Weird stuff continues, both here and abroad.
British Prime Minister, Michael Cameron, who wanted the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union, puts it up for a referendum, believing the Brits want to stay in. Conservative Member of Parliament Boris Johnson leads the battle to get out. Much to the shock of Johnson and everyone else, the Brits vote to get out, leaving Johnson as the leading candidate for prime minister when Cameron resigns.
Then, much to everyone's shock, Johnson declines to run. The new prime minister is Theresa May, who wanted the Brits to stay in the EU, but now must lead the Brits to negotiate out. How did this happen? Obviously, May was shrewd enough not to be overly combative in wanting to stay in, and not antagonizing those who wanted to get out.
So who does she appoint as the new UK Foreign Minister? She appoints the combative Boris Johnson who wanted to get out, but who, as Foreign Minister, will presumably have a major role in negotiating with the EU that wanted the Brits to stay in.
That appointment seems weird. But it also seems that May is one smart woman and must know what she's doing.
On the homefront, we have the ongoing spectacle of Trump being Trump, continuing to wrap the ratings-conscious mainstream media around his little finger. He creates media frenzy, maximizing the drama regarding his pick for vice president, only to be eclipsed by the tragedy in Nice, France. So he delays his announcement until the 11th hour when Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has to decide whether to run for another term.
The anti-climatic announcement, on Twitter, no less, was immediately followed by rumors that Trump already regretted his choice, even though it made some sense. Trump would not want the controversial Gov. Christie or the volatile Newt Gringrich competing with him for headlines. The colorless, ultra-conservative Pence is as logical a choice as anything with the Trump saga.
Then we had the babble over the "Dump Trump" movement. That movement failed, due to machinations of the GOP Rules Committee. The hapless GOP Chairman Reince Priebus and his minions prefer a flawed candidate to further dissension within the party.
And we have the Republicans still whining about the Republican FBI director not recommending that Hillary Clinton be prosecuted. What are the Republicans griping about? While the director emphasized that prosecution would not be successful, he slapped Clinton around pretty badly, feeding the Republicans enough raw meat to keep them well-fed through November.
And we continue to have the celebrities of the mainstream media pretending to explain all this stuff to us, all while achieving their prime objectives, maintaining their cushy salaries and doing their part to maximize ratings and profits for their corporate masters. Nothing new here except for a few apologetic confessions that even they are occasionally baffled of late.
The media clones tend to over simplify complex issues, merely repeating each other's cliches. This, while they make the obvious appear complex. Here's an example of the latter. It's "How can the Clinton campaign win over the supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders?"
Here's the deal as I see it: It should have been obvious to any observer from the get-go that the future of this nation depends in large measure on decisions of the Supreme Court. If not immediately obvious, it should have been front and center with the death of conservative Justice Scalia and the refusal of the Senate to give nominee Marick Garland a hearing.
That briefly got some attention, but not in the context of winning Sanders supporters over to Clinton. But the recent decisions by the court, short of a member, on the University of Texas affirmative action case and the Texas women's health clinics should have made the court central to this campaign.
The media "analysts" occasionally mention the court. But never in the context of winning over the Sanders supporters for Clinton.
It's not as if this is some obscure policy-wonkish issue. Major concerns of Sanders supporters include gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, money in politics, and the disproportionate influence of big donors. Money will always be a factor, but it has been vastly increased by the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court - the decision that conservative John McCain and liberal Russ Feingold agree was among the worst ever.
Even if Clinton collected some dough for a speech to Goldman-Sachs, it should be obvious to even the casual observer, and especially to well-informed Sanders supporters, that court nominees by Clinton will be far different, and more agreeable to Sanders supporters than those of Mr. Trump.
The vapid clones of the cable net works, and even the well qualified, informed guests of NPR's Friday News Roundup with Diane Rehm, the gold standard of that genre, agonize over the same questions: How can the Clinton campaign win over enough Sanders supporters to win the election? Will they vote for Trump, or Gary Johnson? Or will they be petulant and stay home?
Never from these supposedly well-informed pundits have I heard the response, "Think Supreme Court."
You can bet that the Republicans are astute enough to think of the Supreme Court. If the Sanders supporters are so petulant as to stay home because they didn't get their first choice, they will be complicit in handing over the election to Mr. Trump. It is they, especially the younger Sanders supporters, who will have to live for generations with the decisions of a Trump-appointed Supreme Court.
I contend that for Clinton to win over Sanders supporters, it comes down to three simple words: "Think Supreme Court."
The media attempt to maximize drama and convert the simple to the complex. But really, some things are just not all that complicated.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
British Prime Minister, Michael Cameron, who wanted the United Kingdom to stay in the European Union, puts it up for a referendum, believing the Brits want to stay in. Conservative Member of Parliament Boris Johnson leads the battle to get out. Much to the shock of Johnson and everyone else, the Brits vote to get out, leaving Johnson as the leading candidate for prime minister when Cameron resigns.
Then, much to everyone's shock, Johnson declines to run. The new prime minister is Theresa May, who wanted the Brits to stay in the EU, but now must lead the Brits to negotiate out. How did this happen? Obviously, May was shrewd enough not to be overly combative in wanting to stay in, and not antagonizing those who wanted to get out.
So who does she appoint as the new UK Foreign Minister? She appoints the combative Boris Johnson who wanted to get out, but who, as Foreign Minister, will presumably have a major role in negotiating with the EU that wanted the Brits to stay in.
That appointment seems weird. But it also seems that May is one smart woman and must know what she's doing.
On the homefront, we have the ongoing spectacle of Trump being Trump, continuing to wrap the ratings-conscious mainstream media around his little finger. He creates media frenzy, maximizing the drama regarding his pick for vice president, only to be eclipsed by the tragedy in Nice, France. So he delays his announcement until the 11th hour when Indiana Gov. Mike Pence has to decide whether to run for another term.
The anti-climatic announcement, on Twitter, no less, was immediately followed by rumors that Trump already regretted his choice, even though it made some sense. Trump would not want the controversial Gov. Christie or the volatile Newt Gringrich competing with him for headlines. The colorless, ultra-conservative Pence is as logical a choice as anything with the Trump saga.
Then we had the babble over the "Dump Trump" movement. That movement failed, due to machinations of the GOP Rules Committee. The hapless GOP Chairman Reince Priebus and his minions prefer a flawed candidate to further dissension within the party.
And we have the Republicans still whining about the Republican FBI director not recommending that Hillary Clinton be prosecuted. What are the Republicans griping about? While the director emphasized that prosecution would not be successful, he slapped Clinton around pretty badly, feeding the Republicans enough raw meat to keep them well-fed through November.
And we continue to have the celebrities of the mainstream media pretending to explain all this stuff to us, all while achieving their prime objectives, maintaining their cushy salaries and doing their part to maximize ratings and profits for their corporate masters. Nothing new here except for a few apologetic confessions that even they are occasionally baffled of late.
The media clones tend to over simplify complex issues, merely repeating each other's cliches. This, while they make the obvious appear complex. Here's an example of the latter. It's "How can the Clinton campaign win over the supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders?"
Here's the deal as I see it: It should have been obvious to any observer from the get-go that the future of this nation depends in large measure on decisions of the Supreme Court. If not immediately obvious, it should have been front and center with the death of conservative Justice Scalia and the refusal of the Senate to give nominee Marick Garland a hearing.
That briefly got some attention, but not in the context of winning Sanders supporters over to Clinton. But the recent decisions by the court, short of a member, on the University of Texas affirmative action case and the Texas women's health clinics should have made the court central to this campaign.
The media "analysts" occasionally mention the court. But never in the context of winning over the Sanders supporters for Clinton.
It's not as if this is some obscure policy-wonkish issue. Major concerns of Sanders supporters include gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, money in politics, and the disproportionate influence of big donors. Money will always be a factor, but it has been vastly increased by the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court - the decision that conservative John McCain and liberal Russ Feingold agree was among the worst ever.
Even if Clinton collected some dough for a speech to Goldman-Sachs, it should be obvious to even the casual observer, and especially to well-informed Sanders supporters, that court nominees by Clinton will be far different, and more agreeable to Sanders supporters than those of Mr. Trump.
The vapid clones of the cable net works, and even the well qualified, informed guests of NPR's Friday News Roundup with Diane Rehm, the gold standard of that genre, agonize over the same questions: How can the Clinton campaign win over enough Sanders supporters to win the election? Will they vote for Trump, or Gary Johnson? Or will they be petulant and stay home?
Never from these supposedly well-informed pundits have I heard the response, "Think Supreme Court."
You can bet that the Republicans are astute enough to think of the Supreme Court. If the Sanders supporters are so petulant as to stay home because they didn't get their first choice, they will be complicit in handing over the election to Mr. Trump. It is they, especially the younger Sanders supporters, who will have to live for generations with the decisions of a Trump-appointed Supreme Court.
I contend that for Clinton to win over Sanders supporters, it comes down to three simple words: "Think Supreme Court."
The media attempt to maximize drama and convert the simple to the complex. But really, some things are just not all that complicated.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
