3 Parties; Democrats, GOP and Trump


SWMBO has said for some time that the present two parties should be replaced with quite a few more political players so that they would need to reach coalition compromise solutions.  She also sees the need for action to prevent the formation of gerrymandered House districts.  I can't argue with any of that.

IMO yesterday's Trump/Dems agreement represents a beginning for a radically different poltical paradigm in Washington.

The Republicans are moaning today about a loss of leverage in arguing with the Democrats. Yes, they did lose leverage.  But, it was leverage that they had proven themselves incapable of converting into any sort of legislative action as they have been mired in internal factional politics and blocked from solutions by the purists who are determined not to give the liberals and centrists in either parties anything at all.

Trump has an agenda.  I need not list the items.  The Congressional Republicans are a failure in moving that agenda. 

As has often been stated, Trump is really a New York City business liberal.  IMO he is not comfortable with the real ideological hard-asses from places like Texas and Arizona.

People on Foxnews are now moaning about what will happen in December.  SHREAK!  A mouse!  The Democrats will demand concessions and compromise!  Oh Those awful "C" words.

Well, pilgrims, what will happen is that Trump will make compromises to get Democrat votes.  That will terrify the Republicans because they will then face the prospect of answering to their constituents after having lost the initiative to their Democrat opponents' party in satisfying voter needs.  My guess is that a lot of them will abandon the GOP leadership and vote with Trump.

If this is the art of the deal, I consider it to be a meisterstuck.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to 3 Parties; Democrats, GOP and Trump

  1. John Minnerath says:

    Well said sir. Trump is not a party politician, he has a good innate feeling and understanding of the masses at large in the country.

  2. Jack says:

    It will be interesting to see what policies the Art of the Deal produces. The debt ceiling and funding of the government were always hostage to political football but inevitably passed with more pork. I’m willing to bet that nothing much changes in terms of policy. We’ll get more government spending, bigger bureaucracy and more interference in our daily lives. Big, politically well connected groups will continue to reap the biggest benefits and the Deplorables will be left to fend for themselves.

  3. Morongobill says:

    The crazies on both sides have had their say. The leadership of both parties have blown their chance. At long last, something may finally start happening.
    Any doubts about this president’s staying power surely must be dispelled after the last couple three days events in DC.

  4. notlurking says:

    Totally in agreement that Trump was never a part of the republican establishment…that is why he has shaken things up a bit….when he was running for the presidency the Republican bigwigs never contemplated he would win….

  5. Daniel Nicolas says:

    ‘America First’ Party with Trump vs the Globalist Democrats/Republicans.

  6. Medicine Man says:

    Nothing I can disagree with here. In fact, I think this was pretty much inevitable.
    The Republican majorities are not large and, as Col. Lang observes, ideological divisions make party-line victories hard to come by. The scorched-Earth conservatism of some parts of the GOP is inimical to the interests of Trump’s working class supporters. Similarly, the globalist, laissez-faire economics of the GOP establishment is actually a major threat to the more nativist Trump supporters. This underlying reality was visible during the GOP primaries last year. I remember Trump was the only candidate who defended his supporters entitlement to the social security they’ve paid into. He received as much applause for this as he did his many attacks on the eGOP for their serial sellouts on border security and the outsourcing of the country’s future. That Trump was going to need to stiff-arm some people on his own side to get his own agenda moving forward seems a foregone conclusion.
    If the Dems are compelled to cut deals with Trump while the GOP is punished for squandering their majorities in service to revolutionary zeal, then if looks like justice all around to me.

  7. paul says:

    im curious how willing democrats are to being seen as cooperating with trump on major legislation, after all 2020 is almost here.

  8. Laura says:

    I think this merely proves that Trump wants to win some legislative victories (naturally and of course) AND that Pelosi and Schumer and simply better political animals than Ryan and McConnell and have actual doable goals of legislation they want to accomplish. Ryan and McConnell may well be toast.
    And, YES, that is how politics is supposed to work.

  9. Kooshy says:

    “I can’t argue with any of that’
    Colonel lang, who can? I hope we all be able to overcome the , Borg, the prostitute Media, and the well paid elected congress personalities, and make this happen one day. that would be the real second American revolution.,

  10. Ramojus says:

    Why does this remind me of the Nixon presidency? There are so many similarities e.g. “the silent majority” vs “deplorables”, the possibility of impeachment. The only exception would be the EPA (created by Nixon and being dismantled by Trump).
    I recall when Nixon was running for his second term, he did not campaign as a Republican, only as “President Nixon”.

  11. Lisa Tate says:

    I’ve thought Trump worked through running for/being president long before many have thought he did. (eg, he did some dry runs before?) I hope he’s playing smartly the hand he’s been dealt from prior admistratons.

  12. David E. Solomon says:

    Colonel Lang,
    All I can say is that I certainly hope your are correct.

  13. Thirdeye says:

    The parallel occurs to me too, plus a few more. Nixon was propelled to his wins by the race riots of the late 1960s, the Democratic response to them, and revulsion towards the student left. The BLM riots, Democratic racial politics, and the antics borne of campus PC culture gave Trump a boost. Trump and Nixon inherited foreign policy messes from their predecessors, for which they receive disproportionate blame (partly due to their own mistakes). Nixon got a bad rap on race because of insufficient rhetorical pandering while in policy his administration was forcefully pro-black on desegregation, affirmative action, and urban-targeted educational and economic programs. The “racist” label gets hung on Trump over symbolic issues while his approaches to immigration and trade objectively target two reasons the condition of blacks has worsened over the past 40 years.

  14. MRW says:

    If this is the art of the deal, I consider it to be a meisterstuck.

    I’m with you on this one, Colonel. Laffed my ass off when he did it, and your tag line encapsulates it. Masterpiece.
    Trump just stuck a fork in Ryan, and McConnell ain’t the king of the hill that he thought he was, no matter the status of McConnell’s wife in the Trump admin. They thought Trump was going to play the game the way they have declared Trump is supposed to play it, ’neophyte that he is’. McCain should be ordering up a four-foot-cube of Charmin. He’s going to need it. Foreign policy is NOT his purview sez the constitution, and losing the presidency in 2008 does not make him equal to the President of the US no matter how much he whines his senate seat grants him that equivalency every chance he can recently.
    Getting elected in Sedona is not the equivalent of winning the country. McCain couldn’t manage it. Trump did.
    Bring out the popcorn. (Use truffle butter and die. dartagnan.com)

  15. TonyL says:

    I think people gave Donald Trump too much credit for the “The Art of The Deal”. The ghost writer thinks differently. He is full of remorse for having written that book for DJT.
    Trump’s Boswell Speaks:

  16. Bill H says:

    The Republicans kept poking Trump in the eye and he finally said, “Okay, if you don’t want to work with me, I’ll work with Democrats.” Republicans are living in a glass house and should not be throwing stones.

  17. turcopolier says:

    Tony L
    People like him seldom write their own books. The point is that he actually was good at makinf deals in the business jungle. pl

  18. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Neither Trump, nor Republicans, nor Democrats, nor Tea Party, nor Libertarians or anyone else have an answer to the following:
    It matters not what they all say when median price of house stands at $ 450,000 in California or that 2.8 million jobs have been moved off-shore, during the presidencies of both a republican and a democrat, in the first decade of 21-century.

  19. Medicine Man says:

    Watching Ryan and McConnell run around telling anyone who’ll listen “this is all Trump’s doing, we wuz robbed” makes me think they were actually willing participants in this spectacle. After all, regardless of whatever deals Trump agrees to, he doesn’t actually authority to force Congress to vote on anything. The only way Ryan and McConnell can be bullied is if they are secretly happy to be pushed. All of their caterwauling is just them not wanting to be held accountable by the conservative wing of the party. Doesn’t look like right wing media is fooled though.

  20. I would block-walk for that!

  21. dilbert dogbert says:

    I have read that “First Past The Post Wins” rule devolves into two parties. When a third party achieves a large enough vote it gets absorbed in one of the two majors. The Electoral College has a tiny bit of influence too. Good luck with changing those two things.

  22. TonyL says:

    Yes, I would agree that DJT is a successful salesman and a conman. Everything is about his brand. I meant to point out that perhaps there is not much “Art” in the “Deals”. His ghost writter admitted that he inflated and exagerated every accomplishments DJT ever had in writing this book.

  23. Huckleberry says:

    The only way the GOP will survive is if the myth of Reaganism is finally abandoned and the Boomer Cucks are liquidated by younger, smarter, nationalists who understand that the future lies in white identity politics.
    Given the tremendous amount of money involved in keeping the total failure of Conservatism going in Zombie Mode, and the lingering influence of anti-American NeoCons and the MSM, I doubt this is possible but hope to be surprised.

  24. turcopolier says:

    Tony L
    “conman?” This is anti-Trump BS. The essence of being a salesman is “conning” the target. IMO you have never been in business. pl

  25. Laura says:

    PL — I thought the essence of business was to provide a necessary (or perceived to be necessary) product at a competitive market price. I know a lot of very successful businessmen (in sales) and they are persuasive but they aren’t conning anyone. Madoff is a conman. Do you consider him businessman?
    Honestly wondering how we differentiate between those two types of business dealings.

  26. Fred says:

    I think that the Democrats are likely to fracture this cycle too. The coalition of the self-proclaimed cultural elites, urban and ethnic minorities is getting ever harder to hold together especially with the blatant corruption and the rigging of the DNC convention.

  27. turcopolier says:

    The primary objective of any business is to make money not to perform or provide a social good. If that is not the clear objective then what we are talking about is not a business. It is a charity of some sort whether a “not for profit” or an outright charity. Employees may be paid well in one of those but if the objective of the enterprise is to give money or goods away that is not a business by my definition. Goods and services are made and sold to make money. In the business process there are normally both business developers and salesmen. In big businesses these functions are usually performed by different people. The BD is a seducer who opens the door of the customer for the salesmen. In a sole proprietor entrepreneurial business these functions may wholly or in part be performed by the entrepreneur owner. that was the case in the Trump Organization. In developing accounts (BD) and in selling the arts of persuasion and seduction are in th eforeground because your transaction (as opposed to that of a competitor) must take place or you will starve and/or go broke. Whatever inducements that must be offered are offered whether those are discounts, commissions to the buyer or his agents, a case of champagne, Cuban cigars, whatever. maximum charm is employed and the exact truth can be skirted a bit or at least omitted. If you think that is “conning the client, well then you do not walk in the businessman’s shoes. Most people who call themselves businessmen are really functionaries in huge organizations in which they do not perfor the marketing job that makes the enterprise live. Others live on set aside government contracts. IMO only those who do battle directly for contracts vital to the company are real businessmen. pl

  28. steve g says:

    Re: SWMBO’s idea of mutiple parties. Have
    thought for some time a parliamentary system
    like that of UK would be better at this point in
    time. Of course we would have to rewrite or
    throw out the present constitution. Not happening.
    Does anyone know if the UK or other nations
    that have that type of system suffer from lobbyists
    like we have here. Eliminate K street and IMO
    there might not be a need for more parties.

  29. turcopolier says:

    I congratulate you for having acted the way you describe. I have never seen such behavior n big business. pl

  30. Fred says:

    It took the author a third of his essay to get to “immigration”. I disagree with his conclusion that the “system” is broken; it does a great job of suppressing wages and diluting votes. Equally it serves as a great relief valve for South American nations that export their poor. One should ask how Carlos Slim got so rich while so many of his countrymen had to leave the land of their ancestors to come here or why they still stay given the current narrative.

  31. Sam Peralta says:

    Col. Lang
    I would like to add to your description of many big businesses, which is something that I experienced when I worked at a private equity firm. The business exists to make its “special” investors and managers wealthy. The long term viability and health of the business is sacrificed for the short term returns of a small group of insiders. Even once venerable firms like IBM now exist to make its top executives wealthy. They do this by financial engineering around their incentive which is the stock price. So, while IBM’s top line keeps decelerating they manage EPS to beat Wall St “estimates” by leveraging the balance sheet and reducing float.
    OTOH, when I worked in technology start-ups, there was a distinct ethos to create a market winning product or service. The motivation of course was to make the founders and early employees wealthy through capital gains. The flip-side however, when I worked in venture capital was to back entrepreneurs who could build momentum for the “vision” and had the “gift” to find a buyer for that “vision” who would pay handsomely. A good example here is the AOL/Time Warner transaction, wherein Levin was seduced to pay up big time.
    In all this, as you note, salesmanship is critical. It is just that the customer is not necessarily the buyer of the product or service but with the increasing financialization, it is those with access to debt & equity capital.

  32. Laura says:

    Well…we have owned properties, developed properties, and have been landlords for 45 years. I consider owning and renting real estate to be a business and I have never “conned” anyone. My husband and I provide a good product (apartment/house), keep it in good condition, fulfill our lease obligations and have made money and had excellent tenants.
    I fully agree this is not “big business” (profitable, however!) but contend that the Golden Rule can be scaled up and that there is a middle ground between personally squeezing every last time of profit out of an enterprise and going broke. I sure know it is a better way to live!
    As a business person, I have issues with Trump’s vaunted abilities in that field. It’s true though — he sure has sold himself!

  33. mike says:

    Laura –
    “successful selling must bring mutual and continuous benefits to both the buyer and seller.”
    Otherwise the buyer goes elsewhere.
    From the Salesman’s Creed.

  34. turcopolier says:

    mike & Laura
    you people are real do-gooders. Hard, persuasive marketing includes providing a good product so that you can keep selling. pl

  35. mike says:

    Colonel –
    You said it yourself: “providing a good product so you can keep selling
    That was my point also. Doing good has nothing to do with it.

  36. turcopolier says:

    Yes, it does. Altruistic customer service is its own reward. i.e. “doing good” A business shark does the same thing to continue to make more and more money. Have you never watched “shark tank?” I hate the program and won’t watch it because I know so many people like the sharks. pl

  37. Bobo says:

    You got the business concept down well. If the owner/shareholder does not get their profit/dividend then they and their money go elsewhere though not necessarily together. It’s a Dog Eat Dog world out there and anyone saying different needs help.

  38. Stephanie says:

    Selling himself is all he does now. Having failed in his original business and other enterprises (failed airline, bought football team in league that went bust, four bankruptcies, no reputable banks will deal with him, etc., etc.) All this despite everything his father could do for him.
    Also, it should be noted that business abilities aren’t really “vaunted” by anyone except Trump. Even his supporters tend to ignore or explain away his repeated blunders or try to blame them on Ivana.

  39. mike says:

    Colonel –
    You referred to Laura and I as do-gooders. in comment #36 above. So perhaps in comment 37 I should have said “do-gooders have nothing to do with it.”
    I believe what I said and what Laura implied was that building a good product or providing a good service will get you more business and more and more money. Basic business sense that.
    IMHO you and I are saying the same thing.
    ‘Shark Tank’ I watched once for 5 minutes before figuring out it was more Hollywood BS and turned it off. Never watched Trump’s ‘Apprentice’ for more than five-minutes either. But he must have provided some ‘good’ showmanship for the audience as it lasted 13 years.

  40. turcopolier says:

    You did not like “Shark Tank” because it is the sad reality of big time entrepreneurial capitalism. I was good at it but hated it. “Business” in the “Shark Tank” sense is NOT Hollywood. That is how these people are. pl

  41. turcopolier says:

    You hate this man so much for some reason (probably because he won’t play to the end game of a transformed America) that anything you say about him must be discounted as completely one sided. pl

  42. turcopolier says:

    I am amazed at how many mom and pop naifs are here. pl

  43. different clue says:

    ( In reply to comment #27)
    There could well emerge a 4th political party, which could be shorthand-nicknamed the “Bernie party” for now.
    The New Deal Reactionaries, Bitter Berners, Younger Bernies, etc. would like to take some influence within the Democratic Party. But the nasty spiteful DLC/Third Way/ New Democrats in command won’t even give them a fake gesture of respect. Clinton’s new book, which she is eagerly booktour-selling in states she couldn’t be bothered to campaign in; is a perfect expression of everything the present Democratic Party owners and commanders stand for and live by.
    Some of the NeverClintons will finally give up and leave the DemParty. Will it be enough to start a real party of their very own? I hope so, though I don’t know. (Though for now I still hope the Bitter Berners can reconquer the Democratic Party and declintaminate it from within).

  44. Stephanie says:

    Col., if there are any business publications of repute that regard Donald Trump as a colossal master of business and dealmaking, I do not know of any. He has played such a person on TV. There is, on the other hand, a good deal of evidence that supports what I wrote.
    I will agree that he is good at selling himself – he’s there in the White House, after all. I feel bad for the rural and poor people he has suckered (he was eager to pass a health care bill that would have harmed many of them directly and harshly) and for the unfortunate students of Trump University, who made the mistake of taking him at face value.
    I do not hate him. He doesn’t belong where he is, but that’s hardly his fault; he’s there because two sets of chickens, those of the Republican Party and American celebrity culture, came home to roost. I think he is an embarrassment to the nation and the high office he holds. His conflicts of interest are legion and potentially dangerous for the country.

  45. turcopolier says:

    I am utterky indifferent to what journals, any journals say. But it remains true that your hatred for the man disqualifies your opinion. pl

  46. Sam Peralta says:

    You underestimate Donald Trump. He defeated two political dynasties – one in each party – with the entire establishment and the media virulently opposed to him. That is significant!
    Check out this interview of Steve Bannon on 60 Minutes. IMO, it is very insightful.
    We should be focused on how we bring the Cold War to an end, so we don’t have to– and I think it was President Obama’s program, $1 trillion to upgrade the nuclear arsenal. Is that what you wanna do? Is that where you wanna spend your money? Would you rather spend $1 trillion in Cleveland, in Baltimore, in the inner cities of this country where we need to spend it, in the heartland of this nation? And I think what he’s trying to say, in a world of anarchy, do you need another enemy?

  47. 80+ years of drifting left with ineffective if not complicit Republican “opposition” and the Texas and Arizona Republicans are “ideological hard-asses.” Really? They’re probably best defined as Republicans who think that the American people deserve better than “whatever.” Or as “not Ryan and not McConnell.”

Comments are closed.