Reasons To Be Cheerful

The polls are tightening, but Hillary Clinton should still be considered the strong favorite.  I've explained why in the past, and I don't feel the need to repeat my arguments.  In fact, I wasn't planning to write about politics at all, the whole dance being so depressing. (I know I will write something on November 9th, but there's a decent chance I will avoid any mention of the election.)

However, with two candidates both promising to do things I oppose, I thought maybe I'd try to look at the bright side.  They can't be all bad.  There must be some things they'd do in office that I support.  So here's what I found.

First, of course, part of it depends on the Senate.  The most exciting action on Tuesday may be all those close Senate races--I'd say it's 50-50 which party will have control next year (and there's a reasonable chance the Senate will be 50 to 50, thus handing it to whomever wins the White House).  I can only hope that regardless of the President, there'll be a Senate ready to block bad legislation and nominees.

What about Hillary?  She may be good for some things.  The trouble is it's hard to know where she stands, she's changed her mind so much over the years.

She hasn't given us much to hope for in foreign policy, but I do expect her to be better than her predecessor.  Barack Obama often seemed to turn his back on our allies while bowing to our enemies--I'd like to think Clinton will at least put an end to most of that.

Then there's free trade.  She used to be for it, but sensing opposition, suddenly she doesn't seem to like it.  Maybe once in office, she'll just say screw it, I'm going to be in favor of it again.  It's good for the economy and that's what counts. (She at least seems to understand free trade is a good idea, which is a start.)

She's definitely trying to bring down Citizen's United, and in general has not been a friend of the First Amendment.  Not much hope here, though perhaps if she's elected and her party takes the Senate, the GOP will decide to put Merrick Garland on the Court, and he may be enough of a minimalist that he won't upset things too much.  Or, just maybe, Clinton will appoint someone who will go rogue on the First Amendment, and actually fight for it, though this is a lot to ask for.

Then there's Trump. For all his talk, a complete cipher.  He's never held office before and we really can't be sure what he'll do once he's in.

He's certainly campaigned against free trade. (Actually, he says he favors free trade, it's just the treaties that guarantee it he opposes.) Not much hope here, but perhaps after he realizes other nations won't give in to bullying (saying No to Trump will make any foreign politician very popular), he'll become enough of a realist to make a deal and claim it's a good one.

Even though he's running as a conservative, his instincts seem to be for bigger government--whenever there's a problem (and sometimes a non-problem) he seems to think a government program is needed to solve it.  But maybe his short attention span will help us here.  Perhaps, on most issues, he'll get tired of the long hours needed to work out the details, and just sign on to what his advisors suggest.  He'll still be the guy in charge of Making America Great Again, but the everyday management of the country can be left to people who have experience in such things.

One good thing is Trump's promises to "repeal and replace" Obamacare.  Hey, you had me at "repeal." I like to think he can work with any Congress (even one with a slight Dem lead in the Senate--and if they won't do anything, they'll likely lose control two years from now) to get this done. (Some suggest Hillary might even do this--it's not her program, after all--but I wouldn't count on it.)

Also good about Trump, in the unlikely event he wins, is he'll be attacked as perhaps no politician ever has. Most journalists don't like him, not to mention all of show business. (A note to kids--show biz people used to mock the President.) He'll be getting nothing but slings and arrows from day one, and Trump is not known for letting the smallest slight go.  He may be so busy tweeting back that he won't have time to see most of his programs go through.

There will always be disasters in one form or another to deal with, but, in general, America mostly runs by itself.  So we can always hope that the next President won't manage to get much done.  Heck, aren't politicians known for not keeping their promises?