Editor’s note: The first Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, on Monday, September 26, 2016, delivered the largest-ever TV audience for a Presidential debate. Viewership for the ad-supported broadcast and cable networks, as well as PBS, reached 84 million, according to Nielsen numbers. That figure reflects the average total number of people who watched the program throughout.
The pundits agree, Hillary won; “The Donald” lost (even though he’s not a loser.) Moderator Lester Holt called Trump on his tax returns and his “birther” vendetta against President Barack Obama. Trump successfully pinned our Nation’s problems on politicians, with Hillary being the most blameworthy. Although she only held one Senate seat out of a hundred. (Secretary of State is not an elected office.) What Trump failed to explain is how he is going to get these politicians who made the mess, to agree on his solutions–which, at this time, are either ill-conceived or non-existent. Worse, most of the politicians he needs to convince belong to his own party. Finally, Trump made an egregious blunder that no one seemed to catch.
They were talking/shouting about corporate money stashed overseas and how to bring it back. Trump says, cut taxes, since we have the highest Corporate Tax Rate (not true), and he would use the money to fund infrastructure. I’m thinking, “How in the hell are you going to use private, corporate money to fund Government infrastructure projects? It’s not Government money, you idiot! And you are not going to tax it enough to build a beautiful airport.”
Successfully, Trump hammered home that our dissatisfaction with our Government is due to the politicians we keep re-electing. Yes, divided Government is a recipe for getting nothing done. What has his party done to fix anything? Did they pass legislation to let Medicare bargain down drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies? No! Did they improve our justice system, so wealthy thieves go to jail the same as poor ones? Not yet. Would a President Trump accomplish this? Is he going to play, “Let’s make a deal” with Speaker Ryan? Trump has tapped into a wellspring of dissatisfaction, but he offers no solution other than, “I can fix it.”
Unsuccessfully, Clinton did not tap into the same wellspring of discontent. She did display the rudiments to a solution for improving our economy but offered no plan to end perpetual warfare. She did acknowledge the suffering of minorities and the student debt problem, but she failed to articulate a vision of the future we can all buy into. She did show a mastery of policy, but she didn’t make a strong case for electing Democrats, to help her realize the needed reforms. And yes, she won the debate. I’d rather vote for a smiling Hillary than Trump-the-Grump.
It’s Tuesday, September 27, the day after the debate. I scan the punditry then read the BBC. I’ve more or less given up [reading] the U. S. press, which is owned by, and run for, the plutocracy. I read a report on a speech given by the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, at the Institute of Directors at the Royal Albert Hall in London, England, yesterday. She made the following observation. “The Government can no longer ignore the social and economic cost of austerity.” (Translation: You cheap bastards, you’ve made life miserable for our working class.) “But in part, Brexit was a product of a sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment. It was borne of inequality, of feelings of powerlessness…of austerity budgets, which hurt the public services and social safety nets, that so many people depend on.” She goes on to say, “There must be a new effort–which needs to be given real substance by the Government–to ensure that the benefits of growth, of globalization, are most fairly distributed.”
She is ever so right. Senator Bernie Sanders made the same points…[in Clinton, IA, on Saturday, January 23, 2016,] which attracted a lot of enthusiasm. Now Hillary needs to do the same.