And those handlers -- the monied interests -- will throw them raw meat until they devour themselves and their country.
There is a lot that is true about what you say. From FDR on, even given the inclusion of Eisenhower (and Nixon, who I'll deal with in a moment) the left-leaning portion of the American political scene have always seen the polity of the United States as a one-way ratchet, pulling further left and not retreating.
But even though Johnson supported many of their views and promoted many of their programs, he was not "of" the left. The people in Pulaski Square chanting "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today" were firm lefties, and J0hnson was never enough. What they were not, however, was numerous enough to push their own agenda. The American far left as a real political force is part and parcel of the Baby Boom generation -- unfortunately I'm considered a member -- who grew up to comfortable to have real problems and felt it was incumbent on themselves to solve the problems of other people, having somehow lost the concept of "mind your own business."
And they did, it has to be said, a lot of good. The racial and sexual inequality of the U.S. pre-1960 has to be seen as a violation of the best principles of the country's foundation.
The trouble is, and remains, that perfection is unachievable, and their accomplishments were never enough to make them happy -- and by 1970, in most legislative ways, they'd accomplished all their goals. Racial inequality was banned by law. Social inequality was being addressed by numerous programs. Sexual inequality was also being addressed via legislation. What did that leave? Well, of course it left the fact that inequality is always present -- and outcomes showed that inequality. So the left has pushed since 1968 not for equal opportunity, but for something that cannot be guaranteed -- equal outcomes.
And this created a schism in the Democratic Party. The young firebrands of the 1960s came to the '68 convention wanting new blood (specifically they wanted Eugene McCarthy who was less electable than the candidate ultimately chosen at the eleciton). The WWII generation who actually ran the DNC wanted someone electable, someone stable, and yet someone who would create still more social programs and end the war in Southeast Asia.
We all know the outcome. Nixon. Despite what Hillary! supporters say, Nixon had the best resume' of anyone to run for office in U.S. history. He'd served up to field rank in the Navy. He'd been in the House as a Congressman, and in the Senate, and then served two terms as vice president -- he literally brought more political experience to the job than anyone else in U.S. history. His problem -- he was a lying, stealing, backstabbing paranoid with no respect for the law. Resume' doesn't always count. Nixon had to resign, and the DNC breathed a sigh of relief -- Ford was clearly not going to be re-elected and the ratchet would return to DNC control after he left office.
And then, in one of the outright dumbest moves in U.S. history, they selected Jimmy Carter to replace Ford. I love Carter, to this day I think he's one of the finest human beings to sit in the oval office. But I also lived through his administration and think he is living proof that nice guys finish last. I remember my parents worried about the high gas prices. I remember the sweaters and lower-your-thermostat to 55 in the winter. I remember, in short (the term he himself didn't use) the "malaise." The only people shocked by Reagan's election were Democrats. Reagan did the thing that Democrats didn't. He said "America is a great nation." The greatest political campaign run, to date, in my lifetime, is the "morning in America" campaign in which Reagan said it was OK to have a good job, enjoy the fruits of having that job, and be proud of the 20th Century accomplishments of the United States.
And for saying this he's been called a racist, a sexist and a candidate of the rich and the banking industry for 30-plus years, and with him the entire GOP, regardless of its candidates. If you don't do or say anything racist or sexist, statements you make are "dog whistles" to those who are racist and sexist. Accept rich donor's donations (and not be named Kerry, Gore, Clinton or Obama), and you're in the pocket of the special interests.
Which brings us to Trump. Trump is a buffoon. I didn't want to vote for him. I once voted for a third-party candidate (Perot -- about which I'm deeply embarrassed) so I couldn't vote for any of the trailer-candidates, and that left Trump, or Hillary! Needless to say I took Trump, as I'd have voted for a dead chimpanzee who was A) Nominated by a major party and B) wasn't Hillary Clinton.
And Trump has been what I expected in some ways. He says things no one in the public eye should say. He has a backlog of shady deals that would have followed him the rest of his life with or without the public scrutiny of being president. His personal life is a series of sexual embarrassments, ex wives, and statements that would get you fired in most office environments. He should smash his cell phone and cease all Twitter activity.
And he has a America with a 3.9 percent unemployment rate. The DOW average this morning is at 25,187, insignificantly down from a five-day high of 25,350 a week ago. North Korea has begun to negotiate, instead of testing missiles. The "the U.S. will handle it" attitude of our NATO allies has been shaken and we're starting to get at least some real cooperation there. If any other president had three of those successes on his plate he'd be praised as the next Clinton, possibly the next FDR. Obama would have committed blasphemy in two different religions for even one of them.
And that, more than anything, is driving the TDS. Not only did the buffoon defeat their "more qualified" candidate (the public saw through her ), but he actually has successes he can point to -- and they can't stop him from replacing Kennedy with a more traditional conservative. The ratchet is failing to go one way, and the Court can drive it further away from their goals.
It's a mistake to assume evil on the part of your opponent. Most liberals, especially most socialists, care deeply about the human condition and want desperately to improve the lot of people everywhere -- they've simply chosen the wrong method for doing that, and some embrace it with fanatic zeal. I could feel sorry for them, if they'd just attempt to live their lives and leave the rest of us alone. Unfortunately, the tools they've chosen are predicated on NOT doing that, and currently their hatred of Trump is placing them outside reality. That's a shame.
