Trump vs. Clinton: The People vs. Washington elites

Trump vs. Clinton: The People vs. Washington elites

Trump or Clinton: Populism or progressivism? A wild man who might wreak havoc in Washington, or a Washington fixture? That's our choice.

(wikimedia commons)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., October 21, 2016 — The November election may be the last good chance the country has to bring back a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and resurrect an economy that’s spinning out of control.

Authors David Stockman, former head of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, and John Fonte, writing recently in The Claremont Institute journal, see the current election as critical to the future health and wellbeing of the nation, although for different reasons.

In his October 21 article, “Transformers,” Fonte writes, “Hillary Clinton’s election will render Obama’s fundamental transformation (of the country) irreversible. At this moment in American history, only Trump-Pence offers an alternative to regime transformation.”


Donald Trump, voter fraud, and the validity of national elections


The political establishment—Republicans and Democrats alike—has steadily chipped away at the country’s legal, moral, and financial foundations for years. The result for them has been a comfortable armchair seat of power.

The threat posed to their entrenched power by the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump has spurred the government-media complex to raise the defenses against these populist intruders. Outsider candidates are a threat to the establishment’s march toward progressivism and European socialism.

According to David Stockman, the real losers in this election season will be the voters. He recently warned that, “The full ruin of Hillbama comes next. The Swamp will get drained, but it will get far deeper first.”

In his new book, “Trumped!” he explains his dire prediction:

I wanted to address why this phenomenon is happening … why there is so much economic pain in fly-over America, and link that to the wrongheaded policies of the Fed and explain what I call the revolt of the rubes. I don’t use that in a condescending way. I use that to explain the so-called sophisticated press, and they think they are enlightened ones and think the rest of the country is kind of dimwitted and don’t get it. So, they call them rubes.

The rubes are revolting, and they are revolting because they can see the system is rigged. These people are fed up, and they have had enough, and I think this is where Trump is coming from. . . . I do think we are at an inflection point where someone is finally challenging the Wall Street/Washington elites.

The murk of government corruption revealed by Wikileaked emails, the questionable monetary policies chronicled by Stockman, and the slow, acid drip of the Obama-Clinton “fundamental transformation” of America have turned this election into a toxic swamp.

Voters will choose between Clinton—an elite progressive—and Trump—a rough-edged billionaire populist. Voters must come to terms with the last eight years of financial and progressivist policy. If they like what’s happened, their choice is obvious. If not, Trump is the only route out.

But how many voters who support Obama’s last eight years and a proposed continuation under Clinton even understand the progressive movement that’s behind their actions? Fonte cites Professor John Marini’s characterization of the progressive agenda:

First, they transformed key institutions, shifting power from the sovereignty of the people, exercised through our constitutional framework of separation of powers and federalism, to a centralized administrative state, run by a transnational managerial elite exercising executive, legislative, and judicial powers without the consent of the people or its elected representatives.

Second, for contemporary progressives, moral authority or civic morality resides not in the individual American citizen and his voluntary associations, but in racial-ethnic-gender group identity. “Public figures have come to be judged,” Marini writes, “but by the moral standing established by their group identity.”

Fonte puts Obama’s last eight years into historical context:

The progressive project to ‘fundamentally transform’ America did not begin with Obama but in the late 19th century with Woodrow Wilson … who explicitly rejected the American founding’s core principles.

He continues:

The new, transformed civic morality of the progressive narrative also divides Americans between dominant or ‘oppressor’ groups—whites, males, native-born, Christians, heterosexuals—and victim or ‘oppressed’ groups—racial, ethnic, and linguistic minorities; women; LGBT individuals, and ‘undocumented’ immigrants.

Progressive politics doesn’t seek the national interest or the common good. Its purpose is to promote ‘marginalized’ or ‘oppressed’ groups against ‘dominant’ or ‘oppressor’ groups.

The emergence of Black Lives Matter and La Raza, representing Hispanics, are two recent examples of the balkanization of identity groups. The separate demands made by these groups in the public square should not surprise Marini, who says:

Dividing Americans into separatist groups) requires the systematic mobilization of animosity. Progressive identity politics, camouflaged under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ is ‘a new kind of civil religion.’ Its enforcement takes the form of political correctness, carried out by the administrative state and private sector bureaucrats and activists within those institutions of a politicized civil society progressives have captured, which include the media, universities, schools, major corporations, and even apparently professional athletic associations.


Donald Trump takes a stand in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania


Progressivism often presents a newness, a freshness and a caring message to the young and idealistic. It is attractive to those who have been worn down by endless Washington broken promises and scandals. Caring sells in America, and caring is the message of the Clinton campaign.

Standing in her way is nearly half of America, many of them older and not impressed by the progressivist agenda. They still believe the founders had it about right when they espoused one America, with lady justice blindfolded. These Americans look to our long history of assimilation, with citizens being bound together solely by the freedoms that brought them here in the first place.

Our national identity, until recently, has been distinctly “American.” Trashing this American-ness and our quintessential freedoms in exchange for a globalist, separatist agenda will get you Hillary Clinton and a continuation of the Obama years.

Embracing one nation under God and a return to strict interpretations of the Constitution will get you Donald Trump, outsider and America-firster. Says Stockman, “Trump is kind of a wild man in some ways, but he hasn’t spent the last 30 years in Washington drinking the Kool-Aid.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.