Now that we have the first Democratic Party debate to compare with the Trump traveling sideshow -- brought to us by the Republican Party -- it is time to pause and reflect on what we now know -- or don't know. The Bernie and Hillary "give away" show reminded me more of two children talking about the old television program "Can You Top This?"! If I hadn't studied economics in college and hadn't come to grips with the self-interest of human nature, they could easily appeal to my own desire to "have it all for free."
The very rich didn't get that way without understanding the rules (our tax laws) and the human flaws of our political system. They simply use a portion of their wealth to promote and elect people to write the laws in their favor, and that includes the laws that set a cap on taxes. The only threat to the very wealthy is a financial crisis in the nations where they store their assets. Taxes are not a particular threat to them but it does sound good to the person hearing what he or she is going to get for free just by electing the speaker who promises to pay for it by raising the taxes on the rich.
Listening to the candidates at the CNN debate, it was difficult not to think of it as a re-run of the old perfume commercial "Promise them anything but give them Arpege." (Arpege in this case is the same old government-issued, self-protected interest we have had in the past.) The unfortunate part is someone actually has to understand how you change laws to pass legislation and no matter what people say or what campaigning politicians say, eventually the well will run dry if you don't have rain replenishing the supply. If Bernie Sanders wasn't so obsessed with his socialist views, I could easily be impressed with him and his campaign style. Soaking the rich (the very wealthy if you prefer) has its limitation, because they have the flexibility to move anywhere in the world to protect their financial interests. The two primary Democratic candidates and Donald Trump don't seem to agree with me on that belief.
One of the most successful men I met in my working career summed up the benefits of his ownership of a multiple division corporation as saying "it provides a means of having everything I want without having to pay personal taxes on income." His corporation, a private entity, employed hundreds or thousands of people. He is deceased now, but he provided a means of livelihood for a large number of families during his lifetime. Our nation would not benefit from discouraging innovators like him.
When we consider what brought our current president into the White House, it is easy to understand how big a part rhetoric plays in campaigning. Television focuses on Donald Trump for his flamboyant speech, not his meaningful healthcare proposals or the economic plans or the overhaul of the income tax plan. Whether Donald Trump could actually lead our nation while dealing with our current Congressional team can only be answered if he wins the Republican nomination and is elected in November of next year. In the period between now and the Republican convention, all we can do is try to understand he is not our only choice -- just the most vocal and colorful.
Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon, continues to perform well in the polls. He makes a lot of sense, isn't part of the Washington establishment, and has appeal to both black and white voters. If he is prepared to lead our nation in world-wide events is not likely to be demonstrated unless he, like Trump, follows up by winning the White House.
There are several people who are not doing very well in the polls who seem to me to better fit my own expectations of proven leadership, combined with a history of getting things done, who have had some experience in Washington but are not now involved in the Capitol and give me a sense of being down-to-earth and capable of bringing common sense to our nation. For my purposes, I consider five people in the list of candidates for the Republican nomination. These five are not currently senators or representatives. Those candidates have been excluded from my list. The alphabetic list is Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich. The least flamboyant of these and the one that seems to me to be the best qualified is Kasich, the governor of Ohio. He is just a minor blip in the polls and does not get the media exposure that most of the candidates benefit from, but when he is interviewed, makes a world of sense to me. He doesn't promise the moon, just states his ideas clearly and factually. If we could combine Mike Huckabee's quick wit and easy manner in front of a microphone with Kasich's knowledge and experience, he could easily challenge Trump in a debate.
These are just my views and we have a long way to go before either party gets down to a final choice. I just pray the people's decision will provide us with the leader we need to save our country.
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 10/21/2015