“Denial is a save now, pay later scheme.”

― Gavin de Becker, "The Gift of Fear"

If you were to look at TikTok, Instagram, or Twitter, you would think it is National Pancake Day. But, alas, it is a passive-aggressive collective statement from sarcastic users to Trump supporters promoting a Million MAGA March, focused on their conclusion that there was widespread voter fraud in the recent presidential election. President Trump keeps claiming there was fraud committed, so they believe it. There are a lot of JPGs and GIFs of pancakes out there.

After 18 failed lawsuits filed in the key states that Trump would have liked to have won, the projected tally is 306 electoral votes for Biden, with Trump receiving 232: Ironically, the exact margin Trump got when he triumphed over Hillary Clinton. Like Biden, she won the popular vote, while Trump didn’t in 2016, or 2020. 

Even as the law firms representing Trump in his court battles to regain electoral votes resign from their duties, Trump has committed to proceed with his desperate battle; most recently, appointing Rudy Giuliani to be in charge of the lawsuits. Both Democratic and Republican election leaders in swings states have stated that there is no evidence. They refuse to follow Trump’s last gasp that he doesn’t have to leave office because they will not change their process for selecting state electors. International election observers also stated that there were no significant irregularities. 

Super Trump supporter Sheldon Adelson’s Nevada newspaper, The Las Vegas Review-Journal, even told the president that it was time to pack his bags, stating, “Mr. Trump lost this election because he ultimately didn’t attract enough votes and failed to win a handful of swing states that broke his way in 2016.”

A group of two-dozen chief officers of major U.S. companies met and determined that should Trump try to prevent a transition to the Biden team, they would consider stopping donations to political action committees and even relocate their corporate headquarters. 

And yet, Trump refuses to concede the election with all of the mounting lack of fraud evidence. This decision not to give in is not denial: He knows that he lost and is acting the sore loser. However, it is a decision that widens the division in the United States and makes the transition of power very difficult for the Biden/Harris team.

If not for the headlines and bizarre tweets proclaiming victory from the accounts of Trump, his children, his press secretary, a few Republican politicians who must have no desire to be re-elected, and a bunch of angry people on Parler, Biden and his team keep marching forward. The week began with a meeting of the president-elect and a Covid-19 response team. Biden may not be getting daily briefings, as is customary by this time post-election, but he is steadfast in getting to Jan. 20, 2021, also known as inauguration day.

The official Biden/Harris Transition Team website has listed the priorities: 

  • Covid-19
  • Economic recovery
  • Racial equity
  • Climate change

Clearly, Biden is determined not to acknowledge the Shrek in the room because that would give it legitimacy. What he is addressing are the issues affecting all Americans. He may not officially take office until Jan. 20, but he is already leading the way. And there will be pancakes.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

― Gavin de Becker, "The Gift of Fear"

Naranjo is a freelance writer living in rural Pennsylvania.

—–

Still No Concession from Trump

By Nic Woods

Some important members of the Trump administration – including Donald J. Trump himself – are in denial over last week’s election result and so America must suffer the consequences of rejecting four more years of him. 

In just one 24-hour post-election news cycle the week after former Vice President Biden was declared winner:

• News organizations had to cover not one, but two, press conferences where ranking administration officials acted like an election never happened, much less that their boss lost.

• Attorney General William Barr handed to Justice department prosecutors the authority to investigate claims of voter fraud.

• Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, refused to sign papers to release to Biden $6.3 million of $10 million set aside for his transition because it’s unclear to her who had won.

•Federal agencies have been told to proceed with Trump’s fiscal 2022 budget.

•Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper and demoted Federal Energy Regulatory Committee Chairman Neil Chatterjee in a spree of administration figures deemed not sufficiently loyal. 

•Installed Mike Ellis as general counsel to the National Security Agency, making him more difficult to fire (except Trump may not remember issuing an executive order that would, in fact, make him easier to fire).

There are many more examples that seem like random individual meltdowns, but they all matter – they are as complex a power play the Trump administration can muster in its three-pronged strategy, along with fighting math in the courts and working up the base with baseless claims of voter fraud.

This strategy – using the war on election math to hinder Biden’s transition as much as bureaucratically possible – is what is left if the other two don’t work and it offers valuable insight into the administration and what they really think of their opponent, Joe Biden.

About this time four years ago. Chris Christie, then the governor of New Jersey and a late-to-the-bandwagon Trump supporter, volunteered for the thankless task of heading the transition team of the newly elected Donald J. Trump. 

It was an offer Trump initially rejected because, according to Michael Lewis, author of “The Fifth Risk,” which talks about the missed opportunities of Trump’s own transition, “why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president?”

Well, Christie said, it was required. 

The Presidential Transition Act, which Congress first passed in 1963 and has been amended four times -- as recently as 2019 – to “recognize the increasing complexities of presidential transitions” was passed to ease and promote the orderly transfer of power because “any disruption occasioned by the transfer of executive power could produce results detrimental to the safety and well-being of the United States and its people.”

The act has key national security implications as well that involve background checks for the high-level members of the new administration so they could be done by the inauguration. The president-elect, under the act, is required to be given a classified summary as soon as possible after the election on national security threats, covert military operations and pending decisions on possible uses of military force. 

So yes, the transition is a big deal and while Trump didn’t know that four years ago, he knows it enough now to try to impede Biden’s administration by pretending there remains some way the courts can shake out a few votes that Joe Biden will just give up and leave. And, if Biden’s stubborn enough to stay, well, he’ll be behind the eight-ball, won’t get anything accomplished and half the country will be against him. 

But Biden isn’t some outsider who doesn’t know how Washington works. He’s spent 36 years in the Senate and ran for president one time more than Trump has. He has connections, including Trump’s predecessor, many of whom are experts in their field. 

Unlike Trump four years ago, Biden knows the act and what he should be getting from it. Biden will listen to the experts, though they are being purged from the Trump administration at a rapid rate. 

Joe Biden also has the resources and knowledge base to still have a functional government and a peaceful transfer of power the third week of January, regardless of what Trump does. 

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

There are Legitimate Issues Dangling in This Election, Too

By Andrew Boyd

Enough with all the pearl clutching, my Democrat friends. You've got no room to talk. Hillary has been crying in her Chablis for the past four years, claiming the 2016 presidential election was stolen by a Russian cat's paw, cheered on relentlessly by a complicit, nakedly partisan media establishment. 

Was it not she who said Joe shouldn't concede under any circumstances? Care to explain? And how about Stacey Abrams, who is regularly held up as the real Georgia governor despite a 50,000-vote loss? Gore vs. Bush went on for 37 days, for God's sake. Mass mail-in balloting was certain to be problematic, more open to fraud and solicitous of malfeasance. You know that as well as Jimmy Carter did just 15 years ago, when he led a bi-partisan commission that concluded mail-in absentee balloting was susceptible to fraud (he backed off that conclusion earlier this year, suggesting states had “evolved” their systems).

And enough, please, with all the holier-than-thou talk of respect for American institutions, thee who threatens to pack the courts and eliminate the electoral college. You claim virtue in the name of expedience, and I ain't buying.

Now, there are legitimate issues to be resolved through established, legal means including recounts, recanvassing and adjudication of legal filings. It accrues to the benefit of all Americans that we have faith in the outcomes of our elections, which necessarily requires they hold up to rigorous political, social and legal scrutiny. When it's all said and done, we'll have a winner and a peaceful transition of power. Then, we can move on to the Georgia runoffs for U.S. Senate, where I'd hope no one takes the advice of columnist Thomas Friedman and seeks to commit election fraud. Any of my Democratic friends want to stand up in opposition to that one? I hope so.

In the meantime, please enjoy the rebounding economy, a resurgent U.S. manufacturing sector, American energy independence, burgeoning hope for peace in the Middle-East, China at the bargaining table, and the relative calm in our streets. It may be the last you see of all these things for a good long while.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

Campaign Finance Reform, Then Third-Party Success

By Chase Wheaton

Sentiment that the current political system in the United States is extremely flawed and broken is not new to true progressives. Progressive Democrats have been advocating for serious campaign reform for many years, saying our current political system does not benefit the majority of people in our country in the way that it was meant to, but instead favors wealthy elites and upper-class folks who can use their wealth to influence the platforms and positions of the candidates that run for office and get elected. 

Often, political candidates who lose elections can’t blame their party affiliation or their policy positions, but instead lost because they lack the finances and fundraising required to run a legitimately successful campaign in this country’s political system. Perfect examples are the third-party candidates who run for president every four years. Millions of Americans probably identify more closely with such candidates than with either of the two major party candidates, but sadly these third parties do not have the cross-country fundraising efforts necessary to promote their platforms, positions, and ideas, and therefore they struggle to recruit voters to support their candidacy.

I believe that a multi-party system could improve voter turnout and overall engagement within our democratic process and create much more significant and tangible change in our country than we’ve seen from any previous major party candidate. However, I also believe we need to reform our political process before we can have a successful multi-party system that doesn’t simply reward the wealthiest candidates who outspend their opponents on the way to victory. Unfortunately, the Democratic and Republican party establishments are powerful entities that benefit from this current system, which is why it should be no surprise that the only major candidate in the last two presidential primaries who has fought for serious campaign finance reform is Bernie Sanders, a registered independent.

Serious political reform will only happen when a substantial number of our officials are elected after spending grassroots donations, and not massive donations from millionaires and billionaires, as these are the only politicians that will be willing to push and vote for campaign finance reform. Once campaign finance laws are changed, I don’t think it’ll be long before we see other major changes to our political process, including allowing for a multi-party system. Sadly, until that happens, some of the fiercest advocates for a multi-party system that I personally know are in the greatest peril of having their human rights stripped away under another Trump or GOP presidency. 

While some voted for third party candidates in 2016 when they were more confident Trump would lose, this year, the need to vote for a viable presidential candidate who doesn’t disregard basic human rights was more important than the desire to make their vote a statement about the country’s political process.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

-30-

Why Just Two?

By Stephen Macaulay

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that he’d cast his ballot some weeks earlier. He said, “I didn’t vote for either of those two. As the father of a daughter I couldn’t vote for Trump. As the owner of a small business I couldn’t vote for Biden.”

He voted for Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian candidate for president. Not that he had any illusion that she would win. He just wanted to participate in our democracy.

He told me that this is the second presidential cycle he’s done that.

Mind you he is a well-educated owner of a profitable, family-owned business. Twenty years ago he might have been a Democrat. Now that he is in his 50s, I would have guessed Republican.

His position isn’t exactly “a pox on both of your houses.”

It is more of “I can’t see how either of these people is going to help me.”

As we wait for the results, there is undoubted feeling of rancor among both sides.

Many Trump supporters undoubtedly think that Biden supporters are a bunch of latte-sipping snowflakes who don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom.

And on the Biden side they’re seeing a gang of overweight patrons of outlet malls.

Neither is correct.

Both sides are Americans. Both sides are participating in the electoral process. Both sides think their guy is the right one for the country.

One side is going to be pissed when the last ballot has been counted. Or the last lawsuit settled.

If one wins with the majority of the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be an outcry to abolish that mechanism. Undoubtedly there will be some action.

But is that enough?

Why is it that people like Jo Jorgensen don’t have a snowball’s chance?

Why is it that there are just two parties that seem to matter?

Maybe instead of just going for direct voting there should be more adjustments made to the system as it exists.

Perhaps we should take a page from the British system, which has campaigns running for four weeks. People and parties that are less well-funded than the Republicans and Democrats would not be at the huge disadvantage that they are now. While some would say that the wealthy candidate would just pour it on for those 30 or so days, let’s look at it this way: If you have a glass that you fill with water, at some point it is full and no matter how much more you put in it there won’t be more. Arguably the same could be said for political ads.

You won’t be happy today.

I won’t be happy today.

But do you know who won’t be unhappy?

My friend who voted Libertarian.

Macaulay is The Hustings’ pundit-at-large.

—–

In the Opera of Presidential Elections, No Need for Third Parties

By Bryan Williams

It has been eight days since the election and it appears most of the media and country have accepted that Joseph Robinette Biden will be our 46th president. However, Arizona and a few other states are still counting, and recounts are inevitable either by law or by the Trump campaign’s request. The plump lady hasn’t sung yet, if you ask me. There was no political violence after the election as feared, and the nearly 72 million Americans who voted for President Trump peacefully heard the results and have so far doggedly remained steadfast with a glimmer of hope that Trump will win.

And yet, I sympathize with the center column writer. In 2016 I was dubious of both candidates Clinton and Trump and voted for a third party. Even I, a grizzled Republican vet, bought into the media narrative that Trump would be a disaster as president, so I made a protest vote. I was a bit scared of what Trump meant for our country’s future, but the past four years has been a surprise. Like many, I don’t care for the president’s more acidic behaviors, but for the most part the Trump presidency has been just fine for America and has not led to her ruin. I feel like America won’t be ruined either if or when Biden is certified as the winner, and not just because it looks as if the GOP will keep the Senate. I have more faith than that in the American people and believe one-party rule would be our own worst enemy – just look at California.

Elections, even those not held during an unprecedented global pandemic and with nearly universal mail-in balloting, take time. Give the poll workers time. Give the lawyers some time. Give the judges some time. We live in an age that is ever more used to instantaneous results and gratification. We have to get this election right, and as Sen. Mitch McConnell said, President Trump is well within his rights to challenge everything he legally can.

So let’s wait to hear the singing from the plump lady, shall we? Remember whatever the outcome, we all appeal to the better angels of our nature and act as responsible, dignified American voters. We will get up the next day and go to work and love and care for our children. And we will hope. Hope the best for America no matter who is elected president. I won’t be unhappy either. But I am willing to wait for that singing.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

-30-

Dawn or Dusk for Pennsylvania

By Michelle Naranjo

Consider me a reluctant Pennsylvania tourist who owns a home here in Lehigh County. It's okay. I know that I will never belong. 

I moved to Pennsylvania with a sound understanding of risk. I moved for love. Sue me. 

From being born in New Mexico into biracial parents -- let's just say that my family has been in what is now the U.S. since my great x17 grandfather -- I think it's cute when people tell me their great-grandfather came to this country. My parents were pretty sedentary but never accepted.

Flash forward: Parents are gone, and I own a house in rural Pennsylvania, and there are days when I drive for glue, or something odd, at one of the local Dollar General stores -- I live precisely three miles between two of the franchises -- and I catch a view of the "blue mountain."

They call everything Blue Mountain everywhere here. There is a road I can drive up and stop to look north or south and hope to see someone crossing as they trek the Appalachian Trail. I yearn to connect with another tourist. 

Those hikers probably won’t stay long enough to see the darkness here that you can also find in England, Wales, Texas, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. That may look like an odd list of places, but it is everywhere I have lived as a tourist. 

As an outsider, here is what I see:

Between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, there is wealth. Those people have "green" properties, so pay one-third or less than the people who have homes on hillsides and cannot claim the same environmental tax write-offs. Farmers also get a similar tax benefit, even if they let their land go fallow because they can't sell corn or soy to China. 

And there are more people here without any path to wealth. The current jobs are in the distribution warehouses popping up. Forty hours at $15 an hour is a promise that means two or even three jobs for people trying to have a family. Property taxes have disenfranchised homeownership. Landlords are making bank. The worse the school district is, the higher the taxes. 

The best of the public schools between the big cities are impressive with sports and labs, but the lucky from them get to attend any one of the plethora of small, liberal-arts colleges, while poorer districts might get wrestlers into a state Pennsylvania school. Yay, team.

And these are proud people who do not leave where they grew up. Coal is dead. Fracking is dying. They can’t let go.

The 1970s and ‘80s efforts to diversify the workforce here ended in an elevated racist culture. Puerto Rican restaurants struggle to identify themselves as "Spanish" to appeal to the euro-centric Penn Dutch descendants. Imagine what it is like for anyone speaking Spanish at a warehouse. Or, for those who don’t?

Like several of my neighbors, I was too scared to put out my Biden signs. We live in a mix of manicured and aging neighborhoods where yard signs say, “Not a Gun Free Zone” all year long. Our homes are all sent The Epoch Times newspaper unsolicited. The latest issue was about the evils of marijuana and Hunter Biden. 

All of that is to say that Pennsylvania may have been the deciding factor for our new president-elect, but we have a lot to heal here in the hinterlands. Or, as I learned in Welsh, y gwyll, meaning “the dusk.” 

I say "we" like I might stay. There is work to do.

Naranjo is a freelance writer living in rural Pennsylvania.

_____

Ode to Pennsylvania

By Charles Dervarics

Pennsylvania has had its detractors over the years.  To famed political advisor James Carville, it’s just Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with “Alabama in between.” In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama got into hot water by citing his trips to struggling small towns in the state where people “cling to guns or religion.”

As a Pennsylvania native with a blue-collar background, I usually don’t take kindly to these references – though the state has had its challenges. As the coal and steel industries declined, those without a college education suffered. And it has a record of social conservatism, perhaps best reflected by the late Bob Casey, Sr., father of the current U.S. senator, who was a pro-union governor and leader of the anti-abortion wing of the national Democratic party.

Fast forward to 2020, and it’s not surprising the state emerged as a political hotspot. Natural gas and fracking have revitalized parts of the old industrial base in the north and west, while the state’s vast middle is still largely Republican and conservative. But the cities, particularly Philadelphia, remain a huge source of Democratic support where concerns about racial injustice and poverty take precedence.

But after Donald Trump surprised Hillary Clinton there in fall 2016, Joe Biden has turned the state blue again for a few reasons:

His home state roots: As he never hesitates to mention, Biden was born in Scranton in the state’s northeast area. The official 2020 tally has him with 54 percent of the vote in Lackawanna County, where Scranton is the county seat. Clinton’s share was about 50 percent. Biden also prevailed in Monroe County, the next county to the south.

Philadelphia and its suburbs: Biden again ran a few percentage points ahead of Clinton in the all-important suburbs and benefitted from higher turnout overall. In Bucks County, Biden claimed nearly 200,000 votes and 51.5 percent of the total, compared with Clinton’s 165,000 and 48 percent. More city residents also cast ballots in 2020, with Biden earning about 81 percent of the vote. 

Limiting losses: While Trump ran up the score in rural locations, Biden captured some areas the president won in 2016. One is Northampton County in the central-eastern Lehigh Valley, which Trump carried by four points in 2016. But current results show Biden with a slight lead there. It’s a similar story in Erie County in the state’s northwest corner.

It wasn’t easy for Biden, who took heat for comments on the oil industry and fracking that likely cost him some votes. But the small gains he made in many vote-rich areas – compared with 2016 – have given him a statewide edge of 40,000 votes.

The president’s legal team has raised challenges in Pennsylvania and other swing states, filing lawsuits to halt counts and challenge votes. So far, those efforts have not resulted in any changes to the Pennsylvania tally.

Charles Dervarics is a writer and policy analyst based in Alexandria, Va. He formerly was a reporter with newspapers in Allentown and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

_____

In Search of Free and Fair Elections in Pennsylvania

By Andrew Boyd

Rural Pennsylvania, in the vicinity of Lancaster, was the place of my upbringing, and my parents and grandparents, who, on my mother’s side, were Mennonites of the mostly orthodox variety. It was a generally conservative vibe of the God Bless America, hand over heart, tell the truth, stand up straight, elbows off the table, “yes sir, yes, ma’am” variety.

I watched, then, with special interest the rioting in Lancaster that followed the police shooting back in September. I was encouraged by the response of local authorities in quickly rounding up and charging instigators. It seems law and order still has a foothold someplace, although I’m told by friends who haven’t left that Lancaster, or significant pockets of it, have succumbed to the kind of generalized rot of homelessness, hopelessness, drugs, poverty and cultural nihilism that characterizes far too much of America these days. It’s a really serious and pervasive problem that ought to be the stuff of serious discussion and debate, but what kind of ratings or clicks would that likely generate, right? Moving on. 

It’s hard not to be cynical about a lot of things these days, and where the Pennsylvania vote count is concerned, I think conservatives are justified in at least raising an eyebrow when no less than the state’s Attorney General, Josh Shapiro, asserts a full day before the polls are closed -- if Pennsylvania polls can ever be said to be truly closed -- that “if all the votes are added up in PA, Trump is going to lose.”  Excuse me, what? Reverse political polarities on this one and it’d be the stuff of mainstream media outrage and late-night TV host wet dreams for weeks if not months or years to follow. But down the memory hole it goes. Bye, bye. 

That little bit of saying the quiet part out loud followed a series of judicial rulings that also flew in the face of established PA election law -- the kind made by, you know, lawmakers -- because, you know, COVID; just the latest example of left’s pandemic hypocrisy. Thankfully, we’ve had some more recent state court rulings that lean into established legal doctrine, like the courts aren’t supposed to make the law, meaning questionable ballots are at least sequestered, including those from voters unable to produce identification at the time of their filing. 

That said, I suspect the game is up, and that all of the litigation in the world, legitimate or otherwise, won’t make a difference in the end. And, so be it. Where free and fair elections are concerned, I’m not rooting for either party, or any outcome except that which follows the letter of the law, because, you know, the ends do not justify the means. What an old-fashioned idea that is, right? Blame it on my upbringing, and pass the shoo-fly pie, please.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

_____