Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Grassroots America fully understands the need to take on the status quo. Yet, most Americans consider it a lost cause. At least they used to.

I recall the son of a former CIA operative who described the American political system as “red team versus blue team, playing for the same university.” Chandler Harben, who as a boy had experienced his father’s service in Africa, later from his Bucks County, Pennsylvania home mused, “You just live with it, try to enjoy life, make some money and accept the fact that NOBODY will ever change it. It is part of us,”

Harben’s resigned point of view was disheartening. But he apparently knew more about the inner workings of our DC establishment than I did. My question to him was, “what if, somehow, some way, somebody came in and said, ‘no, I am not going to accept this! There is an alternative!'”

“Alternative?” my friend appeared puzzled. “What alternative? The only alternative that I can possibly imagine would be an outright revolution, at best a civil war! But that won’t happen. The United States is so intertwined with the rest of the world, you would be talking about a worldwide readjustment! Believe me! It won’t happen!”

This was 2009. America had just elected Barack Obama. Obama was a fresh face with an equally empty resume. He did have a strong, clear voice and appeared to be right on target with half of the electorate.

It helped that the Republicans had nominated a weak challenger. When John McCain took federal funds for his fizzling campaign in the spring of 2008, it signaled “end game.” There was brief hope that a unified party might tip the scales in his favor against his inexperienced opponent. Then came the financial meltdown.

One Chicago friend had an interesting observation. “Had McCain handed the nomination to Mitt Romney at the convention, and Romney subsequently named McCain V.P., it might have changed the election.” At least Republicans would have had a candidate who was a “financial specialist” without campaign spending restrictions! We now know that McCain’s demeanor would never have allowed this to happen.

Barack Obama ran as a centrist. To the average voter, he appeared nothing short of “Bill Clinton.” Universal health care was not new. The Democrats had sought it since the days of Jimmy Carter. Obama proved great at selling it, even though many of his promises proved to be outright lies!

The promises Donald Trump made were mostly ridiculed and chastised by the political establishment, Republican and Democrat. His economic projections were scoffed at. In 2016 Obama went as far as to say they would happen only “if pigs could fly.” Four years later, after watching literally all of these ideas actually work, even to the extent that they softened the COVID blow,” experts” suggest that they were a “blip.”

During the painful last two months of 2020, in the wake of a disputed election, it became painfully evident that most members of the Washington establishment wanted Trump to fail. It was not restricted to the opposition party.

Donald Trump’s emergence caused a giant “ripple” in the normally placid D.C. political pond. Yes, there have always been two sides, always more than one position. But it was all within limits. Suddenly their cozy nest had been exposed by a bawdy, politically incorrect outsider. Most threatening was that this interloper had captured the attention, and favor, of “Joe Six-Pack.”

A border wall? A merit-based immigration system? New and revised trade deals that would actually be fair to Americans? No Trans-Pacific Partnership? No North American Free Trade Act? No Paris Climate Accord. Big tax cuts for individuals and corporations?

Internationally, Trump made it clear that national defense was a top priority, and the abuse of veterans would end. His overture suggested that America was ready to take on anybody, anywhere including, but not limited to China, Russia, Kim and the Mullahs!

None of these initiatives should have come as a surprise. Trump promised all when campaigning in 2016.

For dissenters, the Helsinki summit went over like a bowl of hot soup in the middle of the Sahara in July! Members of both parties were horrified at the congeniality witnessed between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was clearly evident that both men saw advantages in attempting to forge a working relationship. Afterwards, the Russian Foreign Minister proclaimed Helsinki was “better than excellent.” Should not this have been considered good?

Not if your obsession is that Trump fail. This obsession crossed the aisle. The “Lincoln Project” unmasked a type of Republican scorn that decisively differentiated Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) base from the “Ne0-Con” wing which saw their grasp of the party reins further disintegrating with every Trump triumph.

In his book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul defined “Neo-Conservatism.” Paul described, “Neo-Cons advocate a big, Washington, D.C. based government, who’s purpose is to advance and facilitate conservative principles.”

Yet, “who” defines conservatism?

According to both Paul and Trump, the Neo-Con’s define conservative as “free trader.” In other words, “find the least expensive way to lower the cost of goods sold in America, simultaneously increasing the profits of International Corporations.” This paradigm is shared by Obama, Biden, the Clintons, the Bushes, Romney and the late John McCain.  Losers were American workers who helplessly watched their jobs shipped overseas. Much to the establishment’s chagrin, Trump identified this practice and made steps to end it.

Perhaps most alarming to the D.C. establishment was Trump’s premeditated plan to shake up the world order. He didn’t mince words in discussing China, the EU, and the unfair NAFTA deal. He also accused certain NATO members of “sandbagging” in regard to their defense contribution. Everything that Trump did was either out-of-bounds, unthinkable or politically incorrect in the eyes of the “red team” and the “blue team.”

These insiders are truly “the enemy within.” They saw then and see now a participant who is on neither team. He is the unwelcomed outsider who instigated a hostile takeover. Meanwhile, Trump’s rapidly growing support base saw him as their long-awaited reformer.

The Biden experience over the past year represents the abyss. There is growing anger with much of the Republican Party leadership. The “RINO hunt,” as colorfully described by the late Herman Cain during his 2012 presidential campaign, is in high gear.

Accepting the status quo is rapidly disappearing as an option.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Jeff Willis

Latest posts by Jeff Willis (see all)

• America’s ideological divide manifested in banking world - April 15, 2024
• Kennedy’s conclusion a wake-up call - April 8, 2024
• “Eradicating” Marxism a meaningful objective - April 1, 2024

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.