Home / I Think / 2016 US Election – a Young Outsider’s view

2016 US Election – a Young Outsider’s view

Who gets this young outsider’s vote?

What’s a young outsider?

First off what’s a young outsider? According to PEW: Young Outsiders lean Republican but do not have a strong allegiance to the Republican Party; in fact they tend to dislike both political parties. On many issues, from their support for environmental regulation to their liberal views on social issues, they diverge from traditional GOP orthodoxy. Yet in their support for limited government, Young Outsiders are firmly in the Republicans’ camp.

A young outsider is more likely to be non-partisan; just like me. I think there are a number of reasons that the young outsider exists and one of the most likely reasons is that the parties are built by another generation for another generation.

I also think it is interesting that within the Democratic party and the Republican party you have serious contenders that are neither purely republican nor purely democrat. A look at Trump and Sanders; the support they have received and the fact that on a number of issues they are outside the normal boundaries of what is expected from the party they represent. I think in some ways the parties are changing; this may be intentional (to attract the young outsiders) or more of a reflection of the changing tides.

To some extent one might say that by PEW’s definition Trump might be a non-young, young outsider.

Why neither party pulls this young outsider close enough.

Too often we measure a politician on the fact that he or she is able to tell us what we want to hear. If we agree with what they are saying; if we think they are answering in a way we approve of, we lean towards them. What we must also evaluate is if they can actually do anything meaningful. Sharing our opinion is great but can it be done? More importantly can Mr Politician do it?

Socialist Bernie

On many things I disagree with Sanders, I find him to be too socialist and know that clearly his promises result in a significant tax raise. Having lived in a socialist country I know all too well the pinch of National Health Insurance, paying to subsidize education (even for people that have no interest in learning) inevitably it means I am forced to pay for people I don’t know. I do know however the benefits of knowing that no matter how ill I get or how poor I may be there is some basic level of healthcare available to me. I also know that whilst medical is free in a socialist country, a bankrupt economy means there is little funding for the “free” hospital and long waiting lists.

The thing with things is they are never free! Someone is paying, Bernie says for the most part the banks will pay, the billionaire class will pay. Here is what actually happens in my opinion. The billionaire class have billionaire class accountants, billionaire class lobbyists and billionaire mindsets. When inevitably their tax burdens rise so do the prices of the services they provide. The market in turn reacts to the higher price and there is a temporary slow down; eventually things find a balance. The billionaire keeps making their cut, the government makes a cut and the people struggle.

Higher taxes result in people feeling like they are working less for themselves and more for the government. Yes one could argue that the government then re-distributes wealth and we are happy if we happen to be on the receiving end! Inadvertently earning more money tends to push us from receiver to giver. In a perfect world everyone wants to work hard to be in a position to give to their community; in the real world giving a man a fish just means he’ll be hungry again the next day. Most people on the receiving end tend to get complacent and less likely to work hard as there is no immediate reward. If my taxes are as high as 50% of my salary an $1,000 dollar yearly income increase is actually $500.

I agree with Bernie that the banks charge exorbitant interest rates and have too much power; in truth decentralizing power is very much a Republican staple. The logic is simple, the banks control the government through power and influence – break up the banks. To some extent in fact the banks are very similar to government, as are big pharma and other massive corporations.

So the argument is vote Bernie for free healthcare, free education and to break up the banks. There is no such thing as free healthcare, education and more importantly knowledge is attainable for near free nowadays anyway, someone needs to regulate Wall Street and the banks.

I agree with Bernie on one thing: break the banks … a little but not too much.

Progressive, keep it as it is Hillary

When a candidate claims to be progressive but is adamantly set on changing very little if anything at all; I call that candidate a conservative. What will we do with healthcare? Exactly what we have been doing, just a little better. What will we do with foreign policy? What we have been doing, just a few tweaks. Where do you stand on your opponents points? They can’t be done. Wake up Clinton; they have been done. America is not immune to change, a determined individual voted in by the great people of our nation to bring about change can achieve said change. What I want to know is you better alternative not your assessment of what is possible and isn’t. If done would your opponents actions break the economy? If yes (I believe they would) then argue that point.

There is nothing wrong with doing what we have been doing but a little better … just don’t keep pointing out how progressive you are. When it comes to governance I am not completely against the government providing a small safety net to it’s citizens. I believe in some small level of socialism. In fact Hillary wants just a little more than I want but we are not far off. Do I want a little safety net for me and my fellow Americans yes. Would I help a fellow American in their time of need if I was in a position to do so? Yes. Is a small tax or better administration of existing taxes a great place to fund such a thing? Yes.

Foreign policy, there is nothing that annoys me more than the toe dipping approach. When it comes to foreign policy I want a leader that is either in or out when it comes to American interests in a particular region. Should we help our allies, should we get involved in Iraq, Syria, Libya and so many other places? Can we afford to? What is the benefit to America in each of these instances. If and when we intervene, the sideline approach just doesn’t make me proud to be American. The sideline approach reminds me of those moments when you ask a friend to help you with a month long project but instead they show up for a few hours just so you can’t say they didn’t help at all. We can’t be involved everywhere but when a US life is threatened and our fellow countrymen need support the answer should always be all in! So Hillary if the approach to foreign policy is indeed a continuation of what we have seen in the past eight years. No. We don’t agree.

I also have a bone to pick with you. Something you said in your speech irked me. “Well look, I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment. And I’ve got to tell you that it is… really quite amusing to me.”

I find this comment to be extremely sexist. The fact that you are a woman does not and should not have any bearing on this point. To use race or sex in this way is distasteful. I do not evaluate you based on your sex or race; I will choose to vote for you on the merits of your campaign, your character, your promises and your ability to keep them and make the right judgement calls when the time comes.

So could Hillary get my vote? In an imperfect world yes! However it is not on her own merits but on the fact that she is the most likely to maintain a status quo; I am generally not conservative and love to see change. However if the options for change all seem worse than the current situation I will inevitably vote for the person that might keep things as they are. I would sadly have to wait another term to see if there is a better candidate then.

The Donald Trump – The billionaire

Let’s spew words without checking the facts, lets make random assumptions and tell the American people that they are truths. Let’s say that America has the highest taxes, lets imply that all Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, lets just have a party! Look the Trump is good, he has the ratings, he has the viewers glued to the television and everyone wants to know what the guy is going to say or do next. One day he is full of energy, the next he is taking the backseat and letting the rest of the contenders divide and conquer. The man is shrewd, the man is probably very smart, the man is playing the fiddle that the people want to hear.

Here is my honest opinion, the man does not mean everything he says, he has a good reason for saying what he says and he genuinely wants to make America great again. First off I don’t like the implication that America is not great, I would say let’s make America greater! Next I’m not fond of many policies he has proposed including his Hitleresque lets line up all the Muslims register in a database and monitor the hell out of them approach. The founding fathers had it right when they ensured religious freedom; I am disinclined to let Trump break that freedom. I don’t believe the man is as extreme as he claims to be but would I trust him control to the Nuclear Triad when he doesn’t even know what it is?

I could go on and on but ultimately could Trump get my vote? No

Marco Rubio – Get’s it?

Marco Rubio is a strong contender for my vote; he holds moderate views on immigration that seem fair, he is generally well versed, poised and has been relatively consistent throughout the campaign so far. Do I agree with balancing inequality? Yes of course. Do I believe in government getting out of the way to enable people to achieve the American dream? Yes.

Do I find Rubio to be relatively diplomatic in his approach, does he seem for the most part well versed and informed when it comes down to discussing specifics? Yes. Did I see him crack in the last debate when Christie lashed out at him? Yes. That last debate worried me, not because he did not respond; silence is a powerful tool. It worried me because he seemed to break and reach for that standard Obama … statement. I don’t want a president that breaks under pressure; I can handle one that can use silence, that can take his/her time to respond but not one that breaks and grasps at a scripted response. There are enough automated scripted phone customer care options available for me to want that on a president.

So will Rubio get my vote? Well let’s see how he does; he had me at hello but lost me at repeat; maybe he can win me back?

To be continued

About cjdeguara

Check Also

dot com or dot us – What is the difference?

Choosing between a .com and a .us Tld domain Memorability and usage of .com vs …