The Uneasy Relationship Between Donald Trump and The G.O.P.

As the Donald Trump presidency comes to a close, millions of Americans watching the events of the past week unfold and have used these events as a reason to indict Conservatives and their party.

As President of the United States, Trump automatically became the face of the party. While many within the party did not recognize him as the standard-bearer, the truth is, as President, Donald Trump would be the leader of the Conservative Party for four years.

So what happened? How did Trump become not only a lightning rod in Washington D.C. but also the target of blame when liberal Americans needed a scapegoat for their angst and frustration.

Let me begin by saying I am not a political scientist. The opinions here my own and are speculative. You may have your own opinions and you are most welcome to share them with me or whoever you wish.

In 2016, both  liberals and conservatives were seeking candidates for the White House. On the liberals' side, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee after stepping aside for Barack Obama in 2008. She put the party first and the party was ready to reward her.

The conservatives had an unorthodox dark horse who was running. Donald Trump had announced his candidacy in 2015. He was not a politician. He was not your standard office seeker. In fact, there was nothing ordinary at all about the billionaire.

Trump brought with him all of the attributes of a marquee act. He was someone who could come up with a great soundbite. He was someone who could shock you. He was someone who was not shy when it came to voicing his opinion. He was someone who knew how to create a spectacle. In other words, he was just the person who could liven up something as drab and dry as a presidential debate.

Trump wanted to be the President of the United States and he was going to do it with or without the backing of the GOP. In fact, when he spoke at the first debate, he was the only one of the participants who would not pledge his support if someone else won the nomination. Already, Trump was sowing the seeds of a third-party run for President if he failed to secure the G.O.P. nomination.

Trump's hinting at a third-party run no doubt brought flashbacks of 1992 to Conservatives across the United States. During that year's election, H. Ross Perot ran for President against incumbent George H. W. Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. Perot's withdrawal from and later re-entry back into the race sounded a death knell for future third-party candidates for office. Even more far-reaching, though, was the votes Perot took away from Bush and handing the election to Clinton, according to experts and political scientists.

This was a scenario that neither party wished to repeat ever again. The prospect of a viable candidate running for office and taking votes away from a major party is no doubt frightening to party organizers on both sides of the aisle. In 2016, Conservative Party leaders met to discuss their options beyond Trump, citing a fear that the billionaire wouldn't serve the best interests of the party.

My opinion is this: backing Trump was the lesser of all the evils for Conservatives. If Trump did not secure the nomination, he would run as a third-party candidate. This meant Trump the Independent or Hillary Clinton would win the White House. Either way, it would not be the G.O.P. controlling the White House for four years.

Donald Trump the Republican would allow party leaders and organizers access to the President and give input and advice for what would be best for the party. Trump as a third-party candidate would not afford any access for the party. Hillary Clinton in office would mean no avenues for the Conservatives to address their Agenda on Pennsylvania Ave.

The events of this past week have caused many Conservatives to address their party and what it is they stand for. It is easy to blame the entire party for the mob breaching the U.S. Capitol and no doubt Liberals have shown just how easy that can be. The decisions made back in 2016 were, to say the least, pragmatic and were the best made for the party at the time. Conservatives were plotting their strategy with the cards they were dealt. They would have liked additional cards to play. Everyone does, but that's not how life works.

Changing the Rules Will Not Bring "Change"

 The 2020 Election is finally here. Liberals and Conservatives alike have spent the last four years telling everyone who their voting for. Who said both sides can't work together?

In Massachusetts, there are two questions on the ballot. One of them refers to "Ranked-Choice Voting". According to the ballot, voters can vote for more than one candidate in an election. The candidate with the least amount of votes is dropped from the contest and votes are counted until a winner in the contest is determined. The idea is to bring more people (Parties) into the election and give third-party candidates a better chance in the election.

In other words, there are still people who treat the elections like popularity contests and are afraid of "throwing their vote away" if they vote for who they really want to win. Ranked-Choice voting will allow people to vote for their candidate and hedge their bets in case people feel like they are wasting their vote.

Changing the election laws is not the way to enact change. The most effective way to enact change is to vote for who you want to win. If you are truly upset with the two largest political parties in the United States, don't vote for  those parties. Vote for a party that hasn't held an office. Vote for a party that truly has grass-roots organizers. Electing a third party candidate will wake up the elected officials in state and federal offices and make them truly work together. The third parties will also be working for the people who sent them to office to get work done and improve life for all.

Or you could just vote for a larger party and then wonder why nothing gets done.

Why Another Trump Impeachment Could Hurt Liberals

 The vacant seat on the Supreme Court has led to another battle between President Donald Trump and Liberals in Congress. Trump wants to move quickly to fill the empty seat after Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. The Liberals are against this and want to vote after, "we have a new president," according to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says he will go forward with a vote on whoever the nominee is.

Liberals in Congress are not ruling out the idea of a second impeachment attempt. While she didn't specifically mention impeachment, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "We have our options," and went on to mention using every arrow to "protect democracy."

This is far from a convenient time to have a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The election is weeks away and the race for the White House will no doubt be close and interesting to watch. Conservative President Trump is facing a challenge from the Liberal Biden. The House of Representatives is controlled by the Liberals. The Senate is controlled by the Conservatives. Both sides are gearing up for a fierce fight not only for the Supreme Court but also for the White House and seats in Congress. If the House were to use impeachment to stall Trump's nomination, whatever charge they were to come up with, Pelosi has essentially said everything is on the table. Whatever charge they come up with for impeachment, the public will be aware of the underlying reason: to prevent Trump from appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

Assuming this is tried and fails (67 senators need to vote for Impeachment), what then? How would Congress explain to the American People their reason for a third Impeachment? This is a move that could backfire on the Liberals. Would a second failed-attempt at Impeachment make Trump stronger?

It's no secret Liberals will try to block this nomination. Impeachment, however, seems like a drastic move and one that could blow up in the faces of Pelosi and those of her party. She has said all of the arrows are in the quiver. Look to those other arrows.

Changes to Political Posts

I have been long-disenchanted with the political system for some time. Readers will find that to be no surprise. Therefore, I will not be referring to people as Democrats or Republicans anymore. The political spectrum has been polarized for a long time and I feel these terms no longer apply and insult the leaders and statesmen (statespeople?) of the past. I feel it is best to refer to people as they truly are: Liberals or Conservatives.