Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Consequences of a Landslide


William Kelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

One Analysis.

The consequences of a Democratic landslide could be tremendous and it increasingly appears to be the most likely development if current trends continune.

If the Democrats wins the Presidency by an overwhelming number of voters - any double digget number will do, then they will also carry a serious number of local candidates, state representatives, governors, congressmen and Senators, not only giving the Democrats control over both the Executive and Legislative branches of government, but also partisan support at the local level.

The repercussions of such a landslide include the ability to pass new legislation in Congress and conduct Congressional investigations at will, an enormous advantage.

But the new president has also promised to reverse the previous adminstration's policies through immediate Executive Orders, one of which is the declassificaiton of presidential records and documents, the enhancement of the Freedom of Information Act and the enactment of a real open government at all levels, including access to the records of the past.

The most significant repercussion from a Democratic andslide would be the nail in the coffin of the (psudo-compassionate) Conservative Republican movement, which began with the last major landslide - 1964 LBJ vs. Goldwater. While Goldwater lost, the Conservative Republican movement that got him the nomination took hold and also brought us Nixon, RR, Bush I&II, and are now completely and thoroughly discredited. You can no longer promise lower taxes and a security blanket to get elected, and since W. will forever be rememered as the epotiome of the Conservative Republicans, they will have to invent a new moniker.

For others the most significant repercussion of a Democratic landslide will be bringing home the troops from Iraq and fullfililling the mission to capture or kill OBL.

There is also the realization of the DOD and Defense Contractors that there will be a decades-long reallignment of the defense and security forces. I would venture to bet that you can deploy most of the high tech/big budget nuke hardware, especially subs/bombers and look for more emphasis in small battlefield combat tech. Billions will be switched from nukes to small/medium arms immediately, and contracts over the long haul will deemphasize nukes, and they should be eventually eleminated all togther. There won't be a reduction in the total number of dollars given to the military, it will be just realligned in different areas.

In order to be successfull, the new administration will first have to address the economic situation and begin to cure that, just as Ed Lutwack suggests after a successful coup d'etat. After taking power, the first order of the day is to stabalize and influx the economy and then maintaining power is ensured.

Joe Biden, Obama's VP and insurance pollicy, was on the Doomsday list before being nominated as VP, so he's got everybody's back.

In the long run however, the biggest thing will be the Mandate for change, and in order to do that, the new president must not only stay alive, but do what he has promised to do.

The most significant thing he can do is surround himself with people that he not only can trust, but people who will encourge him to do the right thing, and for some reason I don't trust too many Democrats to do that.

Unfortunately, once with the reighns of power, most will revert once again to the drunkin', reeling beggar on horseback, who has lost the reigns.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the realization of the DOD and Defense Contractors that there will be a decades-long reallignment of the defense and security forces. I would venture to bet that you can deploy most of the high tech/big budget nuke hardware, especially subs/bombers and look for more emphasis in small battlefield combat tech. Billions will be switched from nukes to small/medium arms immediately, and contracts over the long haul will deemphasize nukes, and they should be eventually eleminated all togther. There won't be a reduction in the total number of dollars given to the military, it will be just realligned in different areas.

I don't quite agree here, Bill. Nukes themselves are a very cheap weapon, a very cheap deterrent. They will always form part of US strategy. Vessels like a OHIO-class SSBN might seem expensive, but they are relatively long lived and frighten the hell out of a potential enemy. They are more flexible than silo based missiles, and far less vulnerable than a bomber force. The actual weapon is dirt cheap in comparison.

You are quite right, however, that small battlefield technology is getting increased emphasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, you are forgetting the lesson that JFK learned the hard way.

The president IS NOT IN CHARGE. If he deviates from the proscribed course set for him,

it is off with his head.

The hand inside the sockpuppet remains the same, regardless of the election outcome.

Jack

I hear you Jack, and I understand the powers that be will not relinquish them easily.

But another point I did forget, another consequence of a landslide will be to prevent a slim electoral college victory to the underdog.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, you are forgetting the lesson that JFK learned the hard way.

The president IS NOT IN CHARGE. If he deviates from the proscribed course set for him,

it is off with his head.

The hand inside the sockpuppet remains the same, regardless of the election outcome.

Jack

I agree that the President is generally not in charge, but he (or she) should be.

What we have instead is rule by committee of political advisors.

So each material decision has to be vetted by the senior policy analyst in whose bailiwick it falls (e.g. someone from Foggy Bottom) and then by the President's team of political advisors.

In other words, you have the President's political advisors (e.g. Karl Rove) making fundamental policy decisions (e.g. the Kennedy-McCain illegal alien amnesty bill from 2007).

Because the most critical job of a first term President is getting re-elected, the role of the political handlers is even greater during the first term.

Add to this mix the toxic influence of lobbying interests, and you have a complete cluster, so to speak.

The chances of a real statesman emerging from this type of dynamic are thus vastly diminished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and another major consequence of a Barry O'Bama landslide is that they will have one of the best Inagural Balls ever, with all of the terrific tallent that supported him during the campaign - including Bruce the Boss, who gave numerous solo acoustic shows at rallies, sax man Bill Clinton, who stumped heavy in key states in the last few weeks of the campaign, the still-living members of the Greatfull Dead, whose Dead Headcount campaign to register new voters included 10% of the vote, 3/4s of who voted for O'Bama, JZ and the BeBop Hip Hoppers, and Bonnie Rait, who got politically active in 1968.

And I'm sure he'll also have a few Chicago blues acts from the hood.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, you are forgetting the lesson that JFK learned the hard way.

The president IS NOT IN CHARGE. If he deviates from the proscribed course set for him,

it is off with his head.

The hand inside the sockpuppet remains the same, regardless of the election outcome.

Jack

Biden has already made some controversial statements about the fact that other world leaders will undoubtedly create a crisis in order to test Obama. It may already be in the works, and the course may already have been set by W's administration. We can anticipate another BOP. Let's hope Obama and his inner group are wise and smart enough to spot the landmines ahead of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, you are forgetting the lesson that JFK learned the hard way.

The president IS NOT IN CHARGE. If he deviates from the proscribed course set for him,

it is off with his head.

The hand inside the sockpuppet remains the same, regardless of the election outcome.

Jack

Biden has already made some controversial statements about the fact that other world leaders will undoubtedly create a crisis in order to test Obama. It may already be in the works, and the course may already have been set by W's administration. We can anticipate another BOP. Let's hope Obama and his inner group are wise and smart enough to spot the landmines ahead of time.

Obama won't be tested by "other world leaders," but like JFK, he will be tested by his own military and the opposition Republican party will call his hand at every opportunity.

One of the McCain ads that ran in the last days of the campaign predicted, or threatened that there will be a "generated crisis" -

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_ch...rom_john_mccain

And you can be sure it will happen.

Also, in the now frequent comparisons between JFK and BOB, JFK made the mistake of selecting a number of Conservative Republicans to serve in his cabinet, including the Lovett picked - Dulles/McNamara/Bundy and McCone, which backfired at Dealey Plaza.

Hopefully they will get to have a ball before they pull off the big one.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...