Problems?

Two poster children.  Okay, quick disclaimer.  I know only a few people ever read this blog, but those few people tell me they like it.  And, I'm predisposed to take requests.  So, when Jim Alger told me earlier today (just before A Band Called Spike took the stage at the First Annual Mountain Music & Arts Festival in Warren, NH) that he liked it, AND he liked the political stuff . . . well, I couldn't resist.  So, to the three of you who HATE my political stuff, blame Jim Alger.  And, buy an Evert or A Band Called Spike CD.

I've been waiting to see if anybody else would make the connection between the two people pictured above.  One is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who recently won a Democratic primary against a long-time Democrat congressman who is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi.  The other is, at this writing, our current President, Donald Trump.

For Ms. Cortez, I think there are two likely possibilities.  One is that her opponent, Joe Crowley, pissed somebody off that's higher up on the political food chain and they pulled his plug in favor of the young upstart.  The other, I think is more likely.  And I confess, I say this from the outside of Democrat politics.  But I think a lot of people on both sides, Conservative and Liberal, are sick to the teeth of business as usual.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is vocal about her ideas and proposes what she thinks are solutions to actual problems.  I disagree with her, but that's not the point.

The point is, problem solvers - or, more accurately, prospective problem solvers - have been getting a lot of traction lately.  For decades, more decades than I've enjoyed (I'll be 63 next week), the two parties have been derided as being so similar.  And it's true!  Yes, one will do more to tax you, the other, less, but on the whole they both pay a lot more attention to their donors than to the people of this country.  And they shamelessly lie about it!  Oh, of course we care about you and your little problems.  What was your name again?

Back in the Olden Days, probably going back to when the biggest guy with the biggest stick ruled the group of cavemen that shared a cave, it was relatively simple:  I can whup everybody, shut up and do what I say.  You want some food?  Tough bananas!  I want to bang your daughter, I win.  And, we won't go into how the daughter used her access to power.

So, as the species evolved - IF there's any truth to the theory of evolution - it has become increasingly important for the leaders to have popular support.  I think a lot of this is about the sheer size of the groups being led.  Before long, there were more people than one tough guy with a weapon could subdue.  He/she/they had to convince you to shut up and give up your daughter.

One very effective way of gaining that support is to solve problems.  You need food?  You need roads?  You need people to start hassling you because of your background, or your life choices?

The Continental Congress was assembled because of perceived oppression by the rulers/owners of the colonies in North America; namely, the British Crown.  The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution were all intended to solve problems.

And again, as time rolled on, prudence demanded compromises.  If you actually want to solve this problem for your constituents, then you need to solve a problem for me.  Who am I?  I'm a big, tough guy with a big stick.  I am someone with power and control, and I can move obstacles.  Or, put them in your way.  And by the way, that daughter of yours is really looking fine.

So, for much of the 20th century and thus far in the 21st, we have played the game of shuffling the deck chairs while the ship continues to take on water.  But, our elected officials, to whom we give power and control and tons of our money, have figured out something along the way.  You can make a difference solving problems . . . but you can make a living managing them.

Here's where the line is drawn.  Let's say, your basement is flooding.  Solving the problem would be to drain all the water, dry it out, paint the inside with Kilz (a paint designed to hold back moisture - no endorsement intended) and whatever else you need to do to keep your basement from flooding again.  Maybe you could dig a deep trench around your foundation and fill it with loose rocks, and put a drainage line on the low end of your property.  Managing, on the other hand, would be putting a pump down there that would pump out water at roughly the same amount as it's flooding.

Why would anyone do that?  Maybe, because they sell pumps.  The flooding actually works to their advantage.  And if the water level is kept low enough to keep lasting permanent damage to your house, then that's okay, right?  Actually, it would cause damage, but not for a long time.  Hopefully, after you've passed the house along, and somebody else owns your pump business.

To advance the analogy, what if someone comes along who says; "That's terrible, that your basement is flooding.  I want to help!"  To that person, you give a paper cup and a pat on the back, and publicly applaud them for being so good-hearted.  Just so long as they don't actually solve the problem.

You could play this game with just about any problem in the world that involves any government.  Let's say, you have a country that has 1) a dominant religious culture, and 2) an economy based on one product.  A small group of people benefit financially from the selling of the product, while behaving in a way that flies in the face of the religious precepts.  The majority of the people in the country work constantly to produce the product, but reap barely more than the means of survival in return.

Whenever the working class gets grumpy, leaders of the nation and of the religious hierarchy scream that the problems of the people are really being caused by some outside group that are infidels.  This, coupled with a rigorous ongoing effort to keep this working class ignorant and cut off from the outside world, is how this problem is managed.

Pop quiz:  Why does a beloved ally of the United States, known as Saudi Arabia, continually show up on the short list of most oppressive/repressive regimes in the world?

And let's be honest; the government of our own free democratic republic is also guilty of managing problems instead of solving them.  Has been for decades.  We keep being offered a selection of problem managers, backed by the same shadowy powers who care much more about their own agendas than ours.  Nobody else ever seems to make it to the November ballot, and if they do, they become a target.  And if they win, they spin their wheels until they either sell out or get sick of it.  AND THEN some of them write books about it, which you never hear of.  Nothing to see here.  C'mon, baby, tell me all about your Daddy's problem.

So let's say somebody steps up and offers solutions.  Real solutions, that they believe in.  They are able to delineate how the progress, real progress, will happen.  They take on the establishment, and by some miracle, against everybody's predictions, they win!

I speak, of course, of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  And I find it notable that she has become an instant celebrity, and yet with certain caveats.  On the left, some applaud her stands and success.  But nobody on the left expends much energy defending and pushing back against the outrage from the right.  Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and all the conservative pundits have large fun pointing out her missteps and misstatements.  They leave blisters at every opportunity.  And the liberal media . . . doesn't seem to have noticed.  I listen to NPR almost every day, and occasionally catch CNN and MSNBC, and I haven't heard any outcry about the unfairness of these characterizations.

Which makes me wonder; is the power base on that side just letting her twist in the wind?  Hell, they're doing everything but endorsing the Republican nominee.  Who is that?  Who cares?  They'll count the seat as lost, and then hamstring the winner.  That, frankly, would less of a problem for the problem managers than Ocasio-Cortez' victory.  She would get in there and actually try to DO something!

That seems to me to be the hidden similarity between her and Trump.  He takes so much flack from the Democrats - and most of the Republicans, if we're honest - the media, and just about everybody.  Except, the millions of people who voted for him.  Which, disclaimer, includes me.

Now, know this, I didn't vote for him because he's a Republican.  I'd have likely voted for him if he were a Democrat.  And if you look at the piece I wrote about him during the primaries of 2016, I argued that he maybe should have run as one.  I have put up with all the "scandals" about his sex life and his "collusion" with Russia.

 - sidebar - What, exactly, did Russia do?  They're supposed to have "interfered" with our election.  What did they do?  So far, the only actual fact I've heard on this regard is that they bought about $30,000 worth of ads on Facebook.

I would agree that marital fidelity is important.  It was important when Bill Clinton was President, and when Jack Kennedy was President, and it's important now.  I wish Donald Trump were a more moral person, and I feel for all three of his wives for having to put up with his sexual adventures.  Unfortunately, the alternative is more business as usual.

Can any of you look me in the eye and honestly tell me that Jeb Bush would have solved any problems?  Or Hillary Clinton?  Bernie Sanders might have actually tried.  Then again, when he finally lost his "valiant quest" for the Democratic nomination, he quickly rolled over and put his paws in the air.  The news that the DNC conspired to deny him the nomination seems to make no difference.  Which reminds me; I wonder how his wife's legal battles are going?

I voted for Donald Trump for one reason; He enumerated problems, and promised to solve them.  And I firmly believe that this is why liberals in the 14th Congressional district of New York voted for Ocasio-Cortez.  Personally, I wouldn't vote for her, not because she's a woman, or Hispanic, or any reason other than I think she's wrong.  Then again, a conservative Republican who mouths platitudes and stands in the way of solutions wouldn't be any better.