WASHINGTON, May 5, 2015 – The elections of 2000 were the most important elections in post-war America in terms of deciding the ideological direction of the country. The cold war was over, the U.S. government now could concentrate on dealing with ideology at home. Would America become a free republic or another open elitist society without ability to hide behind cold war rhetoric?
The U.S. dollar was paramount, gold was sinking fast towards double digits per ounce and there was great confidence in the American way.
Then there was 9/11, the horrific terrorist attacks on the United States. This unfortunate event shielded the public from the domestic economic problems that had already begun to appear. This gave a chance to the then-president to call for more spending and borrowing to keep the economy afloat. Traders watching the market knew that the sudden spike in gold meant that serious economic problems had begun spreading in America.
Voters had elected George Bush president, hoping he would be strong enough to protect the principles of freedom. But Bush faltered when the crunch came, demanding a trillion dollar bailout for the elite of the elite when Lehman Brothers failed. Bush obviously had never believed in the concept of economic freedom. Actions speak louder than words.
The 2016 elections are also ideologically critical for America. The next election is about America’s saving itself and returning to greatness.
The candidates are starting to line up for 2016. Despite their differences, the front-runners are all defenders of the elite. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and the others spout the verbiage of equality before the law, but ultimately bow to the elite and, like Bush, would bail out those at the top. Those at the bottom, of course, do not have access to those same bailouts.
But what about Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders? They both know that America’s declining global influence is the result of the coziness between the financial system and government. They differ on how to fix this problem, however.
In a recent interview with ABC, Sanders said, “I’m the only candidate who is prepared to take on the billionaire class which now controls our economy and increasingly controls the political life of this country.” It is no secret that Sanders loathes Wall Street. He also believes Wall Street should face higher taxes and that its executives should receive lower bonuses because of the bail-outs and highly beneficial Federal Reserve policies.
Paul has a more permanent solution for dealing with the ties between the financial system and government. Paul wants to sever the ability of banks to milk America by eliminating the central bank. He said, “I oppose the Federal Reserve primarily because it wreaks havoc on the economy.” He wants to expose and get rid of the Fed in order for there to be a free market.
Sanders believes in taxing more and bringing more controls, while Paul believes in getting rid of controls and government-owned institutions. He does not believe in Scandinavia-type socialism. He believes in freedom.
A 2016 battle between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton does not change America. Despite the bloody campaign fight, America will plod along toward a super elitist society regardless of who wins the election. Another Bush versus Clinton would be just another hoodwinking of the voters of America.
Rand Paul versus Bernie Sanders would radically change America, either toward greater freedoms or toward socialism.
Both men are brave for standing up to the elitist establishment, not just Washington, but also the institutions that are corrupting the U.S. economy. Sanders, however, does not seem to recognize the economic danger he would invite by socializing institutions. He does not seem to understand that such a move would undercut democracy and freedom and destroy the free market.
What will 2016 bring? Will it be business as usual, or could America take control of its destiny, shake off the grasp of the elite and implement true economic disruption leading to a free market?