What Hillary Won’t Do as President

Hillary Clinton’s status as the presidential candidate of her party is totally due to the national party organization. Unlike Donald Trump, who earned the votes of 14 million primary voters without any help from his party, Hillary is totally dependent upon her party’s vast national political infrastructure. Because her status is totally dependent upon her party she is now totally beholden to it.

This dependence upon the party means that she must do what the party wants, and must refrain from doing what the party doesn’t want. And for the Democrat Party what they don’t do is just as, if not more, important than what they do. This is because the Democrat Party practices what may be called palliative politics, particularly with regard to social issues. They go after symptoms not underlying causes.

This explains the paradox of Democrat Party legislation. On the one hand Democrats are known for relentlessly creating new programs to regulate the production of energy, business, and behavior at all levels and society. But the party infrastructure has become so dependent upon these foci that they are now dependent on the existence of the problems. Simply put, Democrats do not want to solve any social problems because then there’s no need for the party anymore. This is best illustrated by an example.

Recently the terrorist act in Orlando was used as an opportunity for Democrats to bring up the issue of “assault weapon” control. So-called assault weapons were once banned but the ban expired in 2004. And, curiously, when Obama took office in 2009 the Democrats had big majorities in the House and Senate as well as control of the White House. So one may reasonably ask why they didn’t permanently ban alleged military-type guns in 2009 or 2010 when Republicans had no political power to stop them. Republicans never did try to stop them in 2009 and 2010.

This would seem to have been a good test of their devotion to the assault weapon ban yet somehow the issue never came up. The same is true of the minimum wage issue. Democrats have been discussing the minimum wage issue for decades and in 2009 they could have raised that to fifteen dollars an hour. But somehow they weren’t interested. The reason they weren’t interested is that their 2008 campaign was over, it had achieved its goal of placing a Democrat in the White House.

The reason they weren’t interested in solving these two issues should be obvious. The assault weapon ban is a campaign issue. It serves the strategy of attracting discussions during campaigns. Nothing more. So if Democrats truly ended the existence of military style assault weapons they would also eliminate it as a campaign issue.

Gun control has been an issue ever since JFK was assassinated with a rifle in 1963, so no one can argue that Democrats are only recently concerned with gun control. They boast that they are the only party that is concerned. What they will not say is that now they are dependent upon gun violence as a campaign issue.

A similar issue is the minimum wage. They had the opportunity to raise the minimum wage in 2009 but refused to do so. Once again this is because the minimum wage needs to be preserved as a campaign issue. The last thing Democrats want is to shorten their list of campaign topics.

This line of analysis also applies to wage equality for women. And tragically, the same thing applies to race. President Obama only gained the White House with the black vote. It’s important to note that he only brings up the issue of race use it to say the nation needs a conversation on race. He does not implement solutions. The biggest problem in black communities is the lack of good public education, yet one of the first things President Obama did was stop, by executive order, the ability of black parents to have school choice in Washington, D.C.

President Obama will go out of his way to talk about gun violence in the black community but only when he can blame it on the culture of racism in law enforcement. Oddly, the culture of racism in the Democrat Party, the party which created and maintains all the black ghettoes in the nation, never comes up. Democrats fought the emancipation of slaves and the 1871 Civil Rights Act. They used Senator Robert Byrd, who once was a leader in the violently anti-black KKK organization, to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Republicans voted to stop the filibuster and, against the will of the Democrat Party, passed the Civil Rights Act.

Any time a Democrat brings up an issue such as minimum wage, income equality, or taxing the rich, they need to be asked why they didn’t do it in 2009 when they had the power. It’s not a matter of power, it’s a matter of politics. In 2009 the Democrats had the means and the opportunity to solve many issues but not the motive. Democrats need to never solve issues because they use these issues to market themselves to voters. While they play identity politics they do not want to solve any social issues because then there will be no reason to vote for Democrats.

There’s another side to this strategy. Democrats also need to constantly say that Republicans will never solve these issues. But voters must think about voting for Hillary knowing that her party, when they had the opportunity, did nothing to solve them. And if voters are really concerned that someone needs to ban assault weapons, they now know that as a fact Democrats will never do it. Democrats have little incentive to solve issues and great incentive to not solve them.

Another thing Hillary will not do is balance the budget. She has not said she will do so. This is because the budget deficits finance the party’s infrastructure, the infrastructure that got Hillary into the position as presidential candidate. Dedication to the party is the most important thing. This infrastructure is very expensive. It’s important to note that Hillary doesn’t need the approval of Congress to engage in another, much bigger Quantitative Easing program. Obama also didn’t consult with Congress, as the Constitution demands.

Hillary has never promised to balance the budget because that act would jeopardize her party’s national infrastructure and their public sector union campaign donations. She is beholden to her party and its policies, which will never solve problems because they need these problems in order to keep in power.

Hillary and her surrogates attack Trump’s personality and predict that he will be destructive. Voters should measure these predictions against the realities of what the Democrat Party does, and has done, for over one hundred years, to minorities. At some point American voters may come to realize that enough is enough, that they’ve suffered enough taxation and empty Democrat Party promises, and are tired of having their valid concerns manipulated to keep Democrats in power. 

Hillary Clinton’s status as the presidential candidate of her party is totally due to the national party organization. Unlike Donald Trump, who earned the votes of 14 million primary voters without any help from his party, Hillary is totally dependent upon her party’s vast national political infrastructure. Because her status is totally dependent upon her party she is now totally beholden to it.

This dependence upon the party means that she must do what the party wants, and must refrain from doing what the party doesn’t want. And for the Democrat Party what they don’t do is just as, if not more, important than what they do. This is because the Democrat Party practices what may be called palliative politics, particularly with regard to social issues. They go after symptoms not underlying causes.

This explains the paradox of Democrat Party legislation. On the one hand Democrats are known for relentlessly creating new programs to regulate the production of energy, business, and behavior at all levels and society. But the party infrastructure has become so dependent upon these foci that they are now dependent on the existence of the problems. Simply put, Democrats do not want to solve any social problems because then there’s no need for the party anymore. This is best illustrated by an example.

Recently the terrorist act in Orlando was used as an opportunity for Democrats to bring up the issue of “assault weapon” control. So-called assault weapons were once banned but the ban expired in 2004. And, curiously, when Obama took office in 2009 the Democrats had big majorities in the House and Senate as well as control of the White House. So one may reasonably ask why they didn’t permanently ban alleged military-type guns in 2009 or 2010 when Republicans had no political power to stop them. Republicans never did try to stop them in 2009 and 2010.

This would seem to have been a good test of their devotion to the assault weapon ban yet somehow the issue never came up. The same is true of the minimum wage issue. Democrats have been discussing the minimum wage issue for decades and in 2009 they could have raised that to fifteen dollars an hour. But somehow they weren’t interested. The reason they weren’t interested is that their 2008 campaign was over, it had achieved its goal of placing a Democrat in the White House.

The reason they weren’t interested in solving these two issues should be obvious. The assault weapon ban is a campaign issue. It serves the strategy of attracting discussions during campaigns. Nothing more. So if Democrats truly ended the existence of military style assault weapons they would also eliminate it as a campaign issue.

Gun control has been an issue ever since JFK was assassinated with a rifle in 1963, so no one can argue that Democrats are only recently concerned with gun control. They boast that they are the only party that is concerned. What they will not say is that now they are dependent upon gun violence as a campaign issue.

A similar issue is the minimum wage. They had the opportunity to raise the minimum wage in 2009 but refused to do so. Once again this is because the minimum wage needs to be preserved as a campaign issue. The last thing Democrats want is to shorten their list of campaign topics.

This line of analysis also applies to wage equality for women. And tragically, the same thing applies to race. President Obama only gained the White House with the black vote. It’s important to note that he only brings up the issue of race use it to say the nation needs a conversation on race. He does not implement solutions. The biggest problem in black communities is the lack of good public education, yet one of the first things President Obama did was stop, by executive order, the ability of black parents to have school choice in Washington, D.C.

President Obama will go out of his way to talk about gun violence in the black community but only when he can blame it on the culture of racism in law enforcement. Oddly, the culture of racism in the Democrat Party, the party which created and maintains all the black ghettoes in the nation, never comes up. Democrats fought the emancipation of slaves and the 1871 Civil Rights Act. They used Senator Robert Byrd, who once was a leader in the violently anti-black KKK organization, to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Republicans voted to stop the filibuster and, against the will of the Democrat Party, passed the Civil Rights Act.

Any time a Democrat brings up an issue such as minimum wage, income equality, or taxing the rich, they need to be asked why they didn’t do it in 2009 when they had the power. It’s not a matter of power, it’s a matter of politics. In 2009 the Democrats had the means and the opportunity to solve many issues but not the motive. Democrats need to never solve issues because they use these issues to market themselves to voters. While they play identity politics they do not want to solve any social issues because then there will be no reason to vote for Democrats.

There’s another side to this strategy. Democrats also need to constantly say that Republicans will never solve these issues. But voters must think about voting for Hillary knowing that her party, when they had the opportunity, did nothing to solve them. And if voters are really concerned that someone needs to ban assault weapons, they now know that as a fact Democrats will never do it. Democrats have little incentive to solve issues and great incentive to not solve them.

Another thing Hillary will not do is balance the budget. She has not said she will do so. This is because the budget deficits finance the party’s infrastructure, the infrastructure that got Hillary into the position as presidential candidate. Dedication to the party is the most important thing. This infrastructure is very expensive. It’s important to note that Hillary doesn’t need the approval of Congress to engage in another, much bigger Quantitative Easing program. Obama also didn’t consult with Congress, as the Constitution demands.

Hillary has never promised to balance the budget because that act would jeopardize her party’s national infrastructure and their public sector union campaign donations. She is beholden to her party and its policies, which will never solve problems because they need these problems in order to keep in power.

Hillary and her surrogates attack Trump’s personality and predict that he will be destructive. Voters should measure these predictions against the realities of what the Democrat Party does, and has done, for over one hundred years, to minorities. At some point American voters may come to realize that enough is enough, that they’ve suffered enough taxation and empty Democrat Party promises, and are tired of having their valid concerns manipulated to keep Democrats in power.