Democrats Are Regressive Ultraconservatives Not Progressive Liberals

Conservatives should stop helping ultraconservative  Democrats  lie by agreeing  with the Democrats' false claim  that  Democrats are liberals   instead of ultraconservatives.  Conservatives should also stop calling outdated Democratic ideas   "progressive". 

Conservatives, like many Americans, falsely believe there are only two political  "attitudes" in the United States.  One attitude is called "liberal".  The other is called "conservative".   There is a  third attitude called "ultraconservative" which  has at times adversely affected American society.

Real liberals are open-minded and sometimes overly optimistic about the positive  impact  of change.   Democrats are closed-minded True Believers who tend to believe they are Right about everything and anybody who disagrees is Wrong.   Democrats seem unable to comprehend the possibility of any other proposals than theirs.   A real liberal believes his  ideas will win over your  ideas in  a  fair debate.
  
A real liberal who believed the global warming / climate change myth might believe warming would  be desirable  because it would  create a longer growing season.  A real liberal might belittle claims of  climate disasters  by suggesting the disaster claims  represent ultraconservatives'   exaggerated  fears of  change.

In 1861 ultraconservative southern Democrats started the Civil War.   A century later ultraconservative southern Democrats were trying to block efforts by Republicans and liberal Democrats to end the south's rigid system of racial segregation.

Although liberal presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy led the Democratic Party in the mid 20th Century, by the 21st Century ultraconservative  racists were back in control.   Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr. , Dr. Alveda King   and  Day Gardner   accuse Democratic Party supported Planned Parenthood of "Black Genocide."

Conservatives who believe "liberal" is a bad name don't understand that many others [including most political journalists] don't consider "liberal"  a bad name.  Many journalists seem to think that American politics involves a contest between good guys and bad guys like a 50's tv western.    Many also believe that "liberals" are the good guys and "conservatives" are the bad guys.

Most journalists have no idea what a "liberal" is but assume that the people  conservatives call "liberals" are the ones they should support.    Conservatives have no idea what a "liberal" is but falsely assume that the people who disagree with them must be "liberals".  Conservatives don't consider the possibility one or both of  them  might  have wrong information.  If  both had correct information they might agree.

The conversion of American liberals into ultraconservatives involves a process  Friedrich Nietzsche described. "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established:  once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

Once liberals create an institution they become protective toward their "baby".  Liberal created regulatory agencies may become  over zealous, Subsequent liberals may face opposition if they try to reform the institution.   

Often one generation's liberals become the next generation's conservatives.  Politicians who  support old programs are some type of   conservative:  Thus, politicians who want to expand Medicare are conservatives.

Conservative  Republicans need to recognize that they are in the middle between  liberals and ultraconservatives.   Or, conservative Republicans would be in the middle between  liberals and ultraconservatives if the United States had any real liberals.  Conservative  Republicans aren't on the "far right" as Democrats falsely claim: : Conservative  Republicans are actually in the American political main stream as were liberal Democrats such as Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. 

Republicans will have  a better chance of  winning if they stop  helping  ultraconservative Democrats lie by agreeing  with the Democrats' false claim  that  Democrats are liberals   instead of ultraconservatives. 

Republicans  should  stop using the word "progressive" to describe Democrats or  their old 20th Century proposals.   Democrats use the  term "progressive" because "progressive" is the political equivalent of the consumer  product slogan "new and improved".    Unfortunately many naive voters, especially young voters,  don't understand that the  term "progressive" is meaningless.   Some politicians even call the archaic  concept of socialism "progressive".

Millennials Should Break the Cycle of Alternating Political Parties

For the last century control of the United States has cycled between the 19th Century Democratic and Republican parties.  Voters choose between the old ideas of the Democratic Party and the old ideas of the Republican Party.    The two parties are mired in the same old partisan conflicts election after election. The Democrats in particular seem more interested in playing partisan political games than in dealing seriously with the nation's problems.  Republicans are increasingly following their example.

Millennials need to decide whether they want to continue the politics of their grandparents' generation or replace the 19th Century parties with 21st Century parties. 

President Donald Trump has compared Washington to a swamp.  One of the most unpleasant aspects of swamps is stagnant water due to a lack of fresh water flowing into the swamp to  push the stagnant water out.   Washington is a swamp because of a lack of new ideas.  New parties could bring new ideas to Washington and the rest of country like fresh water entering a swamp.

Replacing a political party can take a couple of elections.  Thus, Congressional candidates, as well as candidates for other offices, need to remind voters that even if the third party candidate doesn't win this year, voters will be telling the "outdated parties" that voters want new options.   A strong finish will make it easier for the candidate to run again or encourage a  replacement    In districts in which there  is no third party candidate, Millenials might get together and agree to support one of their number to run as a write in candidate.

At the national level the party out of power is easiest to replace because it has fewer entrenched incumbents.   Thus, third party candidates running for Congress should say they are THE alternative to the Republicans regardless of which party the incumbent in that district belongs to. 

Voters a century ago had negative attitudes toward the major parties.   Voters began voting for third party candidates.   The effort didn't replace either party, but the third parties did force changes in the actions of the parties.   Major changes included direct election of Senators and giving women the right to vote

The Only Way to Stop Trump

It's probably too late for Republicans to keep Donald Trump from getting the Republican presidential nomination.  There is a  remote possibility that Gov. John R. Kasich could defeat Trump if Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz dropped out and threw their support to Kasich.

Neither Rubio nor Cruz has any chance of winning the nomination.  They appeal to only a portion of Republicans with little chance of appealing to those Republicans who don't call the selves "conservatives".  Many of the people who are voting for Trump are only doing so because  they don't want Cruz or Rubio and Trump is the only other Republican with a chance to win the nomination.

If Cruz and Rubio drop out the voters who are supporting Trump as the least of the three "evils" might switch to Kasich    If there are enough Republicans in this category, Kasich might be able to compete with Trump.

Perhaps Rubio and Cruz could be bought off with promises of positions in a Kasich administration.  Rubio is a plausible vice presidential running mate.  Cruz could be offered the Attorney General position
with a secret promise of a Supreme Court nomination late in the administration.

Do Rich Deserve Their Money?

I'm getting tired of Republicans crying that the "poor" rich shouldn't have to pay any more of "their" money in federal taxes. Republicans falsely claim that allowing those with high incomes to pay lower taxes will result in creation of new jobs.

Perhaps that is the case with entrepreneurs like Donald Trump or the owners of small businesses.

However, many, if not most, of those with high incomes, including corporate CEO's, work for someone else. They aren't going to use any tax cut money to create new jobs at their employers' businesses. Many corporate executives look for ways to reduce the number of people working at their companies so more money will be available to pay them.

How many high income people really deserve the income they receive? The Wall Street executives who wrecked the companies they worked for certainly didn't deserve the large bonuses they received from President Barack Obama.

In 2005, federal prosecutors got a conviction of Westar CEO David Wittig and assistant Douglas Lake for looting the corporation to increase their own income. However, a Supreme Court ruling favorable to corporate executives receiving questionable compensation caused the conviction to be overturned and prevented another successful prosecution. Wittig had been previously convicted of a crooked loan scheme with a Topeka banker who increased Wittig's line of credit so Wittig could loan him money for a real estate venture.

NBA Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman told Jay Leno recently that the NBA really needed to restructure its labor contract because many teams were paying players $20 million a year just to sit on the bench. Fans sometimes complain that some highly paid athletes don't play like they deserve what they are being paid.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in 2010 that 30 private college presidents had incomes of over one million. How can anyone justify paying a college president a million a year, particularly considering the high cost of college? Millionaire college presidents aren't likely to use their "tax cut" money to create jobs. If they were interested in creating new jobs they would take lower salaries.

Some major colleges pay athletic coaches million dollar salaries as if they were profit making businesses rather than charitable organizations. College coaches are unlikely to use any tax cut money to create new jobs. They are in coaching to make as much money as they can.

The sports programs they work for are preoccupied with making money. Schools jump from conference to conference depending upon how much money they can make. Congress needs to consider taxing major college sports programs like professional sports teams. At the very least Congress should eliminate the practice of allowing tax deductible "contributions" to major college sports programs. Tax deductions for payments to organizations should be eliminated to those organizations that exist to help others. College sports programs exist to make a profit in the form of high pay for sports employees.

Colleges aren't the only "charities" that help their executives and coaches get rich. Some charities pay very high salaries to their top executives. Many environmental organizations pay multiple executives over $200,000 per year.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of America at one time was paying its CEO nearly a million in salary and benefits. The March of Dimes CEO has received over $600,000 a year.

Actor Charlie Sheen might have used some of his tax cut money for some "fun dates" but not to create permanent jobs. A few actors may finance their own movies and touring singers may be responsible for paying band members and "roadies". How many overpaid actors use tax cut money to hire anyone other than domestic staff for their mansions.

If income were based on one's contribution to the welfare of society, farm workers would be much better paid than entertainers.

If Republicans want to use the tax system to encourage business owners to add jobs, Congress should allow deduction for any expenses, including equipment purchases, associated with hiring new employees. This approach would reward those who hire new employees. The Republican approach rewards those owners who don't hire new employees by allowing them to keep more of their incomes. The Republican approach also rewards those who have no interest in using the income they receive from their employers to hire new workers.